Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'd like to call the um January 27th, 2026 planning board meeting to order. Um let's see. I guess noted that we have everyone present. Um and the first item would be the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve. Second and

a second. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Those opposed? So, it's unanimous. Okay. Moving on to public comments. Um we'll have um excuse [clears throat] me, we'll have three minutes to speak. Um first one up is Joe Sailors. And Joe, you do have six minutes because uh Deb Wear has given you her time. Oh, can we start the clock? Just kidding.

I apologize. It's all right. You're my

You're up, Joe. And if you could state your name, please for the record. And you do have six minutes. I am Joe Sailors, live at 9332 West Minister Drive here in Huntersville and uh spoke at the public hearing uh that started this a few weeks ago. And in that meeting, we requested uh a sit down with Mr. Bowman, which he did uh about a week later, and he informed us that uh he was told by staff to send notices to several people that did not receive notices for the public hearing that we had. And as of 5:00 this evening, I talked with three of those people. Um, and they haven't received anything yet. Um, originally this project was approved in two phases, phase one and phase two. And that developer or I guess contractor that bought the land from Nate uh went bankrupt and a second contractor had to be found to develop the property and put in houses. Um at that point in time,

phase one is all that Mr. Bowman sold to the new contractor. Phase two was supposed to be a road going out to Mount Holly Home Road. when he asked for the resoning, he left out phase two, got it approved by the board, and there was supposedly public hearings made at that point in time, but again, no one showed up for the public hearing because no one in Westminster Park was notified except except for those who owned the original property in Westminster Park or in uh the Overhill project that it was sold to. And and he says he sent all the notices out. Uh he's confirmed with me even a big list of people that he sold the not sent the notices to for this meeting and for the one with the town board before. uh but again many of those people haven't haven't received it. Um made a statement at the board meeting that part of the reason he was trying to remove one of the roads uh was to restrict cut through traffic into his neighborhood that he is currently building with phase three. Well, what's going to happen to that cut through traffic is very simple. It won't go through his neighborhood to get out to Mount Holly Honzel Road. It will come through Westminster Park,

Pimbrook, and Westminster Drive and Shields and Wedgewood because people can't get out on to Batty's Ford Road at Carver. Currently, right now, Overhill goes to McCoy and Batty's Ford. Carver goes to Batty's Ford. Well, the town has already said they're going to close Overhill prior to the intersection of McCoy. That will force all of the traffic that would normally go out to McCoy and to Betty's Ford Road through Overhill down Pinbrook into Westminster Park. I was in your place as a board member of the planning board for almost 12 years. And when I was there, I made my decision based on several things. One being whether the project met the criteria and the zoning ordinance as required. The second thing that was high on my priority was whether or not it was good for the neighborhoods around it. If these roads are not put in, if the road from Carver is not extended, he has said that his traffic people said that there won't be any cut through into Westminster Park because they'll get out on the Badies Ford Road or they'll use the street that he's planning to put in.

There's already an existing street on the northern part of this property. He's going to put a second one in. The only problem is the second one he's going to put in is less than 80 yards from the one that's already there. People aren't going to have the ability to get out onto Batty's Ford Road. They're not going to have the ability to get out onto Mholly Home Road. They're going to come through our park and make that entrance further north on Mount Holly Homes Road. Okay, thank you very much. Your time's Next, we have excuse me, Don Fiser. And if you could state your name, you will h have three minutes as well.

Don Fischer. I live at 9120 Westminster Drive. My wife and family and I have lived there for 36 years going on 37. I I have seen the traffic uh estimates and it's just mind-boggling to me that you can think if you have not been in the neighborhood, you can't understand the logistics. I can't believe that this traffic, we already have an increase in traffic. Now, some of it's cut through from other areas, but I think some of it is from the new houses that are already in the neighborhood. If the traffic studies are wrong, what is our recourse? Now, we've said, "Oh, well, we're going to put in a traffic light that got shot down. Now, we're going to put in a roundabout at Batty's Ford and McCoy." They've been talking about that for years. Where is it? When is it going to be done? It's just it doesn't make any sense. And it's certainly not good for our neighborhood. The the original plan that was approved had our concerns and recommendations in it. The plan now is so far removed from that original plan. It is mind-boggling. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Next, we have Dennis Jubitz. Thank you very much. If you could uh state your name for the record, you will have three minutes as well.

Thank you. Dennis Jacovitz, 9408 Wedgewood Drive in the park over there. I'd like to just sort of reiterate what this gentleman just said. I was at all the meetings way back when, two years ago or whatever it was. And to be honest, I think a lot of you folks weren't around at that time. So I would encourage you to go back and and look at some of the minutes the extent if you haven't already. But in the old building, the place was packed. Everybody was a very very contentious type of thing building over here. I was one of two citizens that actually was for it with the revisions. So I think everybody expressed everything they had to say in the negative. It came down to two things. It came down to the density of the project. and came down into traffic and both were addressed and they're broached adequately enough where the vast majority there's always going to be some vast majority I thought okay with these new parameters we're good to go looking at it again now as this gentleman had said you wouldn't recognize it and not that anyone want to be disingenuous or sort of hoodwick you see how few people are here when I look at the minutes it says what are they talking about a reasonzoning from some type of residential thing that I don't know to some other but hold on a minute the current requirements mean that they all have to be connected these little zones in there and the road goes way. So, it's almost like you need two separate topics. You need one reszoning, which I may be for because I don't really know what's about, and the other one is, hey, is the whole road going away and the whole traffic is going to dump into our our development. So, it's like when all those people came out and a lot of the people are elderly and it's cold and it's this and it's that they make an effort and they present it to the board and the board hears it and they make the necessary changes and the builder and developers say, "I hear you. We're going to do it." and they do traffic stations and everything to just throw that out the window and say, "Okay, well, the new guy says no, we're just going to accommodate." I don't see how that benefits the community at all. And I don't see why we should just sort of genulect and say, "Okay, that's all right." First of all, the density is also increasing if I read the proposal correctly. So, the builder and sort of adding this third phase and bifurcating the first and second phase, there's more of a profit there. And I'm not against profit. Profit's a good thing. They're entitled to make money. It's a big piece of property. But what are we giving up? Everything. We're giving up the density that was promised to us where we came

down, gave up our evenings the same way that you do and I appreciate your time. But I'd really ask you all to go back and look to the extent there are minutes or things that you can look at to see at all the comments that were here and the agreement, the handshake that was made between the builder or the developer, the land owner, and with the community so that everybody's satisfied and everybody's requirements are met. It's it seems again I don't think anyone's disingenuous or trying to hoodwink anyone but it almost feels that way when you look if you take a quick look at the means what's going to be discussed nothing about a total road being eliminated which was a major factor in consideration for the community saying great we will now come on board a little bit we're not going to fight to the end of the world because look we got to face it there's development progress fine we we just you can't just go away and I implore you and ask you or beg you please take that into consideration when you take your final vote that there was a very different board who looked at everything very very thoroughly, listened to the issues on both sides and came up with a compromise. And for that to just go by the wayside because there's a smaller crowd here tonight, I I think it would really be a disservice to the community. Thank you very much for your time and consideration, my colleague.

Thank you. Next, we have um Donnie Woodard.

And if you could state your name for the record, you will have three minutes. Okay. My name is uh Donnie Woodard. I live at uh 9121 Westminster Drive. And um first of all, I I I really want to thank uh Mr. Bowman. He he actually met with with uh myself and and Mr. sailors um and and gave us some information about uh you know what he what he perceived as as as uh u you know uh information that that supported his his his uh position. Um and and you know I I'm I'm a business owner myself so I I totally understand profitability. I understand that uh you know you you you're you're in the business to make money. Um the the the issue I still have and and I I looked over, you know, he he I I he sent uh a traffic report that he got from uh the Timonss group and um I I I I see the you know where the um the the person that that uh I guess Jeff Timmons um stated that that there was not going to be additional traffic down Pinrook and in in Westminster. However, the the his parameters that he used were um you know, he said that it was due to Mount Holly Huntersville Road being a a further distance away. Um the existing speed humps in our neighborhood and and a number of driveways and and and and um and parked cars on on the road. We don't really have parked cars on our road. So, you know, some of these uh parameters that he used to find the the findings of his study just were not totally accurate in in in my opinion.

Um, you know, as as uh you know, Don Fischer said earlier, I live right across the street from him. We we've seen the increased traffic already and we haven't even gotten to the the the point of of uh of the next phase and um the elimination of that second road even though it may seem in in his plans that that that road is sufficient when you have that number that many homes being developed. It's just in a in a in a morning or in the afternoon. It's just not feasible for uh someone to sit in in in behind uh you know 10 of his other neighbors when he can you know there's a perfectly good street that he he could go down and it it and it'll be Pimbrook that that'll take the brunt of that. Uh and it just cannot warrant it cannot handle that additional traffic. It's it's it's not it's not wide enough. Um there's no sidewalk. So, a lot of people that that walk on those roads or or or run on those roads, especially in the dark mornings in the in the winter, that increased traffic is is going to be an increased uh risk of of of injury. Um, so that's my position.

Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Uh, Bill Weir, if you could state your name for the record, you will have three minutes.

Good evening. Um, my name is Bill Wear. I live at 9319 Wedgewood Drive here in Huntersville. Uh, h well to kind of piggyback on what some of my neighbors have said, uh, yeah, there's disingenuousness going on here, uh, Mr. Bowman has known that this stream in question has existed since the time of the formation of this project. Why does he want to change it now? because he couldn't get his project through as it was before. So, he had to make an agreement. Okay. Well, why don't we stick to that agreement? What's the argument against it? What does he want to do this for? The argument is for traffic. Again, I think that's a disingenuous argument. The fact is he's going to have several hundred,000 if not millions more dollars worth of houses as part of his changes. His profit at our expense because uh he had a traffic study done. Okay, great. Box is checked. Experts, master's degree, they must know what they're talking about. Well, any fool that's lived in our area for any length of time understands that that study's bunk. Uh, all that traffic is going to come straight through our neighborhood. You already can't get to Batty's Fort Road or Mount Holly Huntersville Road from anywhere less than Shields on a on a good day. All right. So, we all know where that traffic's going through regardless of the results of that study. Uh, and uh I I I just don't I don't have any faith that we're being listened to. The only reason I even found out about this meeting is because Joe Sailors told us. We didn't get any kind of notice here. Well, now why were our neighborhood so up in arms about this project from the beginning? You know, it's because we understood the

scope creep that would happen, which is happening now. Why did we understand there would be scope creep? Because we've lived in this town for 20 years and we know how these projects go. Do I seem jaded? Yes, I am. Why am I jaded? Because this board has made me jaded. Not this board particularly. Most of you weren't here. But the process, which by the way was changed because of how effective we were at protesting this. Uh [sighs] I guess really if that all I have to say, I I have a few seconds left. So, for all the good I feel like my speech has done here, I'll just summarize what I feel like the key points were, which were blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Have a good night. Stay out of the bad weather. Be safe. Love each other. Uh, Lisa Fiser, you're up next. You have three minutes. If you could state your name for the record, please.

Good evening. I'm Lisa Fiser. I live at 9120 Westminster Drive. Um, I want to thank you for listening to us. Thank you for giving us your attention and and really giving credence to our concerns because they really are serious to us, especially those of us that have lived in this neighborhood for a long time. This neighborhood is near and dear to my heart. We raised our children there. We have really close friends there. Our neighbors are good people. Um, I want to make it really clear. Don't let the number of people that are here or not here make you think one way or another about how we feel. If we had known, if we had received something u email, something in in the mail, anything to let us know there would be a hearing. If there had been another sign, we would have been here. Uh one of our neighbors couldn't be here tonight because it's her daughter's birthday and they're celebrating. But we are all here on behalf of all our neighbors. So, don't let the numbers deceive you one way or another. Um, I want to talk about the way this change will impact our neighborhood. It's very similar to what other people may have said, but a couple things I want to point out to you. Um, the safety of our neighbors is is paramount to our concerns. We don't have sidewalks. We don't have curbs. There's no way to put those in. There's no room for them. So, people walk on the edge of the road. And I'm always telling my husband, you walk facing traffic so you can see what's coming towards you when we're out walking the dog. We have a diverse neighborhood in terms of ages. We have lots of elderly folks. We also have folks with very young children in strollers walking up and down the street. Um, I'm concerned about their safety. I'm concerned about the traffic just as it is now. I'm concerned about even though we have signs up at the end of three streets into our neighborhood that say no construction, we still have construction. Joey Sailors can show you pictures of construction vehicles coming down Westminster Drive. I live really in

that sharp hairpin curve. We have a speed home in front of our house. I've seen cars almost go airborne because they're just barely slowing down and then they've got that big sharp current curve to maneuver. If there's somebody walking or even another car approaching them, that's a dangerous situation. Our streets are deteriorating. I counted before the the meeting on January 6, I walked down our street and I took pictures of the potholes. They ranged in size from 3 in to 23 in. I can show you the other pictures on my phone. The day after the meeting, two of them were repaired. I don't know why the rest of them didn't get repaired, but right the speed bump in front of our house on the same side, there's a pothole here and a pothole there. You can't miss them. It's damaging our cars. It's a If somebody's trying to maneuver around the pothole, again, if there's somebody walking or another car approaching, that's a dangerous situation as well. The roads are narrow. In some places on Westminster, when you're approaching another car, you have to stay in your lane. And if there's somebody on a bicycle or somebody walking, there's nowhere else to go. Hopefully, you can get stopped. Um, stop you right there. Your time. I appreciate

Thank you. I would invite you to come and visit our neighborhood, walk the streets, and see for yourself. [clears throat] Okay. Next item. Item 4 A. Consider a recommendation on petition 25-12, a request by Carver Bowman LLC to revise the existing approved resoning R2205 for the Oak Grove Hill development for a neighborhood residential conditional district to neighborhood residential conditional district with a revised site plan layout of phase three spate. Good evening.

Good evening. I'd like to enter the staff report into the record. Um, so as has been mentioned, um, we're going to provide some history of the project because this is the third revision for folks that may not be as familiar with it. Um, the applicant is here this evening. They can speak to the purpose of the revision. Staff will provide that background and the staff analysis.

Yeah, there we go. Oh, okay. Um, so the petition is R2512. It is the Oak Grove Hill revision. The applicant is Carver Bowman LLC. So, um, one element to start off with is that the Oakrove Hill project is currently in three phases. Um, and that is based on the most recent resoning that is applicable for the area. The site that you see hatched is the phase three area of the site. However, the area immediately west of the site includes phases one and two of the project. So, a bit of background and the maps are included in the staff report. Um, originally the project was approved under resoning number R18-10A and as has been previously mentioned this evening that included the version of the plan that was in two phases. So there was phase one um that was near Batty's Ford Road and then phase two went out to Mount Holly Huntersville Road. Um R23-04 was submitted that added um no R2205 was submitted that added the phase 3 area. Um and the reason that we have an R22- uh excuse me R23-04 was to undo the um original 2018 resoning. So the project had a few um meetings, well a couple meetings so far. There was a community meeting um that was held by the applicant, the public hearing last

well this month um earlier this month and then this evening is obviously the planning board meeting. Final action is proposed for next month. So there are some changes to the project that um from the R22-05 version of the plan. Um one as has been mentioned is the removal of the Carver Avenue connection to phase three which we'll show um in more detail in the presentation. A couple additional specimen trees have been identified. There's a um slight reduction in the canopy preservation area. However, the project is staying above the minimum that's required for the um for the zoning district. There is a change in the distribution of lot sizes um an increase in density by one unit and there is also an increase overall in open space. So, um the first change is the removal of the Carver Avenue connection. So you'll see on the left side of the screen, originally there was going to be a connection from phase 2 into phase three. Um that connection has now been removed. That connection would have crossed the stream. As has been mentioned, the stream has always been there and the applicant can speak some more into the their purpose for that removal, but that is one of the um proposed changes. And as you'll see, the configuration of the lots has been altered. Um as well with that removal um the two additional specimen trees are reflected um under the phase three column. So there are now 83 specimen trees that have been identified. Um there is a slight reduction in the

canopy save area, but the current save for the site is 13.76% which is still above the 10% minimum for the neighborhood residential zoning district. The lot sizes um and density. So in the phase 3 section um under R22-05 there were two different lot size types and now there is one um lot size like range in terms of the size and the density as mentioned is increased by one lot and I do want to clarify what's going on with that a little bit. So under the R2205 resoning, the town board approved 156 units um in their um approval motion. What was approved administ like in the plans um ultimately was 154 units and that is allowed. You can decrease the number um from your approval. you just can't increase the density after um a board action or other types of actions. But essentially um now the increase is 157 units. So it's by one unit from what the board previously approved. Um the increase in open space um we talk about this a little bit in the staff report. The applicant um provided the exhibit to the right showing that the overall amount of open space will be increased. The urban open space is being decreased a bit, but overall there's going to be more open space provided in this version. The applicant is requesting um a few different types of modifications and we'll go into some detail about that. The first is the tree survey requirements, canopy preservation requirements, and buffer requirements.

The tree survey requirements and buffer requirements have changed since um the R2205 resoning was approved and that's why the applicant is requesting modifications from that one. And then we'll also talk about the there's and there's a site change with the canopy preservation that we can go into. So with the tree preservation since um the approval of R2205 the requirements now include that um trees 12 in in caliber and greater are identified in the tree survey. At the time that our 2205 was approved that was not a requirement. So that is um one modification that the applicant is looking for. Another is um the red circled areas you'll see are some areas where there would be a requirement for a buffer. However, um those areas will be impacted by the future sewer for the site. And so um there is a request to not plant in the sewer um the future sewer easement areas as well. Um the heritage tree was a significant um topic of concern in the previous resonings and the preservation of the um one heritage tree on site. And originally it was intended that the site that has a a home there would be some type of communal space for the community. Um the applicant is now proposing that this and you'll see on the right is now a private home lot. Um what this introduces is that some of the canopy of that heritage tree would now be on the private home lot and tree is no longer permitted in um private home lots. Um one of the um items that staff

is proposing is that there is um essentially an easement um in the area where the heritage tree would be um to make sure that that heritage tree is protected. Um, another modification that the applicant is requesting is a block length waiver. This was considered in the previous resonings and there was not significant concern about this block length um, waiver request and staff does not have a concern about the block length waiver request now either. U, a few overall site plan comments. Um, one goes to the tree survey, the heritage tree, and then the transportation notes as well. So as mentioned the tree survey requirements have um have changed a bit and staff um our first preference would be that the trees are identified. However, in lie of all the trees being identified, um another uh element and another change that's happened since the R2205 uh resoning was approved is that our buffer planting um requirements have changed as well. And so we're looking at what type of balance there can be if the applicant does not go back and reservey the site. Essentially, they're not proposing to decrease their specimen save, but we're looking at um what they can do to essentially balance not completing another full survey of the site. Staff is recommending that all the previously accepted transportation notes are also incorporated into um the approval for this one. The highlighted items are the those that are um most directly related to the phase three section of the site. Staff find that the proposal is

generally consistent with the neighborhood residential um intent. Some previous small area plans that were um considered with regard to the proposal are the 2040 plan. Um so the m a portion of the site is included in an activity center that considers that an intensification in density would be appropriate. A portion of it is slightly outside of that. And um the use of buffers is generally used to offset and balance the transition between your higher density uses um and your lower density which is what the surrounding existing neighborhood is. It's lower density and larger lots. Um there are two versions of the previous um the Batty's Ford and Mount Holly Huntersville small area plans. The version of the plan that was adopted in 2005 anticipated that a portion of this resoning area would be moderate density and at the time of the previous resoning and now staff find that the density that's proposed with this application is consistent with that. and then the subsequent um version that was adopted in 2007 anticipate that the area that includes a portion of the resoning area would be mixeduse. This is obviously not a mixeduse development um but staff still find the intent consistent. Another uh plan that is relevant to the site is the Huntersville Greenway and Bike Master Plan. And the frontage along Mount Holly Huntersville Road is intend or is proposed to be a side path and that is reflected in the submitted plans. Staff find that the submission is

consistent with LU1.1 and EOS4. Um, we find and we've proposed some uh modifications that can resolve the inconsistencies with LU6.1 and LU8.2. Staff find that the reasonzoning is generally consistent with some modifications and the recommendation is just reflecting what I've already stated about our proposals to modify a couple items. We're happy to take any questions at this time. Thank you. Do we have some [clears throat] questions for staff at the moment?

And I think the applicant also has an exhibit and they may want to speak as well. Okay, questions for staff. [clears throat] I'll go first. I just want to get some clarification on the notices. Uh, sure. What's the radius again and how are they to be mailed out and how does the town check that?

Can you go to the next slide? Sorry. Yep. You might have to click a few times. Yep. Thank you. Sure. So, um, for a modification to a zoning classification, general statutes requires the first two items that are in bold. So, that would include that um, the owner of the property that's being reszoned receive a notice and each abuing property receive a notice. That's what the statutes require. Additionally, the town zoning ordinance requires the following four categories um be notified as well. So that's the owner of each property within 250 ft of the petition property. The owner of each property directly across the street easement right ofway public or private from the petition property. um the owner of each property across the street easement a right ofway within 250 ft um of the right of way boundary opposite of the petition property and um essentially a neighborhood res um association. It's a long paragraph but to summarize that's what it is if one exists. Um staff took that boundary from the entirety of the Oak Grove Hill development. So that would be phases one, two, and three. um staff, our GIS staff checked the list um for the notices um and were happy to check to see anyone who the list of who was required to receive it per the ordinances and general statutes um to see if they were first required to receive the notice. Um for the community meeting, the responsibility of sending that notice is the applicant. The applicant provided to staff. I I know that we saw the receipt um which we're not required to demand of the applicant but they provided that they provided the um the list that they mailed it to as well. Um and then staff

also used the same list to send the notification for the public hearing and I actually have the we have four returned from the public hearing. So presumably, which we can't say certainly, we're not the postal service, but we've only received four back from the public hearing from what the town sent. And other than really just taking the developer's word for or the applicant's word for him sending them, there's really no way to check it. and and the receipt that they sent I mean and that's just saying that and we check the receipt for all the addresses that were okay um included and they included all

there's a receipt from the post office when you mail the postcard and you can see sent okay all right and you have that okay I've got more questions but if you guys want to keep go next somebody else hi um let me check the the smaller area plans here with with this new revision. So, um I think in particular it's the Long Creek Hamlet plan

um that calls for where is it at here? Create a new low inensity urban village with moderate density and low density residential development. Do in your view does this meet that criteria with 51 foot wide lots as being low and low in density for moderate density? Yes. And the anticipation is that because it is also partially in an activity center, it is allowed to have an increase in density there as well. Okay. Is the is the Batty's Ford Road Mount Holly Huntersville small area plan within the activity center? A portion of it. Yes.

Yeah, there's some overlap. Real quick, go back to that slide. I think it's two maybe four slides ago that had the plans plotted out. Okay. It's two versions. So that's that's the Hamlet Center, right? Yep.

And it about half the site is in that. Okay. And overall the overall activity center is outlined in this lime green. Is that what I'm seeing? just center me on the um Bettys Ford Road, Mount Holly, Holly, Huntersville small area plan versus the actual overriding activity center. Okay. So, yeah, this one. Yeah, this one's one I was a little confused with Can you Oh, where that is in proximity? Just can I highlight where phase three is?

So, there's Yep. That's phase That's phase That's phase three. Okay. One and two. Yep. So one and two is captured more in the activity center. And the activity center is a half mile from essentially the intersection. Uh no, it includes it includes that area. That's what I'm saying. It's a half mile radius from the intersection approximately. Okay. Okay. So the whole thing's within the activities. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. loosely. Okay. It's not that much of phase three. It's not that much of phase three. No. Okay. Thanks. That's all for now. Other questions for staff?

Chris, so sorry I wasn't my mic was on. Sorry about that. Um, the roundabout was mentioned in one of the comments. Uh, is that a town project? Is that a state project? And what the what's the timeline? Yeah, I didn't notice it. you went by the improvements really fast. I didn't see it in there. It's not in there. It's not part of this project. Uh originally there was we looked at the concept of roundabout at the five points area. Found that that would not work. Uh to meet the goals of the the the project, uh they are going to revise the intersection. They will be eliminating one of the street legs over there. We're going through u through condomination and purchasing right now. Uh so hopefully that project will get started in the next couple years. And that's a town project. It is a town project.

Okay, that's good to know. All right. And I'm still a little confused on the traffic, which the app that may be able to if can you go back to a good one on the uh that just shows kind of the traffic and I can draw on this. That was a good one right there. You can go back to maybe one more before that one right there. Okay. So up here is really Westminster, right? And these people are cutting around like that, right? So, our constituents that have spoken tonight, you know, would like these folks right here, I'm assuming, to have a better access out this way, right? So, I mean, I would assume all of these people right here are going out. All these people would probably rather go this way than all the way back up there that way. So, we're worried about these homes right here. And has there has a new traffic study been done to see how many of these people would rather go this way than through their actual neighborhood and go out their neighborhood. Exit.

A new traffic study has not been done. So the applicant submitted a TIA determination of need. Um an analysis was done that was accepted by town engineering that a study would not be required. Hm. Even though the entire project is over that 100 house threshold, this section of it is only 50ome odd homes that I counted. So you're saying it's not needed. It wasn't that much of a change.

Well, so the density was increasing by one unit, but they're not modifying their requirements that were previously adopted. They just didn't determine that the increase and the reconfiguration required an additional study to be done. And the town said that, right? Somebody at the town stated that. Okay. That would have been the consultant for the applicant saying that and the town engineering department accepted the analysis that was provided to them. H

Yeah. I mean, I would have thought this was a gross enough change that it should be at least re-evaluated, but that's just I don't know. It's citizen sitting on a board. Um, so I think the other thing that somebody mentioned was the stream. Does that have anything to do with, you know, whether he can cross it twice or not? I'm sure there's some savings on a covert that I'll ask him about a little bit later. Uh but yeah, was that part of the reason for reszoning the stream?

Um the removal of the street was a significant enough modification to for the project to have to come back for a reasonzoning modification. Yes. But then I thought somebody said something about him not having to cross the stream twice for there would not be a second stream crossing. That's correct. Right. But that wasn't really a reason for that. And then last is on the street upkeep and maintenance. Like where do they contact somebody to get potholes? I mean, I feel like that should be a thing that we have as a town is a number you can call and then there's probably some steps and a timeline on how that gets fixed, right? Town public works. Okay.

Um I believe that those requests can be put in through their website. I know you can put those requests in for sidewalk um concerns. So there's some sidewalk issue that you need modified. Presumably, you can do this same thing with um town maintained streets, but even if it's you can't, I know that you can call them. So, that would be town public works department and put in a concern or complaint about town streets for them to address that. And I assume Westminster is a town maintain street. Yes. Okay. All right. I think that's all I have for the town for now. Okay. Any other questions, Michael?

U just a couple of observations. One is Uh just a couple of observations. One is that uh if we look at plans like 2040 and other plans of the town is a high emphasis not low but a high emphasis on connectivity of community. Correct.

And now what we discover is we've got a plan that's from the original approval is reducing connectivity. And I'm trying to I'm I'm rational. How do I rationalize going backwards when the city's plans call for us to go forward with connectivity? And I think the connectivity isn't just traffic. This is a public safety issue as well. Uh which is one of the main public safety in multiple ways. So I'm curious to hear answers to that and I'm not a historian but dying to understand why historically we said yes there should be a street there but today we go nope shouldn't be a street there. Just curious. Sure. Because I don't fully appreciate what I'm hearing at this point in understanding. So, we'll wait to hear the answers.

Sure. So, I'm not sure that staff's first recommendation is that there is not a street there. This is what the applicant is proposing. Um, and that's that's their their choice to propose that modification. Yeah. But staff's approved it. They said, "Yeah, they're they're with it." No. Well, you approved you approved the request, right? Is there an exception carved out? No, this is the request right now and they recommend we haven't approved this. Yeah, they recommended the request.

Got it. Thanks. We're saying that generally the the site plan is consistent with the adopted plans and studies and ordinances, but that would be from the planning board's recommendation and town board approval as to whether or not you believe that this the significance of this stream crossing and street removal and connectivity removal um is appropriate. Thank you. Anything else for staff? Any other questions for staff? Marshall?

Yeah. Can So, as for this heritage tree site, um you said that there's discussion around, I guess, an easement or would that look like a deed restriction or what what what's the idea behind trying to preserve that that tree?

Yes. So, heritage tree um requirements, it's 100% save and the applicant is proposing to save the one heritage tree on site. Um the concern is obviously that once you have a private homeowner there that especially after the first homeowner that there may be confusion or whatnot about the requirement to save it. Somebody might not like it, somebody has allergies, whatever. Um so that there is some very obvious um boundary of the area not to be disturbed. So there would be uh staff is proposing that there is some type of um non-disturbed easement around the area where the canopy and presumably like root system also exist for the tree um where the land is not disturbed to preserve the health of the tree.

So is that restricting the lot owner from cutting back the canopy? Is that is that what you're saying? Okay. Okay. And that would be deed bound and that it transfers from lot to lot from owner to owner. Sorry. Yes. That's it. Okay.

And just for a quick confirm um confirmation the plan that we approved back in 2022. I mean, he could go build the developer could go build this right now and add that one extra street, but the density, you know, would be very similar, right, as far as the traffic. Um, and we would save the lot there cuz he doesn't currently have a house adjacent to the tree. I remember that detail, but he could go build that right now. No questions asked.

Yes, they are. They still have the approval of the previous reszoning the lot. It's not a private home lot. There is a home that is still there. Yeah. But yes, that is not He's not going to sell that lot. Yeah. All right. Anything else for staff before we have the um petitioner? Okay. if you could state your name for the record. And

Nate Bowman, 205 South Church Street, Huntersville. Uh I thought that the they would have the whole staff report up. So in clarification, I'm going to have to just hand this down. This is the first approval uh for Oakrove Hill. And if you notice on there, there's just one connection to Mount Holly Huntersville Road. uh and it is closer to the intersection where there's now going to be a convenience store and it really wasn't the best place to make that connection. Uh DOT C do DOT and the town uh preferred that we line it up with the intersection of the neighborhood across the street. We also thought by adding additional land, we could improve the development. uh which is why we went ahead and redesigned it and had two stream crossings. Uh when I met with the neighbors, I decided to go ahead and fully explain what the situation we're in. When we did the plan, we love the plan, but once we bid it out, and I shared this with Joe Sailors and Mr. were uh the cost to develop the property on the lots alone was 165,000 and then once we added the price of the land which is a fair price I've done three other deals and this was cheaper all in Huntersville turned out that before you added interest or any developer profit the cost to develop the lots each lot would be $232,000 I made every effort over a here with my 35 builder list to try to sell the project without a road connection out to Mahali Huntersville Road and without this project going in with one connection it's going to create a traffic

nightmare. Absolutely. Can you pull up the traffic study? Yeah,

we had to do a scoping project and the Timman's group did that. And when you pull it up and read the letter, and I shared this with the the neighborhood representatives, basically in peak hours, 90% of the traffic will go out what they call road A, which is a one connection, and 10% would head towards Penroke and the Westminster neighborhood. This also took into effect uh into account that Overhill was going to be closed. So that's why we hired traffic engineers. I'm a history major. I have to hire somebody that understands traffic. The town engineers looked at it and accepted it and didn't have any issue with our analysis. So really what it comes down to, what I've been trying for the last two years is to make a street connection like I promised to Mount Holly Huntersville Road and it has not been economically feasible. At this point we've gotten the cost down from 232,000 a lot to $195,000 a lot. I currently have one letter of intent. I'm supposed to get another and they're still $15,000 short of break even. That's break even for a reasonable land cost and our cost for engineering. So, at the end of the day, um myself and the original land owners who still own it, I haven't bought from the Hamiltons may have to take a significant discount to even make this happen. So what we've been trying to do is do what we promised in that first sheet where you see one road connection and our traffic engineer has said oh from an environmental standpoint one of the costs once we went through uh and took this to the Army Corps of Engineers in the state. Uh they didn't like the two stream crossings and they were going

to slap $326,000 mitigation fee to add the second stream crossing. So, in looking at the project, how do we get it to where we can sell it and get that one road built? We decide to eliminate the one stream crossing that was more problematic and more environmentally uh uh expensive to handle. And the only reason we added the one lot is rather than we we think we can probably get the owner to take maybe 300,000 and sell that one lot to help make the deal work. So, I've been transparent with the homeowners and I can be transparent and I've met with a couple of the commissioners and the mayor already and I've handed them the bids, the original bid and the current bid to explain why we're at where we are now. And all I'm trying to do is get this road built because I did promise that road. I promised a connection. Without that connection and without phase three being built, then the traffic has two outlets, Penroke and Carver. the existing phase one and phase two and I don't want to impact Westminster with more traffic than need be and we think 90% of it peak hours is going to go out the new road. So hopefully that kind of clarifies how we got to this situation. It's not a good situation. Um kind of wish I never started the project to begin with. you're going to go through a a a bankrupt contractor, but uh this is the the best solution is what we've been trying to find out. So, I'll be happy to answer any questions. And anybody that does want access to the bids and everything, uh I can get I have copies with me now, but I can go ahead and if you give me your email, I can send you that information as well. Did we ever find the traffic?

Yeah, it's up.

Oh, there it is. There. There's the engineers consensus. And then you can The next part of it shows the uh Yeah, there's the impact analysis showing where the traffic's going to go at peak hours. And much like the recommendation of who you got to notify, you know, it's it's one of those things. There's a new resoning coming up. I live on Church Street for a huge apartment complex. I can see the property from my house, but I'm not within the parameters to be notified. So, as I've told the mayor and anybody else who keeps having people come up and say, "I'm not being notified." You would need to change the rules. I'll also let you know that by doing registered mail, which is expensive, we're starting to get more returns back than we did from regular mail because people don't want to go sign for the registered mail. But we try to follow the rules. I'm trying to do what I said I was going to do in the beginning is get one road access over to hundreds of mile Holly'sville road. And this is the only way I know how to do it. The new plan Okay. Do we have u some questions for the petitioner? Go ahead.

So, the house where the um the tree is that was originally supposed to be preserved. We were going to just make it a clubhouse, but when the cost came in so high, we're just trying to get the project make it feasible. So the Hamiltons have been there and Conrad Pucket who's nearby uh he remembers he's 98 now and he's one of the sellers. So they both rever the tree and it'll be fully uh put a put a deed restriction on it to make sure there's no construction under the tree. The house is there. It's been there for probably 80 or 90 years. Been there but while the tree's been growing.

So there's no more clubhouse or whatever. No, we we need to sell it. We're we're still we aren't there where the road can be built yet. And it probably will be a reduction a loss on my part and probably a lower sales price on the Hamiltons to try to make it work. I know Hoy's listening so he might be upset he just heard that. Okay, other questions. This is somewhat secondary, but I noticed during some of the public commentary that there was some question. Yes, it's on. Thank you. During the public commentary, there was question about the integrity of the trans the uh traffic study. Uh making observations that certain elements of the study was inconsistent with what their observations were as citizens. Um

then you can question every traffic study, every TIA that's done. My question wasn't that as much as what was the methodology uh and the staff look at the methodology and con and concur that the methodology was consistent which would would produce the kind of quality results that we would be able to stand by.

My traffic engineers talked to the town traffic engineers and again I'm a history major. I stay out of it. That's their realm. That's what they went to school for and that's what we pay them for. And my understanding is, you know, they accepted that analysis and they concurred with it. So I I don't know what else to do. Again, it's like then you need to make another rule for me and say, how do you verify your traffic analysis besides hiring a qualified traffic engineer?

You missed a point. I start off as saying there was inconsistency in the methodology and I was questioned about the methodology itself. Again, I'm I don't know the methodology. I I'm not a traffic engineer. So, that's that's kind of what they went to school for and that's all I pay for. You also make reference to the core of engineers charging $250,000. What exactly is that?

No, it was a mitigation fee. If we impact the stream too much with two crossings, we went over a threshold by only crossing it once. That went away. That's how the price went down from $235,000 a lot down to 195. We had to figure out a way to get the project built and get a road across the stream and make it affordable so at least the project could happen. Okay. So, I I don't know core requirements, but it'd be great if somebody on staff could be able to confirm that that actually does happen. Yeah, I have a copy of it here with me if you want. Yeah, that does happen. They do require that. Yeah, you can make the bridge longer though and get out of it, but [laughter] you can

doubt that's happening. Move that one down the line too.

Mr. Bowman, that's that's a fee and not a not a escrow type situation. That's a straightup expense. Yeah, this may be more for staff um for the applicant. Phase one and phase two are developed and probably sold out like that. That's on the ground right now. No, they they only have 21 houses up, I think, now. No, we've we've kind of been working on this hard to make sure we got this done before all those houses are in. I think they're 21 up and 16 in various stages of construction out of 105. Okay.

And by the way, our density on phase three is I think less than two units an acre and it's 54% open space. So adding increasing the density was just adding the one house so we could sell it to raise some capital. But 54% of phase three is an open space. where I'm going with this and I'm always trying to understand, you know, we have recommendations, the board has decisions to make. We make a decision, there are consequences by making that decision. We can make a decision. Again, I I don't know which way I'm going with this, but I'm thinking we have a decision or a recommendation to make that says, you know what, no, we don't want to see a revised plan. And let's say that this phase three is now no longer economically viable. that phase three may sit there and be undeveloped for some period of time and I'm just asking staff assuming that's the scenario we go down we now don't have that access back out to Mount Holly Huntersville Road to serve phase two and three is that fair again I'm just trying to understand

yes that's correct I I got to follow up to that because I was going to ask that same question less a lot less nice we can't make him put in the road he said he was going to put in for phases one two and three, he can build half of it, make his money on phases one and two and not put in the connection.

So, okay. Um there are a few a few different elements to that and this is part of what um you heard in comments in the original version and part of the concern is that um and the original version being R1810A um the connection out to Mount Holly Huntersville Road was intended to to be essentially developed with the development so it would be done but now because it like when the plan was revised with 2205 it was no longer required to be done with phases one and two. Exactly what you're saying. Mhm. So, yes, the connection out to Mount Holly Huntersville Road could potentially be many years away.

Um, it's unfortunately not unheard of that the roadway improvements take as long as it takes for future phases to develop. I mean, I think that's fine when you're going back into the woods like the back of Vermillion, but when you're talking about a connection that alleviates traffic, I feel like, yeah, that I don't think that was explained to us at the time when we approved that in 22 that, hey, this now separates this out and if he doesn't build phase three, then the town's just out of luck and our citizens are out of luck. I feel like developers are going to use this going forward. Hey, let me split this up into five different phases. change phase four and five around and if I run out of money so what I'll walk away kind of thing.

So here's another element. One of the things that we have been going we've been very diligent on I'll say it I know for sure in the past year is evaluating the phasing of the TIA. So if the TIA said that certain improvements had to be in by a certain time or by the time a certain number of homes are constructed or receive their co that we've been re very diligent on checking those. Um, unfortunately, some TAs did not include that element where it said that by a certain phase or by a certain number of home builds, you must have these improvements installed and this was one of them.

Where it said because essentially the way that you're speaking and following exactly what you're saying, if the TIA were phased and the previous resoning were adopted saying that even if they never built homes in phase three, they must have the connection to Mount Holly Huntersville Road. then the resoning conditions could be enforced such that that improvement would be done to satisfy the requirements of the resoning. But that was not the case for this reasoning. Right. All right. So if it if it doesn't work for Mr. Bowman, would the town ever constitute doing a you know easement through this and connecting Garver what whatever I can't remember all the road names. Yeah.

Cherry Bark Lane. Yeah. Cherry Bark Lane over I mean especially not with a culvert probably because that's just going to add a lot of costly. So now, you know, it's either I'm looking at it, if I live on Westminster, I mean, it's either it doesn't get built and I get the 100 homes that are about to be built with a lot of that coming through or we add 50 more homes and I get, you know, hopefully less than half of those 50 homes coming through my neighborhood cuz there's one exit over there now. rock in a hard place.

Prince, yes. So just to follow up with Chris's uh point, I'm thinking about what prevents another developer for putting these kind of project in the faces that well I would do part of this and then maybe come back for reasonzoning and once I'm at a point that I need or maybe cannot do the project maybe should I say intimidate or whatever it is for residents you know because we need access what What what would prevent such developer from maybe following the same route if we just approve this?

Sure. So the projects that are in review and I know that have been for the for sure the past year um but maybe a little bit longer than that the TIA requirements are being very closely checked to make sure that they are phased appropriately so that that does not happen. So that essentially any improvements that are significant are phased such that they're installed before like whether the project is built out or not. So there's a project now where they had I think one improvement that they had to do on Gilead Road. Um I think it's maybe a couple hundred homes in that one and they can't get their first 50 cos until those improvements have been satisfied with NC DOT. So

that would be that would be how it's being handled now. But again, if you go back to the original reasonzoning, it had one connection. Okay? And and even though I could walk away, that's why I'm here trying to make at least one connection at a better location than that connection was. So I mean, I'm not dodging the problem. We're addressing it and trying to get this situation handled so there's not a problem in the future. But when that original plan was developed, Huntersville was much smaller. Correct.

2018. I I mean I'm just trying to Great. We're still a density around two units an acre with tremendous amounts of open space. I remember this project coming through and I remember being um super excited because the residents Yeah. Can I speak to the growth? There has been little to no growth in this area of town. Most of our growth has been more towards the core and out east. So this would be the first major project in the 22 years that I've been here. Yeah,

I want to go back. The the road thing seems like it's a yeah a tough quandry, but go back to the tree and the density piece of it. Is there a way we can increase some of the density on some of the other lot like lot lines instead of doing it like two units per acre I think is what you said on like some of those lines could we make those a little tighter and keep that space around the tree viable and make the math work. The tree and the house are exactly where they've been for of the tree probably for 120 years and the house for probably no. I mean, this is why there's no more room to get the lots any smaller. Mhm.

We've done everything to try to make it as feasible as we can. And I've been doing this for almost 40 years. Mhm. And we've, you know, saving that, reselling the house and having it be rehabbed in place is another $30,000, which over 50 lots, you know, is 6,000. Okay. So, you're not tearing the house down and building a new one there. You're just rehabbing the one that's there. Yeah. And keeping the same foundation and deed restricting it. Okay. Yeah. But the original plan, were you tearing the house down? You you were just turning into a We didn't want to tear the house down. Yeah. Okay. I mean, I kind of like older homes like the one where For some reason, I feel like there was like a park or something around there. It still is.

Still will be. Okay. It'll just be somebody's backyard. No, the park's there. So, the park's there.

And I can explain what the what the concern is. So, we're um Yeah. Okay. It's blown up on the right hand side here. So that area and we don't have the image from uh with the open space detail, but it's still intended to be a relatively passive um park space there with a trail I think going around the tree, maybe a couple benches and whatnot. And so previously what was agreed upon was that it was generally acceptable because it wouldn't be privately owned. It would be communal space and it would be kind of just understood like nobody's going to go in there with a chainsaw on a bad day and take down a part of the tree. But now with it being a private home lot, the concern is that it's more difficult to manage a private property owner impacting that tree than it would be for there to be some type of like community management of the health of the tree.

Um, but overall the urban open space is still um is still planned for that area. That's one of the areas that staff is recommending that there is some type of like amenization for folks entering um the community from Mount Holly Huntersville Road. So, yes. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Did anybody miss anything? Okay. The tree the tree itself will be in the open space. It's just the canopy. Yes, will be on the over the private lot

and then presumably the root a part of the root system as well. I I still have a question that how would you rehab an 80-year-old house and not disturb the tree? We'll make sure they can't disturb the foundation. You can rehab the interior of the house and the exterior as long as they're not digging or doing anything around the foundation. and we'll let the town review the deed restriction.

This is more of a question for staff. Uh you talk about impacting a neighborhood, albeit not significantly according to the report. Uh but yet is there any plan to put sidewalks in a community where the increased volume of traffic is coming through? I'm I'm just one of those I get real concerned when I hear about people walking in streets with no sidewalks and you're increasing traffic on those kinds of streets. There's not currently a sidewalk project planned for the Westminster community.

Yeah. Is that just because it's lacking a request for sidewalks? I Yes. No, we have to look. Okay. Okay. So, we would have to check to see if there is a request and then where that request would be in the queue.

Uh, one from Mr. Bowman. What changed between R22 05 and now as far as the uh why you're looking to remove the street? I know it can't be just the $300,000 it's going to cost you. No, it's it's the the second stream crossing that went with it. That's why the difference in cost went from 232,000 now down to 195. Again, I have those bids. I shared them with the neighbors. Anybody's willing to look and compare the bids and see where the extra costs are. We had to kind of figure out how to reduce the cost because nobody was going to pay 232,000. Then you have to add bank interest profitability. So, the lots are would have to be quarter of a million dollar lots and the homes would have to be a million dollars.

But you did that same analysis in 22, right? No, no, no. That's that's that's why I'm going to lose money. Oops. Okay. Okay. That that's that's exactly why I lose money. And yeah, I think it's like $2 million difference the numbers he's throwing around. And that's that section with the covert and the quarter million dollars of mitigation. Yeah.

Any further questions? [clears throat] And if not, do we have a motion? Yeah. So th this might be for both the staff and the applicants. So So my concern here was about the traffic and the sidewalk and other stuff. Increasing the density like we said will create some problem obviously. We we heard from the public comment that people walk the street back and forth. So with this kind of flexibility that you requesting for approval, what can we guarantee for the community? Are we going to build some sidewalks? Are we going to put something in to this? Uh what what are we going to do? [clears throat]

I can't go build sidewalks in somebody else's community. The town has found out how difficult it's been to build in pots down without getting right away. They were trying to do a sidewalk project on Central. I actually own some property and I said I would give the right away but unless they get everybody to give the right away uh it doesn't get built. So that's more of a town question because it's not on property I own or control. Are you referring to sidewalks on this development or Yes. I think I think there was a clarification. I think he was referring to the sidewalks on your project. Yeah, there's sidewalks included on all the town streets in this project.

Okay. just not there there are no sidewalks that are being proposed in the existing Westminster community and there are no funds being committed to any sidewalk projects for that community as a part of this resoning application. Okay. Yeah, this project has sidewalk

one, two, and three all have sidewalks everywhere. Good deal. I'll I'll do one just to get us started so we can get in discussion and get this over with and if we change it we change it change all mine anyway. All right. Uh in consider I have a motion.

All right. Uh and considering the proposed reszoning petition R25-12 Oak Grove Hill phase three, uh planning board recommends approval with the conditions that an arbor certify that there are no specimen trees less than 24 in in caliber on site or all trees 12 in and greater identified. The buffer standards meet the current planning standards. Excellence in design is demonstrated with the urban open space to balance the significant of modification request. Significance of modification request. The proposal is consistent with Huntersville 2040 community plan policies LU1.1 and ES EOS-4. It is reasonable and in the public interest to reszone the approximate 66.92 acres described herein as consistent with the envisioned use and development pattern set forth in the community plan.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Okay, motion second. Discussion, Chris? Yeah, I'll start discussion. I mean, I when I looked at it, I didn't see it was that big of a deal. I came in here thinking that, yeah, sure, we're going to be out of here in an hour. It seems like it makes sense kind of thing. And I appreciate you all bringing your concerns to the table. Um, and and you guys are really stuck in a bad spot because I mean, the math doesn't work. I mean, he he's not going to sit there and lose $2 million to make sure that there's an extra road that goes out of there.

Excuse me. Yeah. What is the increase? Can you proc [clears throat] and it's not profitable? I lose the money. I go out of business. Who cares if he makes money or not? I I understand. I understand. Yeah. [clears throat]

You need to leave. So, I get it. You guys are in a horrible spot. But the way I see it is he doesn't have to finish this phase. And you guys are going to be worse off if he doesn't put this connection in there. And I don't think there's any way we can force him to do it. Sadly, we can't force him to put in phase three. And he's not going to sit here and lose money. And I I I agree. I mean, he he did, you know, halfway kind of skirt the system with this. Oh, I'm going to do it in three phases. Oh, I'm going to change three phase three, but now the connection doesn't have to be there. And that was a miss on our part as a planning board at the time. I know a lot of you weren't here and on the staff's part. Um, so but I don't want to leave it in a bad spot where it just sits there empty and you guys have to wait 10 years and you have the other hundred people coming through your lot without any way to get to Mount Holly Huntersville. So that's the w that's the reason that I did um do the approval and and I'd be open for anybody else on this board to sway me otherwise. I second a motion. So I'll I'll Chris, you basically said what I was going to say. I I I understand the community's position concerns, but as much as we like it, you like it, the town likes this existing plan, it's not relevant if it's never built. It's just not relevant. And again, it could be there for 5, 10, 20, 30 years, and we never get that second connection or that the other connection back out. So, you know, we're all in a difficult situation. Like Chris said, in hindsight, wish there was a way that this would have been required to be done before there was a CO issued for phase one or phase two. Um, but that's not the case now. So now we've basically got the

equivalent of a vacant piece of land there. And again, as much as we all like that plant, I would love to see two connections. If it's not going to happen, if it's not feasible, it's not going to happen. So what's the ne next best thing that we can do? And I think after listening to everything, this is the ne next best thing we can do.

I agree, Scott. I think, you know, just looking at the plan, um I mean, having two stream crossings that close is I mean, that's a difficult that's a that's a big deal. Um having one is great. I mean, I think that it's good for the connectivity. I mean, yeah. But being able to preserve that much more u open space by not, you know, plowing through it with with a road there, I think I think it makes a better plan. Personally, I'm good.

Well, unfortunately I I can't quite go along with my peers on this one uh for a couple of reasons. one is I think this particular uh approval will send a message that we devalue connectivity because we're truly saying connectivity is an extremely important aspect of Huntersville communities. It's not important to us how much it has to cost the developer. Uh, and I think it also sends a message that if you, you know, make a strong enough argument about the cost of development, then we're willing to accept that as part of the reason as to why we will approve you. I think it's too bad precedent. You devalue connectivity and you say if it costs you too much, that's okay. We can we can accept that. I can't go along with that.

I wonder when I'm I'm really kind of still on the fence with this one. I with if we do go with the approval though, I'd like us to consider like amending and putting something in about the heritage heritage tree and the deed. I think that needs to be addressed. And then also someone made that um I think the planning board made the note about all transportation notes have to be need to be added. Those are just two things I saw we definitely need to do. Um and I'm really on the fence. I I really I don't like the idea that the road can't be in. I think it makes a lot of sense to have Carver Road there and changing the density of the project. It it really tightens up like right at the street there's a house that seems to be right on the road and then the buffer next to the homes on the top of the the plan. I feel like everything's very close and um not having the house as part of the community I think is is really strange that someone would live in a house that looks absolutely different than everyone else in the neighborhood. That should be a community space for everyone. That just seems bizarre. Someone would purchase that. And then we need more. I mean, I think that like excellence in design has mentioned like for the last year, that's all I've heard is like affordable housing and excellence in design. And if he's bringing this back to the table, I think some of that needs to be addressed. Like the house that was shown in our site plan, it was it was very it was like some house frontage that was on Batty's Ford Road. It looked it was nothing special. And I don't know. I just I think it's disappointing that he's bringing this this is what he's bringing back to the table. Jody, I 100% agree with you. I am very disappointed. Um overall, um I came in here thinking that the worst thing we were going to have to deal with tonight was going to be the tree size and the tree safe. And um hearing your concerns really upsets me. um I don't know what we can do. And

that's I think the most distressing part of it because if we say no and and you know we're advisory, right? We're not the final say on this, but if we say no, then we leave you with this huge chunk of people cutting through your road. Um and if we say yes, then Michael, you're absolutely right. this signals to other developers, oh, we'll just do it in phases. We are in such a bad spot. And um I just hope y'all know that every single one of us sitting up here cares very much for you. So, I I've never seen it get that heated. And um you know, I hope it doesn't happen like that in the future. Um but we genuinely care.

Yeah, I'll chime in. Um I'm going to have to be as a no as this that sits here today. There's there's got to be another way. Um, and we can't set a precedent where you can come back and and take off something that was obviously negoti negotiated for with the residents a couple years ago. There's there's got to be another another design here that will get you to the price point you need to be at because I mean $500,000 a a house all in. And if you get four more houses in here, you've got more open space than you need. If it takes a couple more culde-sacs, if you need to take Carver and run it up to the north and connect it to Road B to dump out to Mount Holly Huntersville and run some culde-sacs off of there, there's got to be there's got to be a third choice here. And for that reason, I'm going to have to pass on this one.

Yeah. So, I'm I'm going to vote in support of the motion. Um, frankly, we can't force the developer to try to lay this out anymore or any other way. Um, if we deny this, he might not come back for 30 years. Um, and traffic is going to get worse and worse and worse on these cutthroughs. Uh, I I just I think that this solution is not good for everybody. think that the town and the board are going to take our lumps on this and it's I think it's our fault ultimately that we're in this situation, but I think that we need to show that a lesson's been learned and that we won't have the situation so we're not signaling to future developers that this is that this is okay in our book. So I hope that that the board can at least convey that message on this project.

Um just to address just a couple of comments again respect you guys opinion. um on the president I think um and hearing staff that we may have already hopefully addressing that going forward where we're going to be able to not allow this to happen in the future where phases are allowed to be built. So I don't I'm not so concerned about if this passes and the board passes it that there's any precedent set. And then Michael I agree I'm I'm huge on connectivity. I had no idea how important connectivity was until I moved to Huntersville and sat on this board. Now, I want it as much as we can. And in this particular case, I feel like we've already improved it. In other words, if this was the first plan that we saw, we probably would have all been like, "This is wonderful." Yeah, we don't like culde-sacs, but you know what? If we're saving a a stream crossing and it makes sense, we can live with the culde-sac. It's just we've some we've seen something prettier and now we're having a hard time looking at this and getting comfortable with it. But I still think again we've got two more connections out to Mount Holly, Huntersville Road that we didn't have before. Um it looks like and I can't remember the name of the road. Cherry Brook will hopefully eventually connect back over to the other community. So I think we've still solved for the um connectivity issue. Anyway,

thank you. Anyone else? I I don't know the uh the rules, Robert's rules, but I feel like if I mean, if we want to send a strong denial as a group, I mean, if somebody has a secondary motion, say, can I remove my substitute motion? Sorry. A substitute motion. I mean, instead of, you know, five of us just saying no to the approval, I mean, I feel like we should say it's we deny it and here's why we deny it kind of thing as opposed to just

Well, we have a motion and a second. Do we need to act on that and vote on that first or can we do a You can make a substitute motion before voting in which case the substitute motion has to not before the original motion. Okay. It does not [clears throat] go back to the original motion. Right. Okay. I actually have a proposed amendment. I was thinking that Jody was saying for the amend for the motion on the floor. I have an a proposed amendment. Does somebody that thinks strongly in denial have a denial one substitute? Hang on. We'll let we'll let we'll let Scott finish his first

to clean up the first motion. Okay, that's all I'm doing is cleaning up the first um additional condition number four [clears throat] would be that the existing house adjacent to the urban open space. Number three have deed restrictions that prevent potential damage to the heritage tree. Okay. And number five, that the transportation notes from resoning 2205 be incorporated into this resoning. Okay. And Chris, that was your motion. You need to accept accept that. Yep.

Okay. Second. I will second my amended [clears throat] motion. Okay. So, we have a a motion on the floor. just call. Okay, we'll call the vote. Um, but just u one point to Chris's question. If if if it is a denial motion, it doesn't come till after the denial. Right. So, substitute motion is not that. That's your choice. Okay.

Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. You all can decide the motion maker if you want to accept those amendments. If you do that will be the motion that's on the table then someone can make a substitute motion and if that is the case you need to substitute motion first and then the amended original. Yeah. And we've done that. We've accepted the amendment. I accept it. He second it. But my question is if we vote five against the approval or Yeah. five against. We need You need to make You don't need to make a just need to make Right. Right. Okay. Yeah. So, let's go ahead and vote. All right. Okay. So, the motion on the table.

We'll we'll call the vote. All those in favor of the motion. Those opposed. Okay. Did you get everybody? I think there's all those in favor of the motion on the table to approve. Motion to approve. Yes. Okay. Those opposed? Okay. So we have no motion. Start over. Yep. Does somebody want to make a substitute motion? To deny.

Did Is it weird if it comes from the same person? [laughter] I'll take a run at it. All right. Okay.

It's going to be brief. In considering the proposed reszoning petition R25-12 Oakrove Hill, planning board recommends denial because the proposal is inconsistent with the Huntersville 2040 community plan, particularly policy LU7.1 dealing with connectivity. It is reasonable and in the public interest to deny resoning described herein as it is not in line with the 2040 community plan.

You second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion, Lee? Yeah. Again, there's got to be there's got to be a a third option here. And we're we're not adjudicating the original design or anything like that. This is just this one piece of of to dealing with the um tree save and and the the connectivity. And that is all. Michael, anything to add?

I don't think there's anything new I would necessarily add. I I think this is a very nuanced kind of project that this board will run across. Uh but again, I think we owe it to all the taxpayers to ensure that what we approve uh is truly something that they can see benefit in in some form or fashion. Uh and at this point, I think for some of the community that is being highly impacted, it's hard for them to understand why would you if you live where they live, you seriously question, you know, why did the board do what it did? You need a stronger rationale is what I'm saying. uh and what we've produced tonight isn't necessarily a strong rationale, but I think the developer can certainly come back with stronger commentary with respect to addressing the issues that we have highlighted.

Okay. Thank you. Scott,

I will not support the motion on the floor. And it's not because I don't respect the people in the room. It's because I do. I've been on this board for six years, maybe five or six years, and I've seen it happen too many times where we make recommendations. We're recommendations only, something has passed, and then you look back six months or two years or whatever. You look back like, wow, that was an unintended consequence that has really hurt us. And in this case, this land may sit here undeveloped. I'll use a quick example. We lived this in the last 6 months, probably Morning Star Mini Storage came before us, McCord Road in 115. We made a decision to deny and we had this discussion. And we said, "If we deny it, can they build on it?" And they sat up there and said, "We will not build on it even though we can buy right on say twothirds of it." We all denied it thinking we did the right thing because we did not want to see a mini storage on that site. Fast forward to this day, it is halfway done because they did move forward. Even though they sat there and said they would not, they move forward and built the project. Just one example of many that we've seen. So, I just tell everybody be careful what the unintended consequences of our decisions are. Again, hey, we're an advisory board. I don't even know how much the town listens to us, but that was my

Thank you. Anyone else? I I think my biggest thing Oh, sorry. You jump in front. I was just going to jump in and say I was a yes on Morning Star. Okay. [laughter] Um I I guess I was wanting a stronger denial and maybe some recommendations on, you know, steps forward uh in that. I mean, because I do feel like it could sit there for another two years and it's only going to get worse. Uh, as far as traffic on Westminster because they're going to finish that housing that that project in [clears throat] in a year and,

you know, there's going to be 50 cars going through their neighborhood. Promise and no way out. So, that's I wish there was a timeline we could put on it or something like that, but I don't think contractually legally we can, right? I'd say some a lot of that is a good idea that you got, but that's up to the town board. That's we're just we're black and white. Yeah.

Okay. Anybody else before we vote? Okay. All those in favor of the motion to recommend denial. Those opposed. So, the motion carries. Denial. Okay, moving along. Other business, consider approval of the 2026 planning board calendar. Does anybody have any um thoughts? I guess it really is is the only change would be the November December meetings. I've I've looked at the calendar and [clears throat] I think this probably why Tracy puts this in here. It's that we're running up against two holidays. So, um I would let's discuss it then we can make a motion. But I would propose for the November and December meetings that we move those to the third Wednesday versus the existing November 24th and December 22nd. But again, let's open up for discussion. That's the the point.

Third Wednesday. And yeah, that's and I can make a motion if you got but if y'all have any I have no issues. So yeah, that makes sense. That's what we've done in the past and it seems to work for everybody's schedule. So I would recommend the same. Yeah, I'd go ahead and make the motion. I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the 2026 planning board meeting schedule as proposed with the November and December meetings being moved to the third Wednesday in November which is November the 18th. Third Wednesday in December which is December the 16th. Okay. Second. Any discussion?

All right. Michael, did you say 16th? December 16th. Yes. Okay. Is that right, Michael? I'm trying to make sure. December. On my cheat sheet. No, no, no. November 18th, December 16th. Okay, got it. Thank you. Okay, Tracy, you'll clean it up for me anyway. Okay. All those in favor? Those opposed? Okay. And if we could get a motion to adjurnn, please. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. Second. Second. All those in favor? Those opposed? We're out.