Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

One minute. Okay, we're going to call the November 19th, 2025 planning board meeting to order. Um, first order of business is to review. We have three outstanding minutes that we need to review and approve. We'll do those separately. Um, the first one is the September 23rd, 2025 regular meeting.

Want to make a motion to approve the September 23rd, 2025 regular meeting minutes. Second and a second. Any uh discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Second order is the October 14th, 2025 special meeting minutes. Motion to approve the October 14th, 2025 motion um minutes.

Second. Okay, any discussion? All those in favor? Unanimous. And the last is the October 28th. Sorry, I I just want to abstain because I wasn't at that meeting. Thank you. We'll note that. Thanks, Trina. Um, the October 28th, 2025 regular meeting.

Thank you. Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Okay, before we roll into public comments, would like to recognize Heather Smallwood and Scott Cornet, our newly elected commissioners that will start in December. Yeah. So, welcome. Okay. Excuse [clears throat] me. Public comments. We did not receive anything. So we'll move on to the action agenda. First item is 4A. Consider a recommendation on petition TA2511. Request by Northwood Raven to amend articles 4.9 and 8.16 of the zoning ordinance to allow reduced setbacks for some attached garages.

Good evening board. Like to enter the staff reporting to the record. So we have uh TA25-11 which is a um text amendment application by Northwood Raven to achieve two goals. Um one is to revisise requirements for attached garages and the second is to revise requirements for mechanical equipment for single family detached homes. So, uh, the current standards for attached garages, when you attach any structure to a home, that addition becomes subject to the same setbacks as the home. If it's detached, it has different setbacks. The applicant would like to amend the requirement that the attached structure has the same setbacks as the home. They want to reduce the setback essentially in certain circumstances when you attach garages to the rear of a single family detached home. The applicant has specifically indicated that they would like for the setbacks to be reduced when it is a single family detached home that is accessed from an alley. So this would be the only circumstance where this change would be applicable. They are proposing that the garages would be attached via breezeway and in consultation with the applicant a maximum of 15 ft is proposed for the length of that breezeway. The second part of the text amendment is to amend requirements for mechanical equipment. So today, mechan mechanical equipment is not permitted to encroach

into any required setback. So typically what we're going to see for a single family detached home in terms of mechanical equipment is HVAC equipment and pool equipment, although there could be other types of mechanical equipment, but overwhelmingly it's pool equipment and HVAC systems. So today, when a single family detached home is permitted, the HVAC equipment has to be outside of the sideyard setback, which generally is about 5T. It could be more, it could be less, and it has to be outside of the rear yard setback. So the blue boxes indicate areas where you would be allowed to place mechanical equipment today, generally HVAC equipment. The applicant is proposing a third option wherein mechanical equipment would be permitted to encroach into the rear yard setback um as long as it is screened from view if there is um an alley in the rear or if somehow you could see it from the public street which generally you can't when it's in the rear of a home. staff find that the proposed text amendment is consistent with LU8.1 and 8.2. It allows greater flexibility for attaching structures to single family homes accessed off of alleys and it also increases the requirement uh for screening because currently we don't require screening and uh for any mechanical equipment for single family detached homes and it would be only required in this specific instance. So, we wouldn't be making any nonconformities with existing homes that have uh HVAC equipment or pool equipment in their side or rear yards. Um, this evening is obviously the planning board um hearing for recommendation on this item and town

board final action is proposed for December 16th. Happy to take any questions at this time. Thank you. Questions for staff. So, just a clarification on the attached garage, a breezeway, even though it doesn't have walls or maybe an electrical or plumbing, it would still be considered attached. Just a roof structure that connects the house to the garage considered attached. That has been the consistent interpretation of staff. Yes. Okay. And this isn't doing anything with the detached. The detaches rule is staying the exact same. Correct.

That is correct. Yep. All right. Hey, I got a couple. Sure. So, let's go back to the breezeway, I guess. So, there's a a limit on how much square footage you can add on um for detached building, right? It's was it 50% of the first heated square footage of the first floor, something like that, or is it 100%? Yes, you can exceed the first floor heated area of the home. And if you put a breeze bay and attach it, then what's the limit? Then there is no limit.

There is no limit. So I'm trying to max this thing out. So you could put a breezeway and you could put as big a building as you wanted to in your backyard as long as you didn't encroach on if we pass this the five feet set back in the backyard as long as that's an alley.

Yes. So, and kind of getting to your point, there's a obviously a kind of a larger conversation about the breezeways, but because the way that this text amendment is structured is saying that this would only apply when you access off of an alley overwhelmingly in the town, we don't have large lots that have alley access. It's going to be lots that are generally about 60 or 50 feet or less. So, these are going to generally be very like much smaller lots.

Mhm. Um, now that doesn't mean that adding another structure is couldn't be intrusive, but you're not looking at a situation where there's like a 10,000 square foot home and a 10,000 square foot like structure attached by a breezeway to it. That just that's not possible. Yeah. When we say it's not possible, the next thing you know somebody's trying it. I just I was just trying to I mean if if somebody wanted to really rev up their square footage, they could attach a breezeway and push this 10,000 square foot building into their backyard within 5t of the lot line in the back.

Well, if your lot is less than 60 ft wide, you wouldn't be able to have a 10,000 square foot. Like the the first floor heated area of the home couldn't be 10,000 square feet, but essentially you could fill up your backyard with rooftop. Yep. This okay. The other thing on the um mechanical equipment, HVACs and such, it also applies just for single family homes that are backed up by an alley. These would be for any type of single family detached home that you could encroach into the rear yard.

Okay. So, let's let me let me rev that up then. So, say you've got a a home that um your backyard, you share backyards with with your neighbor on the next block or whatever. Yep. And you don't want your noisy HVAC next to your house and you can push it all the way out to your to your property line within 5T of the the neighbor's property line in that case. So, [snorts] in that case, yes, you would be allowed to encroach into the rear yard setback. But this is only on the house. So, no, not the mechanical equipment. The mechanical equipment is anywhere. Okay. Any single family detached home lot type.

Okay, that's it for now. So would it be a safe assumption to to go back to one of Lee's points, it may help him that since these are more than likely new developments, it would be an impervious restriction. It would probably prohibit somebody from really just maxing out the footprint. It's more likely that that would be restrictive if they're in a watershed. the this developer and this development is not in a restricted watershed, but they'd be they would be restricted based on the size of their pond, right? Yes, that is correct.

Okay. Kind of on the same track with Lee. Uh, regarding the mechanicals, uh, how does this, I guess, how do you overlay fire and public safety related issues associated with potential fire with a setback that far? What increase do you get? What additional risk are we incurring about allowing this to happen? Could you kind of further explain? Let me let me just kind of go back to the last thing I said. You're moving the mechanicals closer to another property. How do you assess the incremental risk now associated with that in the event of a disaster of potential fire spreading? Have we looked at that?

Okay, so no, that would be up to Meckllinburgg County uh code enforcement to make a determination about whether or not mechanical equipment would be too close to another home or to other mechanical equipment. But we're saying what you're asking us to do tonight is say that it's okay and it's then up to fire to decide that no, we won't let it happen. Well, you could decide that it's not okay.

Well, I'm I'm simply saying if if we concluded that yeah, let's go ahead and approve it. Who has assess probably another way of asking who has assessed the incremental risk by moving mechanicals closer to a property line? There there's no assessment about whether or not there is an increased risk. And should there be should there be an assessment since we're moving mechanicals now? We we could

Yep. Any further questions for staff? Lauren, just obviously this is coming probably [clears throat] before us because there's a specific development that they're trying to fit this into, right? Yep. That's typically what we see. What What is it they're trying to accomplish? Is it just because the rear yard? Like I'm just I'm still trying to understand why we're changing it, why they're changing it. What is it that they're

Sure. So the developer lot design included the HVAC equipment within the rear yard setback. Um that is not currently permitted under the current code. So the developer is requesting a text amendment to change that so that they are compliant. So in this case their footprint is probably getting right to the setback and they're having that is correct. Okay. I'm still thinking through it. I'm trying to figure out what the advantage is. Sure.

Of changing this. I would [laughter] you mean for the town that's I understand the the advantage for the developers if that they get to develop the the lot the way they want but for the town what what is the advantage of changing this?

So it it allows an a level of flexibility that's beneficial especially when you're seeing a lot of the lots that are come in are more clustered. they're more small. Um, it becomes very difficult a lot of times for various applicants to put the HVAC in certain locations. That's something that we struggle with a lot on lots of neighborhoods, especially in the sideyard. They want to put in the side. Can't can't put in the front. That's along the street. Can't put it there. Where can you put it? You got to put it in the back. If you have a small lot, then it becomes an issue with the the set back on the rear. So looking at what the applicant is submitting the the the best case it's in the rear. It's mostly going to be very near the building. So it's not going to be usually 5 ft from the property line because it's going to have to be near the building. So staff was okay with that application um and that circumstance because it's in the rear and it's not going to have a very large effect on what we currently do now. And I just had a quick question on the screening requirements. Is that like outlined anywhere? Like it's got to be a certain bush height or fence height or

Yes, we have screening requirements in article seven of the zoning ordinance. So, this is this is a situation where this is not just one development has an issue with it. It's it's something that you all have seen uh numerous times is what I think I'm understanding. So yes, with regard to the HVAC equipment, we have seen it. So the other instances though where we've seen the issue with the HVAC equipment are with town homes.

They they aren't with single family detached homes. So, um, very often because most of the time town homes take up the majority of the lot, they and they have already reduced setbacks, um, on the sides and the rear. They um there's sometimes uh a point where they submit building permits and that is where they realize that the HVAC equipment that they're placing is in their rear yard setback. So in the previous two instances, I believe they've come back and they've administratively either requested adjustments to setbacks or they have um placed utility easements for the HVAC equipment to go in the rear of the properties. Okay.

But this is for single family. That's correct. Go ahead. Uh, in considering the proposed amendment TA25-11, the planning board recommends approval based on the amendment being consistent with policies LU8.1 and 8.2 of the Huntersville 2040 plan. It is reasonable in the public interest to amend this awning ordinance because it will allow greater flexibility for setbacks of garages for single family homes and mechanical equipment. Second. Thank you. Discussion. Any discussion with the board?

Chris, we'll start with you. No, I mean I mean I think in the spirit of the rules, it seems like we're trying to be flexible and and help out a developer and hopefully they bring a good product. Uh I could see it for the HBAC. The garage is a little bit of a concern with somebody just building a you know 10 foot breezeway and then a you know 4,000 foot square foot detached garage. You know obviously you got some permeability requirements and whatnot but um it's I think it's fair. all that. [laughter] [clears throat]

This is where I'm going to be in support of it. And quite honest, it kind of comes down to I trust our staff. I think they're very diligent and if they recommend it, I don't always side with the staff, but in this case, this is a little bit more technical and I just side with the staff. I I think it's a little bit um [clears throat] undercooked I guess at this point because like I said you could you could use this you could exploit this and do what you said you could build you know mimic the footprint of your house just by putting a a breezeway in and putting the the same footprint in your backyard within five feet of the property line. I mean, as it stands, you could do the same kind of thing, but at least you'd have to be back 25 ft. Yes, it fixed the developers problems and it fixes small lot problems, but it's Yeah, I think it opens up more opportunities um for [clears throat] missteps on this one. And then the mechanical equipment, I could support that if it was also backed by the alley, if that clause was in there. But if it's just I mean and we don't know what mechanical equipment besides normal HVAC stuff and gas packs it could be. But that that's kind of a vague category. [snorts] You could push anything up to your neighbor's property line. Anything egregious mechanical bull or whatever for instance. I know you were having problems coming up with examples last night. So I'll give you that one. And um and off you go. So I'm I'm not going to be able to support this.

So Lee, let me ask a question. as you're concerned, the size of the garage like like like somebody could build a very large ADU or are you talking because they could add on to the building as is like if they just want to make an addition they could take it all the way to the max but I was wondering were you thinking we could we could stretch that ADU out to something that's extremely large by expanding and expanding? Well, that piece is already there, and we've been down this this breezeway thing a couple years ago, and it's already there. But this way, instead of having to give your neighbor 25 feet for this, now you're only giving him five. So, you could literally cover almost every inch of your property, say five feet on the side and back with uh impervious. Lee, would you like to amend the motion so that it so that we include that the the word alley in it

to the mechanical? To the mechanical. Yeah, that would that would that that would be nice. Yes. If we could add where single family tax house is backed by I'd like to amend my motion. The last part say uh mechanical setbacks with respect to al only respect to alleys lots on alleys. Yeah. Yeah. So I'll second that. Okay.

So point of clarification. So this is a staff question for it. So if we restrict it just to alley back, does that address the primary driver of this request if it's only applicable to alleys? So the the lots that um with this HVAC uh challenge for this particular development are not backed up by alleys. What are they backed up by? They're backed up by adjoining properties.

So, I'll add some of them I know for sure are backing up to an adjoining development. And between the rear yard property line and that adjoining development, there is a 20 or 25 foot buffer that will need to be installed and it's a vegetated buffer. believe there's also in this specific instance a retaining wall as well. Obviously the challenge with this is that that may not be the case every time. So while that is this those are the specifics of this for this development and for this developer there may be instances where the lots could be just backing up to another person's rear yard. With that, Chris, do you want to

maybe amend your motion? Yeah, I want to re amend my motion and ask for my other questions. Oh, yeah. Remove the part about the alley. And so, how far back do they want to go? I mean, if we're going to try to mitigate Lee's concern of somebody pushing, you know, their HVAC within 5T of their property line, you know, not necessarily in this development, in another one. I mean, is there a another buffer we could put there besides 25 ft that would satisfy the requirement?

So, a couple things. So, one, if it's a single family detached home, and I do not review code for HVAC equipment, but when we when we discovered this issue, we contacted Meckllinmberg County Code Enforcement, and our understanding is that there is a max length. I don't know what it is, but there is a max length in the distance that you can have the HVAC unit from the home, right? For efficiency purposes, probably. Yeah.

So, there's that. They would enforce that. So, no matter what the town's recommendation or regulation is, there would be that restriction. Um, but to your question specifically, there are instances where there are lots that are very close to each other. There are homes that are on smaller lots where they're adjoining. So, um, our practice is to use screening. Um, typically we don't get a lot of complaints for people's HVAC units as a nuisance. We get more complaints for pool equipment as a nuisance. Um and so when someone currently because this would also apply to pool equipment. Um when the pool rules were changed uh within the past several years, that was I believe that was a consideration as well where um the mechanical equipment was specifically kind of reaffirmed to not be within a required setback because some people have like a five foot sideyard setback and their neighbor has a five foot sideyard setback and so when they turn the pool equipment on you can it's very loud. Um, so outside of the code requirement that you couldn't push it all the way to the back of a of a yard adjoining your neighbor, there would not be anything other than screening as a practice for us to prevent a nuisance to your neighborh.

You uh amended your motion again, Trina. You second that. Oh, I I can second that. Sure.

I'm not trying to find outliers, but that's part of what we do here. Um, pool equipment can be allowed, and I even think about like a backup generator. I could see that being a scenario where somebody says, "Hey, I don't really want this near my house, but generator could probably be pretty far off their house and not affect them, but affect their neighbor more." So, So, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this. Currently, we have the five- foot minimum to the line on the sideyard. That is correct. So, this is asking for a five foot minimum to the back.

I don't even know. So

can I So this is saying that they can encroach into the rear yard setback. So in this particular case, their rear yard setback is 25 ft. So we've shown it close to the home because that is practical, but the way that the language is written is just allowing encroachment into the rear yard setback. So we have other encroachment language in our ordinance where there is a maximum amount of encroachment. So um in the one scenario that I can think of there is a formula essentially that you have to abide by where you can't encroach more than a certain um proportion of your setback. So for example if this setback was 25 ft you could say you can't encroach more than 10 feet into excuse me 10% into that setback. So, which that wouldn't really be helpful. That's not practical, right? But you get the drift. So, essentially saying we maybe you can't encroach more than 10 feet into a required rear yard setback because most often your setback into your rear yard is going to be more than 10 feet. For town home lots, that's not the case. But for a single family detached home lot, you're usually going to have a setback of at least 25 ft. So, that's one way you could be restrictive. um by setting a maximum amount of encroachment.

Yeah, just going down that path. Again, we understand this is for a specific like you know if we said it can encroach into the setback but shall not exceed 10 ft. Do you think we're getting there but still trying to help our concerns here? I think that would be helpful. But then the pool conundrum because once once you had a pool then you're not supporting the house, you're supporting the pool and then you want your equipment out there further. So you know I like the way you're headed, but you couldn't put it within 15t of your neighbor's line either way. Right. Right. That case

then I thought no like a a no more than x number of feet from the base structure kind of thing. That's kind of where I was going was that hey it's a limitation. It can't exceed 10 ft from the But then the pool thing came to my head. I said if they put a pool out there, then they're going to have to go back and put the the power equipment. What do they have to do now if they put in a pool? Is it So if they put in a pool, they can't be any nearer than 5t from the sideyard property lines and then they would have to respect the rear yard setback, whatever that is for the for the home. So in that case, the equipment really needs kind of probably be between the pool and the house. Yep.

Which does help us protect the adjoining neighbor under that scenario. Whereas this could open it up that now somebody can say, "Well, hey, if I can go there, I want to put my pool equipment on this side of my pool closer to my neighbor than to my house." Yes. Very often we see the complaint with the pool equipment when it's in the sideyard. The sideyard setbacks tend to be small. Yeah. Um, so if you have a sideyard minimum setback of five feet, a lot of times the homes aren't more than 10 feet from that setback. So it's still close. They could still put it there, the pool equipment there, it would be close, but it would resolve the issue with the rear yard setback.

But if we allowed that pool equipment to go into the rear the rear setback Yep. then that could potentially I'm trying to find the upside here. It could potentially relieve your next door neighbor from that noise. Good. But we just don't want to make it encroaching on the the back right neighbor. That's where I was headed. Yeah. But we could put limits on that.

Sounds like that's where we're headed. I I know I know the instance with somebody in my neighborhood built a pool then the equipment's there and the next neighbor in the in the backyard can you know sit on his back porch and hear it run. So yeah, if we I don't know what the right number is kind of arbitrary at this point but so is five and 25 10 10 ft from the structure not 10 feet from the property line is where you're talking right? Yes. That we're trying to keep it close to closer to the structure. Yeah. and respect the existing. [laughter]

I understand. Yep. Second. Okay. And then a second. Any further discussion? Michael, I'm bit of a contrarian, but look like we're making a universal u obviously an ordinances being being universal. There seem to be a lot of variability. I'm just curious, is there some way we could address this one developer issue and not make it universal until we get a better sense for how this is likely to be impacting on a more broader basis? There's a lot there's a lot of back and forth and just simply saying, you know, I'm I'm not trying to stop the development, but I do think yeah,

it would be a little better if we just simply say, okay, for this one, we get it and let's get us some data points to figure out how best to try to address this on a more universal basis, conditional reasoning kind of thing, right? Can you tell us why they wouldn't have come with this conditionally?

So, um, sure. So this specific development was approved um as a byite uh major subdivision after there was no longer quasi judicial review of major subdivisions and the lots were designed by the developer um with this layout with the HVAC equipment in this location. staff does not review the location of HVAC equipment as a part of plan review. Um generally we recommend very strongly that the um architects are understand those requirements as they are designing the lots. um the homes are taking up the majority if not the entirety of their building envelopes and so their HVAC equipment is encroaching. In terms of solutions for one development, as has been mentioned, that is where you're looking at a conditional district reszoning application or you are seeking a variance for relief, but that obviously has uh standards that you must meet for relief with a variance.

So, I'm coming back to what are we getting out of this, right? And is this something that would give your office relief? I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question, please? So, we we're talking about this and Michael made an excellent point about, you know, we're we're talking about this as a universal change to all of Huntersville when maybe we need to be doing it for one community, one property. Um my question is what are we getting out of this? Is this going to give you relief?

So I I think it going back to this the statement about the flexibility. It it would be helpful from from the staff's perspective. We didn't see the changes as being very large and the possibilities being you know the the the negative possibilities being very um viable per se. Um, but if the board would like to recommend certain aspects and different setbacks, the board is welcome to do that can do that. Um, if you're saying the the applicant needs to go do a conditional reasoning and you like the laws, the rules the way they are, staff says recommend that, right? um is just from our experience, a little bit more flexibility. And to to Lauren's point, it's not uncommon again for subdivisions to come in with small lots, get approved, but not think about the HVAC issues, to not think about mechanical equipment, to not think about those little aspects of building permit, which come in during a later part of the process. So having a little bit more wiggle room is is helpful because it's a it's a constant scenario. Not saying specifically about this one applicant, but to answer your question about what would it do for staff, a little bit more flexibility, a little bit more tools to address when that situation happens, what can we do about it? Okay. So, as we're discussing, I just want to throw this out there that obviously I've gone back and forth on this because we I feel like all have and hearing that this staff needs more flexibility is cementing this for me that I'm okay with this because I do I trust them. I I see what they bring before us and I'm I'm fine with giving you guys wiggle room.

I like where we are and you know we always talk about we're running out of land so you know we do want to try to maximize the density that we have and I just you simple person I look at it you know as they lay these out they've got a building envelope that they're trying to build within and all of a sudden if they have to put the mechanical in that it inevitably probably shrinks that building envelope down which means less density on that lot. So by doing this I feel like hopefully it gives them the maximum building envelope and now we're just increase by a small amount which is the mechanicals and again if we keep it within 10 ft of the primary structure I think we're there.

If we allowed this for HVAC units but maybe not other mechanical equipment um would that give the desired flexibility? It would. remind uh that development is located at the corner of Stumptown and Statesville Road. So it's adjoining Monte.

Um and I want to address that too. So I'm gonna ask the question.

So this is the not HVAC breezeway. Okay. I want to make sure I don't want anybody I don't trust but did you consider the fact my case00 my backy. So the consideration is all new development. I know in particular this development all I just want to make sure you went outside the box a little bit new existing development. So yes so the the text is specific to garages. It doesn't include ADUs.

Okay. Yes. It does not include ADUs. So, it's only garages. So, only garages may be attached in the rear this close to the um the rear property line when you're on an alley. Garage. It says it's just garages. You do have an

I know what you're going Yeah. So, it's only amending the allowances for garages that are attached, not for every access structure. Yes. On Yes. And the property is 50. So, it's a narrow lot. Yes. Yeah. It's a It's a 50t or less, I think. Is [clears throat] that right? Yeah. Yes. I think is it only 50 feet or less on an alley and only garages? It might be 60. We can 50 ft or less. Okay. For how he's Does that help with that question?

Well, can can we get back to the garages again? Um, so I I guess for me, I'm just hung up on the fact that this we are changing the parameters of the square footage for a garage instance, right? If it's attached, it can now be greater than or I guess there's no size limitation. Whereas if it was a just purely detached, it's got to be equal to or less than the square footage of the first floor of the home. Correct. That is correct.

So now we can build things with a greater square footage without limitation. So this whole request was brought to deal with setbacks and now we are changing or having an unintended consequence of changing square footage building restrictions. Is is it not a simple fix to just include a line in the um in the amendment here to require that these garages still be treated as detached for purposes of square footage or something along those lines?

We we could uh evaluate that. So, because this is specific to lots that are 60 ft wide or less, 50 or 60 ft wide or less, there is going to be an innate like you're not going to be able to fit like a fivecar garage. Sure. Right. In the rear there. Yeah. No, and that makes sense. I appreciate that point. Um, it just it to me this just feels like, you know, it was it's foreseeable that I just I guess I'm confused why we're even entertaining the idea that the square footage restrictions can be changed just because you're adding a breezeway.

It's just a difference essentially, right? So, so today, um, and I I can see it in my mind, but essentially to today, if you have a 60 foot wide lot, the garages that are in the rear of those, it would be unlikely that you could have a threecar garage there.

Um, it's challenging for people to fit a twocar garage in the rear of this type of home lot. So that's why we didn't find it challenging that there's not an additional limitation on the square footage because other than going um vertical, which you can't because it's a garage and there's a limitation. There's already a limitation for the the height of the garage, which it's not going to be able to exceed the height of the the home. It has to be at the maximum that same height. So, and so far, and not to say as you've mentioned, it's not impossible, but so far, we've not seen on a lot that's less than 60 ft wide, anyone having a garage, for example, for a um like a recreational

vehicle. They're not able to fit that essentially on that type of lot, right? So, yeah. Yeah, I I I agree. I mean, it seems unlikely given the, you know, the size of the lot and the footprint of what we're talking about here, but I it just seems like an easy thing to cut off by, you know, one adjustment to the language of the amendment.

Sure. And that's and that's and we're welcome that. That's a part of the motion. I would say if this were single family detached homes that were not accessed by an alley and were not this narrow staff would definitely have a more significant a significantly more considerable concern about how large that structure could be. Um, we understand the concern about um a an further flexibility being abused essentially by just attaching an enormous structure by breezeway, which is why like we're far more comfortable in this specific instance because the lots are inherently much smaller and there's a restriction that's kind of baked in that will uh limit the size of a garage there.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Ready for a vote?

We [snorts] uh remembering the proposed amendment TA25-11, the PL Oh, sorry. In considering the proposed amendment TA25-11, the planning board recommends approval based on the amendment being consistent with policies LU-8.0 0 and 8.1 of the Huntersville 2040 plan. It is reasonable and in the public interest to amend the zoning ordinance because it will allow greater flexibility for setbacks of garages for single family homes as well as mechanical equipment but only within 10 ft of the structure. Is that okay? Marshall, you good with that?

Okay, we're ready for a vote. All those in favor? Those opposed loan. Okay. [snorts] Thank you all. We appreciate your consideration. Okay. Moving on. Item 4B. Consider recommendation on petition TA25-10. A request by R. Todd Herszfield to amend articles 3.23 23 and 9.18 of these zoning ordinances. Thank you very much.

Tonight we are here to consider text amendment 2510 which amends articles 3.2.3 and 9.18 of the zoning ordinance regarding helellis stops. The applicant is Todd Hersshfield. Currently article 9.18 allows helistops as an accessory use in the campus institutional corporate business and special purpose districts. This tax amendment would allow hella stops and general resignation general residential excuse me zoning district with conditions and the proposed conditions are number one the helellis stop should be for personal private use only and shall not be open to the public for commercial purposes. Landings and takeoff shall only occur during daylight hours. No fueling maintenance or repairs shall occur on the property and all operations must comply with the FAA regulations and any applicable local safety standards. This is the ordinance. So you would see where it would be changed in the zoning ordinance. So as we were processing this request, staff did research on how other municipalities in the region handle he helistops and residential uses. Um and we could only find one municipality that allowed a helistop in conjunction with some sort of residential use and that was the city of Charlotte. The city of Charlotte allows helistops in conjunction with the neighborhood one place type which is a group of zoning districts. if you will. It is primarily uh residential. So, it allows for a multitude of different residential types, multif family, duplexes, things of that nature along with single family homes and also allows for limited commercial uses that do serve the residential uses that are also allowed. Um, so it's not a true just straight residential zoning designation. Um, but the one regulation that they do have is that it must be located at least 400 ft from a lot line. The other municipalities that we researched allowed Helistops as accessories for medical, government, and commercial uses, which is how the ordinance currently handles them.

Staff does have some concerns regarding the text amendment as is, as it is written today. There is concern about potential nuisances for neighboring properties, noise and wind, uh the need to do some tree clearing for safe flight paths or potential effects on adjacent properties, what that tree clearing might do. I mean just the lack of precedent. Um there is no one in the region that is doing this the way this is this amendment is being proposed. The 2040 plan has a land use recommendation LU1.1 that says that we should protect and enhance the unique character of Huntersville's neighborhoods by using planning tools to safeguard from potentially negative impacts of development and redevelopment. So staff does not believe that this tax amendment as it is currently written aligns with the 2040 community plan. So due to the affformentioned concern, staff recommends denial of the request. However, if there is a desire for there to be helis stops allowed in the general res residential district, staff does recommend that they be allowed by a special use permit, which would allow them to be regulated and considered on a case-byase basis. This will be uh considered for final action on December 16th. And with that, I'll take any questions you may have for me. And the applicant is here as well.

Okay, great. Thank you. questions for staff. So the talk about the case by case basis, right? So if we were to approve this tonight, you're saying anybody could just put a heel stop in their yard as long as they fell in whatever requirements we put on this motion. They were zone GR and they met the four conditions. Correct. Yeah. And yeah, I love that. And did we ever get a distance from where the applicant is landing from the nearest neighbor?

I believe the applicant has that in his presentation. Okay, perfect. That a little bit. All right, that's it. I have a question. Um, how I've seen these on the lake. If you I'm going to say a landing pad in the in the lake. Is that out of the technically the zoning district since it's off the property line? It would be in Duke falls under Duke's jurisdiction. So, that's an option, I guess, or it could be. It's it's or it's out of the town's uh review maybe. [snorts] Yes.

I I wouldn't say it's out of the town's jurisdiction. We do issue dock permits. Um we do have zoning requirements for dock permits. um it has a ramification in some of the distance and setback concerns and so there's there's a little bit of relief there in in that regard but I don't think at this time we'd be able to say it's out of our jurisdiction. I don't I don't think that's the case. So so there there are there there would be a way I mean whatever that is I don't know what that would be but if we build a dock out in the lake and it met whatever criteria you have that is an option. It would be a more beneficial variable for the location for sure.

Okay, that's that's all I had. Thanks, Brand. Other questions? You want to have the applicant present? Thank you. If you could uh state your name and address for the record at the podium and

uh Art Todd Hersshfeld uh 16220 Stenson Cove Road in Huntersville. Um, thank you uh thank you board incoming commissioners town for this opportunity. I will definitely address the questions that you guys asked as well. Um, so who am I and why am I here? Um, I'm Todd Hersshfeld as I mentioned originally from Virginia. My wife and I graduated from Virginia Tech in 200 here like many race car drivers thinking I was going to be the next Jeff Gordon. That didn't happen. So, I built my business just up here on Bailey Road, uh, as many of you might drive by. I employ about 80 employees here locally, uh, at Hersville Marketing Solutions. In 2012, I got my fixed wing license for flying airplanes. And then, um, our family has a residence up in Banner Elk, North Carolina, and we were significantly hit with Hurricane Helen. And as an aviator as well as a local up there, I was quick to jump in with action and surrounded by helicopters uh during this uh rescue mission and was in awe and so I wanted to get my rotary license and I did so last year. That's my helicopter and myself in Banner Elk. Um a lot of folks I learned last night think when they hear helicopters they think big military, you know, Apaches and such. Um definitely different. uh that's not what I'm looking to fly. Um so this is an R44. Uh and I am seeking to occasionally uh land my helicopter on my property that I've purchased back in 2011. Um and if made some regulation or some requests at as such as uh you know landing during the daylight hours and so forth. Have no interest in commercial use. Have no interest in fueling or maintenance or anything like that on my property.

Um, as Becca mentioned, the current zoning is a helystop shall be permitted as an accessory in the campus districts and special purpose districts provided it complies with all FAA regs. Um, and I am well, I should say I'm requesting the proposed language as mentioned um, a minute ago. I did learn a lot last night about special use permits I guess this morning. So, we'll get to that. But, um, uh, as of last night, my request was, uh, proposing a small specific addition to allow heli stops in conditional use in general residential. I think this is an important slide. I did a lot of homework, had a lot of conversations with the FAA to make sure that I was in full compliance before even coming to the board with this. And the FAA confirmed that helicopters may land safely on private property if no hazard people or property. Um uh I am also not in an HOA. Um the FAA states no careless or reckless operation. Pilot is fully responsible for safe operation and noise obainance guidance in residential areas. Um there are already several helellipads uh as Mr. Henson mentioned on the lake that coexist peacefully within their neighborhood. So, this is hopefully proof that they can uh sorry that proof that they can actually uh be built. This, I would say, as it was pointed out last night by the board is an extreme difference. I'm not looking to attach a dock to a structure like this, but this is a beautiful picture and I thought that it uh it looked good in my presentation, quite frankly. Um but uh this is uh this does open up other conversation based on your question that I'll get to here in in a little bit regarding Duke. Um, my house represents the yellow star at the bottom in Huntersville. There is about eight

heliport helipads that I am aware of in within two miles of my house. Um, I know there's more, but these are the ones that I am aware of. As far as Mr. Hendrick, two miles away, the one I just showed you in the previous picture, Sid Morse, is about a mile 1.8 8 all the way down to less than a mile at 4,442 ft at the Atkins residence across the Cove from me. Um, obviously, you know, these guys are multi-millionaires and billionaires and I'm not, but I don't think that's a prerequisite. What I'm looking to do is utilize the safety of uh of the entrance that I have into my cove. And I think it's important to say I would never start my landing this far out the cove. This is just to show for demonstration purposes how much room I have. Um, while helicopters rarely use a runway, I'm sure you've seen that it's just for, you know, just for context, most runways are about 75 to 100 ft wide. I would have at least 100 feet at our smallest point between two existing docks. Not not homes or or sides of the canal, but if at the smallest, it would be 100 feet. And my property line has 273 feet of shoreline that uh would be using for my flight path and landing. Um, one of the things that I completely understand and why I'm probably standing here tonight since one of my neighbors uh found out that I was looking to build a sports court that would also service as a helipad. Um it is also very different uh when you look at the continuous um noise that comes from a helicopter. A helicopter produces about 80 to 85 dB for less than a minute, a minute and a half. I timed my last departure on Saturday to see how long it took me from fire up sound to actual

departure and it was about a minute and a half of consist of consistent noise at that same decibel. Um, and then as I mentioned last night while I was going through my slides, my neighbor about three houses down was blowing leaves for about an hour and a half and I could not not hear it. And I promise you now that you guys go home, I apologize. You're going to hear your neighbors and you're going to think of this when you hear them blowing weeds uh or blowing leaves. Um, but anyway, this is just an interesting slide that kind of showcases the amount of uh noise that comes from just household equipment versus the amount of noise that comes from a helicopter. And again, it's it's important to point out, you know, I'm about a minute and a half on the ground and then about two and a half minutes in uh during landing. Um, this is just uh from the FAA advisory circular 9136. Um, lost my slides. Oh, they're not up there.

Oh, there we go. Um, so what I was asking for in this amendment was to allow case byase town review, continue to require FAA and town compliance, permit limited uh uh permit limited private use, and keep community oversight. This amendment was not a request to allow automatic helipads anywhere in Huntersville, override any neighborhood controls or HOA, permit commercial operations, or change the character of the neighborhood. Uh there these I I understand that there's some letters that were sent in my support of this request. These three specifically are from my next door neighbors that are directly next to me and would probably be the most affected. My house represents the red dot. Uh, I'm sorry, the red marker and then the three letters that I'm aware of are the three circles on either side of my house and then across the street. Um, so I did take a little bit of time to address the issues that Becca pointed out. Um, and potential noise ordinance, I'm sorry, noise. Um, mine is uniquely position, my lot is uniquely positioned over the open water and completely unobstructed on my approach and departure. Um, I have really no interest and really no way to go over a house structure unless I literally went straight up with the helicopter and then turned over. Not to say you can't do it. That's what helicopters are for. But that's not safe and it is important to be safe as the FAA pointed out. Um, there's not a whole lot of wind that comes from rotor wash. Uh, in my size helicopters, there is rotor wash. there is wind, but it's not like aggressive that you would feel it from a neighbor two houses over or even one house over. Um, so, uh, that's important to, uh, state. Um, I totally agree with the tree clearing concerns and I have no interest in removing any trees from the tree

location between my lot and the and the lake as proposed. Um, I also, um, would I do have trees that would have to be removed to build the pickle ball or the, uh, the sports court. Um, but I could also say, "Hey, this is a bad idea. I should just sell the lot and somebody's going to put a big house on there and a lot more trees are going to be taken out if somebody was to put a house on that lot as opposed to a sports court." Um the other concern was the lack of precedent. I guess when zoning use and uncommon with uh within a town like this one, uh planning boards routinely look at adjacent municipalities with similar uh residential patterns. Um as we pointed out earlier, Huntersville is is the only one on the lake that has these uh this this similar uh situation. Denver, uh, Lincoln County, uh, Cornelius, uh, Morsville, they all have helipads. And I I mean, I guess you could say I got unlucky straw there by being literally a quarter of a mile from Lincoln, but it is what it is. Um, and then, um, to me to to reference the the the, uh, the situation where only, uh, one local municipality allows for residential heli stops being Charlotte. Uh, as Becca said, this is not an applesto apples comparison at all. Charlotte rules are driven by dense blocks and tight setbacks. They're not flying over water. If you think about it, they're flying over homes, flying over buildings, and then hence the 400 foot uh setback. Um, not aligned with the 2040 plan. Um, sorry, I'm having some problems here.

There we go. Thank you. Um yeah, I I I I I think um my proposal includes built-in protections to uh that exceed the ordinances, daylight use only, limited frequency, uh minimal tree uh removal, no tree removal from the tree save area, and safe operations over the water paths. And then um as I mentioned earlier, uh I learned a lot. This is I'm a fish out of water if you can't tell up here guys. Um the town should consider special use permit. Absolutely. Uh my intention is simple to do this the right way with full transparency and in partnership with the town. Um I learned a lot about special use permits. I learned a little bit there in the last presentation from the board here and um you know I'm open to ensuring that the request is reviewed and in an appropriate way and um I just appreciate everybody uh giving me the opportunity to present tonight and I'll take all your questions.

Thank you Mr. [clears throat] Henson. I'll answer the question. Duke Power does control the lake line um as mentioned. Um but they have a rule that only allows one dock per primary residence and I obviously um thought about that because that would be the easy way out. That would be the easy button to some extent. Um but I I do already have a dock and it would have to be significantly changed. And I kind of looked at it as I bought that um halfacre in 2011 and I haven't done anything with it and I really don't want to put a neighbor over there quite frankly. So I was going to utilize it for this use and to build my kids a pickle ball court.

Okay. Thank you. Questions for the applicant? Actually not the applicant staff though. um as he was going through his presentation talking about the FAA, like what prevents somebody from just landing a helicopter on their land today and not calling a helicop like technically someone would be doing that is non-compliant with our ordinance and we wouldn't initiate code enforcement. So, so our ordinance does specifically say you cannot land a helicopter on

I can answer that and I've been trying to find a way around it. I'm just trying to understand like you know if So, it's it's a use issue. Okay.

Um, our ordinance specifies uses that are permitted in certain zoning districts. Um, and so we wouldn't know about it unless we know about it, right? But if we learned that operation of a helella stop outside of the spec specified use restrictions were was taking place, that would be a zoning violation. So, right now, as as Becca mentioned, it's it's in the SP district and it's for certain uses um emergency facilities and and campus campus institutional district. So, it would it would be a violation once we knew about it. That's correct.

So, it's more of the regularity of it versus just a one-time use. It's like if somebody just decided to fly in to see me at my property and land in my backyard, is that still a zoning violation even though I don't have a helicad? No, that's correct. That's it. It would not be a violation that like for instance, if you know, emergency vehicles, they fly out basically when it when it's needed. you know, fire operations kind of do the same thing, but having a pad that's um you know, used approved by the FAA as a pad to take off and on a regular basis, right? But in any event,

all right, I'm good for now. Um, and full transparency, uh, actually went to the FAA first with this and their suggestion was exactly what you said, not to not to wrestle any feathers with the town and build a pad and because you're legally in compliance with the FAA. And I felt like this was going to be a pretty significant investment. The last thing I want to do was upset the town. So, I came forward to the town and said, "This is what I plan to do." Um, I also told some of my neighbors like, "Hey, this is what I'm doing." My neighbors have been asking me for fly, can I fly their kids around? If they ever had an emergency, could I fly them, hypothetically, could I fly them to the hospital, which I could, and the FAA allows that. However, one of my neighbors who I uh is not happy about uh anything in life decided to make a formal complaint. And that is what kind of triggered me learning about how do I do this? How do I get this going before we move any kind of, you know, shovels?

So, after you've heard the conversation that we had about, you know, blanket changes versus special use, 100% aligned. I I'm not asking to open up Pandora's box. I did not know was an option until last until this morning. I'm I'm not going to support it. Not because I don't like you or your plan. I actually do, but I'm not I'm not ready to open that up for the rest of the town. I mean, you have some very specific um pluses on like your side of things, but not everybody's going to have that. So, so I didn't know if that was something that you would

Yes, ma'am. I I I learned about that and Becca educated me on it this evening um as well as some other folks. And if I would have known that, I would have probably taken that track originally. But correct me if I'm wrong, I still have to go through this process to go. Sorry.

Uh, so the board, and Emily, correct me if I'm wrong, the board does have the authority to make the recommendation to the town board stating we recommend approval of a text amendment allowing Helellis stops in the general residential district through a special use permit. You have that ability and the board has that ability as well. and the applicant has expressed that he would be okay with that. He would be willing to go through a special use permit process if that was um what was the pleasure of the boards. So we can [clears throat] we don't have to start over. We can start right here and just amend whatever recommendation we make to put the special use in here. Take take GR out and all that other stuff. Absolutely.

Okay. I've got a quick question more out of curiosity for the applicant. So, you said no fueling and no mechanical work, right? So, you land at your house safely, uh, and you realize that there's a mechanical issue at that point. Do you bring in a trailer, haul it somewhere to get it worked on? Yeah. Actually, you you probably don't see it that often, but most helicopters are transported if it's over a three-hour flight, most helicopters are transported on trailer. And then fueling, you land and you're out of fuel.

Mostly I Oh, no. You can't. you you never get in within an within a half hour of reserve just from flight safety. Um but I am maybe five minutes from Lincoln County as far as fueling goes. Lincoln County Airport. Okay. And 8 minutes from Concord Airport. So fueling's never really been an issue, but you that's one thing in any kind of aviation you don't really want to take a chance on, right? It's a fuel gauge,

right? So, um, you talked about rotor wash not being a a big concern or is maybe an overblown concern. Um, can you get any more specific as to, you know, your craft as opposed to larger personal craft and, you know, like how far out are we talking before we actually do start to affect neighboring properties or or, you know, in pure distance? I'm just trying to think for other applications.

I I don't want to make up an answer. I don't know the exact um I'm sure Robinson could give me some data on that. Robinson helicopter, the manufacturer. Um but I currently land um on a 12 by 12 pad um that is literally 5 feet 10 feet to the hanger with the hanger open and nothing's blowing around in there. So that doesn't mean that the rotor wash is is getting outside my 33 foot diameter of the rotor wash. It is, but it can't be more than maybe 50 feet. I'm again I'm guessing

I could probably get the specific data for you from Robinson, right? But bigger personal helic, you know, we're talking a bigger radius at that point. Yes, sir. In theory. In theory. Yes. If you went to like like Mr. Hendrick has like the big Augusta or something like that. $10 million helicopter ball game. Right. So, this is just a question kind of for the board. Is that something that we need to discuss in the amendment if we're going to do a special use? Do we need to limit the helicopter size? I don't know if it's the time to do that right now. Is I was just going to ask the question. I don't think that my space would accommodate a

No, I guess it could. I take that back but sorry and staff I guess this is not the time to say well if we do this this we'll approve a special I think our decision is if we recommend the special use permit the conditions are going to come later through your all's uh research I assume

yeah getting into those details details would be through the special use permit process um if if the the board wanted to do a special use permit process for it. It would need to be a different application because we didn't advertise for this to create a special use permit use through this specific application, but the town could at the end of it um direct staff to put together a tax amendment to do that.

Yeah. And I guess I was saying this is not the time to say, "Okay, we're going to limit the size of the helicopter to this this distance from here if you're on that comes at a later time." And that's one of the reasons why staff kind of recommended that because there's so many different variables that come into play for so many different situations and locations that you can't really do it. You can't have a laundry list in the ordinance of okay if you do X Y Z A B C D that does it doesn't make sense. There's too many variables. So the special use permit process would allow all those things to get worked through and conditioned. While you're up there, can you I hate to see wasted resources. Can you tell me why we didn't do some coaching on the front end to steer it towards special use rather than just accept this and ultimately deny? Sorry, I just I I not involved in the the the preliminary discussions in that regard. Uh there was some discussion with staff about um having that maybe as a possibility. So, you know, in the future we can have, you know, more discussions on that, but um yeah, I I I can't answer that question definitively.

Okay. Thanks. I realized there was some coaching, but I appreciate that. Todd, can I ask you a couple more? Can you go back one slide? Sure. So, this, you know, have to graphically look at the stuff. So, it's this lot. I guess this is the lot you're talking No, here. Let me let me show you. Sorry. The lot we're talking about is actually in this photo, the red the red line there. And the area is between the my house and that yellow circle to above it. The it's about a half acre in between.

Oh, okay. That wooded area. That's the wood. How much um lakefront footage does that particular lot have? The lot to the left has about 100 foot and then my lot to the right has about 170 ft. And the the the vacant lot or whatever you purchased, you said it was a half an acre basically.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, I think I think that's all I had. Thanks.

And I'll say just to your previous question to um the staff when I first uh was reaching I didn't and I was you know I didn't know what I was doing. I reached out to Brian Richards and and he's like we've never had this kind of request before either. So I felt like we were kind of learning on it together. But, um, when I learned this morning that I had an option of the special use, I'm all on board and I'll do whatever I need. I mean, I welcome anybody that would like to either come out to my property and walk it with me. I will fly you around the lake and we can land there and you can see what it looks like. Um, but I I love that option and I'm again not trying to open up, you know, doors box for anybody that wants to buy helicopters.

Sure. We're just trying to protect somebody else that comes along and and and wants to put one because having especially in GR and residential it makes it unusual. Do we have um is any helellipads in rule or is this the any residential helellipad ordinance at all? No. Not even a farmer that could

yellow stone it out to his property. Okay. Okay. And uh it was mentioned as well uh last night uh six of these that I know of are actually on the docks. There is two that are on property that are landing on property. You don't legally need to have a quote unquote heli stop or a H or any of that stuff legally by the FAA to land a helicopter on private property. You just have to have permission from private owner. Other questions? Let's go.

I was as we read the room here, I was just going to maybe ask staff to give us some direction or path of how we I get the sense that we all believe the special use permit is probably the path to go. Is it do you recommend us denying this? How do we how do we get to the point where he can proceed with the special use permit is what I'm trying to Yeah. went down. So, it it the recommendation would be deny,

but to ask staff to work with the applicant to redo an application allowing a special use permit. So, another option would be that you all make a recommendation to deny the request for the amendment as written with the recommendation to ask the town board to direct staff to create a special use permit category through a staffdriven uh text amendment. If that makes sense, you could make that recommendation if you did not want to require the applicant to submit as separate text amendments. So sorry between option one and two there. Option one the special use permit is more generalized and option two it would be more specialized towards helipads.

The text amendment as currently drafted would create a byite use with conditions meaning that it would be by rightight in that particular zoning district as long as certain conditions were met. However, if we don't want to allow it by right with conditions and make it more of a case-bycase basis determination, we instead of making it by right with conditions should create a special use permit category. So that that would be a quasi judicial determination that the board would ultimately decide meaning the town board and that would be a purely case byase basis. Um, and what I am suggesting is if you don't want to deny this request for the text amendment as written and then create another application for the petitioner. What you could do is you could deny the text amendment right now make a recommendation to deny it. But with the recommendation on your motion for denial that the town board direct staff to then create a staffdriven text amendment to create a special use permit category.

Would that be quicker? That's putting the burden on staff and that way staff can invest the time to research what types of um requirements that would be most appropriate for the special use permit category as well. And that way the applicant who doesn't have the experience that the planning staff has in creating special use permit categories would not be the one coming up with these types of requirements. Okay. To create a staff-driven what did you say?

Special use permit category. So that way we're basically putting the burden on planning staff to research and come up with the requirements for that particular special use permit category rather than the applicant.

One, you know, question more for not for you, but it more for impact of the after we do this. Should he just not withdraw this application so as not to trigger? could withdraw it right now, but the point of the recommendation for denial is to add on the recommendation about staff creating it because if he withdraws it right now before you make a decision, it kind of just goes away. Mine goes after after the board makes its decision then withdraw so as not to trigger the next step in

well well so what I'm saying is that instead of denying it and that's it deny it but let the town board know that you're also recommending that the town board direct staff to create a staffdriven text amendment because if it's denied he could come back because that would be a substantially different type of text amendment. it' be for a special use permit category rather than a conditional well not conditional I'm sorry by [clears throat] right use with conditions so it's a little different I'm trying to say that this is a way to give the board your recommendation with your denial motion sure somebody want to take a stab at that

I'll give it a shot [laughter] as long as you can as long as you can as long as you can have some amendments ments for me, please. [laughter] In considering the proposed amendment TA2510, the planning board recommends denial based on the amendment being inconsistent with a number of critical issues. However, we do recommend the town board to direct staff to create a staff-driven special use category. The end

for this for hella stops in residential zoning prop residential districts stop. [laughter] Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Michael. Okay, Michael did. Okay, discussion. Good job. The person that usually makes it starts it with discussion. Again, reading the room here, I think we all see that this applicant's situation is very unique and I think as a board, even as a town that we ought to try to work with residents to come up with a [clears throat] solution for something they want to do that's not impeding on other people and I think this is a good situation. That doesn't mean that this is a done deal, but I think it's at least a path for him to be able to take that he can hopefully accomplish what he wants to.

Yeah, I'll go along with that. This is this is not unlike the um uh solar panel deal we used to have under special use with new technology to us. We didn't know what we were looking at, so we put it in special use and then we took it out eventually. So, and we need this cuz, you know, this form of travel is probably going to get here before the red line does. So, [laughter] we're all we're all going to need some kind of regulation on this. I think this is the right way to do it. It it wasn't headed the right way for me because the proximity to the neighbors, although you had their consent that they they won't always be the neighbors and I saw the 400 feet and I said half an acre, there's no way you can get 400 ft. So, I'm sure when the special use permit goes to that process, they'll have some kind of buffer built in there that'll make me feel better about that. But yeah, I'm good with it.

Anybody else? Want to just point out one other thing that any text amendment, even if it's driven by staff, still has to go through the normal process. There will be advertisements. There will be a public hearing and there will be a recommendation from you all and then the final approval by the town board. So, it's not guaranteeing anything. But again, I appreciate the coaching because I think it does it kind of keeps the subject alive now. It goes before the town board and they hopefully can see where we went and I think it's the correct path.

I too appreciate the coaching. I mean, this has been a lot of information for me over the last 24 hours. So, I appreciate your time, everybody's time, and uh and willingness to work with me to try and make it work if we can. Yeah. Thank you. Uh, anybody else? Discussion, take a vote. All those in favor of the motion, those opposed. Unanimous. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, moving on. 4 C. Consider recommendation on petition TA25-12, a request by the Town of Huntersville Planning Department to amend articles 4.9 and 8.16 of the zoning ordinance.

Thank you very much. Again, this is for text amendment 2512, which amends articles 4.9 and 8.16 of the zoning ordinance, which primarily addresses detached garages. This is a town initiated text amendment currently. So this addresses in article 4.9 two different sections of article 4.9. Currently article 4.9.3 states that a detached garage can only be located in the rear yard. The amendment will add a reference to 8.16 which will allow detached garages in other yards with restrictions which we will come back to that. Article 4.9.7 states that the sideyard setback is 12 feet in the rural zoning district. So this is merely a housekeeping item. Um there was a previously approved text amendment that changed the side setback in rural to 8t in article 3 and it was just missed a reference was missed in article 4. So this is just a housekeeping item to make sure it's consistent across the entire zoning ordinance. And this is the the changes that would be made within the zoning ordinance. Then article 8.16.7. So it addresses attached and detached garages. So for the attached garage portion, it currently requires garages for more than two cars to either be detached and located in the rear yard or in the rear or rear loading if attached to the side of the structure. So, this amendment will just strike through that verbiage. And then for detached garages, it only allows for detached garages to be placed in the rear yard currently. This text amendment would allow for detached garages to be placed in any yard as long as the lot is 5 acres or larger and the structure can't be seen from the road. So, smaller lots, lots without proper screening would still be required to have their detached garages

in the rear. This would just be for large lots with a lot of tree coverage to have detached garages in any yard. Again, this is what the the changes would look like in the ordinance. Staff believes that this text amendment is consistent with the 2040 community plan as there is a land use recommendation that states to continue to emphasize form and flexibility in development regulations. We believe this does that. And with all of that, staff does recommend approval of this text amendment. and final board um final action, excuse me, will be taken by the board on December 16th. And I'll be happy to take any questions you may have. And the applicant is obviously the town. So, thank you. Any questions?

Go back a couple slides. I just have a a quick question uh on one more couple more. Are you there? Yeah. So, you're saying an attached garage that has more than two bays can't be on the front of the house and face the street currently. Yes, correct. If it is for more than two cars, it has to be either detached or located in or detached in the rear or located on the side. And we're taking that away. Correct.

Okay. Because I feel like I've drive by a lot of houses that have that. [laughter] That was my only question. I feel like that's fairly common, but All right. But we're getting rid of that. Yes. All right. Correct. Are there any other requirements that we're putting on it other than getting rid of? I mean, you can just build a threecar garage however you want. Now do you want to as long as it's attached to your house with a 15t breezeway? So [laughter]

So for for the attached and single family home um staff has kind of taken the handsoff approach for single family home architecture and building design um just because the the state has restricted it more. And so we have, to your point, there are three um car garages that are front loading now. So that section of the amendment kind of clarifies that and and finishes it from a a planning perspective. So we don't have to regulate anything in regard to single family homes. Got it.

Anybody else? Someone have a motion prepared? I do. Yeah, I got a motion. Uh, in considering proposed amendment TA25-12, the planning board recommends approval based on the amendment being consistent with the zoning ordinance, aligns the town zoning ordinance with the state statute, and allows design flexibility for large lots without altering urban design standards. Second. Second. Discussion. No. No discussion for me. No discussion for me.

No discussion. All those we'll take a vote. All those in favor? Those opposed? Unanimous. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Next case is item 4 D. Consider petition B2501, a request by Shan and Anna Townsen for a variance from article 3.23D3 setback requirements. This will be a zoning variance. So it's got a um [clears throat] excuse me a different process. So bear with me. Um we'll get started. Okay, we will begin the quasi judicial hearing for petition V2501 request by Shan and Anna Townsen. This is a quasi judicial hearing which means the board must base its decision only on competent material and substantial evidence. Only partings only parties withstanding may fully participate in this hearing. This includes the applicant, the property owner, the local government, and anyone who can demonstrate special damages. Special damages must be particularized, separate, and distinct from the public at large. Proximity alone is not enough to establish standing. Artists may present evidence, call witnesses, and make legal arguments. Others may be allowed to speak as witnesses, but may not examine witnesses or call their own. Witnesses must swear or affirm their testimony and testimony must be factual. Personal opinions are not permitted unless given by a qualified expert. Expert topics such as property values or traffic impacts require expert witnesses must explain the factual basis their opinions. Now, we'd like to um recognize the parties. the parties with standing. Um the board recognizes the applicant and the property owners as parties. Is there anyone else anyone else believes

that they may have standing to participate as a party may come forward and briefly state how this project affects you differently from the general public. If you do not wish to participate as a party, please wait to come forward until after we have identified the parties withstanding. So, I'm assuming at this time the applicant, if y'all could come forward, please. And before we start, you you all are the applicant and the homeowners, correct? Okay. So, that identifies so we we accept that obviously as the party and standing. Um, are there any other witnesses? I'm assuming they're not parties withstanding. Um, do you all have any witnesses that you plan on calling other than yourselves?

We thought we'd be assisted by Becca. I'm not sure that's not what I'm hearing.

Okay. Um, so there no other individuals who wish to testify as witnesses. Um [snorts] now what we'll do is um we're going to since you all will be testifying you have to testify under oath. Um so if you could raise your right hand and we will swear or affirm you including staff staff that wishes to speak. Please respond loud. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.

Thank you. The parties in this case are entitled to an impartial board. A board member may not participate in this hearing if she or he has a fixed opinion about the matter, a financial interest in the outcome of the matter, or a close relationship with an affected person. Do any board members have a conflict of interest to disclose?

I don't. Hearing none, we'll move on. The parties to the case have rights for an ex exparte communication to be disclosed. Exparte communication is any communication about the case outside of this hearing. That may be email communications as well as conversations with parties, staff or the general public. Does any board member have any exparte communications to disclose? And hearing none, based on these disclosures, does any board member or any party wish to object a board member's participation? Done. staff report. Get through this. Now call on the planning staff to present staff report. [snorts] Thank you very much. Or should I say hello Yeah. Awesome. Thank you very much. This is for

variance request 251 for a property located at 10302 Saw Timber Court. The applicants are Shawn and Anna Townsen. They are also the property owners and they are requesting a variance from article 3.2. 2.3D3 uh to allow them to have their home encroach 2 feet into the front yard setback. Article 3.2.3D3 determines setbacks for properties in the GR district, which is what their home is zoned as, if a subdivision or preliminary plan does not dictate them. Their home is located in the Hampton Ridge subdivision. Therefore, the setbacks that were determined by the subdivision plan back in the late 90s are um what they have to follow. So, as you can see here in the um in the screenshot of their subdivision plat, they have a front yard setback of 30 ft, a sideyard setback of 15 ft, and a rear yard setback of 35 ft. So, the subject property is zone general residential, as you can see from the context map here on your screen. The home was built in 1998. It is located on a corner lot which is also located on a culdesac and the applicants purchased the property on March 26th of this year. So at the time of the purchase of the home the applicants did their due diligence and they had a survey done which showed that their property had a twoft encroachment into the front yard setback. As you can see from the red arrow right there pointing, it says 28 feet right there. Meckllinburgg County at the time of the the I'm sorry, the permit in the late 90s. At the time of that, the zoning inspections were done by Meckllinburgg County on behalf of the town. So, it was not the town that was doing the inspections and the permitting at the time. Um, this variance is being requested to bring the property into compliance with the zoning ordinance. So, there are four findings of fact that

have to be met. All four of them have to be met to approve a variance. So, we're going to go through them one at a time. The first is an unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. Staff finds that the strict application of the ordinance would require the garage to be to be partially removed, foundation and all, and staff considers that to be an unnecessary hardship for something that's been constructed for almost 30 years. The front setback is measured if the from the if you take it from the front property line between the two side lot lines which is how it is defined in the Huntersville zoning ordinance. So it's a little confusing as you can see on the left over there. That's the subdivision plat from the original Hampton Ridge subdivision plat. The right of way curves when the lot itself does not actually curve. So their front setback bumps out and so when it was being permitted it must have just been missed because it was a weird curve in the ride ofway. And so according to Polaris if you look from the garage to the front yard line is almost 40T. So they have met the 30foot front yard setback. It's just the original subdivision plat had a funky curve. if I can keep doing this motion that many more times [snorts] and staff does find that this requirement has been met. The second is that the hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property such as location, size or topography. Again, we want to emphasize that the required front setback is met if you if you measure it from the front yard line to the garage. The setback. The zonoting ordinance defined setbacks as a minimum distance required by this ordinance or established by recorded plat between the street rideway blah blah blah. The curvature of the front setback made it more difficult to measure accuracy during construction. So

staff believes that the peculiarity here, if you will, is the fact that the ride ofway curves in a way that is not consistent with the actual property itself. So staff does find that this requirement has been met. The third is that the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The placement of the home happened in 1998 long before the current property owners purchased it. Um so staff does find that this requirement has been met. And finally, the requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance such that public safety safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. Again, the intent of the ordinance is for there to be a 30- foot front setback if measured from the front property line, the true front property line to the garage. That is met as they have about 39 feet of clearance. Um staff is not aware of any safety issues or complaints that have come from neighboring properties regarding this encroachment. So, we believe that it is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance and that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved. So, staff does find that this requirement has also been met. So staff does recommend approval of this variance because we believe that all four um all four have been met and just as you're considering everything I just wanted to have that up there for you the four to look at again

and with that I'll take any questions you may have for me. Thank you. Questions for staff in the moment? I got an obvious one. How did this come to light? So, the property owners were doing their due diligence. They were being good home buyers and had a survey done on their property which then showed Whoops. There was a clerical error from way back in the day. And so, they are just coming forward to make right something from when the home was originally permitted. So, really the survey caught it and called it out that it was a violation.

Yep. Any more questions for staff? We can call the applicant. Okay. If the applicant would like to speak, um you are welcome to um if you could please state your name and address again. Um yeah, and state that say we we did the survey while buying the home. I'm sorry. Could you could you state restate your name and address? Anna Town. Thank you. Thank you. I don't hear very well. So, yeah, I'm very deaf. Yeah, continue.

Address 10302 Saw timber court, Hunterville. Thank you.

Um, okay. So, what what I wanted to say is we purchased the home in March and we decided to do the survey even though actually we didn't have to. I don't remember the reason why we were excused from the survey, but I told my husband, let's just go ahead and do it. Um, and this is how this encroachment was uh discovered and uh it was a headache. I can tell you, you know, we were close to closing on the home to find out that I mean, all that language is foreign to me. I've never heard I'm not even, you know, from US. I'm from Bulgaria originally. So we had to go through a lot to figure out what it really is. Is this really a big problem? How can we fix it? So we decided to proceed with the purchase of the house. But since we already done the work, I told my husband, let's try to close the topic and no need my children someday to have to deal with it or me and my husband to have to go through the same uh 5 10 15 years down the road if we want to sell the home. uh and it may be an issue that it's across all homes that are built in this community. Um but I know it's going to come out in the future. So that's my request is to to get that variance so we don't you know we we have a closure on this topic. We don't have to deal with it again.

Okay. Thank you. Um would you like to call anybody else? Would you did would you like do you need anybody else to speak? Another witness. Are you good? You don't bring any witnesses? I don't know. But I think we have a lot of witnesses here. Um,

does the board have any questions for the applicant? Okay, bear with me. Okay. Parties withstanding have an opportunity to offer any rebuttal or closing arguments. As a reminder, please focus your response on legal arguments. New or clarifying evidence. Please avoid any mere reputation of the evidence we've already heard and I'm assuming there's none of that. Um, we'll begin with the applicant. I will call any other parties standing. Would the Would the applicant like to make a rebuttal? I'm assuming you all are okay. So, keep moving. And closing arguments. Each party may now take a closing argument if they so choose. The applicant may choose to go first or last. Do you all have any additional things you need to say in closing? Or the town?

Okay. Now for the board. Does any party or board member believe a continuence is warranted? Is there a motion to continue on? This is where we will actually need a motion to um and a second to continue on move into the delivery. I knew I would mess it up. Okay. And does the board have any further questions before we deliberate? Hearing none, we will now begin deliberation. The evidentiary hearing remains open for clarifying questions. We can deliberate to determine if all four conditions have been met. her with

I strongly believe they have been met. I would so too. Yes. [laughter] Thank you. Um okay. Well, check. And is there a motion regarding this request?

Uh Mr. Chairman, uh, in consideration of application v25.01, a request by Sean and Anna Townsen for variance for article 3.1.23.2.3D, the zoning ordinance. Uh, the planning board, I'm sorry, the planning board recommends approval of the variance requested based on the findings that the request meets all of the four criteria outlined in the zoning ordinance for granting this variance. Just want to make sure that you are also including in your motion that you are adopting staff's recommended findings of fact

and amended by adopting all of the findings and facts by the planning department. Thank you. And we're also not recommending approval. I think we are approving. [laughter] It's true. Amend it again by saying that we are approving and not recommending to approve. Thank you. Do you have a second?

Okay, it's time to vote. We've had our discussion. So, all the checklist doesn't say Yeah, it does. Any discussion? I missed a checklist. Welcome to Huntersville. Sorry, this is your first experience. Okay. All those in favor? Those opposed? Thank you. All right. No other business. So, if we have a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn.

Second. All those in favor? Those opposed? We're still done. J.