Planning Board - Regular Meeting

our last trustee planning board member to sit before we get into the public hearings. Sorry, guys. No worries. All right, we're going to move into the public hearing section of the agenda. So, uh if you have not already signed up, if you plan to speak, please do so. Uh there's a signup sheet right there. Um and then if you do get up to speak, please make sure you state your name and address for the record. So we are going to move into public hearing item 4A, Rez 2024-135 Jones Road. Further information provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, board. I am submitting the agenda abstract and supporting documents into the official record of the town. The first item before you tonight is RAZ 202413. It is a resoning requested by Concept 8 Holdings LLC at 305 Jones Road. PIN number 0656842067. This resoning is a total of 4.42 acres from the residential lowdensity zoning district to the residential highdensity conditional zoning district. There is also an LUP amendment requested from the town center residential classification to the multifamily neighborhood classification. Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning map amendment and corresponding land land use plan amendment as they're both reasonable and in the best interest of the public for the following reasons. Number one, although the requested zoning map amendment is not consistent with the 2040 community vision land use plan classification of town center residential, the petitioner has opted to request a change of the land use plan to multif family neighborhood which is compatible with the property's proposed zoning. Number two, the requested zoning district supports infill development and reinvestment in downtown neighborhoods per the 2040 LUP's recommendation policy 2.1 encourage infill development and redevelopment inside town limits. Number three, the requested zoning district supports uh support falls within the LUP's tier 2R infill investment area per the 2040

LUP's recommendation policy 4.1. manage future growth and development in accordance with the pro priority infrastructure investment areas map. Number four, the requested zoning district supports infill development and reinvestment in downtown neighborhoods per the 2040 LUP's recommendation policy 7.2 encourage transitional uses and intensities in and around project boundaries. And number five, the requested zoning district is complimentary to the existing uses in the general vicinity of the subject property and the proposed use and sight specific conditions effectively manage future development of the site. The petitioner is here tonight. Um, and I am also happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Anybody have any questions for staff before we uh we open up the public hearing? Seeing none, at this time we will open up the public hearing and uh allow the applicant to come up and uh speak. Good evening, chairman, members of the board. My name is John Adcock with the Adcock Law Firm in at 202 East Academy Street in Fuway Verina. I represent the petitioner in this matter. Also have here tonight um Jason Meadows and Lewis Hardy who are with RDU Consulting. They were the site designers and designers for this project. The property is located within the Jud Parkway loop. Um, according to the town's land use plan, uh, it calls for a more compact urban type development within the Jud Parkway loop. The current zoning allows for three units per acre. Uh, that in and of itself is not consistent with the TCR land use classification that is there that exists now. Uh, the TCR land use classification that exists now. Um, there is only one zoning district uh, according to the land use plan that is consistent or supported by the TCR, which is the TCR zoning district. Um so my point is that the current zoning is not consistent it's our position is not consistent with the current land use plan in and of itself. Um this land use proposed use

will be uh as again inside the Jud parkway loop. Um it's going to have great pedestrian access to downtown Fuqua Verina South Park also the transit stop that is a south park. Um the Jeff Wells trail the Carol Howard Johnson park and also the Fleming Loop Park. So, there's going to be connectivity with this uh project with all of those uses. The property is 4.42 acres. Um it's a relatively small piece of real estate. It's this is an infield development um inside the Jud Parkway loop. And we're requesting that the land use classification be changed to uh MFN. And according to land use plan, areas for MFN are intended to be generally less than six acres in size. And so this uh is consistent with that aspect of it. One uh aspect of this property I think is a little bit unique is there's no environmentally sensitive features present. There's no blue line streams. Um there's no wetlands. There's nothing of that nature. It's a pretty much a flat piece of dirt. Uh dry dirt. Regarding density, uh as you see in the zoning conditions, uh the petitioner has uh made or agreed to a condition offered a condition that would limit the uh units to 9.28 28 units per acre with for a total of 41 units total. The RHD zoning district which we're requesting to the new zoning classification allows up to 16 units per acre. So the under this condition uh the intensity of the development of this site will be limited to approximately 58% of what would be allowed under RHD. The property lies between Southern Oaks. It's a residential subdivision to the west and Bradford Apartments uh to the east. Um, Southern Oaks is currently zoned RMD. Uh, Bradford Apartments is zoned RHD. Uh, Southern Oaks was a development. The lots were platted in 2008 and 2009. Uh, based on review of

the maps for the lots, those lots range from.14 acre to8 acres. There are a few lots that are larger than that that exceed 2 of an acre, but it's a relatively small lot subdivision. Um, Bradford Apartments was developed in the late 1990s. It contains eight buildings collectively including 58,000 square feet of multif family units and the petitioner's position is that by operation of the density condition offered with this zoning, this project being located between Southern Oaks and Bradford Apartments, it will be an appropriate transition between these two land uses. The use is proposed as town homes. Uh it's going to be a town home project. It's not a multif family project. It's a town home project. Um, with buffers, there's a condition that is offered by the petitioner that would include a 20- foot typeB buffer along the western boundary um, with Southern Oaks. And type B is under the co under the LDO is a semi-opaque buffer. I do want to pass around a map if I can. The map that I handed up is uh book of maps page 2009 page 100007. This is the recorded plat. I'm sorry for the small scale of it. Uh my staff printed that like I had eyes like I did 20 years ago. But um the uh what this the intent of showing this map is this shows the platted lots which are just to the west of this project. And if you look along the western perimeter of Southern Oaks and the northern perimeter, you will see platted a 15- foot opaque landscape easement. So there is a 15 foot wide opaque landscape easement existing along the the eastern boundary of Southern Oaks and the northern boundary. And by installing an additional 20 feet on the current property we're discussing tonight, a type B buffer, there's going

to be approximately 35 ft of buffering uh that is shown between these uses. There's also going to be uh street trees installed, a condition as well um in the alleyways of this project. Um architectural conditions, there are conditions offered. They're pretty extensive, I would suggest. Um, I'll hit the highlights. No vinyl siding allowed except for windows and decorative elements and trim. There's a lot of anti- monotony uh conditions included in this petition. Um, those deal with exterior elevations, roof lines, exterior colors, and actually door colors. Um, we did have a neighborhood meeting and there were approximately 40 well there were 40 property owners provided notice of that meeting. uh that included the homeowners association for southern oaks and spring hill uh which is a a use behind uh this property and the Bradford apartment property manager. There were approximately five properties represented at the meeting. So the petitioner's position is that this proposed uh or this requested reszoning and land use u amendment is consistent with the stated purposes and intent of the LDO. Um this is an infield development within Jud Parkway loop which the land use plan itself calls for more urban compact type development. It also is going to be a very efficient use of public utilities because utilities are readily available um adjacent to the site. U so we would ask that you uh give your consideration to this request and that you recommend approval to the town board and I'm glad to answer any questions as well as uh the designers that are here this evening. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant team before we move forward? Good. Thank you. Thank you. All right. At this time, we'll uh we'll we'll open this up to uh to the public. Um Emu, we have anybody signed up to speak either in favor or in opposition?

Yes. Um we have Susan Morin. Um has none of these individuals have indicated in favor or if you would when you come up, please state your name and address and then if you're in favor or in opposition of the case, please. Good evening. My name is Susan Morren. I live at 627 Madre Pine Drive in Fugquway, of course, and I'm in o opposition. I would like it to remain low density if at all possible. The reason is if you look at the picture on the screen or in what you have in your materials, if you see the five town housing units up in that order Jones and the buffer, that's where three homes exist already. we live and I agree it is flat land where they're proposing but I have a slope in my backyard and which they're going to when the development happens I already have a drainage issue the water's going to even drain further down number one but number two because there is a height variation if you notice they put balconies in the back of the units they're going to overlook right into my backyard hard. Even if with the buffer they'll be able to be looking. I don't understand why we couldn't just keep it the low density, keep it the two houses or three houses per acre. There's great development in the area. And besides that, in addition, just over at the end of my street, they've just been approved 100 units that are town houses. So, I think that, you know, when you look at that piece of land, it's a beautiful piece of land. I agree. But I would love to just keep it at the low

density if at all possible. And if you all feel in favor of something this large, I would ask one other favor. if you could possibly reverse it where all those town houses that go against the properties on um the southern oaks division would be the townhouse is facing where there's already existing homes that are three stories which are the apartments and it would give us a larger buffer um on that side and we would not have the intr intrusion of the, you know, of the people looking over us. We would just have the sides of their homes facing us. Just consideration. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank you. And by the way, I'm not opposed to low density housing. Like, I'm not opposed to y'all building there. I just would prefer it to stay low density. Thank you. Thank you, Eva. Got anybody else signed up? Yes. Donna Crossman. Hey, good evening. Uh, Donna Crossman. I've live I live on Old Spring Hill Lane. Uh, been there about a year and a half now. Uh, I'm not opposed to the building because um, we live in a 40 unit place and it's and it's nice. This is different as it's got different several levels, but um anything that will improve living conditions for folks that need housing, which I think if there would be single homes, it will be prohibitive for mo many people to buy. Um whereas there' be more folks eligible, you know, for

homes. and um Fugquway's I've been very impressed by Fuway and how Verina both of them Fukquay Vina um the the community and uh and I'm hoping that also Jones Road will improve back that way as well uh as they're well the the water towers back there and the and the um and the um tower for the cell but uh and I know they're working on that but um there are some homes back there that I know the builders were talking about possibly bu buying because there is some shady things going on back that way. And I hope that might be taken care of before more folks come and they'll be directly across from those those homes. um that there's things going on and I didn't know that that that was going on but but and the police go back there and they they do monitor but um but it's a a little um alarming at times but I I look forward to it being improved that that area I know because of all the growth going on here. I came from Richmond, grew up in Philly. Whenever there's a piece of land it's it's going to get used because more and more people are coming. So, I'm I'm not opposed to this this many units coming in. Uh and and and they're already working on the infrastructure. So, they'll have the water, they'll have the utilities. Um uh so I I am looking forward to seeing something a nicely improved place. The deer are not going to like it, but you know, but anyway, so thank you so much. We appreciate your comments. Thank you, Eva. Got anybody else? Um, yes, we have Mr. Hire Resier. I can't make out the handwriting.

Res 507 Old Spring Hill Lane. Roger. Yes, Roger. Sorry. Hi, I'm the president of Spring Hill Homeowners out there and we're not opposed of the building of the units. What we're concerned about is the place to the right of it, which I shouldn't say, but it's bad for the town, a few. and I have addressed it to the police department, but they tell me they can't do nothing about it. So, well, sir, all we can do here on this agenda on this board is hear the case that's before us and we if it's not that property, there's nothing we can do at this board. And I noticed that uh they're going to have to widen that road and all, but they came out today and marked the road and then part of our section on the right straight across from 504 and then it went back to the fence. And I would like to know, you know, what are they going to do with that section? Are they going to take that or they going to widen the road that far? Or it's just they just widen the get the line set before they can to see what they're going to do, how far the road's got to come over. Uh so we as a board won't answer questions directly to us. Any of those type of questions, those technical questions, we'll ask you to to contact staff and they can answer those questions for you. We're here to hear whether you are in favor or in opposition of this particular case itself. Yeah, I do. I'm in favor of it because it'll help a lot. But like I say, um I'm glad to see them coming, but like I say, we need to do something with

the other side of the road to make it better to live back there. Yeah. And I would I would ask you to talk to staff about that about future plans and what that that's going to look like. And if you could please state your name and address for the record. I know you my name is Roger Hayes. I live at 507 Old Spring Hill Lane. Thank you very much, Roger. Eva, got any more? Yes, Marie Pagan. Hi, Marie Reagan. 623 Monterey Pine Drive. I'm right on the corner of Jones Road. They will be building directly behind my house. They will be opening Jones Road. We have so many town houses going up J. You have the one new ones down on the bottom of Jud Pathway. You're putting a hundred behind us. You're putting another 40 that you want to put here. You know what Jones Road is like at 4:00, 5:00 in the afternoon? I'm sorry, not Jones Road, Jud Parkway. You can't get up Jud. You can't get up Jed Parkway at 4:00 in the afternoon coming out of Monterey Pine Drive. You cannot make a left. The traffic is way back up over past Red Oak, past Segoia Ridge. It's ridiculous. And now you're bringing in at least another 400 cars. We we got to catch a break. You know, you're going to open up Jones Road now. People are going to be cutting down Monterey Pine Drive, going up Jones Road, cutting up the Leather Light. Something's got to be done. This is way too many homes in this little com. We live in a small community. I'm on the small, what we call the small side of Southern Oaks. Those roads are so narrow and people double, you know, park, one on one side, one on the other. Now, you're going to have cars going up and down, up and down between 4 or 5:00 at night. It's ridiculous already. You go down, you could try to go down Honeyut at that time in the afternoon. The roads are ridiculous. That's 400 more cars. And Susan had a very good point. We have a burm in our yards that we have to maintain. That is the tilt. They're going to pill these houses there. The

water is now going to be running into our backyard. Who's going to take care of that? We have enough flooding issues. So, I'm totally against it. I would like low density. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Thank you, Eva. We do not have anyone else signed up. If there is if there's anybody else that did not sign up that does wish to speak, either in opposition or in favor, please come forward now. All right, seeing none, we're going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for discussion. Uh, does anybody have any questions for staff that they would like clarified? I do have one question about um plans for Jones Road. Is that going to be is that a part of this development improvements? Oh. Oh, ma'am. Ma'am, we're Yeah, we're closed now. Yeah, when we close the public hearing. That's So, this is a local road. So, they will be responsible for building the connections. Right now, on the north side of their parcel, Jones Road does not continue through. So they will be responsible for building the connections um and then also building curb gutter and sidewalk on their side specifically. That's the developer. So it'll connect Monterey Pine Drive to Main Street. Main Street. Okay. All right. Has um has fire and EMS I I'm assuming they like that that aspect of connectivity and being able to get from Jud and get into the neighborhood as another another source. I mean know we generally try to promote 100% I mean I think yes generally speaking connectivity I mean this road was always the the rightway is actually even physically there it just was never constructed right so there are some improvements to Jones Street there Nolan do you have a I was just clarifying but you got clarified uh and I just have one more so well my mind just went completely

blank I'll think of it in a second go ahead I have a question why you're thinking of that. So I know we're looking at an LUP amendment as well. I mean is this the kind of thing that like you know the LUP gets passed and as we stress test it or not really. So in this case um TCR is the the LUP designation and a TCR zoning um would allow for 35 town homes at the eight dwelling units per acre. Um RHD allows the 41. So it it gives them the flexibility to get six more units. That's really the only TCR would allow town homes and and allow a very similar layout. Gotcha. Um and so this is is very consistent with the goals of of the TCR development just using RHD maximum to get that really six units is is the only difference. Pam, can you confirm I think the applicant made a statement that um this a town develop no apartments can be built that there's conditions in there that that protect that? Um there's a master plan. So coming along with this conceptual plan, yes, they have conditioned that there this would be a town home development. So there's no there's no way that it's part of this resoning that apartments could go in here. Nope. And this plan that we're looking at before us is the master plan. So that they have to So I'll take that back. I believe this is this a master plan. Do we have a It looks like this is a concept. So that was going to be one of my other questions is are they tied to this site plan as part of this resoning or can they could they flip it if they wanted to or could they adjust it if they wanted to? So their conditions are are what ties them to the development, right? So it does say townhouse development or row home. So yes, they multif family is not it's not allowable use. So basically it supersedes the ordinance that would normally allow it but they have basically taken that use out between that and the density limits that they're putting on it. Okay. And then um what is the existing land use and zoning of the

neighborhood next door and the apartments? So the apartments are multifamily neighborhood which is what they're asking to be consistent with. Um and then on to the west it's single family neighborhood. What's what's the zoning of Southern Oaks if you don't mind? Mhm. It's RMD. RLD. RDL or RMD. RMD. Okay. So, so it's actually higher than this parcel is currently. Okay. It's medium residential. Okay. Okay. So, you're saying we already have higher higher zoning standards in the Monterey Pine Drive. What is that neighborhood? Southern Oaks. Right. So, Southern Oaks is currently a higher density allowable than this parcel existing. Okay. Yeah. We don't normally have situations where we have RMD then RLD and then RHD, right? When it normally go up in intensity as you go. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Um I think it, you know, traffic's always a big topic of discussion in the town. Um 41 units. Can you talk to what what's going to be required from I mean this is only the first days in the development process like um as far as traffic and TAS and that kind of stuff. Do they even trip the threshold for a TIA? Likely not. So, TAS are generally triggered by 100 peak hour trips or a thousand daily average trips. Um, often that's about a 100 lots. Um, so if they do not, that would come in with preliminary plan. If they don't trip a a traffic impact analysis, they would have to submit a trip generation letter, which basically justifies why they don't trigger a traffic impact analysis. Um the bonus with this I mean if you if you look at the master plan in all likelihood the residents of this development have an access onto Jud Parkway. So um there really is no reason I can imagine that they would be cutting through the adjacent subdivision. They may be cutting taking Jones to get over to Main Street, but in all likelihood they'd be going south to their own Jud Parkway entrance driveway. Right. It's

always hard to know how people are going to people are going to drive, but there is some benefits to to the connectivity as we talked with with EMS and fire and police. Um yeah, luckily the adjacent neighborhood will also have access to to Main Street. Right. Right. There's another another planning there. Um and then also we heard some some concerns with drainage and and how that's worked out. Obviously this being the zoning level. Um how does that get worked out through the process? Right. So that the town does have the authority and manages both um storm water and erosion control. So those um both plans would be reviewed with construction drawing submitt. Um and then there there are state laws basically that control you know you have to maintain the same rate and volume of runoff pre-development and post-development. So they would be required to provide um storm water facilities and erosion control to to control those. All right. And does that it doesn't really matter whether it's single family homes or town homes. That law is still in effect, right? Sure is. Okay, that's all my questions. I don't know if anybody else has any questions or concerns. Storm water is my question, but you answer you asked it. Okay. It's always my favorite topic. You know, it's my favorite topic. Um well, if we don't have any more questions or concerns, um love to entertain a motion. I will make a motion to recommend approval of rez-24-13, a zoning map amendment for 305 Jones Road from the residential low density zoning district to the residential high density conditional zoning district and the corresponding land use amendment from the town center residential classification to the multif family neighborhood classification as it is reasonable and in the best interest. We have a motion second and a second. So before we take vote, does everybody understand what we're voting on? All right. All in favor? All opposed? Motion carries. Move on to item 4B, REZ

2022-03207 Railroad Railroad Street. Further information provided by staff. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again, I am submitting the agenda abstract and supporting documents into the official record of the town. The second item before you tonight is Raz 202503. It's a resoning requested by Molden Watkins Surveying, PA at 207 Railroad Street, pin number 0656992133. This resoning is a total of 0.381 acres from the residential medium density zoning district to the general commercial conditional zoning district. There's also a land use plan amendment request included with this resoning from the town center residential classification to the suburban commercial classification. Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning map amendment corresponding land use plan amendment as it is reasonable and in the best interest of the public for the following reasons. Number one, although the requested zoning map amendment is not consistent with the 2040 community vision land use plan classification of town center residential, the petitioner has opted to request a change of the land use plan to suburban commercial which is compatible with the property's proposed zoning. The requested zoning district supports the LUP's policy. Encourage infill development and redevelopment inside town limits. Number three, the requested zoning district supports the LUP's policy 2.6, encourage commercial development. Number four, the requested zoning district supports the LUP's policy 4.1, manage future growth and development in accordance with priority infrastructure investment areas map. And number five, the proposed conditions offered as part of the petition align with the goals of the 2040 lane use plan and effectively plan for the site's future development potential. Um, petitioners here tonight and I am also available to answer any questions. Thank you, Elissa. James, do I need to pause before I open up the public hearing before all of our board members are back? You can because we still got a quorum. Okay. All right. So, we can keep

on going. All right. Anybody have any questions for staff before we open the public hearing? All right. At this time, we will open up the public hearing and ask the applicant to come forward and give us a a summary. Good evening, Mr. Chair, board members. Wayne Malden with Mald W surveying at 139 North Main Street here in Fugquway and we have put this reszoning petition you have before you together for the uh pooch pad is what we're after. They are trying to expand. Uh the site is where the old fugquay water filter plant been since the 40s I believe. Uh the town operated their utility office out of there for a while. Sold it to some businesses operated there. Uh when the pooch pad people bought it, we discovered that all of a sudden it's own residential. As far as I know, it's never been used for any residential and not in my lifetime anyway. So we are here tonight to ask to reszone it back to a type of use that's been there that has been used for and that will allow the expansion of our property of it in there. If any of you have any questions I'll be glad to try to answer. We have any questions for applicant? Thank you. Thank you. All right, Eva, we have anybody that signed up to speak? We do not. All right. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to sign up to speak either in opposition or in favor that has not done so? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for discussion or questions or motions. Motion to approve of REZ 2025-03, a zoning map amendment for 207 Railroad Street from the residential medium density zoning district to the general commercial conditional zoning district and corresponding land use plan amendment from a town center residential classification to the suburban commercial SC classification as in reasonable and in best interest of the

public for reasons identified by staff. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second before we vote. Everybody know what we're voting on. All right, all in favor? All opposed. That motion carries. We'll move on to public hearing item 4 CE 2025-04 834 Wilbond Road. Further information provided by staff. All right, it's me again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again, I'm submitting the agenda abstract and supporting documents into the official record of the town. The third item before you tonight is RAZ 202504. to request resoning requested by Raleigh Smiles LLC at 834 Wilbond Road, pin number 0657325345. This resoning is a total of 1.3 acres from the residential agricultural zoning district to the residential medium density conditional zoning district. Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning map amendment as it is reasonable and in the best interest of the public for the following reasons. Number one, the requested zoning map amendment is consistent with the 2040 community vision land use plan or the designation of single family neighborhood. The requested zoning district is complimentary to the existing uses in the general vicinity of the subject property and the proposed uses and sight specific conditions effectively manage future development of the site. Number three, the requested zoning district supports the LUP's policy 4.1, manage future growth and development in accordance with the priority infrastructure investments areas map. Um, I believe the petitioner is here tonight and I am also happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Anybody have any questions for staff? All right, at this time we will open the public hearing and if the applicant would like to make statement. Mr. Chairman, John Adcock again. I represent the petition in regards this matter. It's a pretty straightforward uh resoning request. Um the use the

conditions limit this to single family detached only. Um the zoning requested is the same I'm sure there's some different conditions, but it's the same as uh Brier Creek and the other developments escaping me the name of it, but um it's going to be contiguous to uh the same zoning uh district that we're requesting. Again, there's anti- monotony uh standards being offered as well as um exterior elevations and elements architectural controls. And one one aspect I do want to point out, one condition is there will only be one driveway access serving these lots. So, if they get two, three, four lots out of it, I think would be the most on such a small acre small piece of property. Um there's only one access uh they're putting as zoning condition. There would only be one access to Wilpin Road and there would be some type of internal street that would serve the lots that would get to that one access point. I'd be glad to answer any questions if I can. Anybody have any questions for the applicant? Na, we have anybody signed up? We do not. All right. If there's anybody in audience that would like to sign up, please come forward now. Please state your name and address and whether you're in favor in opposition. Hi, good evening. My name is Dan Ford, 1204 Garrow Drive. Um, while I'm not strictly opposed to this proposal, uh, I do have a request for your consideration this evening. Each year, both the town as well as residents replying to community surveys indicate that pedestrian connectivity is one of the top priorities for residents of Fugquway. With that, I'm requesting that if this proposal is approved, that pedestrian crossing features be added to the frontage along Wilbun Crossing to Eagle River Drive. With the future development coming at Vaughn Park, this would provide critical pedestrian safely safety across Wilon for both the 200 homes at Brierggate as well as the

families that would be living in this new development. This would give safe access to the restaurants, businesses that are to be built at Vaughn Park as well as for the several dozen students that attend both the elementary and high school as well as downtown Verina. Whether this be as minimal as a pedestrian sign or more prominent pedestrian features, my request tonight is that the town include some level in its as a condition in its approval for this proposed development. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If there's anybody else that wishes to speak, please make sure you sign in. Uh state your name and address for the record. And also if you are in favor or in opposition. Hello everyone. My name is Thomas Gorman. Uh I'm from 109 Quindell Drive in the Bergate community. Uh just pretty much want to second exactly what Dan just said. We would love to have some sort of safe crosswalk to get across to the from the existing uh sidewalk that we have where this uh property begins and then going over to the uh neighborhood across the street. So, just to help us out there, please. Thank you. And in favor, if that's the case, thank you. All right. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak in favor or in opposition? Seeing none, I'm gonna close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for discussion. I was going to say I look at this lot every day when I leave my house. I'm looking forward to the improvement. The uh structure that was there before uh was a bit of an eyesore and you know be nice to have a little bit of road improvement. I I do agree and I don't know maybe a question for staff. Is there a condition or anything if they're building there for to extend that sidewalk on that side of Wilbine? Um, you know, I think a pedestrian crossing would be something. I don't know if the petitioner would be would entertain

maybe that being a conditioner or something on there. I do think make it a little more walkable. Um, but overall, I'm generally for it just because something needs to go in that lot. I think this is the perfect thing to go there and hopefully the uh critters that were there from the prior want or have been evicted. So, looking forward to it. Pam, you want to talk about what what frontage requirements are required on something like this? Right. So, um it looks like we have a you sidewalks. Um I guess that that will be determined when this comes in actually for a major subdivision plan. Um they will be needing to bring the utilities down from the culde-sac to the north. Um, so it it's this one is a little trickier as far as as infrastructure goes. Um, this potentially could qualify as an infill subdivision as well. So until we really see plans for what they're proposing here, we're really going to not know what, you know, obviously there are some CTP improvements on this parcel, but there are obviously some also um some parameters for infill subdivisions and things like that. Uh, as far as a crosswalk across Wilbon, I think that would be something definitely that, um, engineering would have to weigh in on um because that might be something that we'd need flashing beacons or, you know, this is not a necessarily a logical intersection, right? It's hard. It's a straightaway, so there could be. So, I I would be cautious in necessarily making it a condition just because we don't know if it would be something that would even be approvable. And it's probably early, too. I mean, we're we're looking at reszoning, but there's still a lot of steps between now and them having a a plan approved. So, I guess for those in the audience that are, you know, looking for stuff like that. This isn't kind of we're not in that phase yet since we don't have plans. We're just kind of looking at the reasonzoning and making it all uniform. Yeah. Does the use makes sense? It's hard to hard to require a condition that may be in feasible, right? Especially when you consider you got to throw in DOT in the mix in it, too. And that's that's completely out of the town's control.

But I guess I would say, you know, when the petitioner is looking at plans, I mean, that might be something to maybe consider throwing in there and working with the town before that plan comes up. And, you know, especially since I do think it's a a need in that area. I mean, I live in Grace Creek right across the street. I see people walking down Wilbond um daily. You know, a lot of people in the neighborhood. There's really nice sidewalks there. As we put we have more subdivisions in there, there's a lot more walkability. as Vaughn Park comes in, people are going to keep walking down and once you get to, you know, past this this lot on the Grace Creek side, there's still a little bit more sidewalk. Um, but then it kind of ends as we get closer to that intersection. So, I mean, it's definitely something to consider once it becomes timely, I think. But I think one thing we'll know is that no matter what when they come in, they will have to dedicate the rightway for the CTP. Correct. Yes. But I do believe that this CTP section has actually was reduced. So the width is but in that CTP they have to provide enough rideway that would allow for a sidewalk to go through there I guess is what I'm yeah so it's an 80 foot now right okay I just want to make sure that there we did allocate enough rightway for it so at some point we do have that land there regardless rightway dedication will be required right it's at least 60 ft just out of curiosity do you know if how these conditions compare to what the other ones were these more robust I assume they are as as we move forward with subdivisions and oh likelihood yes okay that's that All right. If there's no more questions or concerns, I I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. Um I move to recommend approval of [Music] REZ-20225-04, a zoning map amendment for 834 Wilbine Road from the residential agriculture RA zoning district to the residential medium density conditional zoning district [Music] RMD-CZD as it is reasonable in the best interest of the public for the reasons identified by staff. Second. Oh, we got a motion and two seconds. All right. All right, I assume everybody knows what we're voting on given that half our

table already did it. So, all in favor? All oppose? Motion carries. All right, we'll move into the fund section. Public hearing item 4D, CTA 2025-02, the 2040 community vision land use plan amendment number one. Further information will be provided by staff. All right, last one for me. Last one for you. You got the short end of the stick tonight. At least you got to sit down. Yes, true. I'm happy to be at the table. Yeah, she got cheap. I got it all, didn't she? All right. Once again, I am submitting the agenda abstract and supporting documents into the official record of the town. Fourth public hearing item before you tonight is CTA 202502. It is an amendment to the 20 2040 community vision land use plan requested by town staff. Following is a brief summary of the changes made, but per usual, if there's anything that I didn't touch on or if there's anything you'd like me to go over further in detail, please let me know. The following statements are proposed to be added to the descriptions for the LEUP designations of neighborhood activity center, community activity center, and regional employment center. This is the statement. When implementing a new neighborhood activity center or community activity center or regional employment center, development of the commercial uses should be prioritized and phased so that they are developed in advanced or in advance or simultaneously with the residential portions to establish a balanced and thriving mixeduse community. Next item is the visual the visual indicators for the open space areas have been updated from circles to squares in an effort to provide clarity on the crosswalk shows resoning to land use type. Additionally, the following information has been added to the bottom of the page to ensure clarity on an important policy aspect. Quote, "Areas designated as open space are compatible with all zoning districts and cannot be removed or changed via reszoning." End quote. Next item, the following changes are

propo proposed for the maps associated with the land use plan. So not the document itself, but the maps that are associated with it on our GIS and available on our website. All maps within the document are proposed to be updated to reflect changes approved with the update of the 2040 comprehensive transportation plan. So just aligning those two plans, make sure everything's up to date. The second item, all subdivisions that have been recorded since the approval of the LUP have had their designated open spaces updated to reflect the open space designation within the approved subdivision. This affects over 850 lots and those are all detailed on the Excel sheet that I'm sure you all read line everywhere. They are all detailed there. If you have any specific questions about a lot, I am happy to answer it. Next item is uh language has been added to the LUP to allow staff to automatically amend the LUP map when new subdivisions are recorded to redesate the approved areas as open space. This is the language. Quote, "All amendments to the LLUM, that's the um future land use map should follow a public process involving both the planning board and the town board of commissioners with the exception of lots designated as allow as open space post subdivision of said lots." End quote. And the last item is uh 12 lots in particular have been identified and are highlighted green in that Excel sheet as having an LEP designation that is in congruent with the current use. So those are just sort of cleanups. Staff recommendation is as follows. Staff recommends approval of the proposed town code amendment is reasonable in the public's best interest as it improves upon the 2040 community division land use plans intent to provide a comprehensive future vision for the development in the town of Fugquwayina. I am happy to answer any questions. All right. Do we have any questions for staff before we open the public hearing? I do. I just need further explanation on all subdivisions that have been recorded since the

approval of the the open space. Right. So, um, when a subdivision gets recorded, certain portions of it are designated as open space. Those are set aside as open space, legally recorded as open space. So, we go in periodically and change those to open space rather than the SFN or the MFN or whatever it may be currently. And that's just sort of a um housekeeping item that we did before with the previous plan and would like to continue to do with this plan. Okay. Is it is is there a benefit for that? It seems like a lot of work for you guys. It's more accurate. It's not a lot of work now that the bulk is done. We can sort it's maintenance from now on. Um but it would it would just be part of the process when a plan comes in for final plat. It would fit into the rest of the processing of that. So, um you know, a subdivision can have one or two lots or it can have 20 lots of open space, but it would just be a GIS exercise at that point. Well, I can definitely thank you for adding the portion that allows you guys to do that administratively because we did not want to have to do that every time. Yeah, be tedious. All right, we'll open the public hearing. Doesn't look like any base signed up or here, so we'll close the public hearing. Um, I really only had one thing that I wanted to just kind of and and you got caught by the 12 lots that you highlighted. So, I actually did look at them, but uh it was more of a just I don't know how many of these situations are actually in the town, but there's a couple of these little and the one I'm referring to specifically is over off Old Honeyut Road, um kind of near the police station. There's a handful of lots. There's like four lots. They're all less than four acres. Like most of them are like one or two, but they're all listed as an activity center. And I guess in my mind, I'm not really in favor of these smaller parcels being listed as an activity center because you almost have to combine them into one to make something unique. And while I get the the growth of that and

why you want that, it just it seems like we're almost punishing people if they want to do something on their own property by themselves. And so I don't know how many specific examples of that there are, but I think that's something that should probably be looked at is if you have all these parcels with different ownerships tying them to an activity center that really wants to be larger in scale. You know, I mean, if you read the ordinance, it wants to be larger in scale. So doing doing a sevenacre activity center is probably not what we're we're striving for. Um so that's not really a question, more of a comment. Right. So we did we went and looked at that after I talked to um the key I think with that is is those parcels are all currently zoned commercial. So they could develop commercially individually right now without having to do anything. So the land uses plan is really looking to the highest and best future. And if there was an opportunity for them to do something different right it would be potentially an assemblage with a you know a form-based district. Yeah. And that one may not really be a big deal. I mean restricted by that right right now because they're all basically I believe they're all quarter commercial currently. Yeah, I didn't look at the zoning. I was just looking at the land use and going that seems seems a little weird. I mean like big tracks I get it. We wanted them to be activity centers because we're all pushing for mixed use but it's hard to do mixed use on three acres. And those lots were called out specifically because that NAC designation had overlap. Yeah, there was a lap in the I saw just it just corrected from where the property line from where the random line was. Yeah, just a strip of That's what caught me. That's all right. All right. Um, anybody willing to make a motion or is there any more questions? I've got a quick question. I'm not trying to be picky. Will you explain prioritize and phasing at the same time? Oh, for the um comment about prioritizing the commercial. Do you want

to speak to that? Yeah, I can speak to that. So um we did three formbbased developments last year and all three of them were accompanied by a developer agreement and that developer agreement prioritized and explained how the mixeduse projects would build both residential and the non-residential portions because we felt it was important the town board felt it was important to ensure that we had the nonresidential also um because we have a track record of of having residential builders do mix development mixeduse development and only building the residential portion. And so while we cannot require that by law, um we can encourage it through the land use plan, okay, through that language to say it is a priority in this town that if you are doing a mixeduse development that you you come up with a way to prioritize the both the commercial, right, the non-residential portion and the residential portion because that's what leads to the vibrancy of a mixeduse development is the fact that you have both. not that you just build some houses and carve off a parcel and leave it for later. So, this is just enforcing, you know, encouraging that and letting letting people know, putting it out there that this is a priority to the town that mixeduse developments need, you know, hopefully will include both. So, you're you're you're the best scenario would be building both at the same time. Okay. And we got three very different developer agreements with the Von Park, Academy Village and the locks that came through and they all had very different solutions that they were comfortable with, you know, either financially or with the commitments they already had. You know, one had a already had a contract, a lease agreement. Others you were comfortable, you know, talking about vertical construction and things like that to to make sure that they got things. So there's a lot of flexibility

in how you achieve that goal, but it we just wanted to make sure that we said it out loud. That was the bottom question if there was flexibility if Right. And again, this is in the land use plan, so this is a guiding principle. It is not a a requirement or a standard. It's just something we can fall back to as a guiding principle. Thank you. All right. Any more questions, concerns, motions? Motion to recommend approval of CTA 2025-02 amendment number one an amendment to the 2040 community vision land use plan as presented and recommended by staff. Should I keep going? The text amendment approve improves upon a land use plan and is reasonable in the business interest of the public for the reasons identified by staff. There we go. All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. All right, one more. Item 4E, CTA 2025-03 2040 comprehensive transportation plan amendment. Further information provided by staff. Thank you, chair, members of the board. Oh, switching it up on us. Yes, keeping it interesting tonight. Uh, I am submitting the agenda abstract and supporting documents into the official record of the town. The last public hearing before you tonight is CTA 2025-03, an amendment to the 2040 comprehensive transportation plan requested by town staff. Through implementation of the 2040 CTP since its adoption in November of 2024, staff have determined that there are a number of minor corrections and clarifications that more accurately reflect the town's vision for our future transportation network. In several instances, the GIS map originally approved by town board contained more refined information than was present in the written document, and these changes bring the written document into alignment with the detailed GIS data. In addition, these changes include

map updates that reflect additional collaboration with Holly Springs for smooth transitions in roadway configurations. Overall, the changes increase the internal consistency of the document between the text and maps and increase external consistency with the adopted plans of our neighbors. The following is a brief overview of the changes that have been made. We added the final adoption date of the Wake County multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan since its uh approval after the uh original CTP approval date. Chapter 3 of the CTP has been updated with the updated corridor recommendations map, the recommended cross-section map, and tables 2 through 12 to accurately reflect GIS data and road cross-sections at municipal boundaries. Tables 2 through 12, if you have uh reflected back on the CTP, are where we have individual roads listed and the configurations that they fall under. So, which cross-section? So, that table was simply there were a few uh roads that were not in that table originally. And so we've added that information so that everything is uh internally consistent. In addition, in chapter 4, the updated bicycle and pedestrian element, the recommended bicycle and pedestrian corridors map has been updated to reflect changes um that were in that up the previous recommended cross-section map from chapter 3. So again, looking at internal consistency and with that, staff recommends approval of the proposed town code amendment as is as it is reasonable and in the public's best interest as it improves upon the 2040 comprehensive transportation plan's intent to provide a comprehensive future vision for transportation in the town of Fugway Verina. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Anybody have any questions for staff before we open the public hearing? All right, we will open the public hearing. Eva, I'm assuming nobody signed up, right? Now, okay, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Um, I love it when a previous agenda item hammers my point on a next agenda item

on this one. So, like I read I went through the the CTP and we have a lot of streets identified with side pass. There's a lot of them and I know we've removed some, but there's a lot of them and it's I mean, I think side paths are really good, but we have this issue now where we seem to have roads, and I'll use Jud Parkway as my biggest example, where we go 5 foot concrete, 10 foot asphalt, 10 foot concrete, 5 foot concrete, you know, and it just it looks like a hodge podge, and I don't think we really have a plan to make anything look uniform. And so I guess my question is is through all this, do we have any way to be able to do something when our comprehens or our I'm sorry, our comp yeah our comprehensive not the community transportation plan requires a side path where there's already sidewalk in front of that development. You know, example would be Vaughn Park. We're going to make them scab on 5t to an existing sidewalk for however many thousand feet of frontage they have for what? Like what's the purpose behind that? And it feels like there would be some sort of mechanism where you could take in a fee and loo for that five foot and come in and build the sidewalk where an existing development like we just had with the Willbond one. They probably can't afford to build sidewalk and get three lots. But that sidewalk might be necessary, but if we had funds to go fund that, wouldn't the 5ft sidewalk there be better than us scabbing on a side path to a road that already has a sidewalk on it? Or if the entire road pretty much has sidewalk and we have one section of side path. I mean, like, that's great. We can have two people cross for 300 ft, but then we got to get in line. Like, I just I guess I wonder where that's going. And it may not be related to the amendment, but I feel like that's something that we should look at with all these side paths. Um, and I didn't know if like you guys had any thoughts or if there was any plans or because I mean it's if you go down Jud Parkway, you never know what you're going to get. It's like a mixed bag, you know? And then we're doing I think Jud Parkway is being expanded right now at Holland and they're putting sidewalk in right now. And I'm like, but we have a CTP that says it should be a side path, but we're not putting it in. And so, like, those

are just things I think we've got to look at in this CTP somehow, some way of is there a way to utilize this as a tool to where when people come to us and like you can almost be like, "Yeah, we can make that happen and build that bridge that gap." you know, we could put that sidewalk in at Willbond and make that crossing, which helps two neighborhoods and a development is allowed to go in an infill because that's why that rule was put in place rather than making other developments add 5T to a sidewalk that's 5 years old. You know, maybe that's just my two cents, but I haven't really asked a question there. Right off the top, there are no changes being made to Judge Parkway with this amendment. So just so we know now with the comprehensive transportation plan update that we did a few months ago. Um that was one of the things that we did really look at. There were several roads in GER specifically is is one I recall that were designated for side paths. But once we looked at them and realized how much sidewalk was already built along that corridor identified that it was more logical to continue existing sidewalk then push and you're right have pieces of of new developments that would be side path. So, we did identify specific, you know, kind of the spiderweb going out, a radial pattern from downtown of those main quarters that really side path made sense. Um, and really downgraded some of the other ones. We downgraded a significant number of of existing roadways to sidewalk sections. Um, now around Jud Parkway, that's a unique situation because a lot of the projects the town has done have been state or federally funded. And with that, those don't come with side path. The NC DOT feels that sidewalk is fine. So when it comes to the best use of public funds, if we get a a state or federal project that is going to build roadway sections for us, we are going to take what we

get. Um and then we let the development, you know, private development coming along the way or any obviously if we have opportunities and grants and things later to go and expand, we will for sure. Um, but again, that really comes down to to best use of public funds and when we can get somebody else paying for it, we get what they give us, what the gift is. Yeah. It just feels like we're playing by different rules, which is fine. I mean, we always know that, right? But I guess what I'm saying is like even if you identify a road like Andrew Road that has a bunch of sidewalks and somebody's filling it in, maybe you do require this side path, but there's an option and you say, but you build the sidewalk and then fee and Lou half of it. And so like there's a way for the town to generate revenue, but also consistency with the plan, you know. Um I just it just feels weird to to have all these side paths all over the place. I because again, it's also just they're different materials. They get paved differently. It just it just seems like it's hodge podgey. And I don't know if we took a survey if people are I don't even know if people really care because there's not enough side path anywhere to make a difference really, you know. But there are a lot of places that don't have sidewalks that get requested. We get requests all the time for people wanting sidewalks. I mean, how many cases come in here and they're like, can they build the sidewalk from here to here and we can't make them do it, you know, but if we had a pool of funds that you could pull from to do that, that might be something or incentivize it to where you contribute some of those funds and then there's a developers agreement where a developer goes in and it's a betterment to their community. I just feels like there could be some sort of avenue in there to take advantage of that to where you get some funds and some money to take advantage of the highest and best use, but also we're a little bit more practical on what it looks like and what what's out there, right? And the there is a tool to use the fee and Lou the engineering at the engineering director's discretion. It does require town board approval. So, I mean that is an available option. Generally speaking, I did speak with with Matt Polling earlier today and and Jud Parkway is a high priority route that I mean obviously in the best case

scenario, we'd love the side path to be all the way around the circuit there, but time will tell, I guess. All right. Any more questions or concerns? Entertain a motion. Ajourn. Not a journ yet. We're going to vote on this. You getting a littlehead of the game there. I'll make a motion to recommend approval of CTA-2025-03 amendment number one, an amendment to the 2040 comprehensive transportation plan as presented, recommended by staff. The text amendment improves upon the 2040 comprehensive transportation plan and is reasonable and in the best interest of the public for the reasons identified by staff. All right, we got a motion. Second, and we have a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? All oppose? That motion carries. All right. Not not yet either. Hang on. We got item 6A, planning staff report. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive information on the disposition of the planning board's recommendations to the town board of commissioners since the March 17th, 2025 planning board meeting. Uh, looks like we're still batting a thousand there. So, I don't know if there's anybody have any questions, but anybody have any questions for that? If not, Barbara, it is your time to shine now. Motion to adjurnn. Second. I got a motion and a second. All in favor? I. We are adjourned.