City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, folks. Uh we're going to go ahead and get started. Uh call the January 12th meeting of the Statesville City Council to order and ask everyone who can to rise to do so uh for the invocation and pledge of allegiance. Emily. Good evening everyone. Let's pray. Dear heavenly father, I thank you so much for this day and thank you for bringing us all into a new year safely. I pray that our mayor and council make wise decisions for our community. In your name we pray. Amen.

Thank you. Would you join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Okay. During our pre-agenda meeting, uh item D was moved to the regular agenda uh as item uh 11. We also added item D to the consent agenda to approve the city attorney's contract for 6 months. Uh is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? So moved. Second. Second. We have a uh motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? carries unanimously. Thank you. Um, we need to consider uh approving a resolution adopting the 2026 code of ethics. The city council adopts the code of ethics each January. Uh, this year the code as reflected on page three. Is there any discussion on our code of ethics? If not, is is there a motion to approve the 2026 code of ethics? So moved. Second. Okay, we have a first and second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion to approve the resolution adopting the code of ethics, say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously.

Mayor, are we going to sign that tonight? Yes, I believe our I'm printing it now. Sorry.

We will sign it tonight. Please do not leave. [laughter] Thank you. That's awesome. So, um, we have the front and center strategic plan. Um, is there anything we need to talk about on that? I mean, that's really not that's just information purposes. Uh, we have no presentations tonight, so we will, uh, move on. Uh, we need we, it's time for public comment. Did we have anyone sign up for public comment? Okay. So, no one signed up for public comment. Okay. Uh let's move on to the consent agenda. Um all items below are considered to be routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion. Uh here is the consent agenda. Consider approving the December 2nd, 2025 meeting minutes, the December 11th pre-aggenda meeting minutes and minutes and the December 15th regular meeting minutes. Consider passing this and B consider passing the second reading of the reszoning request ZC25-14 the Bond street properties to reszone from heavy industrial zoning district to R5 high density single family residential uh district and consider passing a resolution of intent to permanently close a portion of unopened Henry Street between South Center Street and Shelton Avenue and schedule a public hearing for February 16th, 2026. Are there any items on the consent agenda that need to be Oh, sorry. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. And we need to consider approving a six-month contract for Leah Gaines Messik as the city attorney. So, given that, are there any items on the consent agenda that need to be moved

to the regular agenda at this time? We approve consent agenda. Great. If do I have a second? Second. Any more discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. So it we uh the agenda now we have an evidentiary hearing. Uh Mrs. Leam Messik will explain what that means and how the hearing will be conducted. the PowerPoint loaded. Yes.

Um tonight we have an evidentiary hearing on the agenda. Just to remind everybody briefly about the procedure that we're going to go by. Um we are going to hear sworn evidence tonight. We're going to ask anybody that is speaking either for or against this project to come up and first be sworn in. Um we're going to ask that um expert testimony be given by experts. Um and if there are um uh any materials, exhibits, if you could pass those out to us in advance or they may be a part of a PowerPoint presentation, just let us know exhibit by exhibit what your intention is to introduce so that we can address each of those as they come up. Um we're going to um hear testimony first from generally um the applicant. Um we're also going to then um allow anybody that has standing to be able to cross-examine and then the council will have an opportunity to ask questions at the end of each witness examination. So the applicant will go first. Anyone who has standing that opposes the development or the project will go last and the city will be in the middle. Um, and again, you've got your findings of fact um, in your record. I'm sure there'll also be several PowerPoint slides that go over your findings of fact. And just as a reminder, the evidence must be competent material and substantial. This is um, the order of business for how we're going to proceed forward. I kind of briefly went over this, but again, um, we're going to start with um, disclosing conflicts of interest. We're going to swear everyone in. The applicant will give the overview um and present evidence. Staff opponents um the applicant will have a chance for rebuttal and then closing um arguments. We will not we'll vote on the matter tonight. We will adopt whatever order is decided at the next city council meeting.

There we are. Okay.

Thank you for informing us of that. So, when we invite witnesses up, you can come up and be sworn in and then um we'll go through a standing analysis first to [cough] determine whether or not you have standing to testify. Um so, first I think that we need to disclose conflicts. Um so, I would invite Mr. mayor to um gather whether or not any council members have had any exparte communications or have any conflicts of interest that they're concerned about.

Okay. Uh have any council members had any exparte communication or have a conflict of interest regarding this application. If any exparte communications well never mind. Um so all individuals who wish to speak or have or must have standing and be sworn in. All speakers including the staff and applicant please come forward to be sworn in. Place your left hand on the Bible and raise your right hand. [clears throat]

Do we have Oh, sorry. There we go. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you shall give to the board in this action shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. I open this evidentiary hearing. want the clicker. Miss Martin, were you going to give a presentation to start? Okay.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members, my name is Lisa Valdez. I'm an attorney with Pope McMillan here in Statesville. I represent Headley Holmes, the applicant regarding the special use permit. Um, I will have um two, possibly three witnesses. Mr. Hedley here um in the event that you have questions specific about the project. Otherwise, I intend to offer two expert witnesses. Um Corey Sloan for engineering and land development and Michael Burkowitz for uh appraising and property values. and I will bring them up as part of this. Um I will start with Mr. Sloan and um go through an overview of the project as part of um with ask him to explain that as the the civil engineering who designed it. And um but the project is generally located um on Winston Avenue at the intersection of Winston Avenue um meeting South Meeting Street and Caldwell Street about a block from Shelton Avenue. And um we'll go through the testimony uh giving an explanation of the proposed project and the site. uh proposed findings of fact for you all to consider and answer any questions that you might have. Um I would start by asking Mr. Sloan if he would come up and I will we'll see how uh we'll do this a little bit side by side at least initially um in order to hinder him as an expert. Um Mr. Sloan, could you give the council your um educational background? Yeah, I've got a degree in civil engineering technology from UNC Charlotte.

And um what kind of lensure or certific certifications do you have in that area? I'm a professional engineer licensed in the state of North Carolina. How long have you been doing that for? Uh I've been working in land development for 10 years. Um a year and a half of which was on staff with the city as a civil engineer doing plan review and capital improvement. And as part of your role with the city, were you involved in the 2045 plan and and the 115 the corridor plan? Uh yeah, the 2045 land development plan was in place.

I'm so sorry to interrupt, but can you speak just a little bit closer into the microphone that way when we're reporting and I'm so sorry. I know it's going to be a lot of back and forth. Um but thank you. That's I uh so when I was on when I was hired the 2045 land of development plan was already in place as was the 115 master plan I think was adopted in 2009. So those were both working documents available to me while I was on staff. And you currently own your own engineering firm? Yes. And is that primarily doing civil engineering and land development plans? Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Um based on Mr. Sloan's experience and education and background. I would like to tender him as an expert witness.

So the only question I have is whether or not there is an objection from someone who with the opposition who has standing. Um we have not made the determination yet as to whether or not there is standing for the witness who is opposing. Do you have any objection to her having standing? I I don't know how she qualifies at this point because we have not had that analysis. Um I know that she has that the agency she represents has um property in the the near vicinity. I don't know what the damages are that this project would pose to to her. So I don't know if we need to pause and do that analysis or what you would how you like to proceed.

I think that we'll have to pause and do that analysis. I'm sorry to say. [clears throat] [cough] So we do need to uh first make that determination regarding uh whether the witness has standing. So uh Darba, is it Darba? If you would uh step to the podium and state your name, address and basis for standing to testify.

Hello, my name is Darbat T. Scaff. I am the executive director for the Statesville Housing Authority and the president of Ardell Statesville Community Richmond Corporation. We are currently the land owner from meeting to Winston to Mill Street. We own the block where the current dollar general and advanced auto parties. We were the one that were instrumental to bring the advanced auto park to town. And as um the previous council is aware, we were very crucial and intentional when we negotiate that land sale that the easement is put back on the back of the building. So we're very intentional on what type of developments were going to come down there and how those development were going to tie within the 2045 Southstatesville corridor plan. The housing authority is has already invested close to $53 million along purchasing properties along the 115 corridor to include the land that stands today as the dollar gener um I care the current family dollar all of those business along 115 corridor and the nonprofit is pays taxes on those land to the city of Statesville and to the Can you expl explain the proximity of your property and to to the where this application is located?

We are directly across the street. I don't know what the linear square footage is. I can't speak on the exact amount, but we're directly across from Winston. Use the pointer. This is where Winston I can't see. So where the parking is, if you go on the other side where Winston Avenue is, where the Dollar General is, that whole block of Mills and Meeting, we own that whole block where the church is. Is that um a property adjacent to this property is direct across the street from that property and a little bit further up? I can't I can't see. I promise you I cannot see.

Oh, okay. Oh, my bad. My bad. Right there. Hold on one second. So this is Shelton and this is Winston. They're going to be here and we own all of this right here. Okay. This corner right here. Whatever this corner [laughter] is, right? Do I get the mouse? Can you help me? Just put it right in this corner right there. If you can use all of Where is it? Sorry, my bad. All that corner the right upper right corner. We own our whole block and the block on the other side of it. We're behind and in front of them pointed right there.

And if you could please testify as to what special damages um you believe that you would suffer as a result of this proposed project. I don't know if there are current special damages that we're going to suffer, but we our goal is our goal is to make sure that as the first and initial investor within the 115 corridor, remember was the very first one down there that took the old hotel motel and turned it into a facility for that we were very intentional with the city council with this project 20 2045. The it might not be a material damage that we might suffer, but there are future potential investments prohibitation that we think by having these units as they are under the current design that this owner has proposed might infringe on the the neighborhood from bringing additional dollars for that project. We feel that it is so congested that it needs to be looked at relatively and crucially intentionally um in relationship to the 2045 plan. We're not I didn't come here with the intent of totally opposing this and I have discussed with um with Miss Valdez um that we would just wanted to have this opportunity so that we can have a more detailed conversation of what ties into 2045. There is nothing as this on our side of town. So, this will actually be like the first of its kind and we feel that as a housing authority and as people who have invested um gravely into that area that we need to have these prerequisite conversations before everything is put out. If you want to look at um non-material but factual damages, it

could probably add on to the fact that the 2045 plans requires that you have more frontage [snorts] in the front of your property. That probably could exclude future investors from coming down the south side of state. That's our position. It's not actually of fiscal material damage, but future economic damages. That's what we're proposing. So, I imagine Miss Valdez probably wants to maybe ask you some follow-up questions related to standing. I'm going to give you that opportunity, Miss Valdez. Um, but if I can very quickly before the board just to explain, um, an agrieved party, um, this is an evidentiary hearing and to testify in this evidentiary hearing, you have to have standing to do so. And since you're not the applicant or the property owner or the council to have standing, you must prove that there are special damages that your entity would suffer as a consequence of the approval of this development. So, um I'm not sure that I've heard that. I think I heard your admission that there would not be necessarily special damages here and that you were here to voice concerns and a preliminary conversation.

So, I think maybe I need to correct myself. There are special damages, but there are material effect damages. Does that make sense? They could be economic damages. So, you're alleging that there are noneconomic special damages. What are those?

The structure, the current structure on the 2045 plan states that there has to be certain furniture within the area. This particular pan has the frontage in the back. The the land the land allowance have that in the back. We are saying that if this project goes forward as it is with its current design, it could preclude us from having future investors to do something like in that manner. Does that make sense?

No, no, that doesn't make sense to me. But but I'm not ultimately the body that's going to decide whether or not they believe you have standing. So, um I'm going to give Miss Valdez an opportunity. I'm going to state that I believe that I do have standing based on the fact that this could create an economic proclusion to future development considering that we have brought the our dust to community Richmond corporation has been the most interested and most vested body within the south corridor. Does that make sense?

Thank you for that testimony. I'm going to allow Miss Valdez to ask you questions if you could stand up there. the applicant has an a due process right to be able to examine witnesses and so Miss Valdez representing the applicant has a due process right to ask you questions related to standing I I don't mean to be repetitive but I would like clarification as to what the special damages are specifically what damages will IS CC face okay so not speculatively but

so so we have to whenever we look at things in communities. We have to be intentional with what those communities are. Southstatesville is an affluent African-American community. Southisville requires that whatever investors is within that community that the community have a buyin within with with with any any black community in America that the community has a buy in within that project. Does that make sense? So if we're going to have we've been intentional that are the states community enrichment corporation i.e. the states housing authority has been intentional with our purchasing acquiring land to create this development plan that has been that the city of Stville has put into place up to 2045. We must be intentional on the kind of investments that will bring those neighborhoods that have the cultural um attestation to what's already been there. And and and let me finish Miss and when you are looking at development within black communities, we have to be intentional what we're bringing to this community that those people in the community accept those things. So when when you're looking at actual material fact in any general other circumstance, it might fit. But if you're looking at a community that has some that has been neglected in the past that has had misrepresentation, not to you, no problem. Misrepresentation from developers in the past. We need to make sure that whatever product we're putting into that area that the economic effect, the people effect is also tied into that. That's what I'm saying. I know a material we're across from the street. If they were to put up their buildings, that could preclude future developers from having that frontage to put over their buildings. Does that make sense? And we have vacant land that we need to

sell to get other developers to come to town. putting not allowing the frontage as allowed under the 2045 plan will make it difficult for land owners as ourselves to bring in other investors and then ask them to meet the current 2045 um frontage. Respectfully, I don't think that that answered my question um because I don't know what the special damages are that you would incur. Um let me ask um a follow-up question. the the the intent or the purpose of Statesville Housing Authority or ISCC is to provide opportunities, affordable housing, attainable housing opportunities for citizens of Statesville. Is that correct?

Not just Statesville, Cardo County. Okay. So, and this project from what you know about it provides housing um town homes in um this area for redevelopment. Yes. And the property that you own or ISC and the housing authority own that you named on Shelton Avenue, Dollar General, Advance Auto, all those those are commercial businesses that rely on residents to to frequent them and to patronize to be patrons of those businesses in order to be successful. Correct. No.

Dollar does not require customers. We we we from ISC position we are not with we are not tied into dollar generous profits. We IC and and and SSA do investments and we provide low deals to developers so that they can bring in affordable housing. So we're not in the profitm business. I was not suggesting that but the businesses that you want to encourage along the Shelton Avenue corridor are in the profitm business. Not necessarily. Not the Dollar General. That's just one of few businesses. But the advance the the clinic the clinic doesn't make money. I care doesn't make money. Customers, correct?

I I guess they do. I'm sorry. I guess they do need customer. But the point I'm trying to make is we're not in you're looking at is we're advocating for profitm businesses. And I'm saying no, we're not advocating for profitm businesses. We're advocating for community enhancement businesses. Yes. I'm saying that you advocate for the redevelopment of that area in order to provide new opportunities um for existing and to make sure that the the residents that are there can stay in that area and have new housing opportunities as well. That's the back end of it though. If I see Yes, I'll be misrepresenting myself. Okay. Because we didn't purchase my turn now to ask questions. Go ahead.

I am done asking questions. I don't believe that the special damages report portion of um standing has been met and I would object to her um being able to provide any sort of competent substantial evidence in this matter and I'll enter that however the the council wants to proceed but I would object to that. Thank you. I'd open it up for the council to ask questions at this time of the witness to determine standing.

Does anyone have questions for Miss Scaff? Well, I don't know if it's going to be a question or when I'm looking at growth and development into a community that has been structured for a community that has been declined and is moving forward. My concern is which two are the greatest in the aspect of growth for the entire city. Also with the fact that there are buildings there are we have advocate change in that community. I'm concerned about where we stand here as we address this issue. It's all about product. It's all about making money. It's all about business. But I am concerned about the productivity of what's already been done. And then we have housings. How would this affect the the the new development of housing that's coming in?

And I think that right now we need to limit our questions to the witness to determine standing. So, we need to determine whether or not she has special damages related to if this if this development is approved. We need to ask her very specific questions. This is really not necessarily the council's moment for debate. It's more so the council's moment to ask questions related to whether or not she has special damages to be able to stand up here and ask questions and testify. Will you please I I'll reframe that and I'll say it again. The special damages that you're talking about. What is the sufficient what is the satisfaction of making that decision that's based on me as a regular citizen that may not know or any citizens out there. What what is the the criteria that is the foundation that that that would satisfy satisfy the special damages uh request. Help me to understand that because

I I I um I guess our position here as a nonprofit community developer, zero profit from whatever development we've done on behalf or in collaboration with the city of Statesville. City of Sville does not have a housing and economic development department. So any lowincome housing development and or nonprofit development that's coming to the sound, we have been part of that conversation. We have been part of the conversation of bringing the advanced auto part down there, the Dollar General there. Please ladies and gentlemen, please remember 15 years ago that entire was blighted. You had a pink house sitting right in that main road. We were intentional by coming to this body and working with the planning department on acquiring over a 100 blighted properties to be intentional how the 115 corridor will look. And we have as as an African-American um um area and the housing authority that houses almost 80% of all of the African-Americans that are on the south side of St. all of the rental units are on Stville. We need to be on the table. We need to make sure that that um that developers that are coming in are actually following the the thing target development go to Southside the Southside is designated redevelopment strategy tier one and I don't think the developer has proven that whatever they're going to put is going to be the tier one obligation of the 2045 corridor project. I haven't seen any new.

Mayor, I've got one question. Yes, please.

What is your opinion of damages by right? They can do single family residents. This is a higher density request with town homes. What What's the difference? Their new product? Well, your the the the plan, the 2045 plan asks that the tier one area reflects the reinvestment um within the 115 corridor of investment. The the the density of the area I think the plan said four no more than four per acre or something like that. They're doing 14 units. The go back to the question is it's a new residential unit. What is the difference by right now

versus the request? How do you see the damage

keeping all the people from coming in in the future? Like I said, it's a economic damage. It's not probably not be a material damage. I'm looking at full siding of the people that we've worked on in 115 quarters 2009 to the current. their damage is going to be if you look at the design the way they have it there is going to it is going to be intentional it's going to keep all the developments from in that area. So if we're going to be considering multifamily development in that area with special circumstances, we need to be careful. We need to stick to the 20 45 plans. That's ed number of units to an acreage. That's what it is. It's the density. It's the density that's that's that's um is standing out to us. too many units on on on on short that 115 corridor said that you need to have space spaces between the houses and and this this plan doesn't shows that so I think the question is I guess what we're what makes you an expert witness am I correct what what are is she the being asked if she's an expert on this is that what we're asking about standing

is she have standing yeah we're just trying to determine whether or not she has a due process right to participate in this hearing. So, um to prove standing, an individual must do more than state that they live in the vicinity or own property in the vicinity of an area. They must also allege that it will harm their property value or that there is some other adverse secondary impact. Those secondary impacts are parking safety, security, storm water runoff, littering, noise, some sort of physical impact that the development as it's proposed would, if built out, create for someone who lives in the proximity or vicinity of a proposed development.

But if you if you look at that drawing, even where the road is on the outside of it, it goes right into the garage. If you look at your 2045 plan, it asks to have the furnish in the front of the buildings. All the land reserve is in the back of the building versus the front of the building. This is going to be an economic prohibitation for developers to come on the south side of this us being the biggest land owner. Does anyone else on council have any further questions for the witness in terms of standing?

Correct. Okay. And so then I would invite Mr. Mayor to call for a vote on standing. Um if there's any further guidance that the city council requires from me, I'm happy to provide it. You do have an objection from the applicant to this witness's participation. So recommend uh mayor that maybe you have someone from staff identify um their property as it relates to the subject property. Can we do that? If I can move the little croset, I can do on the bar. It's in that corner right there. I just can't move this little crescent over here. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Can you do that? I can

move the mouse, but don't speak, Ron. [laughter] And then we own property here, property here, property here. Jasmine, is this an image on a power? Can you Can you see that? That's where so we're on here, too.

So, I guess we can let the record reflect that. Mr. Smith moved the mouse over the property that is northeast and across the corner on the map. [snorts] Thank you. Without speaking is now is where the property is. I think it's the peach colored area just right across from that in the picture. Yes, it's right there. Right where the mouse is. [snorts] Right. And then but then we also own here we It's a church and parsonage somewhere right in there. Right. She was saying that the church was the Dollar General. I was trying to No, we own there's a church in there. There's a parsonage there that is actually residential

there. If you go a little further up on Winston and the next block over up there with that blue line and we also own that other side of it. We own a clinic on the back side building. Okay. We any more discussion from council?

Sure. Um, a person has standing under um the general statute if they have a legal interest in the subject property. If they are the applicant before the decision-making board, if they are the city where the governing board believes the decision um was made in error, if they are a person who will suffer special damages as a result of the decision, or if they are an organization organized to promote the interest of a particular area, such as a homeowners association. Um, to prove special damages, an individual must do more than state that they live in the vicinity of the subject property and allege that the project will harm property values or is that or that there is some other secondary impact. Um, the secondary impact being parking safety, security, storm water runoff, littering, noise, or some other physical impact that the development would create for people who live in the vicinity. Before we can I say do I have a say before we um make a decision. It says that you you said that uh parking safety storm water uh will it hold um some type of uh property value. So with that being said, um can you share with us and your your your profession your thought of being the director how these these items here would affect would be affected by the project that's being uh that we're speaking on tonight or will be speaking on.

So I think first of all I need to say what is it? I don't think people understand who I is. Our justice, your community enrichment corporation is a 501c nonprofit to the housing authority which is a federally funded agency. So um we intentionally participated with the city this city council to look at ways to improve 115 corridor in 2010. We were asked by the city. We with the city partnership purchased those property along the corridor to bring in the family dollar, the dollar general, the clinic, the pharmacy, the healthc care system down there. We did all of that because of the city plan for the 115 corridor. And so when Leah say city's interest maybe not necessarily the city but we purchased this property because of the city's plan on the 115 corridor looking at that based on what Lee has read this plan does not meet a category because if you look at where the driveway is on some of those plans it goes right from the main road right into the garage there is no driveway. So if I'm going to go out and bring investors to come within the city of Statesville, the housing authority doesn't make a dollar when investors come within the city of Statesville. Every interest we have is for the citizens of Statesville. What we are saying is by allowing this development as is currently today will prohibit future development therefore creating an economic hardship that actually fits the category of what Leah just read. So if I understand standing correct as you've defined it, if she is representing

an organization that owns property across the street and adjacent that whether this passes tonight could have economic impact on the properties that she represents. That's standing, correct? If you've determined from her testimony that there's going to be an economic impact and you're satisfied with that, then that could amount to standing. But you would have to as the facts h find her.

Not saying that I agree with the e economic damages, but that she has the right to she's got standing stating that it could impact the organization that owns the property across the street.

Yes. If if you believe that her testimony is sufficient to establish economic damages, um property value loss or um then then you can determine that she does have standing. I mean, I I believe that she should have the right based off the fact that she's representing property across the street and believes that it could negatively affect the value of the property across the street.

That that could be correct. Yes. Thank you, Deon. Any more comments?

So, let us uh vote. Uh this we need to vote as to to accept her testimony as having standing. Correct. You need to vote whether or not you believe her test whether or not you believe that testimony amounts to standing. Yes. So whether or not to allow her to participate in the hearing by examining witnesses, I think the evidence for our testimony, I think um where's the city manager Ron? You can look at the tax statements, the taxes that we pay around the salary, the neighborhood in those area.

Okay. So since I I think we might for fairness need to let the applicant because I don't know if that was like a little closing argument on standing. So I just want to offer that same opportunity for the applicant. If there's anything else you'd like to say to the board, you're welcome to do so. Now

I have no problem with her being allowed to speak her her opinion as far as the impact that it has. we haven't even had an opportunity to present the project yet and you've heard testimony as to that project and you have no basis for that. So I I do have an issue with the testimony that she's provided thus far. Um but I don't believe that she has stated anything that that meets the criteria of what the special damages are to IC SEC. I apologize if I butchered the acronym at this point. Um, but I would just ask whichever way it goes, we would like to be able to present our our project and not be impeded. Um, depending on what that decision is. Understood. Thank you.

And that was the purpose. Correct. I mean, we're just saying whether to allow her to have standing or not. Whether she has standing or not, we're still going to hear the presentation. The whole reason this came up is because if somebody does have standing, then they have a right to object to any expert testimony or to exhibits as they come in. And so I just want to make sure that the due process rights are afforded on both sides of of of the development. Thank you.

I am I agree with Mr. uh Jones. I think that the developer I think they have a right to be able to address this issue because we need to I would like uh I would [clears throat] like to see everything in details. your conversation, what you're bringing to the table, and what is actually being done. And I think that out of the out out of the work and dedication has been done, I think they have a voice to be able to say to be a part to be able to speak in this matter. Thank you. So, I think at this time it might be appropriate to have a vote on the matter.

Let's um let's have a vote. All in favor of allowing uh Darbiscaff to act as if she has standing or have standing uh say I I any opposed. Okay. So we need to go back to a hand vote please because it that was um so all in favor of allowing DARB to have standing please raise your hand. Okay. All opposed. Okay. So, we pass five to three.

So, then the question then becomes to Darba whether or not you have an objection to his um qualifications as an expert in civil engineering. No. Thank you. Miss Valdez, please continue with your presentation.

Thank you, Le. Mr. Sloan, could you um you describe the project that's being proposed here? And if you'd like, you can flip between these two slides um out of the presentation. How do we get this back to the presentation?

I don't know how I got it out of it. I'm sorry. I knew I shouldn't

Emily to the rescue. [laughter] Here comes the calvary. Thank you. if you would like in explaining the um project whether it's this slide or this slide that gives you a little bit more detail but if you could generally explain to the council what's being proposed here um on the just about 1 acre site.

Yep. So, uh you you're looking at four existing parcels inside the R5MF zoning district and town homes isn't allowed use with the special use permit. Um, as uh we've talked about the location of the site um at Nauseium here, it's a block from Shelton Avenue. Um, you can kind of see where the site is in in relation to NC115. This is a snippet taken from the NC115 streetscape master plan um that shows similar infill redevelopment uh attached single family products um in this area. Can I [snorts] I'm sorry. Could you go back and back to that slide and show specifically where the project is? The star is there, but if you could meeting street,

um I can see the pointer on my screen here. Um so the the the block that we're talking about I'm kind of outlining here. Does that plan show attached units as part of that area? Yes, ma'am. Development.

So, you have proximity to existing city infrastructure. There are uh plentiful water lines on both sides of the road. There are existing sewer mains on on on both sides of the project rather running north to south shown by the lines that are in brown and the lines are in blue. Um for water, we've reached out to uh public utilities and the fire marshall's office to make sure that there's plenty of capacity for fire flow for these developments and plenty capacity for domestic water and sewer uh to serve these uh 14 units um that are going to be proposed. There are exist there's existing curb gutter and sidewalk uh in place um that will be improved to um facilitate our new driveways that are going to be shared for these units. Again, [clears throat] we just talked about the four uh one, two, there's four buildings that are totaling 14 town homes. Um each building, you know, there's three buildings that are there we go. There are there are three buildings that are three units and there's one building that does have five units. Um so if you depending on how you do the math, you're looking at roughly three and a half units per building on a net average um for the site. And you can kind of see what some of the surrounding driveways um homes and developed areas look like. Um

answer your question. It it does. Could you and maybe it's uh could you show them on the map um any adjacent what adjacent property owner uh property uses are and it may be that you need to go back to the zoning but um so what's located across Meeting Street from the from the proposed development the H115 area. Yeah, I think it's uh a little hard hard to see. It's a little off the screen screen, but it's my under it's it's my recolle recollection that the property across uh South Meeting Street is vacant. Okay. And south of that vacant property, is it commercial, industrial, residential?

Generally east of the property, you have your commercial corridor. Okay. And you're approximately how far from Shelton Avenue as the commercial corridor? Probably five iron feet. One city block. Yeah, one city block. [laughter] Um and um and then across the street, is that also um is that partially vacant, partially residential? Are there any two-story houses in the vicinity? Is the is the house to the south there a twotory home?

Uh without seeing a street view, I I don't know that I can confirm that, but there are twotory single family homes in the vicinity of this project. If we're if you're asking about this one specifically with this image, I can't tell. I'd have to see a street view. That one that that was what you were just pointed to on the screen. Correct. Correct. Yeah. And could you um could you show them where the open space the common open space is located for the property and and generally just outline where the lots are? Yeah, sure. So the use this

so the active sorry the active open space you can see by these areas in orange those are your uh there's 20% open space required for this entire project 10% of it is required to be active technically the delineators for the active open space are your areas in orange but there are areas along the perimeters on the south to the northeast and to the northwest that are also serving as open space. Um I think this this diagram does a good desri shows a good description of while the city requires 20% common open space on a tabulated format, there's quite a bit of open area for the residents that would live in this.

And so the areas in green are yard open space areas. Correct. There. Yeah. The intent is to provide a uh what we're going to call like a playground, like a traditional playground style on the southernmost orange space and provide some public benches and dogway stations along Winston Avenue. And the site plan that's before them now, has that been reviewed by the city? It has. uh the site plan has gone before the TRC and we have a approved stamped um drawing from TRC that shows that the site plan you're looking at before you is in compliance with uh the UDC

and so does it mean it's in compliance with the setbacks, the building heights, the lot coverage, the density, all those things are as shown are in compliance with the city's code. That's correct. Not not only does the plan meet the minimum requirements, it does go above and beyond on certain certain aspects of the requirements and and so along the lines of the landscaping requirements, buffering requirements, open space, those things, they either meet or exceed the requirements of the Statesville code. Yes, ma'am. you address uh the the compliance with the storm water ordinance or the drainage um design manual and the soil erosion control as far as the development is concerned.

Yeah. So uh in Ardell County the the erosion control ordinance that the county has written into their land development code is triggered once you disturb an acre of property. This entire tract is less than an acre. Um so while that does not require a sightsp specific erosion control plan, there will be silt fence and you know common erosion control practices implemented during construction. Um for post construction, the uh statesful drainage design manual limits your new builtupon area to 20,000 square feet or disturbance of an acre before that um is applicable to your project. Um on this project specifically, we are um only providing 12,765 new square feet of builtupon area on site. Um today there there's some that's being removed and some being added, but we're beneath any thresholds that would trigger any sort of on-site post construction storm water.

And you mentioned shared driveways. Could you explain to them what they're looking at as far as the driveways are concerned and the the shared aspect?

The the blue I guess I should have started with this. The blue rectangles you see are the actual units. They're 40 by 20. Um they're intended to be served with shared driveways um where the unit count makes that uh feasible. They're uh sized to accommodate two 9 by18 parking spaces. Uh the city minimum is two spaces per unit. not uh my we're providing the two spaces in the actual driveway. There are units on the right hand side that will include garages. So those units will actually have three parking spaces as opposed to the minimum two in the yellow area. That's it.

And so the site plan, the the plan that's been approved by the technical review committee at this point, it addresses um utilities, drainage, sidewalks, and the driveways. Um those are all in accordance with the unified development code and um and um storm water ordinance and NC dots and city's policies as far as access and that's correct. Independent of the TRC review, we have reached out to NC DOT because Winston Avenue is an NC DOT facility and they have given the okay for the driveway configuration onto Winston, but we will need to uh apply for a driveway permit once we get this approval. That would be the next step in the process.

And I believe you said this in the beginning, but town homes are permitted um in the R5 MF district as a special use. Yes, ma'am. And um as far as the um buildings themselves and and I'll ask you to the extent you're comfortable explaining it, and if not, I'll ask Mr. Headley to come up. But if you could um this is the elevation that's proposed for the buildings. Is that correct? That's correct. And could you give them a general description of of the materials, the the um the board and bat and the siding, that sort of thing?

Yeah. So, generally, uh these are uh the elevation that you're looking at is the one without the garage on the front. So, it's a 20 foot wide product. The materials are going to be a mix of materials with the board and batten kind of on the right. I'm looking at the picture in the upper left. The uh upper right hand side of the home includes some board and batten. Um mixed in with horizontal siding on the lefthand side. Um the the elevation included in your packet has some additional specifics noted concerning the headers, the fascias, um the requirements concerning the firewall that will be between the units. Um

I think on the cover just for the sake of the for the council on the very first page um that lower one shows the elevation. I'm sorry it's somewhat small there. It shows the elevation that has the garage that he mentioned and uh the approval stamp that we have from TRC Lisa does include public power, fire marshall, arborist, planning, engineering, public utilities and storm water. So all those departments have approved the plan before them.

That's correct. I do not have any further questions for him and I would like to bring Mr. Burkowitz up unless the council would like to ask questions.

He is allowed to come up and ask questions.

Hello, how are you? You're going to need to speak into the microphone. Can you hear me? Anybody can hear me? Yes. Um, hello Salon. How are you? We talked earlier today. Can you tell us how your project ties within the specific part of the 115 corridor that says that all projects must have harmony within the area? This is a quote from the sisville. Yes, sure.

If I if I may, um, as a note for the record, um, he has testified that this use is a special use permit. um is permitted by special use permit within the R5MF. That means that there's a presumption of harmony as far as the allowance of this use. So I just want to make that note for the record and he can certainly answer her question.

Thank you. Uh, so specifically, I'm not sure if it's on a slide, it's further ahead that Erica has provided, but um, the area is within the downtown neighborhood one, um, which when you read the building form statement that's on that page in the land development plan, it specifically references page 37, which is the elongated diagram that you all have likely seen concerning the missing middle that does include include town homes and like Miss Valdez stated it is a expected use in R5MF. Could you explain what you mean by missing middle that's referenced in the plan?

Uh it's my understanding and personal application of missing middle projects. They're there projects that can be developed with existing infrastructure that is there to be utilized to drive the the cost of development down in order to create a product to where someone who may be looking to have an entry- level job at the city can apply for, you know, the down payment assistance program and live and be able to actually afford somewhere to live that has their name on the title.

Yes. And so based on your knowledge and understanding of the land use plan, both the the 115 and the 2045 from when you were a city employee, does this project meet that missing middle and provide the opportunities that the plan um encourages? Yeah, it's it's my interpretation of both plans that the project as presented does meet uh both of those plans and is facilitated by some of the recent text amendments um accepted by the council in in relation to town homes and allowing their developments in other districts other than R5MF. Um and the text amendment that allowed the reduction in open space necessary to get to a 2,000 foot lot uh to just put a cap on that open space. I think.

So, can you be intentional and explain to the council how if you go back to the next slide, you having those units that have the garages, how is the frontage of the garage at the front of the [clears throat] building directly into the driveway. How does that tie with the general of the area of the Allison Summit and other neighborhoods that been developed with garages? I think you know the area that is around this project you you won't see um you know most I'll say most of the homes and residential buildings in this area do have driveways that come straight in off the street there. There's not a whole lot of development that you're going to see in an alley style development in this area because the lots are simply too small. Is it Does the 2045 plan get into detail as to what yards should look like or how the buildings should look like in this specific

uh architectural details? So, I think um I I don't know that the land development plan requires rear town homes to be rear loaded. I do know that the UDC does allow for shared driveways. Um but it is not a requirement to provide alleys with rear access otherwise rided them. I would like to submit a disappro uh this what you call a descending statement on that. Um all of the houses that have the single family homes.

This is your opportunity. I'm so sorry but this is your opportunity to ask questions or to make objections. So you'll have an opportunity to make a statement and testify yourself at a later point.

So I guess my question is can you show me an example of where you got your plan to facilitate the town homes to create normaly or whatever the plan say that it has to be in relationship. Can you show me where you have your determination that those town homes with a shared driveway you're going to have adequate parking? That's one. And number two, can you tell me where you have done your infrastructure, your environmental studies to show that you're not going to be exchanging or replacing the other utilities that underneath the ground there.

So yes, a couple questions there. I'm going to go back to what Miss Valda stated that, you know, the town home what we're here for is a special use for town homes. um not a special use for shared driveways because the shared driveways are allowed by the UDC and to address the testimony that you gave previously, each town home will have a space for two cars off street. Correct. And so there will not be on street parking as as far as the code requirement. You have met that requirement of allowing two spaces per unit.

Correct. And environmentally, we're in compliance with the post construction storm water requirements. the erosion control requirements and we're utilizing publicly available and publicly maintained water and sewer.

With no other questions, I think we can open it up for the council to ask Mr. Sloan questions. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Sloan? So, this has been to the planning board and the TRC before it came to us, correct? Is that what I'm hearing? Okay. Yeah.

I mean, the planning board, you've gotten approval from everybody before you actually came here. I just want to make sure I got clarification about that. We do have approval from TRC, but the the process outlined in chapter 2 of the UDC does not require the plan that's before you today to go to planning board. The decision making body is yourselves. Okay. So, we have, you know, we've worked with staff and TRC to get the approved plan before you tonight. Gotcha. Okay. Any more questions?

Thank you. I'd next like to ask Michael Burkowitz to come up. I'd like to ask him some questions to qualify him as an expert witness as well. Sorry, Mr. Bookeritz, could you uh explain to the council um what your educational background is in Yes. I have a degree in economics from Duke University. I've been a certified general appraiser in North Carolina for 25 years. And how often or how many of these types of hearings and analyses have you done um related to land development and and zoning requirements approximately?

A lot. Uh usually these are special use permits for development. I've probably done over a hundred of them. And um you prepared a report for Headley Homes. Is that correct? Yes. And I have a copy of that that I would like to provide to the council and enter as an exhibit. I suppose we're at one currently and I'll pass that around. And just to note, there's no objection for the record from the opposition. Michelle,

if you would could you just uh summarize for them um the your analysis what you did, what you reviewed and the conclusion that you came to.

Certainly. I was asked to look at the based upon the drawings that are have been provided here to determine whether the project as proposed would adversely I believe the exact words are substantially hinder the value of adjacent or budding properties according to the ordinance. What I did to do that is I visited the property. I toured the neighborhood. Uh I've also been involved in many downtown uh revitalization projects uh and looking at whether this proposed development would ad substantially injure the value of adjacent or budding properties. What the main while there is no quantitative data to be able to say there are new town homes does that hurt the property of the property adjacent there are too many appraisal elements that would be able to determine a quantitative analysis that would be credible however from a qualitative analysis you look at developments in many and I've worked on in many cities surrounding here as well as in South Carolina on revitalization efforts The difference between this and uh this development and many of the other ones is they usually have zero lot lines to zero zero foot setbacks. So the actual town homes are there so that you could provide an alley behind it. But because of the 10-ft setback, it looks like that that was not feasible. So that is why they provided those access drives. With respect to town homes being developed, I've seen them in Concord, Matthews, Salsbury, uh, Greenville, South Carolina. I've seen them in many, many Davidson. This is the pro, as you see a revitalization of a neighborhood, you usually change the nature and the highest and best use of the property is vacant. to provide a

product that is more consistent with current design standards and amenities that are prevalent in the market. As with many towns around here, there are a lot of old mill houses and things of that nature, and some of them do get revitalized. I've seen that in the Wilmore neighborhood in Charlotte. I've seen it in Morsville. Some of them do get revitalized in that fashion. However, when you have vacant land, usually they're building products that are more consistent with development patterns that are current. Uh, based upon that qualitative analysis and seeing development patterns in similar areas to this, that is it. It would actually only increase the land value because you're changing the highest and best use of the property. as opposed to buying a single residential lot, you're now moving toward a a little higher density. You're therefore more money. Also, with respect to commercial development along the Shelton Avenue corridor, the addition of rooftops, almost every commercial developer is looking at rooftops. That's what they look at. They look for population density. They look at disposable income. And they figure out they can, they're really good at it. If I put a store right there, this is how much money I'm going to be able to make. They're very good at it. So, if anything, by the increased population, it will only spur additional growth and revitalization of the area.

Rick was just to sum up, is it your opinion that this will not substantially injure the value of adjacent or abuing properties? Yes, that is my professional opinion. Thank you. I have no further questions for him. Certainly. Please state other African-American communities that you have done initial housing development in I do not look at race when I'm valuing property.

It was not a race. This is a geographical area. It is noted and it is apparent that Southst has by 85% of all people in South are African-American. So we're not looking at this from a race perspective. So let me re let me let me re ask the question. Can you please identify any other housing developments that you've done in communities that have more than 80% of its population to be African-American of other races? that would be contrary to uniform uh standards of professional appraisal practices to consider race in any that any project.

Well, let me ask it another way. Please state other neighborhoods that the medium income is below 80% of the AMI. Sorry, could you repeat that question? developments that you done in the area where the average medium household income is above 80% of the market value.

I I don't know whether that I don't usually use that factor, but I have done work for the Charlotte Housing Authority with respect to affordable housing. I've also worked on several affordable housing projects throughout North Carolina to be able to determine their value based upon income whether there they sometimes are a mix of 60% of median income 40 there's a whole and some actually have market units inside of these apartment complexes but I have never really looked at 80% as something that I would be looking at for valuation purposes. the your I'm talking to you the small slan made when your engineer made his presentation he mentioned down payment assistance and that you guys were looking at some of these units to bring in dampment assistance within that community that's what I'm asking because in order to qualify for dampment assistance you must be below 50% of the market so I guess my question would be what are the target demographic that you're looking at income demographic that you're looking at for this project.

I am not the developer. I'm a I'm an appraiser. I focus on valuation and valuation principles in accordance with use or uniform standards of preface professional appraisal practices. So that is not in my purview. the communities that you've developed for the Charlotte Housing Authority that were in depraved community or community that were stated as black as this particular project stated in the Statesville 115 corridor 2045 project. What are some of the communities that you have done revitalization in that was below a certain income group that was shared driveway and down payment assistance were allowed in those units? And I'm just going to jump in here and say that that question's been asked just I want to make sure that we're keeping our questions relevant to the purview of what his subject matter that he's testing is testifying to. And I want to make sure we're also not repeating questions unnecessarily. If that's been that's been asked and that's been answered already, there's no objection to that. But I I'm I'm going to interject here and I'm going to say that if you can please keep your questions on on point to the subject matter that he is both testifying to and if you can please not repeat your questions.

Thank you. Um let me just interject. Darby, he's not a developer. He just appraises properties for the housing authorities and others. So he's not he's not here as a witness to a development. He's w he's just a a witness to say that he doesn't feel that the value is going to be uh there's going to be no detrimental value in because of this development. Right.

I was asking and thank you Mr. Mayor for that point. I was asking the appraiser for that because according to the North Carolina uh real estate appraiser the prison is only good for one day for that day of apprais. So if he's saying that today based on what he's putting forward that this unit doesn't have any incumbrances in the future, I want to use his expertise from previous like-minded development that he's done to bring his his idea to that North Carolina praiser requires that the prison is only good for one day.

I I I will be happy to comment. The the letter the report I provided is not an appraisal. It's an impact study. There's no concluded value. You're what you're looking at is the relationship between this development as proposed and whether the market has shown an a detrimental impact on values. That is the my purview. As far as some of the projects I've worked on, if you look at Charlotte Town Plaza, which was an award-winning low-income housing development, which I worked on with the city of Charlotte, also worked on Strong Tower and several other developments uh throughout the North Carolina, but it's more about I my purview is on the valuation. Thank you. [clears throat]

Have any other questions or questions for Mr. Any other questions? Um, I do. When you gave your statement and you talked about your position as appraisal, you opened up that door when you was talking about the value at the the core value of of of the property, if I'm understanding this correctly.

You know, the scope of work is to determine whether if if I were to appraise all of those adjacent or abunding properties, would I make an adjustment for them? That's the question at hand. That is not an appraisal. If I were to quantify that and say there is a 10% dimmunition in value, if I were to say that would be an appraisal, what I am saying is is based upon your ordinance that that does not constitute an appraisal. What I am saying is is that this as proposed will not substantially injure the value of adjacent or abuing properties. It could increase them. It could it could not it could be nothing. But what I'm saying is it does not substantially injure the value of adjacent or abuing properties.

Thank you. But as appraisal you set the tone for the cost the price of the property. Is that correct? Am I correct? You don't. No. See I don't I'm learning. I'm learning. No. If I were asked to value it. Yes.

That is an appraisal which is a different scope of work. And the scope of work rule in usepat is I define what the scope of work is and can I provide credible uh credible results that is what my focus is in this case if I were to quantify and say 20% or something like that that would constitute an appraisal and that's opens up a whole different book. What I am doing is fulfilling your ordinance and the criteria, the findings of fact for this special use permit. Thank you. Any other questions for Michael?

Shall we move into the staff presentation or? No. Miss Valdez may have another witness. We need to first determine that.

If you have specific questions about the project itself or um the the units, I'm happy to ask Mr. Hedley to come up here and answer those. Otherwise, I wanted to summarize what you've heard as far as the um the testimony and the findings of fact that you will be asked and and um I have proposed findings for you. I also wanted to address in going through those and that's on your um for your slide here. Uh what I've done here is listed those things that you've heard tonight from either um Mr. Sloan or Mr. Burkowitz about um what evidence what testimony the um we've provided to support each of these findings to be found in the positive. I'll pass those around for your use as you deliberate this um as we go along. Um specifically for the first Mr. Sloan testified to the fact of this meeting the ordinance uh that the site plan was designed in accordance with the unified development code that there is existing water sewer and electricity that's at the site that will be used and is adequate that issues as far as any storm water runoff or erosion control that those have been mitigated through the design process and the approved plan. And then also that the open space that's there um is in excess of what's required are then highlighted where those areas are um that will be yard area for um residents as well as the common areas um for use by all of the the residents. Um he's Mr. Sloan also testified to the fact that the the technical review committee approved the site plan um that's included with the application that you have in your packet that it meets the criteria as far as setbacks, building heights, lot coverage, those things. Um that it also illustrates the landscaping and buffering requirements, the open space requirements that are required by

the unified development code. Essentially, we would um we would represent to the board that the second finding of fact is made by that testimony that was provided. As far as third, Mr. Brooker with his testimony and the report that was submitted as exhibit one that this meets and provides evidence that the um third finding of fact has been met and that he testified it's his opinion that uh the proposed development will not substantially injure the value of the adjoining or budding properties. Uh the report gets into a little bit more detail about that, but essentially that was his opinion um meeting criteria for the finding number um three. It also submits I believe Mr. Sloan also testified that it meets the community growth and revitalization goals that are within the 2045 land development plan. We also showed um the U 115 master plan as well and its compliance with that. Uh fourth, um again, Mr. Sloan testified and um I believe you'll probably um get more information as Miss Martin presents her her presentation, but I want to make sure that this board understands and I have I will pass around just explanatory information regarding the harmony question and that because um the town homes and multif family are listed as permitted uses as a special use permit within the R5 M4 district that that means that there is a presumption because the city has has placed those there in that category in the R5MF that the special use permit that it means that there is a presumption that this use is in harmony with the district and um I I know our presentation or the the matter is not complete but that that presumption can be rebutted but um whether or not there's evidence substantial in um uh evidence as to whether or not this is not in harmony I guess we will we will hear that and I will discuss that more later but this is

an explanation about that um related to that's from the school of government just a explanation of what that means when you have placed that as a permitted or special use within that zoning category. Um I would also so it would be our contention that all four of the criteria we've provided substantial evidence that those have been met that those findings have been met and to support an approval of this project. I'm happy to um answer any questions that you all have or wait until there's further testimony. And I would like the opportunity at that time to um to address the council again.

Any questions for Lisa? Mr. Mayor, I have a question and just a question for the developer. I'm interested uh to know what the price point is and what the target market that you hope to attract to these town homes. Uh our target price point is mid-200s. Uh families, first-time home buyers, workingclass people is our target.

Miss Baldes, can I please um count the uh pictures from your PowerPoint as exhibits? Yes, I would like to if we're at that point I would like to enter our presentation as I guess we're at exhibit two. Well, we've got the Hadley letter or the um appraiser the impact study letter sorry as one. Um and then proposed findings the proposed findings is two. Do you want to count this as three? Um certainly. Okay. three and then we'll count that as four then four if there's no objection for the record hearing none they'll be admitted thank you welcome

thank you any further questions for [clears throat] I have a question doors when they uh when Mr. Presley asked you about the price. Are those prices are for all of the units be the townhouse or is it a a different price for different uh uh phases on that site? Uh the uh three with garages will cost us a little more to build and those will probably be 10 15,000 more than the other 11 with no garage. So less than 300,000. Yes. Yeah. They'll all be less than 300,000. And you said you have a firsttime home buyer program or you just

There's there's a lot of banks right now that have a lot of different like down payment assistance that Cory mentioned and there's first-time home buyer programs. Um FHA VA has, you know, low down payment. Have that. Yeah. But we'll we'll partner with a bank and Yep. Thank you. So all the units are 800 square feet. Uh they're twotory. So 800 and 800. Okay. So 1,600. Okay. Yeah. Yes. So, that's great. And and they are how many how many beds and how many baths? Uh they're all three bedroomedroom, two bathrooms. Two full bathrooms.

Any further questions? Would you like Erica to do her presentation for the staff or what do we do next? Yes, we we would invite Miss Martin up to do her presentation. Thank you, Miss Mess. Do I need to qualify myself or my employee as experts before I begin? Um, sure.

My name is Erica Martin. I'm currently the planning director for the city of Statesville. I have been a planner for 20 years. All of that time in the state of North Carolina working for municipalities. 15 of those years I've been certified by the American Institute um which is a national planning accreditation. With me this evening is Mr. Campbell um member of my staff and Dr. Mr. Campbell, if you'll give your background, please.

Hello, I'm Joseph Campbell. I'm a planner 2 with city estates planning and zoning. I've been with the department for four years and I have a bachelor's of science in geography from Appalachin State University. Thank God that I also have a degree from appalachin state in planning and regional development. Um, I hereby submit this PowerPoint as evidence. So, for I'm not going to review all the findings. I'd like to focus on findings two and four. Um, Joey, did you review Mr. Campbell? Did you review this plan? Yes, I did.

And did you deem it approved or approved with comments denied? What was the approval given? So the official determination was that it was approved with comments. And so what comments are outstanding?

Uh so at this stage which which was submitted as a sketch plan. Uh there were just a couple of general house cleaning stuff. We planning had a few comments such as there was one section of the active open space that did not have the square footage added and that would be uh needed to calculate the total active open space as required via the code. Um we were looking for a total uh breakdown things that of the parking requirements things that would come as part of the construction documents. I believe Stormwater also had a few comments about a discrepancy between the total built area built upon area between the application and what was submitted as part of the sketch.

And you don't have to ask questions. You guys can just testify. Okay. Yep. Uh well, I'm going to keep asking questions because I jotted them down. No, that's [laughter] not. So, why don't we see a landscaping plan? So at this stage in the submittal uh a landscaping plan is not required. Uh however it was asked on the sketch plan that they provide their landscaping plan at the next stage which is the construction docks which will break down all of the points and requirements for those landscaping buffers. Thank you. So my last question for you Mr. Campbell, is it fair to state all the minimum requirements have been met at this stage, but that landscaping is reviewed later as part of the detailed construction documents?

I would agree with that statement.

Thank you, sir. So, I think we've established that the minimum requirements have been met. Um but there is finding four and this is instate law written as the harmony within the area and in conformance with our plan of development. This area was platted in the 1920s and these lots were 50 feet wide 150 ft in depth. That pattern largely remains intact today. This equated to 7,500 square f feet per lot or approximately five dwelling units per acre. As this neighborhood um started to grow and these lots started to build, we see predominantly small single family detached homes. Most of them are singlestory, although there are a few um twostory. The neighborhood also has grassed front yards, often with mature trees, and this is seen over and over throughout the development. Parking is typically found on the street or on offset driveways. These offset driveways are to the side or to the rear of the home. There are some duplexes and triplexes in the neighborhood, but they have a similar scale and character to single family detached homes. Here's some examples. As you can see, grass front yards. Parking is not the predominant feature. We're also starting to see some new builds in the neighborhood. Some of the new builds are one story, but most of them are two stories. But again, even these new infill homes have grass front yards with offset driveways.

Our 2045 land use plan, which was adopted in 2022, has a section dedicated to our downtown traditional neighborhood. This area is within that. And it says, "New construction should mimic adjacent residential building forms, especially at neighborhood intersections." and it talks about these infill developments being contextsensitive. There's also a section of this plan called infill and redevelopment in which it talks about the missing middle and gives some examples of those um missing middle type applications. But again, it speaks to contextsensitive designs to ensure compatibility with the established neighborhood. And when you actually look at the image and text of what is shown, that top image is showing you town homes that are accessed from the rear. The plan also dedicates an entire section to the Shelton Avenue and southern neighborhoods. And in this section dedicated to Shelton Avenue and the southern neighborhoods, it says that smallcale multifamily, which is four dwelling units per acre, that's the envision that is placed within this plan, is what is appropriate for this location. Town homes and resident attached residential are not mentioned in the Shelton Avenue and southern neighborhood section of our 2045 plan at all. So in staff's review, I find this to be in harmonious and not in conformance with our plans. Um, and in fact, the the plan they showed, the downtown plan, that is from 2009.

And if you actually look at the image they shared, it shows uh rear loaded town homes with street trees and yards. Their proposal is for lots that are 73% smaller in size than what is typical for this neighborhood. And right now the density is five dwelling units per acre for this area. They're asking for 14 dwelling units per acre, which is nine more dwelling units per acre than the existing neighborhood. Their proposal also eliminates grass front yards which are a character throughout this neighborhood. The driveways become the dominant feature. The image at the bottom of the screen is uh Settler's Landing in Concord. And so this is the closest thing I could find to their proposal. their proposal. If you'll see at the top, it has this little thin strip which is only 4 feet wide which would only allow bushes. It will not allow trees and there's no um building yard in front of the units like in the Concord example. So their example would have even fewer than um the settlers landing in Concord. So to conclude, um staff finds the density increase proposed is beyond the current conditions or the future land use plan and that the town homes are not designed in a contextually sensitive manner with the established neighborhood. Thank you, mayor.

Thank you, Miss Martin. At this time, I think we'd ask Miss Valdez if she has questions [clears throat] for um any of our city staff. [snorts] Um, Miss Martin, is the R5 MF district the highest density residential district that's in the city's unified development code? Yes. And town homes are listed as a special use in that R5 MF district. Correct. Meaning that they do not have any public input. It come straight to the board for consideration. And are you familiar with the with the law that um the harmony is it's presumed to be in harmony because it's listed as a special use that the city has made that determination by listing it as a special use in its zoning code.

Sure. I'm not saying that town homes are not um should not be permitted in this district. I'm saying that the way they're designed now are not in alignment with the future lane use plans as evidenced in the materials I provided this evening. How do you make the distinction though between town homes? your your ordinance doesn't say singlestory or town homes with front yards. It says town homes are a special use within that district.

Well, in our 2045 plan and even the plan you referred to earlier, it it has examples of town homes that are rear loaded. Now, this product could have been designed for um if they had been wider units, then you could have had a grass front yard, you could have had a street tree, but they're doing 20 ft. So, as evidence there's the homes in this neighborhood are not that narrow obviously. Um, but

and no disrespect, but do you have a building background or an engineering background or marketing that would suggest the size and that town homes are normally a wider width than 20 or that that's a standard width for a town home attached product? Well, I'm saying that a town home that is wider would allow a grass front yard that would be in conformance with the neighborhood and a wider town home would also likely be more expensive at a higher price point. Would you agree?

I cannot agree with that. I don't have any background to the cost. Um, as far as the 2045 plan in the section that is the Shelton Avenue and Southern Neighborhoods section, which begins on page 51, um, there are some where it references the recommendations and um, I don't I I will read this or you can read this, but I just want to make sure that it's that this is in the record. Um, it recommends under the for the again this is the Shelton Avenue and Southern neighborhoods and you would agree by your presentation that this property is in with within that area of this ne of this. I would agree with that. Yes.

And it has that the entirety of the area is served by adequate utilities, making this a highly adv advantageous area for revitalization that can maximize existing public infrastructure and provide a higher return on investment for the community. The real estate market analysis report identifies this area as prime for redevelopment with a mix of small-scale single and multifamily housing units and neighborhood scale retail. [snorts] Is that correct? That is correct. and town homes would typically be considered multif family.

They so under state law they're actually defined as single family attached. Um but for the application of our land use plan multif family and it goes on to say that appropriate uses along the Shelton Avenue corridor include serviceoriented retail small-cale office and institutional uses that support the surrounding neighborhoods, small business infill development and moderatelysized multifamily housing. Is that correct? Correct. and small scale. It later goes on to say four dwelling units per acre.

Actually, it doesn't say that and that's my next point. It says within the southern neighborhoods, infill and redevelopment should provide new single family homes and small-scale multif family up to four units. It doesn't say per acre. It says up to four units options with some neighborhood scale retail and office uses at key neighborhood road intersections. So, and I make that point because it doesn't say four units per acre. It doesn't say that that's the the required density or the appropriate density. It simply says four units. I would stay with my understanding that it would be per acre. That is standard for um planning verbiage and zoning ordinances. It it is right. Correct. But the but the planning if it were standard they didn't add that or they didn't explain.

I think it was an assumption because this was written by planners. Okay. And so but if it's 4 units per acre then why would the city apply an R5 MF district that's the highest residential district? There's nothing prohibiting town homes. This it is the design of the town homes that is not in conformance with the plan. But the design is not the you you agree that the law says that if you put it in your table, if you've made it a special use, town homes are considered harmonious and compatible with the plan and with the area unless there's evidence presented to the contrary, which I have provided this evening. So the respectfully so the city is rebutting its own presumption.

No, I'm pointing out what our future lane use plan says. Thank you. So

at this time if there are um questions from opposition hearing none, um the council has an opportunity to ask the planning staff any questions. I have a question to our planning. We agree or disagree, but with the with what's been said today, your recommendation still stands as you stated after hearing the statements from um uh here tonight. Have you changed any of your thoughts on how the uh how we should go as far as we moving forward with uh with your decisions you made that you have already made?

No. And and for the record, staff does not make recommendations on special use permits. Miss Martin, for clarification, your objection from a form perspective is the location of the parking. Yes. or the driveways and the elimination of front yards. Uh, one of the things that was mentioned by Mr. Sloan is he described these as shared driveways. They it appears that there is an individual driveway for each unit. So, how does our code describe shared driveways just so I have a more full understanding of what everybody's discussing?

I'd like to invite Mr. Joseph Campbell Ford to answer that question. Mr. Robertson. So, our code does allow for two parking spaces per unit. It to my knowledge, it doesn't specify that there has to be any specific distance between the shared driveways. So, whenever you have units that are com like stacked on top of each other, as long as they're meeting those parking requirements, it is permissible. Okay. So there's no real meaning of the word shared driveway in our code? Not to my knowledge. No, sir. Okay. Very good.

I have another question as well. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. Aren't we Are we not in the process of kind of updating our UDO as well for stuff like this? We are in the process of updating, but it is um many months from adoption, but we are in the process. So I think we kind of have to keep that in consideration. Thank you. Any further? Yes, Christie. U Miss Martin, they stated earlier that um to that they had to go through the special use permit process. They could have also gone conditional resoning, could they not?

Yes. And that would have allowed public input. It would have required a neighborhood meeting. Um but this just brings it straight to council for decision. Okay. you haven't seen any other developments, town home or apartments um in our area that with your objection had the non no front yard or parking in the front from what you've seen so far? Yeah, I'm still exploring the city, but I certainly spent a good amount of time driving throughout this neighborhood and did not find anything similar within the vicinity. Any further questions for staff?

All right. Thank you, M. Martin. So, is there any do we ask if anyone else has any? Um, I think that the opposition would have an opportunity to testify. Miss Scaff, would you have would you like to say anything further?

Hello [snorts] everyone. Are the Statesville Community Enrichment Corporation is a 501c nonprofit organization that was formed by the Statesville housing authority board to bring development and create incomes to provide affordable housing for the citizens of Statesville, improve workforce development, and do family and community development. The housing the housing authority operates on federal dollars. Therefore, has been the only lowincome housing developer from the city to the city. We're looking at um town homes are the Stio Community Richmond Corporation currently built and developed the Fox Avenue town houses and the West End town houses that are next to Mitchell Community College. If you look at those town houses, we are looking at this project and saying that those should be the example used if town houses are to come within the city of Statesville. If you look at those town houses, there's a front yard, there's grass, and the driveways are not shared. The parking lots, the parking spaces are also separate. This current project that the develop has brought, I know tonight we just focus when the city manager was assisting me in looking at the areas. We just look at the areas, the commercial areas that were adjacent to this development. But if go across cow street on the other side of god no bagel ally summit subdivision single family home with garages um were developed. If you go across fourth street on the other side of Wilson Lee we also own single family developments. Some of those are in multif family on the corner of Wilson

Lee and Seventh Street directly across from the current um unit one fire department. So all of the surrounding areas surrounding this particular project that was zoned with project 2045 states that and I'm stressing on the word. words are important, right? Harmony of the community. When I stand here today and look at the $112 million of um nonprofit money, $2.4 million of federal dollars, $569,000 of City of Statesville money that has been put into home funds and development along that corridor. We must stick to the guidelines that we told the citizens we're going to stick to. We told the citizens that we're going to bring development down there with front yards. We told the citizen and I understand this particular developer and I don't know your name sir. Um went around about and went for this particular zoning code. I'm not too familiar with zoning code. I'm not a zoning person. But we are looking at what we told the citizens when we wrote this project 2045 for the south side of Statesville. And if we are going to come down there and bring town homes that going to range between $200 to $300,000, they need to look at $200 to $300,000 that we would build anywhere else in this town or any other town. I totally disagree with the the standard that they currently have. It does not comply with the infield standards for the softsai. It does not comply with the the um standard the standard code the uniform standard code

that this board has adopted. And last but not least, if something new has been brought within that community, I think the residents need to un to be part of it. It's the first town home that's going to be done into that community. I am not asking this board tonight to to deny this um particular permit. I'm just asking that the board some of the the gaps within the 2045 plan um that has that is not just out there for people needs to be re-evaluated. You know like the like the two the shared driveway there's nothing in the plan that's this shared driveway. If this board allow this plan, where do we change the the the mechanism for the next developer that's going to come in? I'm asking that this board delay this vote and allow the neighborhood, all of the cane investors within that corridor to have some time and actually evaluate this plan to a greater detail and that this plan be put forth within the community for $280,000 price point. I suggest that we look at it again. That's what we're here today to say. Jo, you stated um that this does not comply with the infill requirements. Can you state specifically what it doesn't comply with? under the uniform development code of standard under the statesville the city adopting the statesville source that's how you guys called it in your plan stated that the proposed the bypasses of these of the the compact and increment in the

sore plan we said that statesville will improve compact and incrementally that's the First you use in those in that thing compact and incrementally not automatically bring 14 units with no yard and just thrust on the people. Again ladies and gentlemen words are important. Are you saying sewer sore s o a r in your plan under the statesville DC standard plan statesville source? I don't I don't I don't know what that is. That's why I'm asking.

Fly st a r sore s so sore. I'm sorry. I'm I still have questions for you. But again, you said it doesn't comply with infill and it doesn't comply with the UDC. I don't understand what the reference is to the soar and the and the plan and that. But so what specifically doesn't it not comply with the UDC? because staff testified that it did meet the minimum requirements in order to come before this board. The plan, the 2045 plan, you said the UDC, not the 2045 plan. You said it doesn't comply with the UDC, which is the development code.

And that's exactly what I'm saying. The unif states that all development must be compact and incremental. And where does it state that? In the plan. Read the plan. It's in here. is in is isn't it you're you're alleging that the plan doesn't meet the UDC which staff has testified that it does and you can't tell me what page it says that it has to be compact and incremental and how is this not compact when you I'm not I'm compact and incremental both things has to be true it is not incremental this particular plan is not incremental what does that mean to you as far as it being incremental what would

that mean has to tie in gradually with what is already in the community what is already stated in the Currently we don't have any any um town houses within that area. All properties within that area have a front yard and have grass. There is no resident in that area that have shared driveway. Those things are not incremental in the plan.

And you acknowledge that the surrounding land uses include a church and a commercial corridor along Shelton Avenue. It's not all residential. the specific area that you're building this particular zoning is probably a block away from the main corridor. That bag of that area in that area does not have any commercial properties within that area. You have a church that has a parsonage because the church has a parsonage that is not considered residential. Ma'am, it's zoned commercial right next right across the street. So yeah, that zone that is commercial zoning right next to it. I'm not talking about this zoning. We also own the properties back here.

I'm not just talking about your property. I'm asking you said that has to be incremental and it has to be compact. Well, based on your statement, there will never be town homes because you can't have them there because there aren't any now, which is what you just testified to. Commercial, there's commercial zoning right next to it. So across the street from this, you could have any use that's permitted in the highway in the H115 district. If you're looking at on the on the right of the R at R5 MF, of course, you're going to have the corridor, but your building is on the on the lower on the on the south. It's south of Winston Avenue, right across from commercial zone property,

but on the other side of it is also multif family. See, when I'm looking at the development that's coming within the south side of Statesville, we were very intentional making the the the units along the 115 corridor because if this council can remember, as was the one that acquire all of those units that were single family home to made it into commercial full stop. On the other side of this, if you go across Winston Avenue, Clare Cross, go further further west, you're going to go across Garden Bagnum and enter on Carway Junction. On the other side, if you take Fourth Street and go across again Winston Avenue and go on the other side, you will cross right across Wilson Lee and Fourth Street goes on the other side. Cardinal Bagno splits the streets up but doesn't stray out the land. You know that? I understand that caragner splits, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question that I asked. But despite that, um, you also stated that we avoided, I believe you said that we that we specifically did this in a roundabout way, and this may involve Miss Martin to come back up and testify, but the special use permit requirement does have a public component. I drove out there personally and I saw a public notice sign. So, anybody else that could be here that could have attended, if they had input and that they had any concerns and they wanted to come. So, we did not avoid a public input process. And candidly, I take offense to you alleging that my c that my client did do it in a roundabout way to avoid that.

I apologize. Maybe let me apologize. And and if you could inform us as to when you learned about this project. So, first question, maybe I shouldn't have said you guys went about it the other way. What I'm saying is that the board should consider since this this is within the south side of Statesville, the board should actually consider having the residents involved in making this decision. What's your second question? When did you learn about this project?

I learned about this project in the latter part of December. I was out on accident and my team told me about this project in the latter part of December. I the your company name. There are several different entities that tie to that first name. My staff went out looking and trying to find different um agencies with that name. We finally were able to get Mrs. Sloan's information and I reached out to Mrs. Long. And when was that?

I reached out Mrs. Long today because I've tried. Your company has several the company has several other deals within the North Carolina corporate. I'm not I'm not certain about that. But but you acknowledge that you had plenty of time to talk to my client about this if you had any concerns and we did not hear from you until today. I acknowledge that. Thank you. Okay. Can I finish today? I I do. I do. Are you done? Can I finish? I'm done asking. I thought that you were done. That's why I was asking you questions. Okay. I do. Yeah. Doris does that for questions that aren't I I want I want to speak.

This is the first time for myself and I've been here for eight years that I've had a developer to come in and we have not had a plan call to the public. Nor did we have the planning board to open because this is the way it was done and everything is changing. I understand that. But I [clears throat and snorts] am not satisfied with the fact that the public there's more than one way to get the public's input. And that's what we have done for eight years when developers come in that they have worked with the plan department. We they set up public uh meetings with them. They came back and addressed the they came back.

I just want to note that this is the time to ask questions. Okay. I want to know I want to know as you put the zoning up. This is the time to ask Dar questions. Dava, right? Okay. My question is having heard how they how it was planned through the zoning. Is there other any other way that a develop could have gotten this information out? And

can I speak openly and honestly? If everybody in this town know me, I say what what's out there and I always speak my mind. I always try to speak the truth as best as I can. Ladies and gentlemen, we I know I know we don't want to discuss race in America. It's become a topic that nobody wants to talk about because become very uncomfortable. But we are looking at the only African-American community on this side of town. And we are also looking at developments of 200 plus 200 plus town homes for home ownership. We're looking at low income in that area of less than $35,000 per household. We have to be intentional what we do in our neighborhoods. That's all I'm asking. I'm just saying to this council, give this developer a little bit more time and let them prove to the citizens within our area that having a condominium with no grass is okay. I just don't think it should be part of what what this this staff the city of St. worked so hard, paid thousands of dollars to bring in planners to tell us how the 115 corridor shoe look. We've invested hundreds and thousands of dollars for the shoe skip that's going to come down there. Grass again, grass, grass, grass, and all of a sudden we're just going to say, "Oh, no. Concrete don't make sense. It's not in harmony." So speaking openly, that is not the only African-American community in that area on that side of town. Let me let me fix that. So that's not you have two other communities that are very heavily so I don't even want that to be a factor in us making a decision tonight. So with that being said, let's let's scratch

that because I think when we come into an area or to room and we make race an issue, it's going to be an issue and I don't want it to be an issue. 2026, let's be fair across the board and make it attainable housing, not based on race and color because I think that's what's gotten us in trouble for most. So let's let's clear the slate with that. With that just as legal representative, we can't make decisions,

right? But I'm just saying discriminatory factors. I I want to say in reference to because we however this turn out in the structure what's happening right now is going to determine how we do in the future with other developers what's coming who we are as a city of Staceville and we as residents of Staceville and we are we have worked so hard to become a part of the city and all I'm asking is the fact that give and opportunity for the community and for the people diversity is here. It's going to be here, but we should not warn out the fact that we still need to have an open dialogue to let people know what is actually happening inside their community.

Can you guys come up and tell us when you put the signs out? Is that Can I say that? Can I ask that question? I'm sorry. You can ask that question. I just want to know because we're I think she was saying about the public notice. So, was there public notice? I think that's the big question at hand. So, I think um I just want to ask that question. Was there public notice and when did you guys put them out?

Yes. I I placed the signs on December 23rd, 2025, and I placed one on Winston South meeting and Caldwell Street. That is not the only definition because we have had others to come in, other developers who have done certain things and then working with the planning board, we've had more than one discussion. I'm not saying that that what you did was not appropriate, but I think with the concept of getting the information out that most developers will work with the plan department or work with the community and addressing there's been more than just one meeting taking place with the people in the community. And I don't want this to miss the opportunity for the people in this community to have that same opportunity to be able to have more than just one. We've had several meetings with different developers. they had then they came I don't if even if one person came to that meeting they they was open with their conversation they was open with their plan I don't see this here

and I just want to say that the planning departments testified that all procedures were properly followed to get us here today for notice requirements well it is it is a new change it it's the process for special use permits it's not a change it's it's different process for conditional and a different process for notice It's for for special needs. We need to address the special need program. We need some changes.

Um, Miss Al, I I apologize if you think that we and and I don't think that you think that we did it intentionally, but we followed the process that was in the ordinance and and I believe and Mr. Headley can come up here, but I believe he asked if he needed to have a neighborhood meeting and he was told he didn't need to do that. He was willing to do that and and meet with the community. And so the process included notice and putting the signs up and and he did that. And then this is a public hearing that I believe is advertised. And so he was following the steps that were with the special use permit. There was no intent to to not involve the community and and have input. This has been going on for some time as far as submitting the site plan and making sure that it was reviewed by the technical review committee and then then this getting scheduled. So, um, if we need to address that, I can certainly step out and and talk to my client if that's a concern,

but we followed the the process that was set out in the ordinance. I think we should let Miss Martin speak to this, too, as the city staff representative. Thank you, Miss Martin. Thank you. Yes. I'd like to um I met with uh Mr. Sloan and Mr. Hedley, and our ordinance sets out two paths for SPE uh for town homes. You can either go the path of a special use permit or you can go the path of conditional zoning. I recommended they follow the conditional zoning route which would have had a neighborhood meeting. They chose the option which they're allowed to do which is special use permit which is the format we have this evening. [snorts] Thank you.

Thank you. My question to you, would you be would you reconsider and go with the plan that was uh first uh presented by uh our staff the second phase? Um respectfully, you're asking us for to withdraw this

and the process that we went through and the expense for this to then reapply as a conditional zoning. I can certainly talk to him about that, but I don't understand why we would do that when we followed the code process. If you if you are asking in the alternative that we ask you to continue this hearing and we schedule a meeting with the public somewhere out there and then come back here, I can certainly if you would allow me to step out with him and talk to him about this, I would appreciate it.

I think we need to discuss this as a council. thing, right? If it's not tonight, we we don't have to do it tonight. That's fine. You don't do it tonight. But we need it's another option and they need to be considered. Wow. The regulations are already there's another choice and if they choose and every every other every every developer always talked with the public and gave them an opportunity. They were applied under a different it was totally different process. Different thing. this was done appropriately. I mean, this is unfortunately it's just that's this is a quai judicial board at this point. So, it's all about fact. It was an existing I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Lisa. It's an existing R5 MF district. It to to reszone it would have been to make it an R5 MF conditional and it just seemed that it was the special use route was achieved the same the same end with also having the same process. either one would still come to this board

you with the history I'm learning I'm learning others here may already have the knowledge and experience but I'm learning so whatever the protocol is for right now is going to be the protocol that's going to be in the future I'm just trying to get uh try to get a better understanding of this process and how it works so that's why I asked the question I did if there was another option you chose that one opt option that you felt comfortable with, but there was another option that could have been chosen. If there was just only one direct way of doing it, then I would have said okay. But I am just one person and one vote and I was saying with working together with the city, there was another option.

But that's the developer's option. I said it was another option and if they choose not to, it was still there. Okay. Okay. So Leah, can we is it time to close the evidentiary hearing and have discussion from

I I don't the applicant has a right to make a closing argument if if you have any further statements that you'd like to make to this board. But before Miss Valdez does, I just want to say whether or not we agree with this process or think it's a good process, they have a due process right to be able to choose this process. And I don't think that we can vote no for the basis that we don't agree with the special use process. Um, and so I just want to make sure it's very clear that because special use permit is a valid avenue from our code, there is a due process right to apply for a special use permit and follow that process that's outlined there of which this board has heard no credible, competent, substantial or relevant evidence that they have done anything in contradiction of that. So apologies. I just want to make sure that the law is understood um and that the due process rights which are constitutional rights and safeguarded by the United States in the North Carolina state comp constitution. I want to make sure that those are preserved. So with that, Miss Valdez, please make any closing remarks that you have.

Um yes, and I'll I'll try and be brief and I will I will try and I apologize. I have been before Statesville City Council, not all of you before with projects that whether they're called affordable or attainable or workforce housing. And I consistently hear that this is a need and a concern in this city. And then I come with respectfully as a citizen, not as an attorney. I come before you with a project for 14 town hound homes in an area of Statesville that your plans say need to be revitalized. For years that I've lived here that we want a grocery store and we want this commercial development and as was testified by, you need houses in order to provide that and that we want this redevelopment and this revitalization. And in fact, your plan says we want that, but we don't want to displace the people that are there. And this provides an opportunity to have affordable, attainable workforce housing, whatever we want to call it. 14 units in this area to provide new homes for people to provide support to the redevelopment of the commercial area there. And we have gone through the processes of the special use permit. And we have provided findings and evidence before you this evening that state we've met those findings. We provided that evidence. We provided expert testimony that said it does not substantially injure the surrounding properties. That it meets your code whether it's the minimum standards or it meets it. It meets your code that it it is in harmony with your plan because you all put it as a special use in that district. So, and respectfully, you can't rebut your own presumption. You can't say that it's in harmony by putting it in the R5MF district and then say no, it's not. And again, I mean no disrespect to anybody in this board or the staff, but what I hear us talking about, whether it's staff or whether it's Mshaw, is because it doesn't have a front yard of grass. and and we're going to turn down the opportunity for 14 town homes in the price range of $250 to $300,000 to

provide new housing opportunities, which I've heard and I respectfully heard many of you say this as your campaign speeches that you that this is a need in this city and this is here and we're and we've gotten lost in the fact whether or not we like driveways and we like how the front of it looks and respectfully that's not in the purview of what this permit is. What this permit is is for town homes, 14 of them, as a special use permit. And maybe people don't want a front yard to mow. Maybe they want their backyard where they have privacy and they can do they can play ball or do whatever in their backyard with privacy and they don't want to have to have a mower in the front yard or have an area to maintain in the front yard. I don't know that because I'm not a builder, but I know that my client has done his research as to what is viable for this project and to have a price point that is something that will sell there and provide new opportunities. So, I apologize. I will step off my soap box, but I have I've heard this argument for years and then I stand here before you and we've been here for two hours and more than two hours talking about the front yard and a and you've been provided expert testimony, substantial evidence that we have met the burden as far as a special use permit. And respectfully with that, I will answer any other questions you have, but I will stop. I want to say this and I want to say it in in the closing. This is what the council body does. We want information. We ask for it whether we agree or disagree. And I have been educated in many different areas. We tried very hard to get a street a streetscape, greenery, and all the things that made our community come up from where it was. I am grateful for the price. I'm grateful that the fact that there's going to be growth because it's a long time overdue. It's not that I'm against it. I just

want clarity and how things were because I am I fought hard and I want to see change. So, I'm not against positive change. I just want an understanding and the process. I can appreciate that and and I appreciate the change that I'm seeing happening down there with or without this development. This will add to it. There is growth in our community. Yes. Thank you. Any further questions for Miss Valdez? Mus in out. Close the public hearing. We're going to close the evidentiary hearing and we'll begin discussion um amongst the council.

If if I could just start by quickly reminding everybody of the burden of proof. The applicant has the initial burden of proof and is required to present competent material and substantial evidence that proves each of the required elements of the review criteria for the decision being made. The burden then shifts to the opposition to present competent material and substantial evidence that the elements of the review criteria for the decision decision being made have not been satisfied. If no evidence is presented to oppose the applicant's request, the council shall approve the request. If evidence is presented to oppose the applicant's request for each of the elements and the review criteria, you have to to analyze, the council shall weigh the evidence to determine which evidence is more trustworthy, reliable, and substantial. Thank you.

Thank you.

For the benefit of discussion, Mr. Mayor, can we get the slide up that has the four components that we'll be discussing? with your permission. I think that it's pretty obvious that findings one through three are not really in contention. Those are all very straightforward. There's expert testimony to back all of those and there's no testimony to oppose those. There is a little bit of argument about finding number four. The argument is about the character and the form of the construction. Now these arguments stem from page 64 of our land development plan. That is not the land use code. So that's describing what we would like to see, but we as a city failed to codify that into a code. So we have described what we would like to see. We've described that driveway parking to the rear of properties and back alleys is preferable, but we did not put that into our code. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for us to hold a developer to a standard that we didn't have the intentionality to codify for ourselves. So, if we don't like that, and I agree, I don't like that. But I think it's absolutely horrible looking and it would and it would be much more traditional because we described this as a traditional neighborhood to put them in the rear. But we did not do that. We did not require that in our code. Therefore, we cannot require a developer to do something that we did not codify. Therefore, by based off of the description of our code, this meets that this meets the density requirements that we have laid out in our code. They did everything appropriately procedurally while they were applying. Everything in

finding four that could be asked of them has been done. Therefore, I believe and I think that it is impossible to come to any other conclusion that they meet all four findings and would therefore it would not only be appropriate but it would be required of us to grant this special use permit. Are you making that as a motion? No, I allow discussion to continue, but I would enjoy making that as a motion if discussion concludes.

Well, I will um when it comes to a motion, I will support it and I I would like to have these comments that the 2045 land plan is nothing more than that. It's a plan. And it's not code, it's not a UDC, and it's not zoning. It is a plan. And a plan must have flexibility. And uh number one, I would like to thank the staff and those who spoke tonight. Whether you're for or against it, I appreciate your professionalism. Um and I think the project is a value ad. And when you look at the facts of finding one through four, I would agree that there's nothing in there that says no, this does not meet the standard or this does not meet the fact. Um I do believe that we have gaps in our plan. Um the development with a front yard that's all driveway. You know, we've never discussed that before. That's never come up. It's not in our UDC. I I you know, that's something that we need to do. I have seen since I've been on this council that we have voted to reszone heavy industrial and light industrial to R5 and R8 because that's what the need was at the time. It was to allow for more housing. and we've seen that in this area on the south side of Statesville. Um I think this process as Miss Allison has stated it was a learning process and identified maybe some shortfalls uh that we need to address. But as it is tonight, I think the developer has met the requirements and they've gone through the process correctly and I support the the four the four findings in support of this project. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any other discussion?

Then I move to approve the special use permit because of its uh compliance with all four of the findings. Is there specific wording that I need to use for that or does that suffice? I would ask that the motion also include a request for me to draft an order that um reflects the conversation, the evidence that we heard and the motion. Okay. that that we approve the special use permit and that the city attorney draft the appropriate order following this meeting to be to be voted on at our next meeting. be voted on at the next meeting. Thanks. And a sec. Second. We have a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Nay. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you so much.

We thank you for your uh presentation and uh for trying to make states feel a better place. Um all righty. [clears throat]

Wow, that was a lot of stuff. All righty. Uh, next on the agenda, um, is consider approving a revised pavement section schedule in statesville construction specifications to align local requirements with NC DOT standards to comply with language in HB926. And Mr. Huert is going to uh make that presentation. Thank you. Good evening. All right. So, my name is Matt Hubin. I'm the city engineer. Presenting on this item. Uh just a brief overview of the agenda uh is the House Bill 962 that was uh approved last year and uh goes into effect January 1st. Review our current standards for paving. Discuss the mandated standard. and then bring up some additional items to consider that are impacted by this and then finally make a make a decision on not the standard but the the additional items. All right. So HB as I said it 926 was approved and it goes into effect was already in effect January 1st of this year and basically it states uh that zoning or other development regulations cannot be more stringent than what DOT currently has for the state and specifically for us it's it's division 12 of NC DOT. So, their standards um as they provided them to me for subdivision streets, they only really have two definitions for their roads. One is a subdivision street and they're requiring either 4 in of of of pavement or 8 in of stone as the base course and then on top of that 3 in of surface course which would be put down in two one and a half inch lifts.

So then they have another category for off-site or non-residential roads and those are essentially probably commercial um or or higher higher rated roads and their [snorts] their standard for that is it 10 in of stone or 5 in of asphalt um base course or 4 in of of intermediate course as well and then 3 in of surface course on top of that. So a much more deliberate structure for for heavy volumes and and loadings. So our current standards um we have six street sections right now and they're defined by how many dwellings are adjacent to the to the roads themselves [snorts] by the number of dwellings. Um they require currently at least 2 and 12 in to 3 in of an intermediate layer of of pavement similar to what um DOT is using for their off-site or commercial uses. We do have wider pavement width um in our current standards and uh and that's something that I've been looking at to try and uh adjust. We do have a a draft uh new standards manual that I've been working on in the past year since since getting here and we haven't completely fully vetted that to bring that forward. That is one thing that I've been bringing considering bringing forward uh at a later date to discuss how we can reduce uh maintenance costs and and increase uh safety because water pavements uh really make it uh comfortable for people to go fast and and then we end up putting in speed humps afterwards to slow them back down and and that's not really an efficient way to do it. Right now we do put the uh first lift of of surface course on during the initial construction of a subdivision but we

then we require all the the development to be built out to about 75% before they can ask to uh to complete the the final inch and a half lift. And essentially what that does is it allows uh the construction traffic to to already go ahead and do its damage. We do an inspection and they repair anything that's that's failed and then they put on the final surface course so that that subdivision can can enjoy a brand new smooth pavement and those residents uh and and we get the longest life out of that surface before we have to worry about maintenance and and eventual uh overlay. [clears throat] So the current standard uh in our draft is is going to one reduce the number of sections. is not based on wouldn't be based on or proposed to be based on uh the number of dwellings, but the average daily traffic that we could expect that street to to um support. Again, when we're looking at say the um some of the standards, the width reductions on a on a major uh collector road could be as much as 8 ft. Right now, we're saying you can put a build a 32- foot wide collector road, and that's essentially an an additional lane of pavement that that doesn't necessarily serve a purpose. Um, and so for for me, my recommendation is that we we reduce those down. And then on a minor minor collector street, just just reducing it 2 feet, it's 26 feet. I think we take it down to to 24. Again, I'll bring that to you uh in a later version. I bring that up because uh besides the maintenance cost reduction for us and the reduced speed benefits from that, it also will provide uh reduced installation costs for developers which is something wherever possible you know we we do try and meet meet the expectations of the development

community which is to try and maximize profit uh and not unnecessarily burden their their costs. Um now by removing this im intermediate layer u you know there is going to be impact to the longevity of our streets and and for me that's a concern. Uh again the mandate is clear so there's nothing specifically that I that I can say to to do anything about it. Um that's why we're going to have other considerations here coming forward. We will continue to do the two lift schedule. I think the value of getting that new surface for for the completed subdivision um is is is better than potentially having them do all three inches at the same time and then having to repair it. And those patches will be will be with the life of the of the payment until it's uh ready for another overlay. So specifically uh one of my uh initial concern when I got here I I instituted a uh a fee increase or added a fee to our fee schedule of $150 per linear foot for inspecting roads. We currently don't have any cost recovery mechanism for our staff time. Uh and so essentially um we're subsidizing the the oversight of the development um when they're when they're doing the paving for us to go out for quality assurance and this is a means for us to at least try and offset that cost. Uh the fee is something that I brought over from Waxaw. We had it at $150 per linear foot. Um I I'll show where Morsville has it as a as a dollar. Salsbury has it as a dollar. So does Canapapolis. Charlotte doesn't have any fee. Uh, and like I said, Waxaw uses a$150. So again, the the question is not to approve um the change in in the pavement thickness. That's pretty much been established for us and we have to accept

that and that's why we're we're going to make this change and adopt it. Uh it'sformational at this point. Um a a possible decision point is one um you know for for me if if we're reducing we we've reduce that safety layer of pavement from the section um there are going to be concerns about quality control because then that means the the subgrade and the and the pavement section has to be put down as as best as possible and um that could potentially require more oversight than we are currently uh providing uh from our old standard. So then you know it's a question of the fees on the schedule. We haven't instituted it because we didn't do any public engagement. We didn't do any developer engagement. Uh I expected that when I submitted it we would have conversation at that point but the um going into budget there was too much going on to to bring it up at that time. So, it kind of laid there and I probably would have brought it up when I brought the new uh draft manual forward. Uh, this kind of elevated it to uh being more timely in uh in considering it as we now consider that the developers will will be using reduced sections that that we haven't used yet. And I do have uh developments that have been approved under the old standard have requested if they can use the new standard. And and for me, because it's already past the January 1st date, uh it it seems equitable and fair if if other developments after them, you know, it's just a dating thing, um that it would be fair to to allow them to use if they haven't already started building the roads to use the the current standard. Yep. So, with that, I'll open up for questions.

Any questions, Mr. Huert?

Yeah, Mr. Mayor, if I may. Um, I was the one that asked to to remove this item from the consent agenda. Uh, just because I have a number of of questions and concerns. And, uh, I don't question the law. I don't question that we have to follow the law. Uh, but I do question the fee, uh, that that we're asking, uh, to charge and to add to our our ordinance. um you know the the House bill as I read it um it doesn't expand the city's regulatory duties. It doesn't ask us to do anything else. It doesn't ask us to charge a fee and and Matt is graciously helping me with a number of questions. I think you all were copied on an email and uh I just read that moments before coming uh into this meeting and u uh I I still have uh many more questions uh about this fee. So, uh, if the city council will will allow me and and support me on this, u I just like to ask for a little bit more time and I'd like to make a motion, uh, just to postpone this issue to the February 2nd meeting so I continue to meet with Matt and get those questions resolved and continue to meet with Ron and you all may have questions as well. But if we could just put this off for a few weeks, that would uh, help alleviate a lot of my concerns with this. Thank you.

So, we have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Second. Have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Could I add some questions? Yes, you may.

Um, my concern was with the fee as well. And my concern really with the fee was number one, would it be enough to cover us in the event that we had to contract some of the inspections out that we didn't have enough staff on hand to do it? And two, was there any consideration for some of these large track developments that the first inspection didn't pass? And is there a fee in addition to for reinspection? So like if if we have to send an inspector back out there two and three, four times, is that additional cost or is that all inclusive in the fee that's stated? So I I think that would be important. Um, and then the the next question I've got is really when are we allowing the first layer to go on? Is there a certain uh percentage of the development that's built out with heavy construction gone over the stone and your packing? So, if we're if we're changing how it's laid, are we going to look at when that first layer goes down? Is is that going to be addressed?

Sure. No. And so essentially like the developer, we want to get the asphalt down on the stone as as as quickly as possible so that water intrusion does not impact the stone because stone setup is is societally different than pavement, right? Um and so you have to find an optimal moisture content for the stone and depending on the time of year uh and circumstances uh you do want to cover it up. it's in our interest to want to have them put that that first lift over the stone um for that purpose and and so that's speaks to to that timing issue. Um as as far as the inspections, we we're not proposing a reinspection fee. Typically, um, we're finding from the this the state legislature that they're leerary and they've done this, uh, with with other reinspections to not make this a a a a kind of money, uh, grab, if you will. Um, so that they want to we want to be very clear and separate in saying this is a fee that's that's essentially a a degree of cost recovery, but it's not a mechanism to to fill the coffers, if you will. And so I I think one thing that I that I left out uh as this thing has gotten I think a little bit more complicated from where where I started it from. Um if if we had an example of a of a subdivision here, Dog Woodrove has 70 units in it right now, the fee for their inspections would be $5,500. Um [snorts] the amount of savings they will get they would get if if they weren't doing the intermediate course from the current standard is $170,000. Um Sullivan Farms is a subdivision with 251 units in it. They would be um at the $150 linear foot rate it would be $21,000 of inspection fees. They would

save over a million dollars from the reduced uh pavement section that is now mandated. Not to mention if if the street widths were were reduced as well, there would be additional savings provided. And so that's kind of the relative um cost difference between the inspection fee and and what's uh the difference in the material cost and and labor to do the the the current section. Well, the the whole intent of my question is yes, I support the state's uh guidance that that we're not trying to increase our coffers, but at the same time, I don't want growth to be an expense of the general fund and burden taxpayers. No, I agree. That's a good point.

I support the request to move this to uh the second any further. All we're being asked for by by Mr. Hubert is just to allow him to to further investigate what the updates he would need to be, right? Like we were not planning on approving the actual fee this evening and the new new design cross-sections, right? All we were doing is directing him to do the do the background study work on that just to understand what the So we have the ability because it was already put into the fee schedule. The fee is legally established. Okay.

It's a matter because we have not begun invoicing. we have not presented it. we have the the ability to either say okay let's not institute it for a month while people get used to it or let's have more discussion about what it is why it is and what we want it to be versus you know again when I put in the request to put it on the fee schedule I didn't expect it to go right on I I thought there would be this dialogue so however the board feels uh most comfortable moving forward we have the ability to have that discussion now or u table it and I can come back with with more specific answers your questions.

Thank you. So, we have a motion on the floor. Correct. Um why don't we go ahead and vote on that and u we can move move forward in that manner. So, all in favor of basically tableabling this for a month or until what you what's the first meeting? February 2nd. Uh say I I any opposed carries unanimous. Thank you, James.

Thank you. Okay, next on the agenda is to consider appointing one alternate member to the planning board. Um, Mr. Calder or Miss Martin. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Um, so we have a list of of applicants who have um submitted applications and said that they would like to be on the planning board and that's on your screen tonight. Um, how we got to this point is basically, uh, Councilman [clears throat] Robertson was a member of the planning board and now that he has been elected to this board, he will need to come off of this of the planning board and be replaced by someone else that you uh, would like to appoint. So, we're just asking you to um [sighs] to take a vote and and uh, this will be for an alternate member also.

Perfect. So, do we have any nominations from the council? I'll nominate Miss Aub. I'll second that. Karina Iub is has been nominated and seconded. Any other nominations? Emily Wasserman. Emily Wasserman. Any further? Can I nominate one more? Nominate as many people. Yeah, I don't think there's a limit. Wyatt deserves nomination. Okay. Did the other alternate have the opportunity to submit their name?

Were they asked? Who who were the alternates on the on the planning board now? When our our current alternates are uh Mr. Robertson and Corey Sloan sitting right here. Um they not guilty of anything. [laughter] Don't want to be an alternate. No, but we're I mean usually uh Oh, this is just the alternate. Is Is this just for the alternate?

Yes, it's just the alternate. Yeah. You usually the process that our our rules of the uh planning board go by is, you know, we we don't ask the alternates to move up. We usually I guess they could have volunteered for that, but I didn't receive anything. Um,

okay. Second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? So, we need to hand out ballots. So Emily slash how many should just vote for one and then go and then the perfect please sign it at the bottom before passing it back to me. Okay. Vote for one. Sign the bottom. Good.

Oh, that's an extra one. Yeah, that's a good. Yes. No. Right. No, that's extra ones. I just put on [laughter]

I can't believe I gave it back. stuff. All right. Um, we have um seven votes for Miss Aub and we have one vote for Miss Wasserman.

Okay. So, Karina Aub is now u the alternate on the planning board. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Um, at this point, uh, we're at a place where we can see if there is there any other business that we need to address this evening. There being none. Um, I'll make a motion that we adjourn. Oh, thank you. Second. We have a motion and a second to adjurnn. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Three to zero. I got to go wash my teeth. Thank you.