Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I'm a mom.

Hello, hello.

Good evening, everyone. I think we have six o'clock according to Garmin time here. So welcome this evening. We'll get our meeting started. We have a quorum. And if you would bow for prayer, we'll get opened up and get going. Father, thank you for this beautiful day. It's it's great to be in your presence. And we thank you for all that you do and the breath of life that you put in each of us every day. others we're here we thank you for the opportunity to serve to serve others to serve others above ourselves to serve our neighbors, our friends, our community. I pray that you'll bless this board and I pray as we go into this session that you'll give us guidance in all of our decisions, our thoughts, our motivations and how we do general business for our town. We thank you again for all that you provide and we just give you Thanks, and thanks for all your blessings. In Christ's precious name, I humbly pray. Amen. If you would stand for 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 again for being here this evening. I've got just a couple of remarks to read about public comment and then general public comment as part of each hearing. Our first is public comment at the first meeting each month. We set aside some time to allow public comment from our citizens or anyone wanting to address the board. Each speaker is given three minutes in which to comment. Speakers are expected to be civil and respectful to the board in their language and presentation. It is the board's practice not to respond or engage in conversations with anyone who speaks in order to give the speaker the full amount of time to voice their concerns. If you raise a matter you would like addressed either by the board or by town staff, please leave your name and contact information with the board's administrative assistant and someone will contact you. Please understand that state law prohibits us from discussing employee personnel matters with you. Public comment is part of each public hearing. Unlike public comment regarding general matters held at the beginning of our first meeting of the month, public comment as part of a public hearing is meant to specifically address a particular agenda item being considered by the board. Those wishing to speak must sign up prior to the meeting online or by calling the town clerk. A public hearing entails a staff presentation of 15 minutes, an applicant presentation of 15 minutes, with both the staff and applicant having additional time to address any questions from the board. At the end of these presentations, I will call on the citizens who have signed up prior to the meeting. Each speaker from the public will have three minutes to speak and may not bank or lend time to another unless four or more people supporting the same position designate a single speaker to represent them. In such case, the designated speaker will be given six minutes to speak to the board. The total time for public comment will be limited to 30 minutes for the first 10 speakers, whichever occurs first. Once public comment ends, the applicant will have five minutes for rebuttal. And I believe Ms. Crosby told me tonight we're testing a new timer. So if we have any hiccups, please bear with us. We'll certainly work through that together and I'm sure everything will go well. I believe our next item is swearing in a new member. So we're pleased to have Miss Temple resigned for another term and Brandi, thank you for swearing her in this evening.

I, Laura Temple, do solemnly swear That I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina, not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as a planning board member. So help me God.

Thank you, Ms. Mason. And thank you, Ms. Temple. We're thankful to have you back for another term with us and certainly appreciate your contribution to the board. Our next item was general public comment. Mr. Coley, I didn't receive any pre-signed speakers for this evening.

This evening, we have none.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? There are not. If not, then do I have a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? I have a motion from Mr. Poore, second from Ms. Smith. All in favor? Aye. So the motion to carry the agenda forward is accepted. We have the consideration for approval of minutes. Or am I overstepping? Do you need to? Continue. To come in here? Okay. Well, then we'll move back for a motion to approve minutes.

So moved.

Motion with Mr. Katz. Do I have a second? Mr. Red Arrow? All in favor? Aye. Now for the statements on zoning municipal authority.

Yes, thank you. just wanted to take a minute to talk about the scope of municipal authority municipalities in north carolina are granted authority from the state and states are often referred to as either home rule or dylan's rule states in home rule states municipalities have broad powers to make their own rules and dylan's rural states municipalities can only exercise powers that are granted them expressly, necessarily or fairly implied or incident to the powers that are expressly granted to them or that are essential to the municipality's purpose. North Carolina really is neither. It is not a home rule state and grants of authority are interpreted more narrowly than in Dillon's rule states. In North Carolina, cities and towns can only exercise the powers and authorities that are expressly granted by the state legislature, and there is no inherent authority for a city or town to act. Authority is granted through state statutes or local bills. that are adopted by the state legislature. The state legislature ultimately controls whether a state, a county, or a municipality has authority over a service or a governmental function. And the state legislature determines through state statutes what the town can or cannot do. Thank you.

Thank you very much. With that, I'll ask if we have any old business? We do not. And we'll move to new business, which is item 11A, which is to consider a request to adopt an ordinance approving text amendment TA2026-04 to define and establish drone standards in the unified development ordinance.

Prior to presenting the first case, the planning staff does find it necessary to go over a few land use development terms. The first is by right or base district development. So under North Carolina law, all land is eligible to develop under local zoning regulations, which establish permanent uses, densities, and other associated development standards. Development complying with existing zoning is approved administratively by staff. By right or base district rezoning, this rezoning request to a base zoning district Such requests require approval by town board. However, no conditions can be added. The final is conditional rezonings. Developers may voluntarily enter in a conditional zoning district to restrict uses, densities, and other site features as depicted on a concept plan. Conditions may include site enhancements or community benefits. For example, increased buffers or residential design standards. Conditional rezonings require approval by the Board of Commissioners and become binding through a site-specific ordinance approved by the Commissioners and affidavits signed by the property owners. For TA 2604 for drones.

I'll ask if there are any conflicts in this matter from any members of the Board. not and thank you, Mister Coley.

The applicant for this text amendment is the town of Morrisville we are discussing commercial drone takeoff and landing areas and the purpose tonight is to amend our unified development ordinance or you do to define and establish commercial drone takeoff and landing area standards. This does support our strategic priority area of safety and community well-being for all in our strategic plan goal of supporting forward thinking and service to provide relevant cutting edge services. As background, a commercial business is requesting a commercial drone takeoff and landing facility be added to their existing parking lot. THEIR INITIAL REQUEST WAS TO BE APPROVED AS A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THEIR CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF, HOWEVER, IS PROPOSING A UDO AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING COMMERCIAL DRONE TAKEOFF AND LANDING AREAS TO BE APPROVED AS SPECIAL USE PERMITS WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, OUR CC, OUR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CM, OUR MIXED USE, OUR HLI, WHICH IS OUR HYBRID LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. Continuing our backgrounds of legal planning and the Morrisville PD held multiple meetings and discussions regarding the minimum requirements and procedures for approving these. Most of the concerns regarded how and what can be regulated and then interference with police drones and aircraft space. Research with other municipalities across several states that we contacted several of the municipalities where these are already operating and then our police chief also reached out to several other jurisdictions that he is affiliated with. For our use regulations and standards, again, we are proposing four districts for this to be a special use permit within our CM, CC, HLI, and industrial. For our use standards, the purpose of this section is to establish standards for commercial drone takeoff and landing areas in order to promote the safe operation of commercial drone activities, ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, Minimize noise visual and operational impacts and to provide a consistent review process through the special use permit procedure. Our general standards of setbacks all take off and landing areas shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any residential zoning district 50 feet from any occupied structure not associated with the use 25 feet from any property line in each case measured from the edge of the designated take off and landing area. For buffers and screening. where the takeoff landing area is adjacent to an existing residential use, a Type B landscape buffer shall be required. Our Type B buffer looks like this. There's two options, one for a 30-foot buffer without a wall and one for a 20-foot buffer with a wall. Our general standard standards, the onsite ground operations, including the takeoff landing loading activities would be limited to the hours of 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. unless otherwise approved as part of that special use permit. Operations shall comply with all applicable noise and nuisance operations. Any lighting associated with the facility shall be shielded, directed downwards to minimize offsite impacts and comply with all the existing lighting standards. special use permit requirements the commercial drone takeoff and landing area shall require approval of a special use permit in accordance with the rest of the ordinance in addition to the standard special use permit requirements the application shall include a site plan identifying the takeoff and landing zones the parcel boundaries and setbacks an operational plan describing the hours of operation frequency of flights and the type of drones being used a noise impact statement safety and emergency procedures and compliance documentation evidencing compliance with all applicable federal aviation administration regulations or a compliance statement attesting that they will follow all FAA regulations. When considering the special use permit under this section, the approving authority of the BOA would consider the compatibility with surrounding land uses, Potential impacts related to noise privacy and safety, traffic and circulation impacts, adequacy of buffering and site design, and consistency with the adopted plans and policies. We do have three additional definitions that would be included in Chapter 9. Commercial drone takeoff and landing area would be a designated area or facility used for launching, receiving, dispatching, or landing of unmanned aircraft systems for commercial purposes, including but not limited to delivery service, inspections, or similar activities. This definition shall not include recreation or institutional drone use. Unmanned aircraft, an aircraft as defined by General Statute 63-1, that is operated without the possibility of human intervention from within or on the aircraft. An unmanned aircraft system, an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including communication links and components that control the unmanned aircraft, that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system. I know that's a lot, so I'm happy to answer any questions you guys might have.

Well, very nice job on this, Mr. Coley and staff. A new endeavor for us, for sure. Absolutely. Questions from the board or staff? You want to go, Michael?

I would also agree. It was a really good... put well put together. I just my question is relatively maybe not directly about this. But when we talk about the noise ordinance, we are careful toward them as applicable. Do we have any?

I'll let our attorney address that.

We do have a noise ordinance.

Because I remember at one point that there was supposed to be some changes and some new ordinance coming through. Has that been changed recently? Because the noise ordinance before didn't have much substance.

Yes. So we did update the noise ordinance not too long ago. I don't have the exact date in front of me. However, it was updated not too long ago, and that would continue to apply.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Cole. Mr. Polwarth. Mr. Cooley my question really is about the definition that does it somehow what about incident or occasional drone use in the areas like a construction company that throws one up once for a survey or something do they have to get a special use permit or is this.

I wouldn't think that would qualify under what we're talking about if they're using it as a personal drone for taking a single photograph it just want to make sure some time.

The other follow-up question is you briefly briefly discussed EMS and police made some calls is that they're not covered by this at all right so for public safety operations they can do whatever they need to do.

So all of our institutional uses are exempted specifically from this.

Any additional.

Yeah I guess this is a newer concern and hence we're addressing it here but I'm just curious, have we benchmarked this against what other municipalities have recently done? And would you say this is more or less restrictive than kind of what we're seeing in other areas?

So we looked across the country, actually. So there are several states where this is already happening. California, Oregon, Washington, Texas, Arkansas. And then there are several that are happening in North Carolina as well. This is kind of in the middle. So it is less restrictive than some and more restrictive than others, which is honestly kind of what the board was looking forward to is to be Somewhere in the middle. All right.

Thank you. Absolutely. Any additional questions? Mr. Katz?

What was the catalyst for this in front of us?

We have had a local big box store that is interested in starting these operations here. And instead of looking at just as one single use, we're looking at it holistically. So this is the first, but it's not going to be the last of these. So we want to make sure that we establish procedures and put them in place that they are equitable for everybody who comes forward. So there's a way that they can get to the to a yes.

And then the other municipalities that you guys have researched is it is it robust are you seeing it in use currently yes.

Any additional questions. Well, I'll quickly open and close the public comment portion, as we have no one signed up for general public comment on this particular agenda item. I'll ask the Board if there are any other questions or any discussion, or if you're prepared to make a motion.

I do have a question. There was one, excuse me, in a portion of the presentation there was a reference to a setback or a buffer In case there was a wall. And then there was a different distance without the walls any discussion about what constitutes the wall how high it should be yes, so for our wall definition in our buffers it is between 6 and 8 feet.

It is masonry or some similar material it cannot be like offense.

Thank you Mister red era. Any other questions for discussion from the board. then we are open for a motion at this time. Mr. Cole?

I make a motion to recommend approval of TA-2026-04 as the amendment is consistent with the Town's One Mooresville Plan by supporting innovation and adapting to changing commercial and service delivery needs. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is reasonable and in the public interest as it establishes a clear and consistent process for a commercial drone takeoff and landing area while addressing potential impacts to surrounding properties.

Thank you Mister Cole so we have a motion from Mister Cole for approval to have a second. I second have a second from Mister poor all in favor. Any opposed. Motion carries in full Mister Coley will recommend to the town board for proof. Our next item 11 B. IS TO CONSIDER REQUEST TO ADOPT ORDINANCE APPROVING TEXT AMENDMENT TA2026-05 TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE UDO TO EXCEPT TO EXEMPT EXCUSE ME INSTITUTIONAL USES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BRAWLEY SCHOOL ROAD OVERLAY YES SIR THANK YOU MY NAME IS ASHLEY LATIN I'M PLANNER THREE HERE WITH THE TOWN I'LL ASK IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE BOARD Seeing none, please proceed. Understood. Thank you. Thanks, Ms. Flatt.

This evening, the applicant is Sarah Beeson from Alexander Ricks PLLC. The topic is Brawley School Road Overlay, which is also known as the BSRO exemption. They would like to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to establish an exemption to the Brawley School Road Overlay for institutional uses only. This supports the strategic priority area of future ready infrastructure for thoughtful growth by supporting the strategic plan goal of encouraging flexibility to optimize and preserve resources. The amendment proposes an exemption to the existing the addition of a new subsection establishing an exemption from these requirements for the for institutional development. I wanted to give a quick snapshot kind of where the Baroli School Road overlay is because it does go quite a bit farther past. As you can see, it almost goes as far north as Raceway Drive to the west, almost up to West Plaza Drive to the north, all the way out past Charlotte Highway going east and goes almost down to nearly the Pine Lake Prep Athletic Field south. So it's a very large overlay. The proposed text from the applicant is as follows. They would add the number five to what's currently there and listed as exemptions. Institutional development in the BSRO district is exempted from the requirements of this section. To help give a better understanding of what institutional uses would be that would be exempted, we've made this slide. This comes straight from the use table in the UDO. There's various institutional uses in community service, education, healthcare facilities, parks and open areas, Utilities transportation and communication and I'll give you a second to just glance at that Currently this is what the BSRO has it talks of uses noting that there are some things that are prohibited such as many warehouses and any use in the vehicle sales and service category Drive-thru restaurants are also prohibited any building or use exceeding 60,000 square feet of gross floor area unless established with a conditional zoning approval. And that is the particular line that's bringing apart this request is that we have a use that wants to expand their building but cannot because they'd be over that size requirement in lowercase letter D there. There's also district standards to parking and loading. Building scale and massing. And everything from polka points to corner cornices, second floor galleries, balconies, et cetera.

Building entrances.

And then are there any questions? Because I know this is a very broad exemption. So I guess my first question for you all to ponder is whether or not this is something that you all would want a little bit more detail on to restrict or anything of that nature. I am all ears. Mr. Cole, how can I help? Thank you, Ms. Ladd.

First of all, the additional information you provided was very helpful. I appreciate that.

Yes, sir.

I went to the UDO today in my spare time because I love reading it. Excellent. Me too. And I went to find out about the Brawley School overlay. Yes, sir. And... Of course, this is what's in there. This is the only thing that I could find out in line. I did not see the map that you showed us.

Okay, so I'm going to send you our link to our GIS maps tonight, I guess.

Well, I probably could have got it if I'd have known where to go. I looked around a little bit. But could we go back to that map for a minute? Absolutely. Just so I can see it, maybe the others would like to look at it, too, because there's an awful lot in here now. When you look at the Brawley School overlay as a title, this is a heck of a lot more than just going down Brawley School Road. Yes, sir. And heading out Talbert Road. And, yeah, it's pretty interesting if you see, especially the Talbert Road portion.

A good portion of it is already developed, but there are some parcels of various sizes that are not.

Mm-hmm. so uh in answer to your question from my perspective i noticed in the in the application there was mention of a plan but we didn't get the plan as to what they want to do and i'd be happy to defer to the applicant regarding their plans we'll hear about that okay yes sir uh but you hit the nail on the head actually because this is such a big area and to provide a text amendment to allow without being very specific for this property and that specific use, I think I'd have a hard time with it. Understood. Thank you.

So just to be clear, I understand that most of this is developed But if we pass it as is, even after we see their plan and their plan looks wonderful. This would pass for all institutional uses. So all of those listed on this slide here. If I tore down a building that was there, I could build a daycare and not have to follow any of the architectural requirements that my neighbors follow. Because I'm building a daycare. Or the overlay.

You would still have to follow.

I do want to clarify that you all would still follow the district standards and any nodal standards.

But any of those additional Brawley School Road standards would not be followed at this time.

Two businesses next to each other and they both tear down and decide to rebuild. And I build a daycare and they build something else. They're having to go through harsher review because they have to follow the additional overlay that I'm exempt because I followed within one of these.

Yes, ma'am. You understand that correctly. Okay. It's really broad. Are there any questions or would you like to hear from the applicant?

Any additional questions from the board before we move to the applicant?

Can we get just like a quick history lesson on the Brawley School overlay? Like how long has it been in place?

That's a great question. James, do you have the history on this one? It's been in place for a long time. I am of the understanding that the Brawley School Road overlay was kind of to help keep some of the big box stuff off of Brawley School Road. And that's why that size constraint is in there. So you wouldn't have an additional Walmart in this corridor. I'm sure there's plenty of other uses, but that's the reason I give to developers when they ask why it still exists. And I was like, well, it still exists because they like it. It's still there.

Mr. Cole, you had something to add?

Well, I talked to Councilwoman Qualls today about this, and she gave me a little bit of history lesson on it. And she said it actually started even before she was on the town council, and that the main reason was pretty much what you said is, except to be a little more specific, we don't want it to look like 150. And so that's why the car dealerships are not allowed. It's a neighborhood road is the way they thought about it. And this is before it was expanded. It was a neighborhood road. We don't want it to look like. So this was what they came up with at the time. And when the UDO was put out, they actually talked about not keeping it. And there were some that were very much not in favor of having that happen and so it was left in. And that's what I learned today anyway, share with you guys.

Thank you.

So we have just a couple of overlays left. So I know you guys are very familiar with like the watershed protection overlay. This is your other one. Many people don't think about it unless they want to do a gas station on Brawley School Road and they call and I'm like, oh, I'm so sorry.

Well, I think it is. It's a nice protective piece.

I guess my question for you all to consider is when this was adopted, Brawley School Road and that area was a very different area. We've had a lot of transitions, and now some of those businesses or not business or we'll say those institutional uses would like to expand, and they need more space, but they're unable to do so. So we're trying to kind of figure out their path forward, but are all open ears to see kind of what you guys are thinking, because I can see it from the planning perspective, but I'm very curious to see what you all think.

Well, appreciate that very much. And I appreciate discussion with the board. I think it's probably good to move to the applicant's presentation. And then I think there's likely some,

Discussion here from the board. Mr. Coley noted that it was roughly between 2006 and 2007. Oh, okay. Thank you, Mr. Coley.

As part of the process to get to this potential text amendment.

Yes, sir.

Did planning provide any other options or was this the only option they saw?

There's very limited options when it's spelled out as clear as it is that they would not be able to expand any further than they are. So unfortunately this was their path forward should they go that way or they would not be able to expand. So think of it this way. Brawley Middle School, this is not the applicant, but could be the applicant, is also an institutional use. If they were to expand, they may, I don't know what their current square footage is, they may not be able to under this overlay. That's just an example. That's not who the applicant is.

Any additional questions? And I think that's a good caveat.

Something to think about. Can the definition of institutional uses Can it be limited in this respect, or does it have to follow the whole table? Because I think that we could get more comfortable. I can see a school, but that's a true public institution versus...

I think that you could limit it. You could limit... I mean, it's obviously not a conditional type thing, but it's a text amendment. So the applicant and y'all have a chance to figure out which uses, if any, this makes sense for. If they want to ask for one use, I'll let them, but I don't want to speak for them. Okay.

I just didn't know if it was allowed because it is a UDO change.

Any additional questions or would you like to hear from the applicant now? Okay. Ms. Lattin, we could have the applicant come forward.

Ms. Sarah Beeson is here.

Good evening. Good evening. How are you all doing? Doing well, if you just state your name and address for the record. Yes, sir.

Sarah Beeson, 119 Barba Loop, Mooresville, North Carolina. I'm with Alexander Ricks, a land use attorney here on behalf of Peninsula Baptist Church, who is located off of Williamson Road. and we are the applicant seeking to expand the church facility. We, based on the kind of feedback, the uses, the existing land, institutional use seemed to provide most benefit, not only for the project at hand, but also for other uses along that line that would align with community policies and priorities like the education, government centers, community centers. Understanding that is relatively broad, but that was a path that I understood to be encouraged to take at this point. and receive staff and board feedback on that. If it would make the board feel more comfortable limiting that to community services and even education categories within the institutional uses, which would exclude healthcare facilities, parks and open areas, utilities, transportation and communication areas within that institutional use, we would be more than willing to accommodate that request while still accommodating other educational opportunities as well. Again, this is for a specific site, but it is a UDO text amendment, so it is not unique to this site. That is why we were not presenting any proposed drawings at this point to get it constrained to our site. It is not unique to it. The church is at a little over 40,000 square feet right now and seeking to get up to about 68,000 square feet total once an expansion to the southwest kind of rear corner of the church is envisioned. And that is what they are working through with staff at this point. And as they came to staff to work through that site plan and get those building permits and approvals, the BSRO came up as, hey, you're capped at 60,000. Again, our understanding of the institutional point of that was really, hey, we don't want Target big box coming through all this. It really wasn't intended to capture y'all. And it was an unintentional kind of carryover effect. And so we were seeking a path forward to remedy that.

Well, I think that's exactly the situation, you know, looking at that corridor and how it was framed to remain, but I think it was not intended to restrict uses such as this. But, again, does the board have any questions or just specifics you'd like to ask Ms. Beeson regarding this?

I do, yes. So, as I understood, you had a... no issue in restricting the use to, say that again now?

So if we're looking here at the chart in front of you all from the UDO, I think community services, clearly that pulls the use we're most interested in, as well as education, referring back to the reference that Ashley had given with Brawley across the street right there as well being covered and included in. And if any other kind of schools were ever to come in under that division, I know Who is it? Is it Goddard? There's a couple more daycares in that provision as well, which would be included within community services. Again, I think they're pretty kept out of their current layouts and site configurations. But again, as noted previously, if there's future redevelopment of those sites, those would potentially be excluded from this. I think it's also if there's a consideration of going into specific line by line item requirements of the BSRO overlay, whether it's at 60,000 square foot or other considerations, we can look at that. But again, we just, it seemed like the intent was never to address some of these uses. So then to try and nitpick between each substandard that was applying and not applying, that seemed to be a more potentially unintended consequences continuing down the line.

But we are open to those comments discussions and suggestions as well Yes, sir any additional questions for miss Beeson The miss Latin before miss Beeson actually leaves podium how many parcels or businesses or facilities in this area do you think could generally be impacted by this and and

Just the ones under that overlay. I don't have a summary for you. Also, redevelopment, you never know what's going to happen next. They do have one other option. The overlay does note that you could conditionally rezone, and that's how you could go to the 68,000. The applicant was not trying to do that at this time. I think the main goal is to try this and see what we can do here, and if not, they could conditionally rezone, as I'm not sure that they have a plan for what they're doing just yet.

How would the conditional rezoning work to get around this overlay?

So the overlay itself notes Under D here It says that any building or exceeding any building or use exceeding 60,000 square feet of gross floor area unless established in accord in accordance with a conditional zoning approval So that's how you would do that Sounds like the way it should be done That's up to you all. I do want to be careful limiting different institutional uses, and I'll defer to the staff attorney on anything else that goes into detail there. Ms. Schecter?

Yes, I'll just reiterate what's already been stated. This is a very broad amendment that they are requesting, and so it will not only apply to them, and it will apply to any other development that is in that area, and so I would just reiterate what's already been stated.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME A LITTLE BIT OF HEART BURN WITH IT IS THE BROAD BRUSH STROKE WITH IMPACTING SO MANY USES THAT COULD BE IN THE AREA AND THAT CHANGE, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE BOARD FEELS OR IF THERE'S A WAY TO RESTRICT THIS DOWN to more specificity in the uses, you know, to get something.

I'm not a lawyer, but I wasn't comfortable redlining certain institutional uses that it would account for and ones that would not.

Okay.

So I went broad.

And it also feels like you're throwing out, there are, like, there's a lot of architectural guidance in this overlay. It's not just, you know, it's not if you're, You're doing away with a lot for a lot of uses. It's not, you know, we're not saying that suddenly a daycare is going to come in and build an 80,000 square foot facility, but they're just not going to have to. Their parking lot can be on the roadside, which we're trying to avoid with, you know, that 150 car dealership look. So that's all that be thrown away. And so I know those daycares had already established there, but they're popping up everywhere. And so you'd have one that you'd see the cars in front of. And is that what you want to see if they protected that area? And it's not just Raleigh. It extends so far into the rest of the town. They do have another path forward, so we're not cutting them off of anything. So just not comfortable with it.

They just have to have a significant amount of work done up front to use that path. You have to have that approved concept plan. And then from there, I mean, to have an approved concept plan, you may or may not need a TIA and then the counts for that. So it's just And knowing what you're doing. I think right now, I don't want to speak for the church, but I think right now they're more in a stage of, can they expand? How do they do that?

Does anybody with a commercial project have to take into that expense and take that into account? And if it triggers a TIA, isn't it because a TIA is necessary?

I can understand the ask, but I also agree with the board in that if you're Take the Cove Church, for example. When you're getting into so many ingress, egress, however many services a day and so forth, it can be a pretty significant impact to the area, and it would be good to know what that's going to be through a process of conditional zoning. It would answer a lot more questions and put some, again, specific knowledge to it rather than just a generalized broad brush. It would be a fear that some of these other, you know, again, if we open up this many opportunities, this just seems like a very broad brush manner, you know, to address that in that specific area with Brawley School. But I'll open it to the board for any other comments, thoughts, or discussion around it.

I'd like to interject with two, I guess, revisions. We would be fine to revise that exemption to only apply to that 60,000 foot provision and narrowly tailor that just to that subsection D. I think it's also worth noting, right, this is an overlay. There's still all the other standards applicable to each base district that is applying. We are not otherwise subverting or avoiding any other process or requirement under the UDO itself. This is also not opening up the uses. They still have to comply with the underlying base district as well as the BSR overlay. So if that provides any additional comfort with again, not adding a full sale item five, I think is how we did it with exemption and simply revising 1D to state any building or use exceeding, excluding institutional use or even community services and education, if that was the two categories you would like. We would propose that revision if that was more amenable to the board.

I'm not familiar enough with everything that this encompasses to be comfortable with still such broad strokes, especially when I believe that that's why that was placed in D is to allow people to come in with conditional zoning so that, you know, I don't know what the big box stores of the future are, but maybe there's a big box institutional use that we don't know is coming and we'd at least get a say in where it goes.

Yeah, Laura, I think that just read D, there's the answer. And the TIA is probably a part of the problem. And I think that we'd have a lot more people at this meeting tonight if we were adding something that was going to add significant traffic on Brawley School Road. So I think the citizens have a right to know that before we go ahead and do this. That's my opinion.

Any additional comments from the board? Deason, thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Board.

Thank you. I'll open up the public hearing, public comment portion at this time, and I believe for TA 2026-05, Mr. Jack Binion is signed to speak.

Yes, sir.

Jack Bennion at 263 Beaton Path Road at Mooresville. First, thanks for having me available, the availability to speak. And reading this, I want to make sure I don't offend Ms. Ashley or the staff, because what was on the available for us to read was terribly confusing. The contact info has the Peninsular Baptist Church, but the actual yellow sign was two miles down the road. So how was anybody supposed to know what they were actually coming to speak on? Personally, after reading this and seeing all the different aspects of it, I didn't know whether I was going to stand here and say I'm opposed or So yes, it sounds like a great proposal. Some of the things that have come up on that list of things that were already, if you want to call it, banned in the original overlay, those items, those places have already been put in, like drive-through restaurants and gas stations. The other thing was it's going consistent with the Moore's, one Moore's full comprehensive plan, Road is whatever happened to the Mooresville tomorrow plan. It was supposed to be presented November December of last year February of this year July of last month and this month to replace that one Mooresville plan if you're Changing plans as a whole You spend all that money as a town and all that time you're going to change the plan now and then institute the larger change plan after. I sort of agree with Mr. Cole that it just seems like a very large window to open or door to open. How do you close it after you've opened the door and let it all in? Pretty much I was hoping to sit there and find out more, Again, Mr. Cole pointed out in the stuff I read, it said that there was a plan and drawings, but there were no plans and drawings. So how do you expect people to come and say, again, I'm for it, I'm against it, if you don't even know what it actually is going to be? Thank you. I understand.

Thank you very much.

Absolutely. So I'd like to address a couple of his questions, if I may.

Certainly.

So the sign actually isn't for the text amendment. Text amendments don't get signed. We are blessed with another project tonight that's right down the street. So that sign is for another project. I apologize that that was confusing. As for the applicant, because this is a broad text amendment and it's not site specific, I didn't choose to put the Peninsula Baptist Church in there because it does go for kind of like Laura mentioned, it goes for all those sites. So I'm not comfortable putting just one parcel and putting it all on them because it does affect everybody that's within that overlay. So that's why I did do that. And I did want to note that the Mooresville tomorrow is coming in the months it's on the scheduling. So you should be saying that at the Board of Commissioners very soon. They only had one meeting a month this summer for a couple of months. So that put us behind a little bit. But I didn't forget about you and that so don't worry about that. And they don't need plans to sign up for the text amendment because it's not just for their site. It's for everyone So if they put in a plan, I mean, I guess they could put in a plan if they wanted to as an exhibit, but this text amendment would not be site-specific. But I do understand all of that, and I understand it was confusing, and I do apologize, Mr. Binion. I know it's a lot.

Well, thanks for the extra context and color on that. Absolutely, sir. Appreciate that. With that, I'll close the public comment, public hearing portion of it. I'll ask the board for any further discussion on the matter. Any thoughts? Questions for either in staff for the applicant. Make your decision. If there are none then at this time we're open for motion in the matter.

Make a motion. Make a motion to recommend denial of ta 2026 05 as the amendment is not fully consistent with the towns. One more plan. Specifically, the amendment establishes an exemption for institutional uses only in the Raleigh School Road overlay. Furthermore, the request is unreasonable and not in the public interest because the proposed exemption may need to be considered for additional uses that are not just institutional.

So we have a motion for option two, which is to recommend denial of the proposed text. I have a second to that. We have a second from Ms. Smith. All in favor on denial of the motion or denial on the project? Looks like we're all affirmative in that, so this time we would recommend to the town board not to approve the general sweep amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you. That'll move us to item 11C, which is to consider conditional rezoning requests CC 2026-13 for approximately 4.4 acres located at unaddressed Alcove Road. The applicant is requesting Town of Mooresville conditional corridor mixed use C-CM.

Good evening, everybody.

Before we start, I'd like to put to the board that I want to make sure that you don't consider that I have a conflict. very close working and professional relationship and friendship with one of the brokers involved in this transaction. I do not have any financial interest in this. I'm not part of the deal. I don't have any deals around it. I don't live near it, but I want to make sure that when you see my name on signs around town with one of the brokers that you're comfortable I could make a decision here or you could recuse me.

So you just specifically have a broker relationship

Working on friendship with one of the brokers.

But not in this particular specific deal.

Correct.

Then I would ask the board how you feel about Mr. Katz remaining or being recused.

I'm comfortable, yes. Just want to make sure.

And all in favor for Mr. Katz remaining? All. It looks like you've got... Everyone's approval, but thanks for bringing that forward.

I didn't get voted off the island.

Well, we would much rather know that in advance, so thank you very much, Jeremy. Mr. Werner.

All righty, presenting CZ 202613 for the Alcove C-Store. I'm Patrick Werner, planner with the Planning and Community Development Department. Uh, this request to rezone is to town of more so conditional corridor mixed use or CCM. This request will allow the development of a convenient storing gas station that supports the town's strategic priority area of individual and community economic vitality by supporting the strategic plan goal to support development of housing, employment and educational choices to support economic sustainability. A quick overview of the property. The owner is Michael Colbreath Boyd Lake properties are LLP and the James Ashburn trustee. The applicant is Nate Bueller with Cambridge properties. Property is again located at unaddressed alcove and laying tree road at approximately 4.469 acre site and would reside within voting ward one if annexed. The site is currently zoned Residential Limited Service, RLS, within Mooresville's ETJ and is predominantly wooded and vacant, located northeast of the Langtree Road roundabout and directly east of the Aloft Hotel there as well. The site is located within the WS4 critical area watershed overlying, which limits impervious coverage of the site to a maximum of 50% built upon area. Highlighting the project, the request is again to rezone to that conditional corridor mixed use to allow the development of a convenience store and gas station. The development will have two access points along Alcove Road. Additionally, a 10-foot wide multi-use path extending along the site frontage on Alcove Road is proposed, connecting to a proposed five-foot sidewalk along Lane Tree. This 6,100-square-foot convenience store will include a counter service restaurant with indoor and outdoor seating, and a mobile order drive-up window is also proposed on the site. The One Mooresville Comprehensive Plan's future character and land use map designates this area as an employment center, as well as within a village center node. This property is identified as a tier one area within the town's tiered growth map, designated as a priority area for utility growth and immediate development. The voluntary restricted uses by the applicant include the following, the restaurant bar, drive-through restaurant, retail sales and services establishment, small and medium, and gas station. Additionally, these are the uses that they struck out that are currently allowed by right in the corridor mixed use zoning district. Give you just a moment to look at that and happy to pan between the two if needed. Here is that approved concept plan that shows the convenience store and gas station on the corner of Alcove Road and Langtry Road. You can see the current traffic circle in the plan southwest there just for orientation. The required neighborhood meeting was held in person on May 19th, 2026 across the street at the Aloft Hotel. There were three community members in attendance and questions were raised regarding access and transportation in and around the property. Staff has identified that the site meets various map amendment standards as the site is consistent with being a priority utility connection within tier one of the growth map within a village center node. The site is compatible with existing land uses, creating a logical transition and orderly development pattern for the area. The site is consistent with the future character and land use map being designated as an employment center. and the site is within the five-mile fire response coverage area. However, this property is not within the four-minute response time goal at this time. When the new Fire Station 7 is operational, it will serve as the site, and Chief LeCount is here as well to answer any questions about that Fire Station 7 progress. Happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is here with the presentation as well.

Thank you, Mr. Warner. Questions from the board?

Quick question on the concept plan. There are some limitations on, it looks like the access closest to the traffic circle is right out only, and then the further down access drive is right in only, but left and right out. They would be held to that because this would be the concept plan we'd approve based on?

That is correct. Yeah, that is agreed to in the mitigation measures agreement.

Perfect.

Thank you. Absolutely.

Additional questions from the board? Mr. Warner, you said you had fire response here, someone from fire to speak about this?

Absolutely.

I think it might be worthwhile to hear if it's out of response time just how that would be handled since it is, since we're looking again at fuel requirements or fuel service here at the facility, just to get your opinion on it would be nice. We appreciate it.

Jane LeCount, Fire Chief. Thank you, sir. This property would fall into our five-mile boundary, which is ISO maintained. And so there's many properties that are outside of our four-minute response, but within the five miles, that's kind of the hard line. We have to be within the five-mile boundary. The Fire Station 7, we're in final negotiations with design, with a builder working to collaborate with Mount Moran Fire Department. And we anticipate that within the next six to eight months, we would be fully operational out of that station. If not, potentially as soon as the end of December, we will be sharing that space with Mount Morne.

So we would have service provisions definitely in advance of this actually coming vertical. Yes. Okay. Sorry to overspeak you. Forgive me. That's fine. Thank you. Well, thank you very much. Any additional questions from the board? Thank you so much for coming tonight. We appreciate the input. Are there any other questions for staff or are you prepared to hear from the applicant? Mr. Werner, if the applicant could come forward at this time.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Nate Buehler. I'm with Cambridge Properties, 831 East Morehead Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. Pleased to be here with you all this evening to discuss this site of this important node within the Langtry area in Morrisville. Thank you, sir. Here with me as well this evening is Jay Priester, president of Cambridge Properties, our representative of our users, Sheetz, Brian Downs, their entitlement manager, our civil engineer, Paul Lawler with Bowman, and Hunter Mullen, our traffic engineer with Timmons Group. Circling around a bit on what Patrick shared, you know, we understand this is a very important area for the town as a part of the Langtry project here within the village center node and employment center district. We also understand the history behind this site as there were prior attempts to secure a higher intensity residential zoning here for multifamily and apartments, which did not move forward. So, in the context of what we're presenting to you guys this evening, we feel like we're bringing a use that fits the character of what's around it, as well as we've been able to work with staff with conditions that we think are also beneficial to the site. As Patrick also mentioned, the site is zoned RLS today. The contiguous parcel just to the north is also zoned RLS, which is currently owned by one of our property owners, Mr. Culbreth. He's here this evening along with representatives of our other two property owners as well, as this is a part of a three parcel of assemblage. So we do feel like a rezoning to CMCU here is within the context and character of what's around it, which you'll see on this next slide. Again, the Aloft Hotel and True by Hilton there, you see kind of plan north, which is west of the site, existing cell station there to the south. Future expansion of Langtry on the southwest side of the traffic circle there, and then obviously the high traffic counts, which are around this northwest quadrant of the I-77 Langtry. Intersection again, we feel like after prior attempts to look at a higher intensity residential zoning here that a use with a with a higher end convenience store like what sheets will bring to this market is really fitting with the character of the site. And again, one which we're pleased to be able to present to you all this evening as a part of our approved concept plan. Again, as Patrick mentioned, the site does have two access points from Alcove Road only. Langtree Road, we've maintained a 25-foot landscape buffer, which will be planted to a Type D standard per the ordinance to help screen that building. Although the building is oriented similarly to the convenience store across the street, and I'll share a bit on the architectural qualities there in a moment, but from an access perspective, The southern most access point on Alcove allows for a protected leftover movement and right in right out access and then the northern most access point on Alcove Road will allow for a left out movement with right in right out but no left in and again those were all work through as a part of our approved MMA and TIA with NCDOT and with the town. And this next slide shows a little bit more in detail on how we'll handle those improvements. As a part of that approved MMA and TIA, we'll be constructing a new northbound right turn lane on Alcove Road into site access one on the southern side there, as well as the concrete median that's proposed to restrict the access for the left out movement at that first access point directly across from the two hotels. We'll also be constructing an additional concrete island that will restrict the left-end movement on Alcove Road at that northernmost access point to the site as a part of those approved mitigation measures agreement. As a part of our work with staff, as well as with Sheetz, we've tried to craft elevations that we think are in keeping with the high quality and character of the surrounding Langtry project. What you see here represents the southern side of the building, which includes spandrel glass and architectural glass, as well as our conditions limit the building to a minimum of 50% masonry. However, we're far in excess of that when you look at what's shown on this screen, as well as our front elevations here for the Sheetz building. Again, in summary, very pleased to be able to bring to you guys a use this evening that we think is in keeping with what's been built in and around this area, as well as what's in keeping with the future build out and growth of this side of I-77. Happy to answer any questions, and I appreciate your time.

Thank you very much. Questions for the applicant?

Stample? This doesn't need to be on the concept plan, but out of curiosity, is there any plans for any chargers?

I will defer to our tenant Sheetz on that regard, but I do believe they typically allow for future expansion for EV charging stations. So happy to get you a more formal answer from Brian Downs, Entitlement Manager with Sheetz on the charging question.

As mentioned, Brian Downs, Entitlement Manager for Sheetz, so Sheetz employee. We offer all of our sites up to three or four different EV companies. Tesla's our main one. Iona, EVgo, Electrify America. And we see which ones they want to take. Quite honestly, we would love to have them on every site, but ultimately, based off where they have other chargers already in place, they may or may not choose to select to add chargers as a part of our development.

Female Speaker 1 Okay. Thank you.

Male Speaker 2 Any other questions that might be specific FOR THE ACTUAL PROVIDER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE GENERAL APPLICATION ITSELF? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU ALL.

THIS TIME I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION. I BELIEVE IN THIS MATTER WE HAD PAUL Signed to speak this evening, Paul Goldbeck. That was our only speaker, so if Mr. Goldbeck isn't here, I'll close the public comment portion. Ask the board for any additional discussion.

I have one more quick question.

Mr. Katz?

In the event in the future there is potential development across Alcove Road where you've got the right-in, right-out, left-out, there opportunity for a signalized intersection to access a site should it be developed for anything else or once this is in place this is what we get so traffic impact analysis can always warrant something in the future depending on the use of the property okay but at this time there wouldn't be a warrant for a signal understood but there is opportunity in the future should the properties across the street get developed absolutely thank you thank you mr katz

Any additional questions or discussion from the board? If not, then I'll ask if there's a motion at this time.

Calling. Calling the conditions. Oh, didn't.

If we could have Mr. Buehler up here again. Thank you. Have you read the proposed eight conditions?

We have, yes.

And do you accept all those conditions on behalf of the owner?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. With that, then I'll move back and ask if there is a motion at this time from the board.

I'll make a motion to recommend the Town Board approve CZ202613 as the proposal is consistent with the One Mooresville comprehensive plan, including the site's designation as Employment Center within a Village Center node. Specifically, the request provides a logical extension of the existing commercial development pattern along Langtree Road corridor and is compatible with surrounding commercial uses and approve future development in the area. Furthermore, the request is reasonable and in public interest because it provides additional commercial services within an area identified for growth and can be accommodated through available public infrastructure and required transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Mack. Thanks for the reminder on the mic, Mr. Cole. Do I have a second to that motion? Mr. Red Arrow? So we have a motion from Mr. Mack, a second from Mr. Red Arrow. All in favor? None opposed? So we would fully recommend this for the town board approval. That takes us to item 11D, which is to consider conditional rezoning request CZ2026-15 for 6.34 acres located at 195 North Gibbs Road. The applicant is requesting Town of Mooresville conditional traditional neighborhood C-TN. Ms. Lattin?

Thank you, sir. Ashley Lattin, Planner 3 of the town.

I'll ask the board for any conflicts of interest.

I'd like to let the board know I have an interest in a business that's located at the end of Ebert Lane. and it's close enough to this development that we received formal notice of this meeting. It's a storage facility, so we have commercial interest in any development that goes on in Mooresville, but it is particularly close to this development. So I would be happy to recuse myself if you feel my financial interest is too close to this development.

I'm not sure there's a direct financial interest there, but I'll subject that to the board's comments on it. All that would be in favor of Ms. Temple refusing, raise your hand. Are you good?

I'm good, but I don't want to see the appearance of impropriety.

I think I would simply view it, any of us who have a general business in the market certainly benefit from more consumers within the marketplace, and that might preclude all of us from ruling on a lot of matters. But as always, I always applaud this board for the transparency in these situations, so thanks very much for bringing that forward. But in this case, since no one feels that way, we would ask you to please stay with us.

Okay.

And thanks very much. Ms. Lattin.

Thank you. So the request is to rezone from the Town of Mooresville Highway Business with Conditions, which is an older zoning district you guys probably haven't seen in a while, to the Town of Mooresville Conditional Traditional Neighborhood District. This request will allow the development of up to 50 single-family dwellings. This supports our strategic priority area of individual and community economic vitality by supporting the strategic plan goal of supporting development of housing, employment, and educational choices to support economic sustainability. The owners are James and Terry Sides. The applicant is Tim Derelec with D.R. Horton. The location is 195 North Gibbs Road. The size is 6.34 acres and the voting ward is in ward four. This site is currently mostly vacant. It's a metal structure on the site. There's a shipping container that will be removed. I just wanted to kind of give you an idea of where it is. If you've ever gone down the Brawley School Road on ramp onto 77, you've driven by. So wave as you head by. The site is currently zoned Town of Mooresville Highway Business with conditions. It's entitled for 120,000 square foot automotive country club. Applicant is seeking Town of Mooresville conditional traditional neighborhood CTN. Project highlights include 50 single family attached dwellings. This comes to a density of 7.89 dwelling units per acre. They are providing one and a half acres of open space, and the site is located within that WSIV critical area watershed overlay, limiting the impervious coverage to a maximum of 50% built upon area. The future character and land use map designate this area as mixed use. It's partially located within a node and is identified as tier one for utility extension. I did want to bring up that they will not have access to Brawley School Road. Their access will be within the additional residential neighborhood next door. This is their concept plan. It was approved on April 30th, 2026. There is a comment on the blue square to the far right by the sound wall that we're going to talk about a little bit later. It said a max of six feet high wall. The applicant later agreed to an eight foot high wall. So that is an update that I wanted to make you guys all aware of. So that sound wall, that's that black and white striped line at the top there. We require a buffer from 77 and that turn lane is within that required buffer area. So that's just additional protection for those residents from sound Hopefully not cars, but maybe Things like that and it was changed from six to eight feet. So I wanted to make sure you were all aware of that Here's our density table so conditional highway business First, conditional TN. Also, they restricted their front setback from 10 feet to 20 feet, so they'll have a bit more there. Of course, that accommodates a driveway. And the building height is conditionally requested for two stories, not three. They have nixed all uses except attached residential dwellings. So if they were to change to single family homes or do anything else, they would have to come back before you all. On October 15, 2025, they held a virtual meeting. Two community members attended. Questions were answered about buffering and site access, as that's a big change from what it was previously entitled as a car club. This site is compatible with existing and proposed land uses. All are residential. The site is compatible with providing a logical and orderly development pattern as the site is a tier one on that growth map and is reasonably served by our public utilities. The site is within that five mile fire response coverage area and is inside that per four, four minute response time for station five. The site is a bit inconsistent with the future character land use map designated as a mixed use, but without having access to Broly School Road, I could see the trouble with having that you wouldn't just have a direct driveway there. The site is partially inconsistent with expanding and zoning district. There are town have townhomes next door rezoned from 1997, but the rest of the neighboring lots are in fact all RLS. The One Mooresville Plan notes mixed use as the following. The primary use is vertical, horizontal mixed use, commercial retail, office, medical office, multifamily. Secondary uses are offices and those converted residences, hospitality such as hotels, townhomes, small scale, low rise multifamily apartments or institutional. So their use is a secondary use. And I did want to bring up again that they just don't have that driveway access to Brawley School Road. So I'm not sure how that would affect any of the primary uses if it was applicable. The character intent is to include land along the major roadways that are an actual extension of that mixed use destination area or areas between major intersections and important community nodes. Now, I did want to talk to you all. Access is something that I always speak to you all about. This is their current access. It's a paper right away. It's dedicated land on a plat currently serving as two parking spots for the neighboring development. And then there's like a small dog park or something going on. in that space there. So at the pleasure of the board, I know you guys always ask questions about TIAs and whatnot. So this plan did not trigger a TIA analysis. That's something that you guys could inquire for. The neighborhood next door has the 93 townhomes and on-street parking. So getting through there is a bit dicey at times. Do note that they are not utilizing North Gibbs as an entrance or an access point for this development. That's a safety area only, and Chief Deaton can kind of explain to you how the lock boxes work and how all that works if need be. So everybody on this peninsula, because we talk about peninsulas a lot, they end up exiting onto Silver Hook Drive to get to Brawley School Road. So they would have to go through that neighboring townhome development next door to be able to get to Silver Hook. And then at the pleasure of the board for consideration, buffering, they did agree to the eight-foot wall. I didn't know if there was anything else you guys wanted, but you always ask what questions I kind of have afterwards. So this was one of mine. Questions?

Questions from the board at this time for staff? Mr. Kohler?

Go ahead, ladies first.

I was just going to ask, it was their choice to gate that Gibbs Road access?

Yes, ma'am. That was in their approved concept plan.

Okay. Because they could have it open if they wanted to? I will defer to the applicant on that. Okay.

Mr. Cole? So, just clarification. Understand, for me to understand, the reason for the rezoning appears only to be to change the setbacks.

Well, no. They would have, they're currently rezoned and entitled for an automotive country car club.

Understand. So, they have to do a rezoning.

So, they have to do a rezoning to not build that.

It's got to go to conditional because it's the only place we have this use that's even a secondary use. It can't stay in HBC. It can't stay in HB.

It's conditionally zoned, so those conditions stay tied to it. I'll defer to the staff attorney to explain how that works.

I think I understand it now. I think I answered my own question.

They can't get rid of the conditions and just do the base district. They have to do the conditions too.

The base district doesn't, they don't fit in there with this use?

No.

Right. Okay, that answered my question. Because when I look down here, I see that, you know, most everything else would work for them, but except for the fact that they're not, got it.

I missed it. Well, keep in mind that conditional rezonings are also tied to a concept plan. This would obviously be a major revision to any concept plan that they had back in the day for their country club, so they'd have to come back on that respect as well.

I think we'll get to that when we hear their presentations. Yes, sir. Thanks, Ashley. Of course.

Thank you, Mr. Cole. Any additional questions?

Have we dug up that original concept plan?

And then I'm just curious, was that- I didn't dig up the concept plan, but we have the conditions.

Do we know, is it originally connecting to Brawley School? Was that the original concept? No, it's never had connection. It was always going to connect into the neighborhood.

Or North Gibbs. I would have to look. Because the conditions don't speak to the access points. It just goes through the different conditions and effects and whatnot. But no, they were never getting a driveway cut off Brawley School. Okay.

All right. Thank you. This was like what went down over on Morrison Plantation. So the amount of traffic involved is hugely different than 50 homes where people are coming and going every day.

So just a little bit of color as I remember it. There was a lot of opposition to the country club because they were concerned that there were fancy cars and fast cars. that were going to be speeding through. And there was a fairly good amount of people here to speak about it. I don't know how many people are here to speak, but I know it was much less than last time. So I think that speaks a little bit. I'm not in favor. I don't want to talk about whether I want it or not yet, but they have changed. It seems like they've changed. And it seems feels like based on what I'm seeing in the audience, that this is more of a use that they're open to. They were not happy about the Automotive Country Club, as I remember.

Yes, two signs were put up. One was actually a sign that he was referring to on Brawley School Road right next to the on-ramp there to make sure that I caught everybody that went by. There was also a sign put up in that neighborhood residential where they'll be connecting so that those neighbors understood as well.

Thanks, Ms. Lattin. Any additional questions?

Yes, that's correct. So Mr. Coley has... reference that the only sole access would be through North Gibbs. So they wouldn't have gone through the townhome development at that time, but they are now. Now it's the opposite. Now they're not going through North Gibbs and they are going through the townhome development.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. If there are no questions for staff, then at this time, if the applicant would like to come forward.

Yes.

Good evening, Board. I'm Tim Darylak with DR Horton. We are the applicant for this townhome development. With me this evening, we've got our development team. We've got Edwin Sudreth, who's our civil engineer with Ardura Engineering. And we've got John Floyd, who's our land use consultant with Moore and Van Allen. John's going to do a quick presentation, and then we're all available for any kind of questions or discussion afterwards.

Thank you very much. Good evening, everybody. John Floyd with Moore and Van Allen. here on behalf of dr horton um i don't want to spend a lot of time rehashing everything that miss latin went through um but i do think there's a couple items that are worth highlighting on this project The site, as she mentioned, is a little over six acres located off of North Gibbs Road. It sits right where Brawley School Road kind of intersects with I-77. And obviously that location presents some challenges from an access perspective. Brawley School Road is a limited access road, so you can't directly access it. Obviously, you're not going to put an access point on the interstate. Um, you have to residential communities, uh, immediately adjacent to the property. There is a town home community that she mentioned to the west and then to the south. Basically everything along north gives is also residential development. Um, so it's not a great location for commercial or for a mixed use development where you're gonna have that commercial component. um adjacency to residential we think supports um additional residents residential development and given that the site is only six acres we felt like the highest and best use for this site is as a small townhome community that will integrate or connect to that neighboring townhome community The site, as she mentioned, is currently zoned highway business with conditions allowing 120,000 square foot automotive country club. Our request is to rezone to traditional neighborhood with conditions to allow a small townhome community of up to 50 units. Sites essentially vacant. There's a little metal garage that will get taken out during development to the right. You see the the conditional plan for the prior zoning. I wish I had a bigger given the questions about what it looks like, but that gives you an idea. The connection point and primary connection on that development is uh for uh north gibbs and we'll talk a little bit about some of the difficulties with that connection um so our request we think would replace a you know high or large-scale commercial development with a smaller townhome community that would integrate well with the neighboring residential uses The Mooresville Land Plan currently calls for mixed-use development in this location, but again, given the access concerns, we think the site, you know, having to flow through residential development to get back out to Brawley School Road, limiting it to a small residential development makes sense. It's also in a Tier 1 growth area, so again, you know, adding some residential and using that six acres efficiently we think helps support that goal. This shows the conceptual plan that has been agreed to at this point. A few things that I want to note. Again, the primary access point is going to be along Bent Tree Lane. um and it's going to feed through the town home community to silver hook and then out to brawley school road i do want to note you know there is a stub road that was that is in that neighboring town home community there was also a conditional plan approved for that town home community so with the stub road the intent i believe was to provide access to this parcel through some other through that means um miss latin mentioned that the the project was too small to trigger any tia requirements um but we did have a traffic engineer do a uh trip generation estimate just so we could get an idea um with the townhome community of only 50 units you're looking at a.m peak trips of 14 per hour and p.m peak trips of 20 per hour so three per one every three minutes at the most traffic in the night that that's what you're looking at from a traffic perspective obviously nobody likes traffic uh but i think that's a relatively small increase and we think it's much preferred over having a commercial use there both from the standpoint of the number of trips but also from the standpoint of the type of traffic i think most people would rather have a neighbor driving through the neighborhood that's concerned about their neighbors than somebody maybe going and doing some kind of commercial activity The second access point along North Gibbs is going to be an emergency only access point. As you can see there, there is not a lot of frontage along North Gibbs. And given the kind of the difficulties of the interstate being there, the lack of size, it's just not really something that's conducive to having a kind of primary access point for a neighborhood. I mean, I think the turn would be pretty significant. And we also didn't want to create a situation where you have even more cars cutting through and providing a cut through that people could use. And so, you know, to address that, the petitioners agreed to make that an emergency only access site. So there will be a gate. First responders would have access to go through there, but the general public would not. The concept plan also shows two large open space areas. There is the one in the middle and then one out towards Brawley School Road and We're the on kind of near where the on-ramp starts when it comes to amenities for these types of communities people generally just want open space and so that their kids can kick a soccer ball, throw a football, that sort of thing. They're not looking for a lot of additional things that are going to require ongoing maintenance, increased fees. That's particularly true when you're looking at something as small as 50 units. The more amenities, the more the cost has to be shared between people, and sharing it between 50 is a lot different than sharing something between 200. you know the the focus here is going to be on you know giving people a place where they can be active where they can exercise um the petitioner is planning on including adult fence dog park with seating so people do have a place to walk their dog and do that but most of the open space is going to be reserved for what i'll call active open space for kind of play and exercise Last thing I want to point out on the slide if you look it's kind of hard to see and I'm not Don't know if I've got like a pointer here. There we go. Yeah, so Along North Gibbs here. That is an NCD ot installed sound wall And what the petitioner is going to do is is Extend this will be a an 8 foot concrete panel wall, which is consistent with the requirements. The ordinance is not going to be identical to the sound wall, but it'll be a 8 foot concrete panel wall that will extend kind of up here and across. You know, providing some privacy, some segregation between the development and Brawley School Road. The other thing I'll point out there on this design is one of the things that the design does is it does limit the number of townhomes that are along That side of the development I mean there's eight there it's certainly not a situation where you have all the townhomes kind of lined up there you've got the open space you've got the stormwater pond there to kind of limit the number of homes that actually back up to brawley school road. This is just a slide showing you some of the precedent images of kind of general architectural character and scale of development. You see articulation in walls, changes to the roof line, front-loaded garages, you know, different material types so you don't have just monolithic structures with doors that look ugly. And there's also a condition that limits the use of vinyl siding to give the development requirement of higher-end materials. These are some precedent images to show you the just ideas for amenities again committed to a dog park beyond that It's going to be things that for active exercise and play but nothing definitive at this point That's really all I have we think this is a good use of this property given its location the residential uses around it and the limited access that it has I really would appreciate your support on this petition. Happy to answer any questions. I did want to address Board Member Cole's question about the prior zoning and just make clear that with the existing conditional plan, that is the only thing that can be built on the site. And to do anything else, you have to come back and rezone. Okay. With that, again, happy to answer any questions. Would appreciate your support. Thank you very much.

Any specific questions from the board?

just uh one of the people who commented or was at your meeting was concerned about the privacy with their property to this to the uh south yes sir as they're gonna what what's what's gonna be done to to to help i believe if i'm thinking of the comment correctly is the one about someone had a berm and some landscaping and stuff and they wanted to make sure that that wouldn't be disturbed is that We didn't get that much information, but we got the information that there was someone that's adjacent to the property to the south and was concerned.

We did. We had two different owners, both to the south, one at the end of North Gibbs, and the other one off of, I'm not sure what the street is called, going up to the south, but the other street that's just to the west. We had communicated to that applicant that we will work with them. The grading right now appears like the townhomes are going to sit down below the property boundary where they're at, And so we're going to work with them to try to make sure that grading keeps it the townhome out of sight as much as possible. And then certainly any extra landscaping that we can put along there, we are completely in agreement for that. But until we get a grading plan, we don't know exactly what that visual is going to look like on the back of those townhomes along that particular property.

Maybe we can reserve that for a potential discussion as a condition. And what is the height of the DOT walls? I do not know if we know exactly how tall those are.

This is just an estimate because it's been a while. I haven't worked for the DOT in a decade, but they're generally 12 to 15.

Okay.

Any additional questions from the board, Mr. Peretz? Maybe just to piggyback off that, how did we land on an 8-foot wall? Why 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet? How did we get there?

So the zoning ordinance, I believe, has kind of two options for the buffer. One would be a 50-foot landscape buffer. One would be a 30-foot landscape buffer with a wall from 6 to 8 feet. So we're doing the 30-foot landscape buffer with the 8-foot wall, which is as high as the ordinance requires.

Got it. Okay. And then it will be Two-story townhomes right behind it, and do we have an approximation how tall those will be?

Typically, I mean, if we're going up all the way to the top, I mean, we're 30 feet high, but just at the top story where you're talking about the windows on that second story are probably 15 feet up.

And then the 30-foot vegetation buffer, is it going to be trees that are planted or anything that would block?

There are, as part of the ordinance, I think it was a Class A buffer. There will be trees and shrubs that are planted in there, but there will be trees that grow a bit taller there. Keep in mind, the one caveat to all this is we have placed that wall right on the edge of a Duke Energy easement. So you can see part of everything on the Brawley School side of that buffer is going to be limited to understory trees, which I think limited to 15 feet.

So they're gonna be a little bit smaller trees on the outside of it But on the inside of it will do the full the full trees as required in a class a buffer Thank you An additional question I didn't want to confirm with you all that you could make the wall higher if you wanted through a condition That's just what the ordinance says, but you can be more sure we'll get there. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah sometimes question or I somewhat question here how that wall would look if it's higher. Would it look almost more like just an institutional barrier like around a prison site rather than having something that kind of blends into the architectural scenery with size of trees, et cetera, with that. So I can see the larger wall from the interstate point of view with with all of that and you know again buffering the sound noise i would think it it would be most concerning to you all you know what what impacts your potential residents you know in the best character you know whether that's shorter higher etc and i would think probably for your own you know financial benefits you would want that to be most optimum but it seems like you know the height of it with the Addition, you know of the other screening, you know vegetation, you know should be pretty good shape But again, I'm I'm open for your all's point of view as well.

I personally believe the market will control it. It's not high enough No, they'll have problems selling those units. But as somebody who lives on Main Street, I can tell you it's way louder than anything you're gonna hear from traffic on 77 so I don't know that they We don't want to see the houses when we're getting on. Is that why we're concerned about the wall? We're concerned about the noise. I mean, it's an on-ramp. Like, you know, very few emergency vehicles that are going to be going full tilt with their sirens on. So I don't know that also, like prison-like, like blocking, totally blocking everything. Light is going to cast shade and all that from where that fence is. I don't know if taller walls are necessarily the best option. Again, if residents are happy. there are people, potential buyers, the market will help them figure it out.

Can I add to that? We did have some discussions trying to problem solve this area along that right turn lane there. We did have some discussions with DOT because there's a large section of right-of-way, a big kind of triangular section there. There's a decent amount of space from where we're at to Brawley School Road. So we talked to them about actually trying to add some additional plannings because there are in that area, but they're spaced pretty far apart. So DOT went back to their group. They were not excited about adding any more plantings in there, but we were trying to do what we could to add a little extra buffer, a little extra planting, because I think over time that would fill in well.

Well, I think the vegetation always adds a different look to it and quite an improvement overall. Any additional questions for the applicant?

Yes, I do.

Mr. Red Arrow?

You said that the primary access point is on Ben Tree Road, and the only other access point is for emergency service vehicles, which is where? That is right on North Gibbs, right here. Okay. And aside from those two points of ingress? That's it. That's it. Okay.

And I'll ask the board, I think we've seen these before in some other projects, but do you all want to hear any more specifics around that entry gate from fire services? Okay. Well, if you all are good then. Just thought I would ask that question quickly. Any additional questions for the applicant?

I do have one more question. Maybe for the applicant or staff. So, Ben Tree Lane, where it connects into the existing townhomes, like High Ridge Road, who maintains those roads? Is that Town of Mooresville?

Those are our roads. Yes, sir.

All right. Thank you.

I just wanted to point out, too, that you look at it, you think, well, it would be nice to have another way to get out and get as roads as there, but it all ends up being in the same place anyway. So, I see the tight situation that you've got there.

Any additional questions, discussion? Ms. Schechter, should we go ahead and wait for the conditions after we hear public comment?

Yes, we can in case there are conditions that need to be changed.

Okay, thank you. We'll let you sit at this time, and we thank you very much for the presentation. Thank you. I'll open our public comment portion. I believe we have one signed up to speak which is Ron Burst. Mr. Burst, if you just give your name and address for the public comment.

Okay, it's Ron Burst. I've lived in Mooresville since 1988. I live at 148 Hickory Hill Road, which is the Gibbs Cove subdivision, which is south of this proposed division. Thank you, sir. Okay. I don't live in the Sunridge development, but my daughter does. She lives on Pipe Ridge Road, and she has two daughters, an 8 and a 10-year-old. I'm sure that the DR Horton folks have are proposing a very good plan as far as the building the vegetation as far as the Sound abatement, I'm sure it'll all be fine. But the excess through Sun Ridge is Incredibly It's so intrusive on that community High Ridge Road is only 23 foot wide as is Ben tree and I don't know what the minimums Needs to be but if there is a car parked on either Ben tree or High Ridge Which is the access to several silver hook which connects to Brawley if there's a car parked there there's it's very hard to get through and So I don't feel like the project should be approved because it's not that it's not going to be a good project. It's not going to be fitting with the town plan. But the access through Sunridge is really incredible. I would urge every town board member, planning board member here, that before you vote, before you decide on this, to drive over to that development. Because it is, there's the excess through there is just, when you look at it, it just, I just can't believe that it would be approved. That there's just such a bad excess. The North Gibbs Road would be far better, but I've been told that there's legal problems with private, maybe private ownership on that road or what have you. I don't know the story there. I feel for the property owners because they have a piece of property that looks like it would be valuable, but there's really no good way to get in there. And that's just the way this whole thing developed. The Sunridge community was developed and, you know, you can't get your cut off a brawley. It's almost like a landlocked piece of property. So again, I would just urge some of you folks, hopefully all of you, to just drive through Sunridge and look at the access through Bentree. That's the road that it's going to cut through on, or High Ridge, and see for yourself. Thank you very much for allowing me to address the board. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Before I close the public comment portion, would you like to have any rebuttal? Mr. Burr's comments?

yes thank you um i'll say i mean we understand the concern i mean i don't think you take that lightly i think that's part of the reason for the closure on north gibbs was to limit the amount of traffic that could get there to the 50 townhomes that are being added i'll just reiterate the point that when that townhome development was developed or approved through that conditional plan it had that stub rolled there to provide access to the neighboring properties um and that's why we think having another residential use there as opposed to some kind of commercial or something else is the the best thing that you can do with that parcel otherwise you're sitting there with a landlocked parcel that you literally cannot do anything with and so we think this is understand again i understand the concern but i think it's a reasonable way to try and uh use to make some use of the property in a way that limits the burden on that townhome community as much as possible okay well thank you very much

WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION. ASKING THE BOARD IF THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, DISCUSSION.

I GUESS I WOULD, MY OWN PERSONAL FEELING IS THAT I THINK PUBLIC SPEAKER GAVE A GOOD PRESENTATION OF WHAT THE PROBLEM IS HERE. AND IT'S NOT A GOOD PIECE OF PROPERTY. Whatever you all decide to do, I'm going to vote against it. You know, it could be five houses in there, which would be use of the property instead of 50 homes, 50 attached homes. So I just ask you to consider that thought as you decide what you're going to do.

Any additional comments?

I've got one to address the public speaker. I'm sort of familiar with the community. And to your point, High Ridge and Forest Park, very narrow streets. And when you've got cars parked, I'm looking at a map on my phone, when you've got cars parked on the street, it's really, really narrow. Do we know if High Ridge or Forest Park are two way or one way at this point?

They should both be two way streets.

So is there the ability to make High Ridge one way north it wraps around back towards forest in the pool almost have a circle to create only a situation where only one way coming through the community then with a potential speed hump over by the pool as kids run around and you know are playing in the summertime and I don't know if they could do off-site improvements but It is so shallow thinking about snow plowing and thinking about fire and safety coming through. You've all been there. Those roads are tight.

So those are efforts that the town would need to take. We really can't ask them to go out and do that for us.

If traffic becomes a concern, then that's when the town would step in, correct?

That would be a great question for our traffic engineer. He's not here tonight. I would defer to him on that.

Because I think it would make it safer. It would make

flow a little better wouldn't be as of obtrusive and then the land is potentially still useful in the for this plan the project seems to be certainly a much better fit you know than what we were looking at you previous uh automotive use and and I do understand Just from staff's point of view, there's really no opportunity, you know, when you're starting to look at retail uses and so forth, you know, without proper access.

I mean, I had to put that it didn't go with the plan for mixed use, but technically it doesn't have the access to be mixed use. So I just wanted to ensure that that was brought up.

Right. I mean, thinking about, you know, even if it was self-storage, just box trucks fitting through these streets, it would be crazy.

So, sir, they wouldn't. We drove the Town Explorer to put a sign down.

So you know what I'm talking about.

So we got stuck a couple of times. There was folks playing in the road, and then there was just the way they parked the cars is parallel. Not everybody parks up to the curb. Some of them were more out. Right. The driveways are very narrow. The garages seemed full, so a lot of folks utilized that on-street parking. As you saw, there was two-line spaces that are literally the stubs RIGHT AWAY FOR THIS CONNECTION AND THOSE ARE BEING USED AS PARKING AS WELL. PARKING SEEMS TO BE A STRUGGLE OVER THAT WAY.

BUT IF THAT BECAME AN ISSUE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE TOWN IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, BUT YOU'D HAVE TO DEFAULT TO TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TO VERIFY.

WE WOULD DEFAULT TO THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER IN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU REALLY COULDN'T CONDITION TO THIS PROJECT. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE SEPARATE.

was going to be my question could that be a condition to i'll defer to colleen on that i well first the applicant would have to agree to it but i do agree that without a traffic engineer here without talking to staff more in depth about this um i i would not advise including it as a condition especially since the tan it is towns roads correct

I just point out, too, I think you all know stubs are generic in Morrisville. Stubs are generic. We got them in our community. Every community has stubs. They're required, whether they're going somewhere or not. So it isn't indicative that it was intended that there was something planned to be here.

But it's dedicated. I mean, when you create the plat and create the roads. It states, you know, the purpose is to be dedicated for public use. So the stub is there to connect to future development. So that, you know, yes, there's stubs that go like sidewalks to nowhere and stubs to nowhere, but they're there for future development. I just have a problem with it's a residential townhome community. And we're saying that we can't put another one right next to it to use the same roads that it's currently utilizing. I don't know. I believe in market forces that if it's if it gets too tight to drive it, that's when it would trigger the town or, you know, community to step in to fix the issue. But I just I do not believe there's there is another compatible use back there because it is I mean, it's just not going to work for any commercial business. And I don't think it sounds nice to say it could be five residential homes, but the cost of the property and to build a house that's worth that much acreage, they're not going to be willing to drive through this community.

Any additional discussion on the matter? Well, at this time, let's have the applicant come forward just to agree to existing conditions. Mr. Derelec will come. Thank you.

Nobody from the...

Mr. Darrelak, have you read the 19 proposed conditions in the proposed ordinance?

I have.

And do you agree to all conditions on behalf of the property owner?

We do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Well, then, at this time, if there's either additional discussion or motion, the board's open to hear.

I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to recommend to town board CZ 2026-15 as the proposal is consistent with the town's one more comprehensive plan specifically rezoning this property to conditional traditional neighborhood. Provides a logical extension of the adjacent attached residential development to the west and is consistent with the future character and land use map designation of mixed use corridor where towns are identified as a secondary use. Furthermore, this proposal is reasonable in public interest because it provides a logical and orderly extension of surrounding residential subdivision, aligns with Tier 1 growth as infill development within existing town limits, and provides additional residential options in the Brawley School Road and I-77 corridor.

Thank you, Mr. Katz. So we have a motion from Mr. Katz for option one to approve. Do I have a second to that motion? I have a second from Ms. Temple. So all in favor for option one approval?

Aye.

Those opposed? We have three in opposition. The remainder would carry that for a recommendation to approve. Again, for the denials, we have Mr. Red Arrow, Mr. Cole, I believe, Mr. Peretz. The remainder were in approval.

Thank you, sir.

So with that, again, we would make a motion for the town board. We would recommend their approval, but also I think between now and then there's time for maybe some discussion. Again, the town board actually reviews a lot of our footage, and this board usually carries good discussion around the matters. So some of the things that we're talking about, about future traffic adjustments, et cetera, this gives them a chance to contemplate those items before it actually comes before them. Overall, the fit is probably the best characteristic that could be in the community based on what the options would be and where the options were. So I think that's why it carries predominantly with the board. But there are some options the town board could look at differently in terms of some of the items that we've discussed. I'll bring that up with our traffic team I wrote thank you yes sir well appreciate that very much then we would move now to administrative items if there any mr. Coley I don't have anything further for you this evening all right any items to discuss from the board then do I have a motion to adjourn We have a motion, and it looks like a second for Mr. Red Arrow, so we would be adjourned at this time. And thank you. Temple and Mr. Red Arrow. Well, good discussions.