Town Council - Regular Meeting

I call the meeting to order over. I'm loud. Stand and pledge allegiance of America to the republic for it with liberty and justice for all. Remain standing for the I've got all kinds of things coming on. Okay, let's pray. Dear heavenly father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for allowing us to be at this place at this time. Father, we pray that you would lead us together, that we will be of one accord, that we will go about the business of our town, for the residents, everyone that's involved, lead us and guide us. In Jesus name I pray. Amen. Okay, before we get any further, I want to remind council that when you are speaking, please cut on your mics because if you don't cut on, it doesn't go through the recording. It doesn't go through the video and they're having trouble understanding what you're saying. So, cut on your mic. Speak. Cut your mics off because if they're all on, she gets feedback. Okay. Now, the first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. And we've got some things we need to add and take off. Number one, we're going to add a resolution under my part. Number two, we're going to take off the comprehensive study with TRC that needs to be deleted. So with those addition and

deletion, do I have approval of the agenda? Yeah, I make a motion we approve the agenda as amended. Councilman McGawan made the motion. Councilman uh Dobin seconded. I have a question. We got discussion. Why Why are we not u with TRC to conf? They're not here. They weren't able to be here tonight. And that's with the sewer, correct? That's correct. Okay. Anyone else has comment? All in favor of approving the agenda? Any opposed? Okay, we have the minutes of the regular town council meeting for March the 17th. Does anybody have any comments, corrections, or additions to these minutes? Make a motion we approve the council minutes for March 17, 2025. Motion made by Councilman McGawan, seconded by Councilman Brown. Any discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed. We have the work session minutes for March the 24th, 2025. Are there any additions or corrections to these? Move the minutes from work session minutes 20 uh March 24, 2025 be approved. Second. Motion made by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman McGallen. All in favor? Opposed? At this time, we open our first open forum. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward, state your

name, your address, and limit your comments to three minutes. No one wishing to come forward. I closed the open forum at 6:34. The regular business Some of you may know, some of you may not know. Our former councilman Joe Wilder was in a car accident yesterday and passed away. We are going to I'm going to read a resolution honoring him as a council member and we're all going to sign it and take it to his family. Whereas the town council of the town of Wilson Mills, North Carolina, has learned with profound sorrow of the death of Joe Wilder, former Wilson Mills town council member. And whereas Joe Wilder represented the town in many important roles during his life. Whereas Joseph Wilder was nominated to serve on the Wilson Mills Town Council in 1997. And whereas Joe Wiser was an active member of the First Missionary Baptist Church and an active community member in Wilson Mills. And whereas Joseph Wilder will be remembered as a resident, nurturing, and hardworking person by all who knew him. And now therefore be it resolved that the town council of the town of Wilson Nails, North Carolina, does hereby honor the memory of Joseph Wilder, former Wilson Mills town council

member and express our condolences to his family and friends on his passing. Need a motion to adopt this? Yes. So moved. I'm sorry, I had to compose myself a bit. Uh, Councilman Brown made the motion and Councilman Jernigan seconded. All in favor? All opposed? He's going to be missed. Uh, I'd like to remind council that we do have a budget session this Thursday at 4. So, don't forget that. Uh, I attended the mayor's meeting last um, Wednesday night in Smithfield. Um, the mayors are talking with the county about reason of the sewer and water. There's going to be some more information coming to council for your consideration and um looking at what's going to come forward. We know that if we want to help the county and the county help us with sewer and water, it's going to have to be regionalized because that's the only way people can get any money. So, we need to talk about it. We need to think about it and see if we can't um further the town with that. But that's going to be coming to you a little bit later. Um, and I think that's all I have. Lynn, the first item on the agenda is just a discussion about the lighting at

the interchanges at I42. You all had asked me to check into that and I did get some follow-up information from our representatives at DOT. They gave me some cost estimates for lighting those areas because they did not qualify for federal or state funding. We can light those on our own and pay approximately $475,000 for Swift Creek Road and $450,000 for the Wilson's Mills Road interchange. There are a couple of other options that they have laid out for us and they sent a picture. I did not get this in time to put this in your packet or give it to you, but it's a picture of an option that they chose in Sanford at one of their interchanges. And it doesn't it doesn't light the intersections with the interstate type lights all the way down through and o over the ramp. It's basically right as you come off of the ramp and where people would be turning off. We don't know the prices for something like that kind of an option. But he did send all of the um information about that type of lighting that we could give to Duke Energy if you want me to move forward and try to get some pricing from Duke Energy on that. I did do a little bit of research and there doesn't seem to be any kind of a grant available for this type of work. So, if that's something you want me to look into and see if if I can talk with Duke Energy and find out what the price of the interchange lighting like they did in Sanford would be and I'll pass this picture around for you to look at it. I asked them if there was an option for us to do standard street lights from Duke

Energy like we have on all of our other DOT owned roads in town that we pay for monthly and because they we do have the option to light a smaller portion like they've done here. However, the they do have to be installed on typical buried fiberglass poles, which makes them a little more expensive than what we would normally do on our DOT roads or our private roads, town roads, excuse me. So, I can get some pricing on that if you'd like for me to, or we can um wait until the traffic pumps up a little bit more out there with the new developments going and see if it qualifies maybe next year. How far off were we from the traffic count? Um, did they have an account? Yeah, they did. For lighting justification on a project, an interchange needs a minimum score of 50 in the evaluation process. The evaluation period is a 20-year window from the project let date. So they go out 20 years to evaluate it. Um the Swiss Creek Road interchange scored a 19 and a 24 in 2020 and 2040 respectively. So a score of 19 in 2020 and then a score of 24 in 2040. And the Wilson's Mills Road interchange scored a 23 and a 29. And again, the the requirement is 50. So I take this the score that you're refer that they're referring to is strictly traffic count. They just mentioned an evaluation process. They didn't call it a traffic count. And I think their process for going out a 20-year period is looking at the planned development, but again, that is planned. That's not in place. So nothing that we have has been turned

in and submitted officially for plans. So that's that's why I'm saying if you wanted to wait until some of the development on both of those interchanges come in and they do another evaluation and we see where we score on that. I I'd just be curious to find out what what part of that scoring the safety factor comes into play. for example, coming off of eastbound I42 to um Swift Creek, it says the the current traffic projection for 2040 on I42 is approximately 46,000 vehicles per day. And based on the scores above, which I just talked about, traffic on I42 would need to essentially double to near 100,000 vehicles per day by 2040. I think it's a lost cause for now. Can we request to break down on on how they come to that determination? Sure, I can answer. I would also appeal it and um to whoever needs to be appealed to because it's a safety issue. It's not a convenience issue. It's a safety issue. Now, if they want to go out there and they want to extend a guard rail where you can't go down a 25 30 foot embankment, then then I don't have a lot of argument with that. But my problem is is people come into this town, they come up to that that that interchange and if they don't know where they're going and a lot of people at that interchange do not know where they're going, they're going to be down a 25 30 foot embankment. So I would just my opinion appeal it with future growth get with Wendy and present that and um let's see what to say back. So, we're just going to wait for them to give us a an answer on that. Okay, I can do that. Yeah. I' I've always said like like Council Member Brown said, it's a

safety factor right there. Safety factor. Pardon me. It's It's bad out there. It is. I mean, it's not just that we want lights. It It's a safety issue. You need lights. Um, what what's the appeal process? Do we know yet? I don't know that there's an appeal process. We can keep talking to them about it. I know that well I'm I'm fairly certain that there wouldn't be an appeal process to get it federally funded but I can talk with the people at DOT to find out what we would need to do to try to push it forward with D I'm with and again it's I just want to be clear for the public's sake too because I know that you all know this but they're not saying that we can't light it. They're saying that they are not going to pay for it. we can pay for it and we can pay for something a little less than what is normally put on an interstate if we want to get pricing for that. Let me ask the question. Okay, suppose we go out there and we put up the lights like they show here and we put them at both intersections and then two years from now they decide, oh well the traffic's high enough that we can put in lights, so we take ours down. Well, we would we would have to request it again if we wanted them to to do another study to pay for for taller, brighter, whatever the difference is in the lighting. I mean, we could put these up depending on what the price is from Duke Energy and pay for it and they just that would just be what was there unless But if they do it for other places and the traffic warrants it and we don't get it, I mean it we need to make sure that we get them if we're do them. Yeah. Yeah, I mean that's that's why I said if you wanted to wait until the plans are a little more set in stone so that if they do this evaluation again, it may change the numbers because if we spend the money to put them up even in even this way the

way with the smaller lighting, we've spent that money and they're we're not going to get reimbured. I I'm just going to be honest with you. My my point of view for the town town residents of this town is we don't need to pay for their lack of planning. So So our our town money shouldn't go for their lack of planning for for a life safety issue. And that's exactly what it is. Um you know, we're sitting here, we just we just uh done a resolution honoring one of our former council member who who was involved in an accident and and all we all we ever get is well there's not enough accidents, there not enough deaths. It's time for the state DOT to stop the junk and look after the safety of the people. And that's a safety issue. That's a life safety issue. I I feel like with respect to the lighting, we can talk to we're blue in the face and it's I think we're barking up the wrong tree. It's never going to happen and we certainly can't afford it. No matter what that price comes down to, it's never going to become an acceptable price to us or the people even though it is a safety issue. I would like to see us stress putting up a nice guardrail right through there with reflectors and arrows going left and right so when they come off that intersection their lights are shining right on it and it'll prevent them from going down there. Lights may not prevent them. Who knows? We could have the lights up and somebody still go over it. I just think that guardrail is going to be the more uh productive of the two. Lanna, do you know if they have guard rails in the I mean they haven't finished those on and off ramps yet, I don't think. Are they going to put guardrails there? Do you know of Not to my knowledge. No. I I would just suggest that that this is a a federal project. Um and we our staff contact our federal elected representatives. um if if you do a a inquiry, they can do a a congressional inquiry and I think it's like 48 hours that uh that

department has to get back with with that representative or that senator. Um and and I would I would go on up to the to to the Washington DC level because this this is obviously beyond the state level. Um we we've known that since since the beginning. Um but but it's it's a federal project. So, we need to ask our federal elected officials and um and and see what they can do for us. Another job for Liam. I know at one time that the DOT or DOT wouldn't let us put street lights facing over a highway that the town didn't own because whenever we first initially started putting street lights up, the town had to own those streets to put them up. Is that their same policy now? Because if it is, we can't put them up. We can, but they have to be to the DOT standards, which is why he sent me what would be required, even if we go through Duke Energy and pay for them ourselves, just because of the way the light is tilted, the that's what has changed. Moti or how whatever it's called. Yeah. Right. Okay. So, whenever we first started to put them up, we had to own the streets, but now we can put them up, but they have to be angled to a certain correct. They have to be done specifically by the specifications that DOT sends us and that's what Duke Energy would ask for on a DOT road before they would even install them. And he sent that based on the ones that they did in Sanford if that was the option that we wanted to look at to pay for those. But I will follow up with them on their evaluation process and get a breakdown of that, talk with them about whether or not there are any plans for reflectors or guardrails. I do not believe that there

are because that's not been discussed in any of our meetings. I don't think so either. Um and then speak with the representatives. But I do have a have another meeting with our representatives on May 15th and our meeting is May 19th. So, I'll go ahead and follow up with them and then whatever information they can get back to me by the 15th. Hopefully, I'll have some for you on the 19th. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. Okay. Anybody else have any question about the the lights? Okay. Before you move forward with the resolutions, I just have a couple of updates. I did want to let you know that the accessible parks grant that we applied for that was um that we were applying for to pay for a majority of the fitness court. We did not receive that grant. Um we did have another option to file for another part F grant which we did before out at the park. However, once we got to looking at the points for a part F grant, it was the same issue that we had with the accessible parks grant in that the biggest amount of points is the master park plan and that has not been updated out there since 2013, 2013 or 2014. So, if it's over 10 years old, you do not get the points for that. And that is like 40% of the points that you get to to get a grant. So that is something that we need to look at this coming year. So we will not be doing the the fitness court. We are still moving forward with the dog park though. They started on the fencing today. So all of that is still in place. It's just that fitness court studio that we will not be working on this year. Um we signed the contract for the chamber upfit and we have our first meeting with the construction company tomorrow morning. So hopefully I will have a timeline soon

for all of you. Um, Attorney Duce Blonde did look through the contract again several times and got everything updated based on your vote last month for me to sign that once he went through and and got everything straightened out. So the price didn't change. We got all the technical stuff straight. Contract is signed and we're moving forward. Um, the last thing that I have before you do this resolution for the annexation is the mayor and I will be attending the league, the North Carolina League of Municipalities conference next year like we normally do and we will need to vote to what next week. You said year. Next week. Yes. Oh my goodness, I got to pack. Um so you would need to vote to designate the um voting delegate and alternate and it's the two of us that will be going to the business meeting. So just need a motion and a yeah who's you've done this before. Who is the usual delegate? Who is the usual alternate? Usually the mayor's a delegate and since I'm there I'll be the alter I can be the alternate and that's for the but we both league of municipalities the league of municipalities I don't know how you want that worded make a motion that we send designate the mayor as the voting voting member and town administrator Lyanna Worley as the uh as the alternate for the league of municipalities is that annual meeting or annual business meeting. Annual business meeting. Motion made by Councilman McGawen, seconded by Councilman Dobin. Any questions? All in favor? I. All

opposed. You have a um annexation petition in your packet for Sorry, trying to find the property address. An address has not been assigned. Sorry. So it is the pin number 168619-517735 which you don't have to include in your motion but um you are passing a resolution directing the clerk to investigate this petition and then after you do that you can call for the public hearing. Do I hear a motion that we approve the resolution? Yep. Still reading it. Okay. Make a motion that we approve directing the uh the clerk to investigate the petition of annexation for uh do I have to name I don't have to name that off, do I? Y I do. Yes. Is that ID? Is that the ID 17J? Yes. All right. For ID for parcel ID 17J is in Juliet. 07022A is in alpha. Motion made by Councilman McGawan, seconded by Councilman Triet. Any questions? All that. I mean I I know that I see the address. I mean I see I see I see there but but Strickland Roads about what a mile and a half intersection. Yeah. Well, I thought that was already in the town limits. I thought we granted sewer years ago before I got on. That's

the Is this Is this not the uh the Sunny Howard property? Used to be Sunny Howard property. Closer. Well, see, I thought that was where the the um the driveway that develop I don't know why I was thinking that was already right right here. Swift Creek Road and this goes out to where we're at here. So you come this way and this is Strickland. So we are just calling for a public hearing though. Yeah, I I understand that. But did did we did we not did we not have to approve because there was a DOT study on a a main main uh entrance coming out on the Swift Creek Road up that hill. There's a path there now where we talked about one night because I was against it because but DOT had approved that entrance and exit, but this has not come in for us to annex it. This is what this is for. I'm confused. I'm just I've already been reszone if that's what you're thinking about. Yeah, we reszoned it but we didn't annex but this is for the to to annex it into the town. It was reszoned. Okay. So, we reszoned it, but we haven't in it. This is the in it. Okay. So, we need to approve the resolution to ask the clerk to

Okay, we've got a vote. I mean, we got to second. Any more questions? So, so even even my concern about the that entrance coming when you're coming down that hill and that that main entrance coming in there on that blind spot. Again, safety. So, you can address this with them at the public hearing. This is not something we're going to decide now because this is not the public hearing. But that's the same property. Am I correct? Same property. But when they get here in front of you at the public hearing, then you can address it. That's when you need to address it. All we're doing now is just calling for the public hearing. And I I understand your concern and I I have the same concern you do, but there's nobody over here that we can tell them what we want because they're not here. But we can call for the public hearing and then they'll be here. Okay? So, we need to approve. Anybody else got anything? Okay, we have a motion to approve the resolution to direct the clerk to investigate the petition. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Then we have the certification of s sufficiency from the clerk. And the next resolution is to call a public hearing for this annexation and it will be at our next meeting which is May the 19th.

No, we need to we we need to call the public hearing for the annexation of this property. Make a motion that we fix the date with the public hearing on annexation. Strickland Road developer parcel ID 17J07022A for May the 19th. Okay. Second motion made by Councilman Triet, seconded by Gallon. Any questions? All in favor? Any opposed? We have a ordinance to amend our budget. I knew she was going to get up and come to hell about it. I have one question. Does this clear up everything that's I'm sorry y'all today? Does this clear up everything that's in now? the ones that we were questioning the other day. Yes, at our work session. This clears up all of those. It does. And I will be completing another budget amendment in June. And hopefully that will be that the year. Right. Okay. Does anybody Does anybody have any questions about this? Is there anything unusual here, Miss Sherry? No. Actually, it's good because we're increasing a lot of the revenues. Yeah. Increasing. Say that again. a lot of the revenues. Okay.

I'll make a motion we approve the pledge amendment as presented. Motion made by Councilman McGawan, seconded by Councilman Dobin to approve this. Is there any discussion? Any more questions for Sherry while she's here? All those in favor? I. All oppose. Thank you. Mayor, I just want to clarify. You reminded everybody about the budget session this coming Thursday at 4. It is at 4:30. Is it 4:30? It's at 4:30. I think we had originally said 4, but we can't get in here until 4:30 because of the car pickup traffic. Okay. That's okay. I had it down for Okay, everybody, it's 4:30. 4:30. While while you're addressing that, I I do have a commitment that starts at 5:00 that I can delay till 5:30. So, I can't be here for the whole thing. Fair enough. We're not going to stay forever. So, when hopefully. Okay. The next thing is a res resolution to petition against some of the it's on and if I get close to it it feedback. Okay, I'll try not to. Okay, it's a res it's a resolution to oppose some of the legislature that is coming through u the general assembly. Most of these bills, the Senate bills and the House bills would take away a lot of our zoning. It would take away our ETJ. It would take away the things. I'm sorry y'all, but if I sat close to it, I'm so loud. But this

is why the res I'm going to let Wendy say her two cents worth on it. But I apologize for not putting a copy of those bills in your packet. Um there's a lot going on with the general assembly right now and these are the main ones that I have been watching. Um, I can give you a brief rundown of each one of the bills and what they are trying to do. Senate Bill 495 is an act to increase affordable housing by allowing for the construction or sighting of accessory dwelling units. In a nutshell, it would mandate that we had to allow accessory dwellings, grandma suites, in-law suites on the properties. Um, right now the only way you can have those in Johnston County is for them to be stick built. This bill would allow for them to bring a building in and set it down and it be modified as needed. Any property restrictions on that? Sorry to interrupt you, but I'm visualizing this on a small piece of property. Um, they are saying that the maximum, let's see, the maximum size of these accessory dwellings could not be over 800 square ft. We could still have our setbacks, but we would be limited to a 10-ft setback off the property lines where now we go anywhere from 15 and up depending on your zoning. Um, they would have to be at the side or rear of the property. They could not be used as rentals.

Um, it requires that that dwelling unit be smaller than the primary residence. It they cannot be placed in historic preservation districts in national historic landmark districts and an accessory dwelling unit that is not connected to water and sewer. It would have to be connected to town water and sewer. Um, all right. So, right now the county the county runs that and it and it says it's got to be a stick built edition. Correct. Right. And now the state wants to take over that and say you got to do it and allow mobile homes, etc. on there, campers, whatever. Why are they doing that out? I I know I'm going to ask the questions with the other bills also, but why what's what is it for the state to be able to do that? I mean, does it mean money? Does it mean votes? What is it? Any ideas? Who's the author of that bill? Senate bill. Moffett and Mayfield. Who? Senators Moffett and Mayfield are the primary sponsors. Moffett and Mayfield. Where are they out of? Do you know? I do not. Do you know what their affiliation is? It's a reason decent question to ask. I mean, they Democrat, Republican, independent, communist. I honestly I don't look at the well I do look at the authors of the bills but the affiliations don't matter to me. I look at whether it's going to impact our town positive or negative. Yeah. I have I have my feelings on but I just like to know where it's coming from. Yeah. Are are are the other Senate bills are they are are they all Senate bills or some of them House bills? One only one is a House bill. All the others are Senate bills. Can you and and they all say basically about the same thing?

Um, no. The next one is an act to require the sighting of middle housing structures in all residential zones. Which means we would in a nutshell duplexes, fiveplexes, forplexes, middle housing, sixlexes, town houses, and triplexes would have to be allowed anywhere in any residential zone in the town. Laz, this is Senate Bill 497. The sponsors are Moffett and Mayfield. Moffet and they were the first the other two, right? Yeah. All right. Can Can you read Can I I mean, I'm seeing a pattern already. Can How about the House bill? That'll go ahead and do the Senate. Okay. I I got another Senate bill here real quick to allow by right residential development and use in all areas zoned for commercial use. So you're mixing commercial and residential senators Muffet and Mayfield. Read the title once again because I'm I'm I'm with him. We're going up to the Raleigh real quick. an act to allow by right residential development and use in all areas zoned for commercial use. I can scan these and email these tomorrow. I'm throwing up enough I don't need to see them. And that's Moffett and Mayfield. What number was that one? 499. 499. Mhm. All right. 587. Is that the house bill? It's a Senate bill. Senate bill 580. 587 is an act to clarify nonconformities

in land development regulations. This bill says a lot, a whole lot. But basically what it's saying is if someone is building something on a nonconforming lot, if that nonconforming lot has been that way for years, we have to let them do it. Whereas now on non-conforming lots, there's no development allowed. Can you put that in real simple terms for me? A real simple person. A non-conforming lot may be where we um adopted our UDO back in 2019. Some of our restrictions and zoning changed. And when we changed it, some of the the lots, the houses, the layout on these lots didn't fit with our new regulations. That's considered non-conforming. Okay? And we they don't fit with our regulations, but we allow them in, right? We allow them in, but they can't make any changes, right? And now they're saying they can do anything. They can do anything they want with it. And and let me guess, is it Moffett and Mayfield? Not this one. This one is Senators Lazara and Sorry, our senator. Yeah, our senator. Okay. This is another Senate bill. It's Senate Bill 688, an act to amend local government planning and developmental laws. This one too has a lot in it and they are basically taking away a lot of the control that our local boards and commissioners have with

our planning and development and zoning and most of it could potentially go through our legislatures. Out of curiosity, Wendy, have have county commissioners weighed in on this at all or county officials? I'm not sure. Okay. Um, the House Bill 765 is very much in tune with this last Senate bill. Um, it repeals the prohibition of downsizing, which wouldn't be a bad thing. Downsizing. For those who don't know, they introduced a bill where if we reszoned and it was considered a downzoning, that property could never be upzzoned again if it was sold. It clarifies the general authority to adopt and enforce development regulations, given a little bit more power to them. clarifies nonconformities. It amends various aspects related to the process of implementing development regulations, including certain uses by right in certain jurisdictions, subdivision approvals, and certain zoning approvals by administrative action and imposing a requirement for physical notes in certain instances. It imposes personal civil liability for each member of decision-making boards in certain instances related to development regulations and approvals. And it requires every local governmental unit operating a water system, sewer system, or both to allocate capacity as requests are received and establishes a vested

right in that capacity allocation that runs with the land. I can tell you that sponsors sponsor. One of the things that I left off on one of these bills is that they are changing vested rights. They are changing who can claim vested rights and they're making the towns pro towns and municipalities, counties prove whether there are vested rights on these properties or not. And it goes with the reszoning or development of those properties. the mayors of the towns uh opposing this last bill and they are each individual town is going to send a resolution and the county is also sending a resolution. So the the mayors are just opposing the house bill. Yeah, they haven't they haven't said anything about the other perspective. They were opposing the house bill because it has already come out of one committee and so it be going to the floor. Well, I I I'm just I don't know why. I mean, maybe they don't have anything to do in Raleigh. I mean, I I don't know. Well, you got you got some double that have been elected and now that they're in Congress, they think that they can control the growth of the towns the way they want to. Oh, you would have heard one of the mayors the other day. He said from now on when he had us a complaint, he said, "I'm going to give him the telephone senator and say call him cuz if we can't we can't do anything as a town, then we're going to let the legislature have it." That ain't going to work. Wonder what Sar smoking. Seriously. I mean, he's he gets elected with an overwhelming majority. Then he goes and

puts his foot in it. We got we got to let him know with something more than than this resolution. I mean resolution is great but well th this will be a start and then when everybody needs to get his number and start calling and and saying that we are opposing. Yeah. Now who are the sponsors of the house bill please? Just saying it again. I don't know them. But I do know I do know that the House bill is one that that the mayors are very upset about because it it has left one of the committees. So, it's going to be going to Are we in are we in communication at all with Representative Strickland at all to find out what he can do for us? And I mean, he's we need to talk to We need to talk with Strickland. Really? We do. Strickland will jump on our side in a heartbeat. Wow. Well, we do need to pass this resolution. But the information that that that I I I keep hearing and and and I'm I'll be honest with you, there's people that well before me that work some long hard hours on planning and zoning. And then we got we got a a planning and zoning group who now works long and hard and I think they do a fine job. And uh so w with that said, I'm going I'm going to make a motion that we approve the resolution of the town of Wilson's Mills town council opposing legislative pre uh preemption preeemption. The font was too small of of local government planning and zoning. And I and and I saw in here that we do we are included all Senate bills and the House bill. Uh we we I think we can handle that pretty good,

Wendy. I think you can handle that better than Raleigh. I'll second that. Okay. Motion made by Councilman Brown to approve the resolution. Seconded by Councilman McGawan. One question. Would you please reaffirm that planning and zoning officers elected or planning and zoning committee members are are going to be susceptible to legal action in some way. They're going to be responsible. It would be anyone that makes a decision on that. my planning board as well as my town council. Oh, goody. I I have not read that bill, but that that is a very concerning addition. Yeah. Okay. Any any more questions? All in favor? I Any opposed? Okay. Not only will we send this, but we will make sure it gets in the hands of Benton and Larry Strickland. Yeah. anybody that we can because I would just say that that I don't I can't speak for anybody but myself, but if we can draft a u if we need to sign this individually um do electronic signature um you know something if if that'll speak speak more than us just saying this and putting our our name to it um you can send it to me and I'll be glad to electronically sign it as long as it ain't borrow no money. Well, we will we will definitely try to get something and um make sure that it gets to our representatives and our senator because um we need to stop this is if we can. I know. Oh,

yeah. Okay. The next action on our agenda is to call for a public hearing for the reasonzoning of four partals that were done by an administrative era. In other words, they were supposed to be zoned one way, but on the map, Wendy explained back in 2019 when the UDO was adopted, all four of these parcels were changed based on the new zoning classifications that we had. At current, three of these parcels house a propane business, which is not even allowed on what it is zoned for. So, we need to get that parcel conforming by reszoning to industrial. Um, the fourth parcel they have decided they would like to expand and they had came in to ask for a reszone of that one. So when we figured out what was happening, we grouped all four of these parcels together. Right now, three are zoned mixed use and one is zoned single family residential, too. And they're requesting that it be reszoned to industrial to support the business that's been on that property for years. And what we're doing tonight is just calling for the public hearing. Yes, ma'am. For our next meeting on May the 19th. So moved. Now Wendy, I think he she said we needed to we need to do it each one of them or can we do it? It can all be done together. But but um I just saw a mistake on here.

That date in that bottom paragraph needs to be changed to May 19th. Yeah, May 19th. But we do we need to read the partial numbers that we need. I think so. Yes. It wouldn't hurt. Okay. Ready? So, you ready to go? Do we need to read them all? Yes, we need to make the motion to Anybody want to take a deep breath? To call a public hearing to reszone. Okay. I make a motion we call a public hearing for reszoning for May 19th of 2025. Reszone for RZ012025 for parcel ID. Uh 17K 08026 Juliet 17K08026 Charlie 17K080261 maybe that's an I. I'm not sure. And I've got you with the I and 17K08016N is in November. Motion made by Councilman McGowan, seconded by Councilman Journey. Are there any questions? Hold on. What what happens if we reszone that and they decide to sell sell the business, move out, then anything else can go in there? Correct. If we resone it to what they're res wanting to resone it to I would just say that that bring us back options other than reszoneing it to to to this industrial is the only category that we have that will support that propane business. Oh well what? So they're in a pickle. Yeah. And so what happens if they go out of business? Suburban moves out. That's what he's asking, right? And somebody wants to buy the industrial, they would have to request a resone of it then. Okay. He can't put anything. Okay. All right. Well, if it's industrial, there's a many a thing that can go in industrial. Anything permitted. Anything permitted in industrial would be allowed on that property, right? Okay. So, what happens

if we don't approve it? We got a problem. Well, All right, Mr. Can you answer that question? It would just be a nonconformity. Um, but I believe it was truly in a administrative error at the time that the UDA was adopted where that was the desire was to conform the existing um uses to to the uses that were actually in place at the time. Okay. So, so if that's the case, can we put can we put an addendum or whatever in there saying that if it changes from a propane company, this comp this council has to approve. No, we can't do that. Oh, wow. Okay. So, we are calling for a public hearing on May the 19th. All in favor? All opposed? Okay. Missingly, is this the gentleman that was with Peter last time at the Yes, that is just what I was about to say. He was at our meeting last month. Um he is on the rugby team as well. So he's already attended one meeting, but it needs to come to council for final approval. So we have a a member that has sent in an application to be a member of the events committee. The application is in front of you. Um do y'all have any questions for Emily? I have one quick question. Do we have like we do on planning committee do or planning

planning board do we have a requirement that certain number have to be living in Wilson's Mills certain number? So we could theoretically have everybody from Clayton on there. They wanted you have to vote them in. I mean no I understand that. I'm just saying legally it could all be members of that's interesting. We it if you don't have but three members on your board you'll take anybody you Yeah. going to I didn't want to say it like that but and also this is a committee rather than a board so that it doesn't have as many restrictions. Well, I move we accept and move on to the advance board by Councilman Brown seconded by Mayor Pro Tim Cet. All in favor? I. All opposed. Okay. Does any of the council have a comment? Ju just a a couple of things. Um I'm just curious on that I was writing down uh traffic study at Fire Department Road and Wilson's Mills Road. we heard anything or they still clicking to waiting to click or do they have a um they have an an option and it's on your agenda for your work session next Monday, but I need to talk with a couple of property owners before we move forward with anything on that. Okay. And the reason I ask about that is at Cornwallis and Josephine Road there's a roundabout. There's enough room up here for a roundabout. At the intersection of Vincent Road and Glenn Law Road, there's a stoplight. There's no one to convince me that there's more traffic at Vincent Road and Glenn Law Road than there is at Wilson's Mills and Fire Department. They are not in in they are in agreement that there is an issue at that intersection and they have given us options. Okay. But I I I want to talk with property owners before we discuss it. That's that's good. Uh timeline

Fox's timeline on the chamber. We still on his timeline. We still in like in his order how Fox Mr. Fox yeah okay so so we're we're still on his timeline if I go back and look what he said was going to happen at this this and this and this. So as far as the the council the chamber, right? Okay. All right. Um, how much did the price go down on? Uh, I know we had a list of these these things on the side. Um, that that that were going after we we weren't given a choice by the legislature. We we we we had to pick the the lowest bidder and then it was going through those those items. How much did the price decrease? You know, it was on the side like we they were going y'all were going to discuss it with him. It dropped 250. I'm just going off of memory, but I think it was about 250,000 from the original bid was I can't remember the word 2.1 million and then it dropped down to 1.9 million. Okay. Yeah. Is that it? But is that is that due to stuff we're going to leave off or or or Yeah. And that and they in in two different areas of the project they found a more inexpensive way to go about it without losing any value. Good. Good. So, all right. Good. Um, and the other thing I have real quick is uh do we know where the planning uh planning is on the burning ordinance that they were looking at? I was asked about that. I hadn't heard anything about it in a couple of months. I just wanted to find out while I was here. I am still working on getting all of that typed up. The plan right now, I was hoping to have it to the planning board in April. That's not going to happen. Um, but it will definitely be at

the planning board in May. In June, y'all should be calling a hearing for it. And in July, y'all should be voting on And and the whole reason I ask is is is because we we're talking about all of those I mean who I don't know how many houses they're going to build behind me that we just approved for the to annex. Um but approximately 250 back. But anyway, that's a whole lot of wood wooded area. although it's it's smaller than what was, but that's still a whole lot of wooded um stuff that and and I mean we're not even talking about between Swift Creek and and uh and Wilson Smooths Road. So that's but anyway. All right, sounds good. Thank you. That's all I have. I just want to take the opportunity to say thanks, Patrick. Streets are looking good. They're looking a lot better except when I was out doing it, but they look great. Really? At this time, we'll open the second open form. If you wish to speak to council, please come forward, state your name, your address, and limit your comment to three minutes. No one wishing to come forward. We will close the open forum at 7:30. We adjourn. Motion made by Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Jernigan to adjurnn. All in favor? Any opposed?