Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Chairman, we're ready.

Good afternoon. My name is Jason Grubbs. I'm the chair of the City-County Planning Board. Welcome to the June 11th meeting of the Planning Board. At this time, would you please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

To the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Before we begin this afternoon, I'd like to recognize any of the members of the Winston-Salem City Council or county commissioners that are present with us today. And I crowd this large, I'm hesitant to try to name you, but if you'd stand just so we could recognize you. May only be one. Well, there's Council Member Scipio. Thank you for joining us. See, that was easier than I thought it was going to be. Thank you very much for being here. Our first order of business today will be the consent agenda containing items for which the petitioner is requesting withdrawal or continuance or items for which the planning staff has recommended approval and no one has signed up to speak in opposition. For our public hearings today, each side will have a total of 12 minutes and there is no rebuttal period. Once the public hearing is closed and the board goes into work session, no one is permitted to speak unless the planning board asks them a question. The items under Section B of our agenda, which we'll spend most of our time on today, will require final action by the elected body, either the Winston-Salem City Council or Forsyth County Board of Commissioners. As such, votes taken today are recommendations which are considered by the elected body during their review of these requests. For general use rezoning requests, the planning board must consider the full range of uses allowed in the zoning district being requested. The petitioner may not refer to a specific intended use of the property. For special use rezoning requests, the petitioner must identify the intended use or uses of the site and give specific details on how the site will be developed. This is very important. If you're addressing the board today, before you begin your comments, please give us your name, address, including your zip code for the record. Additionally, and this reminder applies to both staff and board members as well as speakers from the floor, to ensure that our digital media systems properly capture your remarks, please make sure you're speaking directly into the microphone. First item on the consent agenda is the approval of the minutes of the May 14th and May 28th, 2026 meetings. Is there a motion? Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign them aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Now I'm going to call on Mr. Brian Wilson. He'll take us through the consent agenda.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. We're gonna move to our first two items. That's item B7, that's case F1670 and C1. That's a subdivision case 2026041. Both of those cases have been automatically continued to your July 9th, 2026 hearing. Our next item is B1, that's case W3686. Petitioner is W36, excuse me, the petitioner is the city of Winston-Salem. They are requesting to convert the zoning from Forsyth County MUS jurisdiction to Winston-Salem MUS jurisdiction. The site is a 47.93-acre site located at the northern terminus of Eagle Crest Drive. This is just to the east of Long Creek here, the Long Creek Village. This was actually a proposed phase of that development that never came to fruition back in the early 2000s. As you can see on this aerial, the site is heavily wooded and undeveloped. There are a portion that's zoned RS-20 as an old golf green. This is the area plan recommendation for it. It's a single family residential. Staff does recommend approval of this request and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Any questions for staff? All right. No one signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. What's the pleasure of the board?

I move that the planning board find that the request W3686 is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Second. Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

I move that the Planning Board recommend approval of W3686. Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

All right, Mr. Chairman, moving on to our next item, that's B2. The case is W3687. Petitioner is Young Kee Kim. They're requesting to rezone a RS9 and RM18 dual zone property to RS7, the 0.46-acre site located at the intersection of Andrews Drive and Wabash Boulevard. You can see that property highlighted in yellow there. It is surrounded broadly by RS9 zoning to the south and west, and then RM18 apartments to the northeast here. Further off to the north, the HB zoning is bordering Rinaldo Road there. See, the site itself is heavily wooded and undeveloped, and then you can see where that corner clips, the zoning one clips right there in the back corner. And then here it's right at the intersection mentioned. And this is the West Suburban Area Plan land use recommendation map. It does recommend single family residential land uses as a density of zero to eight units per acre. So this request is consistent with that recommendation and staff recommends approval of this request. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Any questions for staff? No one signed up to speak in opposition to this recommendation. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed.

I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Second. Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed?

That's unanimous. I move that the Planning Board recommend approval of W3687. Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous as well.

All right, our next item moving on is B3, that's case W3688. Petitioner is Luis David Vargas requesting to rezone an RS-9 zone property to GBL. It's a 0.36 acre site located on the west side of Home Road, north of Indiana Avenue. As you can see on this location, Matt, the site is almost entirely surrounded by general business, highway business, and other high intensity commercial zoning districts. The only RS-9 zone property is directly abutting this property directly to the south. And this is the area you can see the property itself is just about the only undeveloped part of this area. The house is directly to the south of the site here and let me get your pointer on so you can see where I'm pointing. So this is the house here and then this is undeveloped property here. The North Suburban Area Plan does recommend commercial land uses for the subject property. Petitioners worked with staff to limit inappropriate land uses out of the GB district. Staff does recommend approval of this request as well, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Any questions for staff? All right. No one signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. What's the pleasure of the board?

I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed?

I move that the planning board recommend approval of W3688.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, signify. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous as well.

All right, now moving on to item B4, that's case W3689. The petitioner is Goldwater Holding, LLC, doing business as Eagle Properties, requesting to rezone an RM18S, excuse me, RM8S and LIL zone property to LIL, that's Limited Industrial Limited Use. It's a 0.1-acre site located at the southeast corner of the intersection of South Main Street and Arnold Avenue. You can see the portion that's already zoned LIL. That was approved by City Council in December of last year. The site is also surrounded by a limited business commercial to the west and to the north of the site. A small amount of RS-9 single-family remains on the far east. northeast of the site, and then the balance of this property is RM8S. You can see the site itself is heavily wooded and undeveloped. You can see a lot of that commercial activity occurring along South Main Street here. And this is the area plan, South Suburban Area Plan does recommend low intensity office and commercial land uses for this site. As you may recall last year, the original rezoning was for signs off premises. This request is really an expansion of that use along with including some other low intensity commercial and uses to the request to allow for some additional development flexibility. Therefore, it's generally consistent with the area plan recommendation. The area plan itself, again, it did change recommendation once this was approved by city council last year. Therefore, staff does recommend approval of this request and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Questions for staff. All right. No one signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. What's the pleasure of the board?

I move that the planning board sign that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed?

I move that the Planning Board recommend approval of W3689. Second.

Motion by Mr. Fair. Be second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

Okay, and now we'll move on to item B5. That's case W3690. Petitioner is HHS Holdings LLC. This is the Eastern Food Equipment site plan. They are requesting to rezone from LBS, that's a commercial zoning district, to GBS, another commercial zoning district with special use. It's a 2.3-acre site located on the southeast side of South Stratford Road at the terminus of Ashwood Drive. You can see the property is next to a wide array of commercial land uses to the north here, several different zoning districts there, and it's surrounded by an existing single-family developments to the southeast and southwest. And this is the aerial. You can see, again, the site is next to several commercial land uses on the northern side of South Stratford Road here, and a portion of the site to the east, and then established single family neighborhoods to the south. The site itself is already a developed commercial site. And this is the Southeast Winston-Salem Area Plan Land Use Recommendation Map. It does recommend commercial land uses for the property. And this is the proposed site plan. It shows the realization of a portion of the existing building, so the zoning line is here. And they do not propose any changes to the structure itself. They're gonna formalize some parking to the rear. and formalize some of these loading bays. The intended use at this point is wholesale trade aid, which is why they need to propose a new zoning district. They have worked with staff to limit other high-intensity commercial land uses. This is really essentially an adaptive reuse of a commercial site along a commercial corridor, and therefore it does meet the intent of the area plan land use recommendation. The site plan itself does meet UDO requirements, and staff recommends approval of this request.

Questions for staff? No one signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. What's the pleasure of the board?

I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Second. Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, signify. Aye. Any opposed?

That's unanimous. I move that the Planning Board recommend approval of W3690. Second.

Motion by Mr. Fairby, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, signify. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous as well.

All right, now we're moving on to the next section of the agenda tonight. This is C1. It's case W3691. Petitioners W. Sanders Mosley and Elizabeth Mosley. This is the Stella's Rescue Site Plan. They're requesting an elected body special use permit for the establishment of an outdoor enclosure for a indoor kennel use in a GI zoning district. So just to recap that, that's kind of a mouthful. The GI zoning district does allow for the kennel indoor use already. What's before you, well, Ultimately go to City Council for their recommend their Consideration is the establishment of the outdoor enclosure portion of that use So one point nine three acre site located on the west side of Chatham Road north of Buxton Street And you can see the aerial here, the site itself is already developed with an existing, previously used warehouse building. The site is bounded by general industrial or heaviest industrial district to the northeast and directly to the north, GBS heading further to the north, and then a mixture of single family and multifamily districts to the south and west there and west end. And this is the area plan land use recommendation map for the South Central Winston-Salem area. It did recognize institutional land uses in recognition of the prior use of the property as a neighborhood scale church. Again, the site is already appropriately zoned for the kennel indoor use. This is just for the permit for the outdoor enclosure. And this is the proposed site plan. Again, you can see they're proposing to reutilize the existing structure here, and they're going to formalize some existing parking areas on the north and south sides of the building. And just to highlight, this is the proposed outdoor enclosure area. And the petitioner has also volunteered to provide some additional large variety trees to provide some additional shade and screening for the outdoor enclosure area. Just to give you some additional background, the southern property line has a significant grade. It's almost a 40-foot shear drop. So that provides some additional screening here, and they're going to work with staff for the buffer yard requirement for the district and the use. The site plan does meet UDRO requirements, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Questions for staff? Mr. Chairman, just point of privilege, I do want to point out for anyone that's watching at home, anyone that's in one of the overflow rooms, C1 and C2 are animals that have kind of changed over the course of time. These are items that require an elected body special use permit, which is a quasi-judicial hearing. The way those used to be handled is we had a public hearing at the planning board level And then that information was sent on to the elected body where they held another public hearing. But the problem with that was the fact that you were having a public hearing two different times. The hearing here wasn't quasi-judicial. It wasn't sworn testimony, etc. We've changed that process over the course of time, but I just became aware today that the notification letters that we send out do not clearly spell that out. We actually say that today is a public hearing, and that is not the case, and it hasn't been in a number of years. So we will endeavor to change our notification letters for... These planning board reviews of the site plan before they move on to council and the commissioners for their actual quasi judicial public hearing But I did just want to note there were some folks that didn't show up today I apologize to them in person, but we endeavor to change that But again, this is simply a review of the site plan to ensure compliance Before it goes on to that actual quasi judicial public hearing before the elected body with that.

Thank you Thank You. Mr. Murphy any discussion All right. Is there a motion?

I move that the site plan for W3691 does meet UDO requirements.

Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, signify. Aye. Any opposed?

All right, Mr. Chairman, we'll move on to item C2. That's case F1671. So this is a county case. The petitioner is Robert David Mecham. This is the Land Guard LCID site plan. It is an elected body special use permit, just like the prior case. They're requesting the establishment of a landfill, land clearing, and inert debris landfill. That's an LCID use greater than two acres in an AG or agricultural zoning district. The site is 102.6 acres and it's located on the west side of Salem Chapel Road, just south of West Road. See the area highlighted here in yellow? And the site is almost, it is entirely surrounded by AG and RS-40 zoning. This is the site itself. It's almost entirely undeveloped with several trails going through there, heavily wooded with a lot of varying topography. It's one of the reasons this is probably site selected for an LCID. You can see the surrounding property is rural, residential, and character, heavily wooded and largely undeveloped with the creek on the western boundary line. There's a tributary to that creek running from generally south central to the northwestern portion of the site. This site is located in the Northeast Rural Area Study. That study has a general recommendation for the study area for large lot residential land uses. There is no parcel-specific land use recommendation for this study area. And this is the proposed site plan. Again, it's a 102.6-acre site. It shows a... Two LCID landfill areas, you've got this central one here, and a relatively smaller one in the southwestern portion of the site. A proposed borrow site area, which is an accessory used to the LCID up in the northwestern section, and then a recycle area in the northeastern section. This area here proposes two entrance roads, these access roads that will be gated. That's a use specific requirement for LCIDs. And there'll be a central gravel area for a staging area and then a onsite office and building to house equipment for the LCID use. They are showing the required 100 foot undisturbed perimeter which can only be disturbed by access roads. There are a couple of access roads which do encroach but that is allowed on LCID use. All other roads are interior perimeter roads around each LCID area. They will be required to file permits with the state as well in conjunction with this request if it is approved. Petitioner has volunteered to provide additional vegetative screening along the eastern portion side along the right of way. And the site plan itself does meet all UDO requirements and use specific requirements. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

So because this is a site plan review, there wasn't any sort of auditory process or testing that was required as part of this process. I know we had an email and there was some concern about decimal level.

Yeah, in other words, no. I mean, as far as for this in and of itself, it's just whether or not the site plan meets UDO requirements. There is no decibel level associated with this use under the use conditions. There are hours of operation limitations in the UDO. But any violation of the overall noise ordinance is just under county code, so there isn't anything specifically related to noise for an LCID in the UDO. Great.

Thank you.

Other questions for staff? And like the last case, this would go to the county?

Correct. The previous case would go to the city council. This case will go to the county commissioners. At this point, it more than likely, I think, will be in August. The earliest possible date would be July 30th, but it probably will be the night meeting in August because I imagine the data center case that we will hear in a little while will go to the night meeting on the 30th. There's already an LCID ahead of the data center that has some opposition. So I think it's going to go on that night as well. So I imagine this will be sometime in August.

And so with August, they would have a public hearing with the county?

Yeah, the public hearing would be, like I said, I imagine it's going to be the night meeting that the commissioners have in August.

Correct. Other questions for staff?

Is there a motion? I move that the site plan for F1671 does meet UDL requirements.

Second.

Motion by Mr. Fairby, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed?

All right, Mr. Chairman, we'll now move on to the next section of the agenda tonight. This is a proposed preliminary subdivision. It's item D2, case 2026054. It's the Silver Oak Preserve Site Plan requesting a 12-lot major subdivision in an RS9 zoning district. It's a 7.13-acre site located on the east side of Murray Road, north of Becks Church Road, and south of Heidelberry Drive. the site is almost entirely it it's directly entirely surrounded by rs9 there's some rs12 a little bit further to the northwest and this is the proposed site plan that shows a single street entrance to the site with 12 individual lots the petitioner has elected to propose individual septic field lots for this location there is a There isn't sewer immediately available to the site on Murray Road. It would require them to pull sewer to the site for quite some distance, so this is what they've elected to do. Staff did investigate whether there's a potential for any other interconnectivity at this point. The site is already constrained by existing development patterns to the north and to the east. There's potential if someone were to bring this in for an additional subdivision that they could use this frontage for additional interconnectivity in the future. The site plan does meet all UDO requirements and staff recommends approval. Be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Questions for staff?

All right. Is there a motion? I move that the planning board approve 2026054.

Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

All right, and then our next item is E1, that's PBR 2025-10. This is Wyandotte Woods. This is a little bit different than you're probably used to seeing. This is actually a withdrawal of the preliminary plat consideration, so I'll get into that in just a moment. It's not a proposal for a new subdivision, it's actually requesting to withdraw that preliminary approval. It's a 4.39 acre site located on the west side of Wyandotte Avenue, north of Michigan Street. And this is the prior approval from the same time last year, in June of last year. They proposed a planned residential development. I believe there were some challenges in securing some offsite easements to access sewer. They will likely come forward in the future for a minor subdivision, not proposing public streets at some point. Again, with probably some of the same challenges, but maybe those are more surmountable in that context, rather than the intensification that you see here. Therefore, staff does recommend approval of the withdrawal. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for staff?

All right.

Is there a motion? I move that the Planning Board approve PBR 2025-10.

Second. Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, signify.

Aye.

Any opposed? That's unanimous.

All right, now moving on to E2, that's PBR 2026-07. This is the crossing at Northridge. It's a 147-lot proposed PRD, or Planned Residential Development, in an RS-9 zoning district. It's a 46.9-acre site located on the northeast side of Ziegler Road at its intersection with Tommy's Lake Road, that's right here, and the eastern terminus of Marty Drive, that's right here. And then the site is just south of the beltway project here and you can see that GIS setting that's part of the future landfill area. And this is the site plan and it's 147 proposed lots. They are proposing to interconnect with Marty Drive. There's actually a specific condition about improving Marty Drive to ribbon pavement standards, so we can bring that up to a current standard. They will be providing some left and right turn lanes into the site as a part of the requirements from DOT. They're providing well-designed and well-located active open spaces throughout the site and utilizing this easement through the middle of the property to provide a pedestrian trail. The site plan does meet all UDO and U-specific requirements, and staff does recommend approval of this request. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Questions for staff. All right, is there a motion?

I move that the Planning Board approve PBR 202607. Second.

Motion by Mr. Fair. Every second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous as well.

All right, now we'll move on to item E3. That's PBR 2026-08. That's Spee's Acres. It's a 40-lot PRD in RS-9. I believe your agenda does show 63 lots. That was originally, I'll get into that in just a moment, but it was originally showing another section of development that actually does not require preliminary approval by the Planning Board because they exist on public streets, and I'll show you that to you in a moment. It's a 16.03-acre site located on the north side of Bethabara Park Boulevard between the eastern terminus of Pioneer Trail and the western terminus of Village Trail. And this is the proposed site plan. The area that was originally a part of this plan is hatched out here. Again, these are existing public streets. This is the terminus of that street. So any additional subdivision here can occur through the minor subdivision process as they're already open public streets. That's generally the threshold for a minor subdivision versus a major subdivision that you're seeing here. The site plan itself does propose extending Pioneer Trail from the southwest, and then on the northeast, they'll extend Village Trail into the site, and then they'll be stubbing to the north to provide hopefully some future interconnectivity for some undeveloped property there. They have a centrally located active open space, and they are showing all required thoroughfare buffering and perimeter buffering on the site. The site plan itself does meet all UDO requirements and staff recommends approval of this request. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Questions for staff?

All right. Is there a motion? I move that the planning board approve PBR 2020-608. Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, signify. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous as well.

All right, and then the last item I have on your consent agenda tonight is E4. That's PBR 2026-09. It's the Jacobs Hollow Subdivision. It's a 142-lot proposed planned residential development in an RS9 zoning district. This site is 71.66 acres, and it's located at the eastern terminus of Hummingbird Drive. That's right here. Southern Terminus of Lorraine Drive that's located here, and the Southern Terminus of Geary Trail that's located here. You can see this is just north of where the interchange is for Bypass 40 and the Beltway. Just to give you a little more context of the location. And this is the proposed site plan. It's a very large, long piece of property. So apologies if you can't see any specifics, but I'm happy to zoom in. They're essentially proposing two separate extensions of those existing streets and then a internal connection between those two extensions. Staff and DOT investigated additional interconnectivity and you can see the site is encumbered by several environmental features, two streams and then Fiddler's Creek to the south of the site. There's a lot of topography in the site and then in addition there is an overhead transmission line, power transmission line going through the site here. So this is really a utilization of the property that is developable and then a preservation of all those environmental features, essentially what PRDs were designed to do. The site plan does show the appropriate active open space locations perimeter buffering and appropriate lot locations The site plan does meet all you specific and you do requirements and staff recommends approval of this request Yeah, but answer any questions you might have questions for staff All right, sir motion I move that the planning board approved PBR 20 2609

motion by mr. fair be second by mr. Patino any discussion all in favor sign all right any opposed that's unanimous mr. chairman bear with us will queue up the PowerPoint the slide deck for f-16 69

Good evening, everyone. Can everyone hear me? All good? All right. So, the case before you tonight is F1669. The petitioner is Jennifer Jobe, James Martin Serber III, James Martin Serber Jr., Julia Wall, and the Wall family of North Carolina, LLC. Site itself is 128.54 acres located at the northwestern side of Bethania Rural Hall Road, north of Tobaccoville Road and the terminus of Glade Street. The petitioners are requesting a special use rezoning from residential single family with a minimum 20,000 foot square lot size and general industrial to limited industrial special use for the purpose of developing a hyperscale data center. Looking at the overall county map, you can see that the property is located in GMA3, Growth Management Area 3, Suburban Neighborhoods. It is currently on an unincorporated parcel of land surrounded by the town of Rural Hall. Looking at the site itself, you can see that the vast majority of the site is zoned RS20 with a small portion. One second. with a small portion at the northeast corner zoned GI. You'll see Bethania Rural Hall Road running against the southeastern portion of the property and Glade Street connecting to the northeast corner of the subject property. In terms of surrounding zoning, the property is surrounded by GI and GIS, General Industrial and Industrial Special Use on the north and northwest sides of the property. However, to the southwest, southeast and east, it is surrounded by a mixture of single-family residential, light commercial and institutional uses, including rural hall, town hall across the street here, as well as Nazareth Lutheran Church. Shortly to the east of the subject property is downtown rural hall, as well as the downtown rural hall activity center. looking at an aerial image of the subject property. Overall, it has gently sloping topography with fields, tree stands, and currently four single-family homes. There are two existing farm ponds intended to remain. And you have Beaver Dam Creek emanating from the southwestern portion of the property flowing into the northernmost farm pond. And as well, it has a few tributaries in the same area. There's also a 150-foot Duke power easement with transmission lines running north to south through the property that connect to the existing substation directly north. Looking at the area recommendation of the rural area plan update, they recommend mixed-use development. The proposed development does not comply with the area plan, and that proposes a large single-scale high-impact use that would limit the opportunity for future integration of the site into the adjacent activity center, as mentioned previously, shortly to the east. Looking at some photos of the subject property, this first photo is looking north from Bethania Rural Hall Road into the subject property, approximately where the main entrance will be located. Here's a picture looking south along Bethania Rural Hall Road at the Rural Hall Town Hall, as mentioned earlier. Here's a picture looking east along within your rural hall row. The subject property is on the left. You can see single family home and an institutional use that would border the subject property. The next picture here is looking northwest on Glade Street. If you recall, that is the road that is connecting to the northeast corner of the site. The development would be located over these trees here. You can see the existing single family nature of the road as well. And in addition, we have put in the condition that Glade Street is to be used for emergency access only to the subject property. Here's another picture looking at the northern terminus of Glade Street where the secondary entrance is proposed. This would lead into the subject property. And here's a picture looking east from Glade Street downtown rural hall emphasizing the proximity of this proposed development to the downtown and its activity center. Furthermore, here's a picture looking north into the subject property from north of Nazareth Lutheran Church. This is the southernmost farm pond that is intended to remain. And the picture also shows, if you look in the background, one of the existing single-family homes currently on property. Here's a picture looking north into the subject property. This is where the data center buildings, the outdoor equipment, and the interior driveways will be located. And the final picture, looking north in the subject property, here's an excellent explicit view of the 150-foot Duke Power Easement running north-south throughout the property with its power lines in the distance. You can see the current substation directly north of the subject property. Now, let's take a little look at the proposed site plan itself. The first thing to mention is that there are three proposed data center buildings, one on the northwest, at the northwest, northeast, and east central portions of the separate property. Each building is two floors with all three buildings combined being over 1.1 million total square feet of data center. The proposed primary entrance is from Bethania Rural Hall Road, with the secondary entrance being from Glade Street. Once again, there is the condition that is emergency use only. Both entrances are secured with gated access, and as you can see here, with a guardhouse at the main entry. The entrances lead into internal driveways throughout the site that connect and circle the data center buildings. And finally, for this slide, there are parking areas adjacent to each building in compliance with our UDO, 27 spaces on the north and south of each structure. Now, taking a look at the proposed building elevations, these buildings are proposed to be tilt-up concrete buildings with centrally located loading docks, as you can see by my indication here, at the rear of each building. The exterior materials are mostly insulated metal panel wall systems with brick veneer segments, and each building is approximately 80 feet in height. Yes, 80 feet in height. Next section that I want to look at is the proposed outdoor equipment that is associated with this use and with this development. As you see by this crossed, hatched area here, shows the proposed location of these ground-based outdoor equipment units, which do face internally to the property away from single-family homes. In total, there are 135 ground-mounted outdoor equipment units, 27 for Building 3 in the northwest portion of the property, with buildings 1 and 2 each having 54 proposed ground-mounted outdoor equipment units. Additionally, there are rooftop outdoor equipment units that will be screened by enclosures on the roofs that bring the total height of the buildings up to that approximate 80 feet, which I will show you on the following slide. Finally, as part of the slide, there's a proposed eight-foot-tall metal perimeter fence visible from the public right-of-way and residential zone property. So taking a look at these elevations once again, you can see that this gray line on the top of the building indicates the louvered enclosures meant to screen the rooftop equipment units from ground view. You can also see these 34-foot high walls indicated by these dark gray panels that are meant to help abate the potential effects of the outdoor ground equipment units. And finally, here's a standard image of the gate that would be proposed. In addition, here are typicals of both the rooftop equipment units put on the top of the slide and the ground equipment units put here on the bottom of the slide. And the final aspect we want to talk about is the environmental features of the site. As mentioned earlier, there are two existing farm ponds to remain, both here in light blue. The southern ones help propose to serve as a potential buffer against the existing single family. With these dark blue ponds, there are four new stormwater ponds proposed with the condition of no onsite cooling being available. There is one proposed creek crossing of Beaver Dam Creek. You can see here with the internal driveways connecting building to building. And finally, in compliance with the UDO, the developers are proposing a 10-foot street yard along Bethania Rural Hall Road, as well as a 40-foot Type 3 buffer yard against all other areas of the property to the south, west, and east, except to the north, which is already zoned GI. So in summary, staff has worked with the developer to propose several prescriptive intentions of approval that have the potential to mitigate the effects of the development, which include facing the ground equipment inwards, noise studies, no open loop cooling, et cetera. However, the scale of intensity of the proposed use could result in significant offsite impacts. Despite these conditions, we recognize the concerns regarding the 80-foot buildings next to residential homes, potential noise issues, the potential energy and utility consumption of this project, and the potential impact that would have on residents and the surrounding town itself. The next point is that the proposal is inconsistent with the rural hall area's plan updates recommendation for mixed use development of the subject property. As stated earlier, this is a large, high intensity use that would not be well integrated with the existing downtown rural hall activity center shortly to the east. Finally, the request is inconsistent with the recommendation of 42045 to protect neighborhoods from inappropriate non-residential encroachment. Once again, going back to the potential offsite impacts that this development could provide. Therefore, though the site plan does meet UDO requirements, staff does recommend denial of this request. And finally, I do want to mention that recent conversations between staff and developers, we have... Spoke with them to add this condition on the list of approved conditions that would go through, that they would sign and move forward with on this project. And that's all for me. Happy to take any questions.

Yeah, I think what we'll do, if there are any questions specific to the staff presentation on this, clarifying-type questions, if you want to go ahead and ask those. Otherwise, other questions for staff we'll hold until we get an entire discussion, if that's...

there we go thank you speaking okay over there I'm colorblind okay sorry would you specifically define for everyone what's meant by outdoor equipment unit sure let me go back to that

the ground-based stuff are generators. All the rooftop are chillers.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's probably a better question for the development team. You know, we know that the rooftop equipment are air handling units. We think that the majority of the ground equipment are generators, but there could be some air handling units there, too. We're not 100% sure, so I would prefer to defer to the developer on that.

Thank you. Any other clarifying questions before we get ready to get started on our public hearing?

I have a question, but I don't know if it should be held till later, so I'll just go ahead and ask it, and you can tell me if you want to push it back. And thank you for that overview, Mr. Howard. That was great. In the staff report, in the back and forth with the petitioner, there was a deadline of May 28th for a reuse and decommissioning narrative. Has that been submitted?

Ms. Schwab, they have provided a narrative. It should be in your agenda packet.

It was in the agenda packet. Okay. And then my second question has to do with the jurisdictional determination of the wetlands and streams on the property and the status of the Army Corps of Engineers speaking into that and sort of any federal regulation and just how we as a board should be thinking that, not knowing the full extent of environmental constraints on the property. Is that a now question or is that a later question?

I think that might be a later question.

That actually might be a someone other than us question. I don't mean that to sound flippant, but basically, from a planning staff perspective, we run the interdepartmental review team. And, you know, we have our erosion control, stormwater. I mean, folks review this, but, you know, things that lie with the Army Corps of Engineers related to stormwater determination, wetlands determinations, all of those kind of things lie outside of our review process. If there is a requirement that they have to do something, you know, different types of state and federal permits related to that, that is something that they are legally responsible for doing but doesn't fall within the purview of things that we have a checklist on. unless it's something specifically related to the stormwater or the erosion control permit that gets issued. And sometimes they do require, if they know there's going to be a stream crossing and they're disturbing a certain amount, they can say, all right, we know you've got to have your wetlands and stream disturbance permits. And I'm sure Ms. Smith can probably give the numbers of what those various permits are. So there are some checks and balances, but anything like that, ultimately the responsibility lies with the developer.

Okay, great. I'll save that for the petitioner.

Thank you Okay, I'm sorry she can say it is there is a lot of water on the site in terms of that so that's a reasonable thing to ask and it would have to be Evaluated as the site was developed for that

And a question, but more so a confirmation. As the planning board, we are here to, one, determine if this is consistent or inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and then also to make a determination of approval or denial with that recommendation to the county commissioners, given the land use, general design, and I guess you would say, impact to a degree of the neighboring community, correct?

That is correct. In other words, you can consider things that you think will be impactful, but generally speaking, from a planning board perspective, we're looking at how it aligns with the comprehensive plan, how it aligns with any adopted area plans, how it whether or not it's compatible with the surrounding land uses. And then if there are impacts that can be addressed via conditions of approval related to the specific things that the planning board has purview of, over you can have reasonable conditions of approval related to it to mitigate impacts but generally speaking taking into account tax value and those kind of things that's really not a land use consideration that will be more of a public policy consideration of the elected body whenever they're making their determination we really should concentrate on land use and compatibility with the surrounding properties and not get into larger policy decisions.

Okay. Just want to establish a foundation for all of our neighbors and friends who are here. Sure.

And that's a great segue, actually. Before we begin the public hearing on this, we need to address just a few housekeeping matters. This case has obviously generated a good bit of public interest. And before we begin, on behalf of this board and the planning staff, I just want to thank All of you have taken time to provide written comments on this matter and or attend this hearing or you may be watching from home or in an overflow room. Whether you support or oppose this request, it's really critical to the fabric of our society that we take seriously the right to be heard on matters that are important to us. So thank you for participating in this process, regardless of what side you're approaching it from. The first issue we need to address from a housekeeping standpoint is the amount of time allowed for public comment on this case. As you heard at the beginning of the meeting, we generally allow 12 minutes for both sides in a rezoning matter to comment on the case. However, this board has customarily voted to extend those timeframes when matters such as this generate a high volume of interest. So before we move forward, what's the pleasure of the board with regard to any expansion of time for comment on this matter? I'd recommend we double it. All right. That would be 24 minutes per side. Is that a motion, Mr. Lamb? Yes, it is. All right. There's a second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion on doubling the time to 24 minutes per side with no rebuttal period? All right. All in favor of that motion, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Well, that's unanimous. That was easy enough. Second issue we need to discuss is one of decorum during this public hearing. This board has been appointed by the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners and the Winston-Salem City Council to provide recommendations to those bodies as to matters related to land use and zoning. And I can assure you that every single one of the folks sitting up here take that responsibility incredibly seriously. For us to effectively consider this matter, we need to be able to hear and focus on the comments being made by members of the planning staff, speakers from the floor who have been recognized by the chair, and comments by one another. We cannot do that if there are comments being made from the gallery or other forms of demonstration or disruption occur. That behavior will not be tolerated, and if it occurs, you'll be asked to leave the chamber immediately. At the end of our hearing on this matter today, some of the folks here are going to be pleased and others are not. That's understandable given the type of issues we're dealing with. I will remind you though, as stated at the beginning of this matter, that this is not the final decision. This board is not the final arbiter as to these issues, and that decision will rest with the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners, and they'll consider this matter in our recommendation at a future meeting. So you will have another opportunity to be heard regardless of your position at that meeting. So with that housekeeping out of the way, we'll open the public hearing on this matter. I'll remind you again, before addressing the board, please give us your name, address, and zip code for the record. Signed up in support, we've got James Knox, Michael Fours, and Nathan Wright. You'll have 24 minutes. It's up to you how you want to divide that up.

Good evening, Chair Grubbs, planning board members. My name is Michael Fess with the Montrose Group. I'm the development manager for the applicants. My address is 15905 Brookway Drive, Huntersville, North Carolina, 28078. Before I begin, instead of having everyone in support come up to speak, I'd just like to have them stand up. We also have at least 10 more in the overflow chambers. Thank you. I want to start out by discussing data centers in general. On Tuesday, I had the opportunity to travel up to Washington, D.C. and meet with Representative Pat Harrigan, talk about data centers. His message was clear. Data centers are a national security issue. The infrastructure that runs with AI, cloud computing, and secure government communications must be built on American soil in communities like ours, or it gets built somewhere less secure. His only condition that these projects pay for their fair share power costs. This project does exactly that. There's no rate payer subsidies, no eminent domain, no local incentives. We address that directly in our voluntary conditions, and that's why we are already in compliance with Senate Bill 730, which has recently passed the House and gone back to the Senate. Continuing with data centers in general, start with analogy. you're going to be hearing people come up here saying AI is a fad. It's not going to last long. Um, But years ago, it was similar to Blockbuster saying that they don't think streaming video would last long. In 2007, Netflix embraced streaming video and Blockbuster did not. They had stores on every corner and choose to continue with the status quo of brick and mortar. Three years later, Blockbuster declared bankruptcy. AI and data centers are the same inflection point that Blockbuster and Netflix were in 2007. The communities that say yes to this infrastructure will attract investment, jobs, and tax base that follows. Forsyth County has a chance to be on the right side of that moment. So this site wasn't chosen at random. We looked at multiple alternatives, including the former RJR campus. There's a compelling location in many respects, but the power infrastructure required to turn that property into a data center wasn't there. And it would have taken years to do the upgrades on that 230 KVA line to support a data center. We came to the Bethania Roll Hall Road project because the land tells us what it wants to be, to the west, to the north, and to the east. The parcel is surrounded by industrial and commercial uses, which includes a concrete plant and a mulch grinding plant. And if you've been out there when those are in operation, they're loud, they create a lot of dust, and they're essentially a nuisance use. We're the newest member of an industrial corridor that's been there for decades. That context matters enormously to the compatibility analysis. So on your screen, you can see this is a site taken from a drone from north facing south. So you can see the existing Duke substations there. There's two of them. The mulch grinding plant to the west or to the left, and then the concrete plant, as well as the railroad and the high tension power lines that run through it. And this is a view from the south facing north. I'd like to point out that over half of the property boundary is either industrial use, commercial, or vacant land. How we got here? We submitted the application back in February, and shortly thereafter submitted our Duke Power Study application. We held two community presentations that were open to the public. We conducted two full interdepartmental reviews due to some of the changes we made. We went back through that again. We had three steering committee sessions, and these steering committees were made up of eight local residents that volunteered to sit down with us so we could discuss their issues. and then see how we can make changes to the plan, as well as develop voluntary conditions to address those concerns. Many of them are in the audience tonight. If I can ask those eight to stand up. Thank you, Nancy. We also brought in subject matter expert on noise, acoustics, water, traffic, as well as contacts at NVIDIA, AWS, and OpenAI for their data center operations. We also brought in an expert that has worked for over 30 years in Forsyth County on existing data centers, such as the Piedmont Airlines, the Wachovia, which is now the Wells Fargo data center, and there's multiple data centers within Forsyth County. We didn't just go through the motions we list that we listened and we made changes We reduced the site plan from four buildings to three buildings We relocated the substation to the north adjacent to the existing substation We shifted the buildings away from the southern residential property line as well as the church that historic church to the south and We added a 17-acre public outdoor recreation area to the southwest that wasn't in the original plan. We added architectural character commitments, brick-accented facades on elevations visible from the road and adjacent residential. These weren't just minor tweaks. This is fundamentally different and better project than what was filed in February because the community told us what mattered and we responded. Every concerned raise in this process has a condition attached to it. We're limiting the noise limits at the property lines to 60 decibels, which is below the outdoor HUD noise requirements threshold. You can see the chart on the right on your screen where 60 decibels, that's a normal conversation. And then it's quieter than a washing machine or a busy street. Decibels are measured in a logarithmic scale. So just want to make that clear. It's not a linear. So every essentially 10 points is a doubling of noise. So we also agreed to closed loop cooling only due to the water use concerns. So no open loop water consumption We also had restrictions to lighting screening fencing as well as buffers as well as a decommissioning plan Which should be in your packet. I'm happy to answer any details on that So, why do these conditions matter They run with the land So once they're approved by the county commissioners, they're enforceable and They cannot be revised without going through this public hearing process again, and that's not a promise. It's a legal obligation that they must be followed. Here's the aerial overlay, same one staff showed you. So we also looked at alternatives, including, like I mentioned before, we looked at the RGF site, putting it into an existing industrial zone property. But again, that electrical infrastructure could not support a data center today, nor could it support it in the next couple of years. The amount of upgrades in that 230 kV line will be significant. So the staff report frames the questions as data centers versus the area plan. We've already discussed the adjacent industrial uses that will drastically limit the viability of residential uses, but I did put a residential alternative on here. If this site was developed as a residential use, it would generate 3,800 trips daily, 280 public school kids added to the system. Open space would be limited to 10 to 20%. Noise generated in a typical neighborhood is 55 decibels. In addition, large neighborhoods, starter neighborhoods, similar to the one that's on the west side of 52, they're essentially fiscally neutral to negative. This site is going to produce up to 888 trips per day, and that's based on a traffic study performed in Virginia on existing data centers. No school impact, 60 decibel noise limits, as well as being fiscally positive. Regarding building character, this is a campus, not a warehouse. It's not an industrial distribution building with plain gray tilt-up panels. As you can see here, we're having the brick accents, the metal panel accents. We also increased the buffers during the revisions. As you can see, we have some dimensions on here. On the west, we're 376 feet from the property line. On the west, over 1,000 feet to the southwest, 533 feet to the property line for the church, and then 160 feet to the property line to the east. I do want to discuss, we did end up lowering building one number of feet because when we looked at the height from Glade Street, as you can see on this rendering of the proposed building in the background, it is now below the tree canopy. So, and those trees will be remain as screening. And as I go through these renderings, if there's any of the existing trees that don't provide enough buffer, we have agreed in the conditions to fill them in with plantings. So here's a view from Bethania Rural Hall Road of what it's going to look like once complete with the main entrance and the building in the background. As you can see, due to the distance and the setback, the building isn't that imposing due to how far it's set back. Here's a view from Serena Drive. We do have a few residents in the audience tonight from Serena Drive. We met them out there and talked about their concerns. As you can see, the building is behind those trees. Those trees are gonna remain. I also want to talk more detail into Senate Bill 730. It's recently passed. During the revisions, we made sure we met the requirements that is going through the North Carolina House now, or I'm sorry, it's in the Senate now in committee. That includes a sound and sight assessment, both pre-development and post-development, as well as continuous monitoring of noise levels on the south, the west, and the east side of the property. Closed-loop cooling. No prohibited foreign ownership, which is a requirement in Senate Bill 730. Utility cost contracts. Making sure that whoever operates this is going to pay their fair share. Duke's CEO has come out in multiple interviews as well as written statements that these large customers do pay their fair share. And Senate Bill 730 is going to codify that. As well as acquisition of the land through the no eminent domain or local initiatives. We have not asked for any incentives and none have been offered from local governments. Economic impact. I'll just briefly touch on this just for background information. Again, we're talking more about land use, but really want to discuss the impact of the public services. This is a fiscally positive impact. And I know I've been in a number of rezonings and there's been concerns about schools and teachers as well as fire and police and having to hire more. This is not going to impact those public services the way a neighborhood would. It's also going to create over 800 construction, significantly skilled construction workforce, as well as 150 to 250 high-wage permanent positions. Again, negligible demand on public safety, traffic impacts, schools, and social services. So in summary, I'm happy to answer any questions, details, and I can answer quickly on the ground-mounted equipment since that one's already come up. The ground-mounted equipment are generators and transformers to step down for the equipment in the building. The substation steps it down from what Duke delivers it, and then there's transformers outside each building in that equipment yard to step it down again for internal use. Pardon? Where are the coolers? Coolers are roof-mounted. All of them? Yeah, so we have two different details. So these are the roof-mounted coolers. As you can see, there's two types. Both of them are closed-loop. One of them has just the side louvers, and then another version is fully encased. And those louvers are both acoustical as well as for aesthetic.

And this is, that encompasses the 80, the cap, the high cap.

Correct. Yeah. And then I can. So both of those items are on the roof that you just showed?

Correct. Yeah. It's two different versions. They're both closed loop. One's a mechanical, one's a chiller. But yeah, both of them will be screened. But one of them needs more airflow going out the top. So the height, I have some larger blow up on the screen now. So buildings two and three to the top of the equipment screening wall is showing 84 feet. But again, that's the top of the equipment screening, which is above the equipment. The roof is only 72 feet tall. um and then building one like i said we lowered that to get it below that tree canopy line top of that roof screening equipment is 80 and then to the roof itself is 68. could you provide some additional clarity on the buffer between the residential units and the proposed infrastructure absolutely um so we're going to keep as many existing trees as possible So that's our number one goal. And with the, this is the aerial, so you can actually see where existing tree canopy is. On the other site plan, we do show some grading in there and we've utilized retaining walls to save trees and not impact as much as we can, but where, let's see if I can do this. In this area here, you can see there's no trees in this area. So in our voluntary conditions, we will be planting a buffer throughout that that's made up of evergreens, and I believe it is to full height within five years. My memory serves right.

So building one is the one to the east. East. Closest to Glade Street. Closest to Glade Street. So that one you said you lowered the building, but it's still 80 feet high like the others. So the screening on top is actually taller.

The top of the screening is 80 feet on building one. Building two and three is 84 feet. Oh, it's 84. It's 84.

Oh, okay.

As well as this doesn't show it. Let me pull up the other site plan. So building one, you can see the topography lines here. We actually dropped this corner of the pad 20 feet. So the idea is we're lowering the grades 20 feet in addition to lowering the height of the building.

And you mentioned that this building, with the changes you made, should be below the tree canopy. Now, given how close it is to that property line, the tree canopy is trees on other people's property. It's not your property, correct? Is there something to protect the neighbor in those houses from the impact of the property?

Yeah, we still have the 40-foot planted buffer that's required by the UDO, which is this green hatched area, as well as we oriented the building. So the equipment yard's on the opposite side of the building to help buffer it.

Okay. Was there a topographic, I realize you can't do much about the transmission lines in the existing ponds, but was there a topographic reason why this particular building is pushed so far over to the edge? I mean, for instance, could it not have been turned 90 degrees and moved further north to where your storm pond is more adjacent to the industrial?

Due to the requirements of the storm ponds need to be at the lowest point before you get to a stream. This was the orientation that was most efficient with the design so if we turn them 90 degrees the issue is then those equipment yards would be closer to the residential so by orienting this way we have an 80 foot tall building separating the emergency generators from the residents Thank you. When we get into engineering, so the Duke Power Study doesn't come back for a while still. So that's going to dictate how much power they're able to deliver to the site, which is going to dictate the number of generators and the equipment yards. So if possible, when we get the study back, we go into full engineering. If those equipment yards can be smaller, we will ship those buildings away.

To speak to go ahead. Mr. I was going to say that there are nine minutes left on the public hearing. This is kind of in the Q&A portion of I just want folks to know that the clock's not running because this is a Q&A of the of the speaker. All right.

Noise question for you. The 60 decibels being the highest along the perimeter, I guess that's to the east of building one.

That's correct.

So other perimeter locations would

Expected to be much lower. Yeah

And that's continuous, the 60 decibels at that location?

That would be the max, maximum 60 decibels.

But it's not intermittent. It's a constant.

So generally, it's a constant with the air handlers. And then when the emergency generators come on, but again, it will still be below the 60 decibels, but it will be a different type of noise. There's DBA, DBC, and DBZ. And our voluntary condition says we're going to monitor all the different

Noise types what level?

Heights from the ground is it modeled as far as these decibels go if the air handlers are on the roof So we're going to leave that to the subject matter experts, but if you have any input, we're glad to hear it but most likely, you know with the We're trying to protect the residents So the idea is we want to keep those noise monitors at a pedestrian scale.

Any other questions?

I guess we can save them for after the rest of this portion of the public hearing. Good reminder, Mr. Murphy.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, there are nine minutes left. I believe we still have James Knox and Nathan Wright signed up to speak.

James Knox, 125 Buckhaven Court. Will Hall, 27045. Thank you, Mr. Knox. Okay. I'm supporting this based on jobs and the fact that Will Hall wants to grow, and this is a good way for Will Hall to grow. I was concerned maybe some other places would work better, but he's pointed out this is the best spot here. This is the future, whether we want it or not, this is the future. I mean, I heard him talking about one in Stokes County earlier in the week. So, I mean, we gonna have this power here one way or the other, either we get it or somebody else. And this is a lot of jobs, construction to start with, and then a lot of high paying jobs. I hear all the time people talk about, you know, communities talk about how they want high paid jobs coming into their community. Well, this is an opportunity for Royal Hall, plus they're widening the road down towards my way. right there at 52. So they're working on the road to widen it, it looks like, and it appears to be what they're doing. You got to circle back and forth like a I don't know what through there, but anyway, that's why I support the jobs and the fact that the noise is not going to be a problem. We have several in Forsyth County. We have a few in Winston. Nobody hears anything about them. Nobody hardly knows where they're at. I mean, until I talked to a county commissioner, I didn't even know we had another one in Forsyth County. until they told me we did. So, I mean, there's not a problem there, apparently. So, I mean, like I say, it's the jobs, and I'm always for the jobs. And I think Will Hall will survive this. Plus, I hate to see property be destroyed, but landowners want this, so... I mean, there's another reason that the landowners want it. So, I mean, there's another good reason to look at it. I mean, if the landowners opposed it, that would be different. But they support it. So that's another reason why I support it. But anyway, y'all do the right thing for the people in Royal Hall and the community. Thank y'all.

Thank you, Mr. Knox. How much time is left? Six and a half minutes. Six and a half minutes. Nathan Wright, are you still with us? Still want to be heard? Okay.

All right.

So for the record, Mr. Wright indicated he's a civil engineer working on the project and we'll save his time for our question and answer session that I'm sure will follow this. So is anyone else here that would like to speak in support of this proposal? All right. I'm seeing no one will shift to the opposition. I believe we've got a trio signed up to begin with. Jonathan Kislingberry, Carol Newsome, and James Woodard. If you each come up and give us your name, address, and zip code for the record.

Mr. Chairman, while they're getting set up, I did ask CJ on our staff. He's going to go, and I believe that we do have most of the speakers that are signed up to speak are in this room, but there are a couple that are in the overflow rooms. So he was going to have them. Again, there's no guarantee that we're going to get to everyone, but we didn't want to be waiting for folks to get here from those overflow rooms. I just wanted to mention that as we're preparing the PowerPoint.

Yep, and just as a reminder to the large number of folks we have signed up to speak in opposition, you do have 24 minutes. Total. Total, yeah. So use it wisely.

I am Carol Newsome, 8495 Broad Street, Rural Hall 27045. I am here today to speak in opposition to case F1669, along with other concerned citizens from my community. I ask that they stand to be counted among those that oppose this rezoning request that is inconsistent with Forward 2045. which was adopted by the Planning Board and by Forsyth County Commissioners. I thank this board for their foresight and understanding the needs to advance the future that represents my community as a whole. To allow this property to be zoned limited industrial special use would be counterproductive In obtaining a more equitable, livable, and resilient future for our rural residential community, to allow for a hyperscale data center to be built at this location would have significant adverse effects on the adjoining properties that are primarily single-family homes and two churches. Please allow me to address why a data center at this location in the heart of rural hall is not consistent with growth in Forsyth County using the six themes found in Forward 2045. Development in this area should be consistent with the need to maintain long-term affordability through energy and water conservation and to discourage large-scale development that does not increase job surfaces and retail opportunities. This does not. To allow for this type of development would not support the smaller industry footprint as described in Forward 2045. It would also not support much needed mixed use areas to move the community forward in our desired growth. Rural Hall already represents the character and identity of a beautiful public realm consisting of natural spaces and scenic landscapes, attractive neighborhoods, along with distinctive historical structures and landmarks. To allow for this type of development would not preserve our unique and distinctive rural area. I'm sorry. As a community rooted in its rural history, we are committed to sustainable development that ensures long-term viability that will enhance the residents' quality of life. And Hyperscale Data Center would not support these goals as represented in Forward 2045. We ask that this board continues with their forward thinking choices and do not allow for this rezoning and to support the future that will best serve our rural residential community. We ask that you allow us to continue to prioritize neighborhood serving uses such as cafes, medical offices, grocery stores, small shops and businesses that allow us to support a vibrant local economy. Please do not allow for large-scale development near residential areas, especially one that does not provide a direct service to the community. F1669 does not follow the guidelines set forth by either Forward 2045 or Rural Hall Area Plan updated 2016. The current zoning is consistent with the land use plans. Please keep Rural Hall rural and allow for our growth and development to support the community by providing affordable and diverse housing, open spaces, and local businesses to connect the existing and future neighborhoods in Rural Hall. Thank you.

Sorry, 20 minutes. 20 minutes left.

Thank you. My name is James Woodard. I live at 150 Presby Lane in Rural Hall 27045. All right. I'm also opposed to F-1669. Quick background for me. My wife and I are both military veterans. We moved around a lot. Moved here from Spartanburg, South Carolina in 2016. We used the land use plan heavily as a guide for us to be able to kind of decide where it was we wanted to be. And rural hall was a really easy decision to make for that. That being said, what we did see that we did very much agree with was is the rural hall area plan update. This rezoning application is not compatible with this update. There are several points in the update that we agree with very much in that these kinds of developments should be concentrated in their designated areas. And we very much agree with the idea that any kind of strip development wouldn't take up any of the main roads. In that gentleman's slide, it takes up a lot of the only roads. We also agree that goods and services ought to be available near where people work. If this was near where we live and work, there are no goods and services available there. You can't walk in with 50 bucks and a thumb drive and be like, fill it up. We also very much agree with industrial uses being kept in industrial parks, not very, very pretty farmland. We also agree with this point on page 17 of the plan where neighborhoods ought to be protected from industrial encroachment. And in reading that, I decided to see if we had anything on paper as to what constitutes or what we do about industrial encroachment. Inside of Appendix G, at the back of the rural area plan, there are some guidelines in there. Construction and expansion to prevent the encroachment of residential spaces. And these are just some of the bullet points in Appendix G. HVAC equipment, generators, noise-producing equipment should be chosen to be quiet and limit its impact. They should be screened from public view. The fences and walls on new construction should not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area. Also there's a really good bullet point in there. Fences and walls that are fortress-like are highly discouraged. We very much agree with that. The drawing clearly does not. These guidelines suggest that new sites repeat existing and established patterns, and that they should retain as many mature trees, natural stone features, and things of the like as possible, and that the height should be within 30% of the average of the things on that block. Again, there's a good look at that block. I know you guys know what pink means. For my friends in the back, this is to be designated mixed-use development according to the Rural Hall Area Plan update. That said, that update specifically names this parcel of land by street. It names out the size and parcel specifically. So it was important to put it in the update and say that it was designated mixed use. Mixed use, as you all well know, constitutes a mix of commercial office and different types of residential and recreational uses. As you well know also, it expressly excludes industrial use right there. We do have a section in there where we want to use vacant and underutilized sites, things that are already here that we're not getting enough out of, spaces that are not as full as they should be for as long as they should be. I think we've got Northridge Park down there where a lot of Haines DCs used to be at. I worked at one of them. Right here is a pretty good look for everybody in the back. I know you guys know this, but the idea for us is to rezone land that is meant to be business and industrial in a manner that is consistent with the plan. This is not consistent with that plan. There are no greater choices in living and working environments when you fill a 124-acre site with a cement pad. I see the drawing and all, but... It's a cement pad. Dig a 20-foot hole to put an 80-foot building and then brag that you got it below the tree line is disingenuous at best anyway. The limited industrial district was meant to limit the impact that normal operations would have on one person's day-to-day life. And this is things like limited manufacturing, light warehousing, and some wholesaling, not a hyperscale data center. And in the staff report, the staff report called out specifically 20 conditions, I believe, like three pages worth of conditions that squarely put this in the realm of like a general industrial type, as opposed to a limited industrial special use. And again, neither of those are compatible with the mixed use recommendation in the rural hall area plan update. All right, so for those reasons, these are the adjoining properties, by the way. So when we say limited impact, this is those adjoining properties, right? There's another one of the houses here, and I don't have the fancy drawing with the line in it. I think we have one, but you're not going to limit your impact in that guy's backyard. That is why this is not consistent with the recommended use plan, and for that reason, I am opposed. I'd like to thank you very much for the time and for doubling the time. This does deserve to be heard thoroughly, and I appreciate you all allowing the public to do that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, 14 and a half minutes. All right.

Hello, I'm Jonathan Kislingbury. I reside at 770 Serena Drive, Rural Hall, 27045. I am an adjacent property owner to this project, and I'm opposed to the rezoning request. I will explain reasons why this project is incompatible with the UDO. These reasons include the definition of the Services A, the way persistent noise is addressed, and the incompleteness of the site plan. This rezoning, which is proposed as a Service A use, is not appropriate for this use, this project. Services A is defined in the UDO as an establishment primarily engaged in providing service to business and individuals. Some examples. It's going to be a barbershop, a laundromat, repair shops, somewhere you can walk in. Typically, Services A is considered low-intensity use, having little impact on adjoining properties due to noise, odor, vibration, and pollution. Here's some examples of some low-intensity uses. Offices, single-family homes, arts and crafts studio, golf courses, campgrounds. And some examples of some high-intensity uses. bank, financial services, outdoor retail display, nursery or lawn garden, supply store, and animal shelter. Looking at these examples, a hyper data center does not fall in the low intensity use. In fact, I would say it's more intense than the examples of the high intensity uses. Now, I'm aware that noise is not typically considered in a rezoning matter. However, in cases where there would be persistent, impactful, and continuous noise to the existing residential area, the planning board can and should consider this noise in the rezoning project. Sounds below 70 decibels are considered safe for hearing. Some examples of 60 decibels are going to be a washing machine running, an average dishwasher, a standard sewing machine. Just because noise is safe to the hearing doesn't mean it's not a nuisance. I'll give you an example. A dripping faucet, 10 to 20 decibels what that is definitely safe it's not gonna hurt you or harm you but a dripping faucet dripping every day 24 hours a day seven days a week for years I would say most consider most people would consider that a nuisance zoning is meant to preventatively address nuisances that impact the adjoining properties hearing damage shouldn't be the standard we strive for when considering noise to a nuisance This next slide is, excuse me. The next slide is some decimal readings that were recorded. And basically there's 30 measurements were taken over a four to five minute period. That average logarithmic is how you measure decibels. Decibels are not linear. It increases, and for every 10 decibel increase, you're talking a tenfold increase in sound intensity. Now the reading of 32.8 decibels on Wednesday, June 3rd at 6.30 in the evening, that was my yard. That was taken in my yard at 6.30 in the evening. If we allow 60 decibels to come out of this project, this will impact the noise intensity by 22.9 times louder in my normal average evening. Now, staff has done a great job recognizing the impact this project would have on the community. There are six conditions proposed directly attempting to mitigate this nuisance noise. Condition E, would require noise monitoring devices to be permanently installed on three sides of the property line. How many projects have this condition? If a project requires this many conditions, it is unlikely to be compatible to the surrounding properties. Even with these conditions, staff concerns remain. This image was submitted by Montrose showing Glade Street and where the proposed building would be. All those trees in there are deciduous and they're along the property line. They're not all on this potential property. Four to five months out of the year, those trees will have no leaves. It's going to expose that massive building. These buildings, they don't blend into the surrounding area and they will dwarf these single family residents in these mobile homes. This image is what Forward 2045 and Rural Hall Area Plan is designed to avoid. We need to consider the needs and priorities of the marginalized communities in decision making and resource allocation. Now this community consists of elderly residents and lower income earners. These marginalized communities are the people who Forsyth County needs to prioritize when making zoning decisions. These residents may not have the resources or the ability to escape the impacts caused by this project. Here's the view from Montrose or the image that they produced of Serena Drive. Again, you can see the outlining of the potential building. And again, deciduous trees. I live on this road and again, my property is adjacent to. You can put a type three buffer yard in there. And maybe five years, like he said, it would grow to height, but I'm not sure if it's going to grow to 80 feet high. And again, it's not a condition as far I'm aware of, and it's a proposal. Site plan of this particular area, it's the potential recreational facility area, and it's marked public. This is a private property, only accessible by a private driveway through a guard shack into a secure facility protected by a security fence. In order for this to be public, it must be under the control and management of a public agency. Has there been any discussion with the county to manage this area, or is this more of a afterthought due to not being able to utilize that area due to the streams that are there. I want to say that this area does not coincide with Forward 2045 of the Rural Hall Plan. And again, we're waiting for questions about electricity or generators and all that. And it seems that it's not quite ready for that. But the biggest thing is Services A is definitely not appropriate. It's going to have a much higher impact than even the high-intensity uses are. And I hope you recommend denial. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Six minutes. Six minutes remain, and we have at least... I'm gonna say a dozen folks signed up. So just keep that in mind and try to allocate your time accordingly. Next person I've got signed up is Robin Smith.

Good evening. My name is Robin Smith. I live at 807 Academy Street in Roll Hall, North Carolina, zip code 27045. Hyperscale data centers come with many side effects. One of the most prevalent is the 24-7, 365 days a year noise these structures produce. The World Health Organization and EPA sets continuous, which is what we're dealing with, outdoor noise limits at 55 decibels to protect people from, quote, activity interference and annoyance, unquote. If you look at your booklet that I provided labeled Information on Levels of Environmental Noise, dated March 1974, this is the U.S. EPA. You will note on Table 4-1 that, quote, serious annoyance, unquote, is set at 55 decibels. The time base is 16 hours, which differs from the continuous noise, 24 hours, of the proposed data center. Additionally, hyperscale data centers are known to produce constant low frequency noise between 20 to 200 hertz. Low frequency sound is a persistent droning noise that travels long distances and is difficult to muffle. Lastly, given multiple community complaints by residents near hyperscale data centers, researchers are initiating studies to evaluate the amount of continuous infrasound produced by these centers. Infrasound, which is sound waves with frequencies below 20 hertz, are vibrations that people can feel physically. constant noise, low frequency sound, and infrasound are phenomena linked to psychological, developmental, physiological pathologies in human populations, especially in the young and elderly. One reason I appreciate zoning. This is one reason I appreciate zoning. RaleighNC.gov notes, quote, zoning is the act or process of partitioning a city, town, or borough into zones reserved for different purposes and is intended to promote an orderly pattern of development. Zoning ensures that the way the land is used is compatible with the area. For example, proper zoning prevents an industrial building from being built in a neighborhood, unquote. Smartgrowthamerica.org notes poor zoning of residents near industry exposes households to hazardous pollution, noise, and lower property values. Hyperscale data centers have known side effects. The proposal to build a hyperscale data center in the middle of an established community consisting of multiple neighborhoods, two historic churches, a small business, and a school is a mistake. This project is incompatible with the established properties in the vicinity and would have substantial negative effects on the town, residents, and future growth overall. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, three minutes. Three minutes remain. Next on our list is Charles Session, I believe.

Good evening. My name is Charles Session. I live at 582 Dark Bridge Road in Royal Hall, North Carolina, zip code 27045. I will not take much of your time, but allow me to say this. We have zoning regulations and laws for a reason. It gives us parameters, it gives us borders in which we can grow and develop. The zoning for us is about residential, is about small, stores, businesses that will allow us to grow at the pace and in the manner that is consistent with who we are. I'm in favor of growth. I'm in favor of development, but not at the cost of losing our identity. This thing while it may be great for somebody, is not great for us. It would rob us of our future, of my grandchildren's future. This is not what we are. So I would ask you to just consider what we've already established. We have zoning regulations for a reason and for a purpose. I simply ask you, Keep what we have so that we can continue to grow and develop as we are. Thank you.

A minute 45. A minute 45. I'm going to put my high school and college, I believe, German to the test here. Ulrike Weithaus. Was that close?

Well done. Bravo. I salute you. It doesn't happen very often to me that my name is pronounced correctly. Thank you. My name is Ulrike Wiethaus. I live at 794 Academy Street. I've lived in Rural Hall for over 30 years. My speech is three minutes long. And I will try to cut it down to one minute. I will not speak fast. I'll simply give you one of the two points I want to raise. They both concern the northern boundary of the property that has been not discussed, if you remember. We have talked a lot about the south, the east, and the west. Now, what's up with the north? In the north, we have two potentially serious issues going on that I would like to bring to your attention. One is the historic AME Zion Stuart Chapel. You saw it multiple times on the slides, but nobody pointed it out to you. According to the religious land use and institutionalized persons act that was enacted in 2000. I would like to point out to you, because of the constant noise sources and generation that you learned a lot about in this short time, the noise will, because of this act protection of religious freedom, significantly interrupt the legally protected right of the Stuart Chapel congregation. to the free exercise of religion insofar as elevated noise levels will materially disrupt worship services. My second point is also very, very grave, and that is that the northern boundary that you saw is very, very close to an active freight yard that operates continuously and handles large tank cars transporting butane LPG, or liquefied petroleum gas. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, emergency response guidebook, guide number 115, most recent edition published in 2024, locating a hyperscale data center substation near an active butane switching yard creates the potential for a multi-system disaster. A single incident...

I'm sorry, you're over time.

Thank you. I stop here. I think you got my point. I want to thank you very, very deeply. The planning staff members and you, the planning board, for your diligence in reviewing and adjudicating this very unique historically first case of a hyperscale data center proposal. Thank you so much.

Thank you. All right, so with that, we are out of time for the opponents. If you were signed up and weren't able to speak, again, you may have an opportunity to be heard when the county commissioners take up this matter. please make sure you're attentive to when that's scheduled and take advantage of that time. So I think what I'd like to do next, I know there are questions that this board has of various folks, and so I think perhaps the next thing we should do is try to get questions answered before we kind of engage in our discussion. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing. That first, and then Mr. Murphy, I think, has maybe a couple points.

Okay, so you've closed up here. I did just want to revisit a couple things and just provide a little bit of context on a couple of things that were said. The one thing I will point out to you, as you can imagine, with probably over 75 to 100 emails, three plus months of review and things back and forth with the developer and with the citizenry and et cetera, We do have the reuse narrative, but it's not in your packet. It looks very similar to some of their stakeholder meeting minutes with their letterhead. And anyway, it did not make it into your packet. We do have it. We will make sure that that gets included with what does go forward to the county commissioners. Again, it just lays out the narrative of how the site could be adaptively reused if the data center itself was to be decommissioned. So we do have that narrative, but unfortunately it's not in your packet. That is our fault. But again, we have copious amounts of information. So give us some grace, please. Secondly, I did want to mention, again, from a staff perspective and our analysis, oftentimes when we know we're going to recommend denial of a project, we still want to make sure that we are looking out and trying to safeguard the community should the elected bodies decide to approve the rezoning request against our recommendation and against perhaps even the recommendation of the planning board. So that is why we always work diligently to craft and create robust conditions. I know that it was pointed out we do have six separate conditions related to noise and I understand. I know that is one of the things that is a very, potentially a negative impact to the surrounding property owners. That's why there are so many conditions of approval related to it. In case it does get approved, we wanted to make it as compatible as possible with residential life along those borders. Getting to my final two points, for those that don't know, from a zoning perspective, the Unified Development Ordinance requires that we classify uses to the closest use in the ordinance that exists based on the scale and intensity of the use and based on past applications of that use. And I say that because I don't think anyone on staff necessarily loves the fact that this use is classified as Services A, but the data centers that we have that have been constructed over the last 30 to 40 years at various times, some of which were mentioned, are all classified as Services A use. When you look at the Standard Industrial Classification System, and we look at the North American Industrial Classification System, the NAICS book. Again, the closest use in those books currently is data processing, and again, it does fall under Services at Use. I mention that because the other way that we are limited. So, you know, looking at the ordinance, we felt that we had to classify it as we had previously classified data center. You know, the data center on the Wells Fargo data center on Fairlawn and Silas Creek is between three and 400,000 square feet. It's a fairly large building. So, again, we felt like we had to classify it that way. The other limiting factor that we have is, and again, as we have spoken on various occasions, the limitations we have under the current general statutes, under North Carolina General Statute 160D-601. Staff cannot and elected bodies cannot initiate changes to their development ordinances that would remove uses and rights that folks already currently have. And so if we were to go, and again, based on what I just said about how we have to classify the use, if we were to go in and create a new use for a hyperscale data center and only had it allowed in LI and GI, our most intense districts, anyone that had A zoning district that allowed services A could make the argument that we are taking away their right. Again, there is a movement afoot with local governments and the North Carolina legal municipalities and North Carolina Association of County Commissioners to work with the General Assembly to roll back that provision that deals with down zoning. But that is kind of the world that we're living in right now. In talking to the city and the county attorneys, Even if we wanted to create a use for a hyperscale data center, we could not do it under the current construction of the general statutes. I don't know if other entities that are trying to do that have never previously classified a data center or if they're just doing it and hope that they don't get sued. But the advice of our attorneys was we cannot... initiate an action to create a hyperscale data center type individual standalone use until that provision is rolled back. So that was item three. The final item I did want to point out is the 40 foot type three buffer. There is a requirement for the type of plant materials that have to be installed in that buffer. It's not just keeping the existing vegetation and putting in some deciduous trees. For every 100 linear feet of distance, you have to have three deciduous trees and 12 primary evergreen plants every 100 linear feet. So, again, think Nellie Stevens-Hawley. Think some of your very dense, large, evergreen-type plants. That's what would be planted in that. Full acknowledgement, they're only six to eight feet in height at the time of planting, but they will grow. Anyway, that is the example of what that 40-foot type three buffer is. I just wanted to point that out because it was mentioned that there would be no evergreens. Well, they don't actually do a landscape plan until such time as they come in for construction. So with that, I stand ready to answer any questions, but I just want to have those three or four questions. things to kind of provide a little bit of context into kind of the world that we're living in related to some of those things. So with that, I stand ready to answer any questions or obviously questions of other staff or the petitioner.

So I think we'll open it up. Let's try to focus on questions and then we can get into some discussion because until we know all the answers, and we're not going to know all of them, but as many as we can, it'll inform our discussion.

Chris, I've got a quick question, kind of a review. I know we have talked with the board members before about this, but in terms of how we can consider noise, even though, how does it fit in with the other factors that we are allowed to consider?

Bear with me. from the specific factors that you're allowed to look at as far as the planning board, having conditions of approval, et cetera. You can look at things to reduce and mitigate impacts related to public right-of-way dedication to meet projected needs. for roads shown on adopted plans. Road and or sidewalk improvements as recommended by the City of Winston-Salem. Access control including location, number, dimensions of driveways, combining driveways. Reorientation of parking areas and building access. Dedication and granting of easements for greenways identified on the adopted greenway plan. Screening and location of dumpsters, loading areas, on-site utilities or other visually obtrusive features as determined by the planning board. space for public transit vehicle maneuvering and or public transit shelters, stormwater management plans, location and screening of improvements or activities which may generate substantial noise, compliance and recommendations of the city of Winston-Salem or state of North Carolina or other government entity regarding the review of the project, compliance with all applicable previously approved conditions for the property in question, and then water or sewer services if available. So those are the kind of things you consider in the context of the conditions of approval and things that you can look at as far as addressing potential impacts. What I will also point out is the provision whereby in considerations is in deliberating each petition for amendment of the official zoning maps, you may consider such information and assertions as are presented in the petition, as well as evidence presented and arguments made at the public hearing. Additional considerations may include but should not be limited to the following, whether the proposal is consistent with the purpose statements of the requested zoning district, whether the use is permitted under the proposed classification would be compatible with uses permitted on other property in the vicinity, whether changing conditions have substantially affected the area, including in the petition, and then finally whether the proposed amendment is in conformance with Forward 2045, which then also covers the plans that umbrella under Forward 2045. So those are the parameters by which you can consider and make recommendations for a rezoning to the elected body.

thank you uh those lows that last four or five that you just ran out we is is within our wheelhouse correct thank you for the clarity other questions either for staff or any of the presenters or i think we have an engineer on standby for the proponents

You brought it up. I'd like to ask it. What is I'm trying to get my arms around the trying to get some scope here, I think, on the size. So it's the square footage. The footprint of each building is.

About? 187,000 and change, but each building is two stories. Right.

How does that compare with the Wells Fargo facility?

I want to say, again, I looked at this and was actually surprised at how large the Wells Fargo data center is. I want to say it was between 250 and 350. It could have been between 350 and 450, but it's a lot bigger than you think it is.

Yeah, and that's a single-story facility, I would imagine. I don't know. I think so. But again, I've never been in it. And if you've ever seen the folks that guard it, I don't want to try to get in it either. Yeah. So each of these three buildings would be about half the size of the Wells Fargo. As far as the footprint.

But then again, there are definitely two floors. So each. Each square, each building is about the size of, approximately about the size of the Wells Fargo.

Okay, that helps me get an idea of how big they are.

Do we know anything about the height of the Wells Fargo building?

It's substantially shorter. It's not 84 feet, I would say. I mean, if I had to guess, I would say 40 to 45 feet, probably. I don't know. I'm not a great... That would be my guess.

Yeah, me too. And then the Sears building, the data center downtown... That building would be a three or 400,000 foot building, multi-story. That also would be Wells Fargo, I believe. It was. It was. Yeah, it was. On 4th Street.

Yes, the old Sears building. You guys are showing your age.

The multi-story building was a data center for Wells Fargo as well. Yeah, yeah. It's similar in size to, I mean, it's much smaller than the Wells Fargo Center on University. Correct. Okay. I get a sense of how big it is.

Other questions?

I have a question about water consumption, which was brought up. I believe Carol Newsom had brought up water conservation development practices under our 42045 plan on the preservation of ecosystems. I guess this is a question for the petitioner. Hey. Hi. So I think it had been previously stated that a worst-case water use was around 600 gallons a day, which would be the equivalent of daily water use of 5,000 to 6,000 people. Has the serving utility confirmed capacity at that demand level?

Yes, they've confirmed capacity. At 600? Yes. Okay. And they actually have excess over that. Okay. That's what was asked for. And that's the water demands based on cooling technology as well as how much power Duke's able to deliver. So, you know, with closed loop, we'll, you know, that's not a daily requirement. It's when it is generally with the closed loop system, they're topping off the tanks a little bit, you know, and then as needed, but generally for the first fill up. But with data centers, it's all about redundancy. So let's say like the cooling system recycler broke down and they still, they couldn't shut the facility down. So that's why that amount is requested.

But you don't use, you don't consume 600,000 a day every day of the year. How frequently do you, I mean, what do you consume daily or weekly?

Best way to put it into perspective, less than a golf course irrigating a golf course is the best way. And, again, it's a range. It's going to be first variable we need to know is how much energy Duke's going to be able to provide us, and then we can calculate from there because it's all about the energy provided, and then the processing units obviously put off heat and what needs to be cooled. So if Duke does come back, say, 300 megawatts, you know, 30%, 40% need to go to cooling, and then that cooling's based on ambient temp, and then that's what the water is.

Are your generators tested monthly or are they tested weekly? There's two different types of testing protocol.

There's just a general startup test just to ensure they fire up. Right. So that's generally could be done weekly or biweekly. There's a maintenance schedule on that. And then there's load testing. Load testing is probably done every monthly. And that runs for an hour? Yeah, I would say hour, two hours. All these are protocols based on the user.

Mm-hmm. Okay. And then I think the package says that they're limited to 7 to 7 or something like that. It's daylight hours or something like that for the generator.

For testing, that's correct.

Something like that.

Yeah, and I also want to state that under EPA regulations for emergency generators, you are limited to 100 hours max outside of emergency use. So that's in one year. Those generators, each one can only run for 100 hours max during an entire calendar year. So all your testing needs to be performed within that time period.

Yes. I want to go back to your comparison on water consumption to a golf course irrigation just to make sure I'm clear. So unlike a golf course irrigate, I get the amounts are the same, but a golf course irrigating is going to return that water to the water table. For the most part, your system is not correct. No. So we're recycling the water. Okay.

So the water gets recycled in the system. So tanks will need to be topped off. That's when we basically turn the valve on and fill it up. And then once the water needs to be released, like if it hits a certain quality, it will get pretreated on site and then released into the wastewater sewer systems. And then it will be treated at the wastewater treatment plant and released back into the river basin. Just like all effluent coming from houses or business. Thank you.

Other questions?

I don't have a question, obviously. But I will say, and again, the only reason I have this information is because a council member requested it for something else. But again, we used to be a very heavy water industrial user. And as our industrial base has transitioned to a non-industrial base, we currently have, we being Winstead and Forsyth County Utilities, that we have a permitted capacity of 91 million gallons per day. We in the months of April and May the average daily demand was 40 million gallons a day. So there's it's only 44% of the capacity that we are allowed to generate. We have 50 million gallons per day excess. Approximately 47 51. Yeah, no, you're right on average 50 51 million gallons a day in excess in our current system. Correct.

Want to buy some water?

Any any other questions before we kind of try to transition to more of a discussion and moving towards?

Making a decision on this so my last question is about lighting I'm not sure what the requirements are the services a I Saw in the board report it was downcast lighting it would be monitored but maybe could you elaborate a little bit on the lighting plan for the project and

Absolutely. So all lighting on buildings will be pedestrian scale. Let me see if I can find my presentation. As you can see the So these are the lights. So they're essentially pedestrian scale where conditions are. We volunteered conditions of night sky compliant lighting. So it's all shielded at a low level. So it's not going to be like a sports field with large lighting, you know, projecting out. So we also have, I believe it's 0.5 light. Candle feet per anything outside of the property line, and that's based on existing requirements.

You're saying half a foot candle at the perimeter?

Yes.

Is that right? Yes, and again, that's consistent with the UDO requirements. I don't, I mean, honestly, I don't think they're going to be anywhere close to the 0.5 foot candle at the property line, except perhaps on the eastern and southeastern area where the driveway comes in and where they are closest to those residential structures. Because again, I don't think they're going to have lighting out on the perimeter. But yes, I mean, 0.5 foot candle at the property line is the UDO requirement.

Then with discussions with staff as well as others, so that we will have a pedestrian scale lighting on the buildings for security around the perimeter, but any lighting required along the loop roads will be on the outside, then shining towards the building versus shining towards residential uses.

Question about going back to sound and noise and the ordinances and we heard comments about sort of a low-level buzz or hum and some Hertz numbers so I can't in my brain recalculate Hertz to decibels, but how do you and a lot of just general comment in the public realm of these low buzzy noises and

So I haven't here. I'm sorry. So Hertz is relates to the sound wave. Decibels is essentially the intensity of it. When I visited data centers, it sounds like background traffic. I mean, it's not loud. It's not intensive. There's not a vibration feeling. There's multiple data centers out in Catawba County. Apple and Microsoft both have them, as well as I've stood outside the data center out there in Salisbury Parkway. I heard background traffic. I didn't hear the data center run. So some of the... How good is your hearing? Actually, I had tested. It's actually fairly good. Don't ask my wife that, though. But one thing to note, so there's a lot of information on social media regarding noise levels at data centers. These are the data centers, the first gen, second gen data centers that were built in Virginia along data center alley. A lot of those have been retrofitted. A lot of those, Loudoun County put in noise ordinances because of them. They've been retrofitted. Microsoft and Meta both have requirements that they're publicly posting out there saying we are retrofitting all of our existing data centers to meet these cooling as well as noise requirements. So it's a known issue. And so I just want to make sure a lot of the information out there about noise levels and water demand is based on older generation data centers, not the modern ones.

So when it is upgraded, is that fans for the HVAC units, or what gets upgraded?

For example, Microsoft, there's different climate zones in the country, and they are specifying certain cooling requirement, mechanical or evaporative hybrid systems, depending on the climate zone, to reduce their water demand. And then AWS is... putting in additional acoustical barriers. They didn't have acoustical barriers initially in some of their sites. So that's some of the Virginia ones that you can find online, the case studies, where they have gone back and retrofitted what we're proposing to do from the get-go, they're having to go back and put them in. And it's hundreds of millions of dollars for them to retrofit existing systems. How can they be required to go back They're not required they're doing it voluntarily because they know they understand they need to be good neighbors because to continue to Build data centers. They need to make sure they fix what wasn't right the first time So all the new design are including those in the requirements Where are the questions

All right. I think in the interest of time, maybe we start with sort of some preliminary statements in our discussion. So I think what we're going to do is we'll alternate sides as we come towards the middle. So that kind of does it sort of in order of how long you've been on the board. So we'll start with Ms. Jingles. Put you on the spot. Okay.

Geez, I guess I'm the youngest kid on the block. I get to go first. Thank you, everybody, for the commentary tonight. I think that what weighs heavily is the plan, right? The area plan and what... that means for rural hall and taking that into consideration and also seeing the overwhelming majority of people who live in that area coming to talk to us about what that is. And so I'll be brief in saying that that weighs heavily for me. And so I appreciate all the information from our staff as well and looking at that as we move forward.

Thank you. Mr. Pitt.

Appreciate the discussion tonight. I don't have a whole lot to add beyond what As has been said, in the interest of time, I'll save my soup box.

All right. Ms. Schwab. So I don't question the economic impact that this project would bring, $3 billion investment and millions and millions of dollars into the coffers of Forsyth County, which we desperately need. However, I question the cost of that today. I will be voting... for denial in alignment with our planning board today, based off the staff recommendations, which were answered very clearly in regards to the conflict, to the rural hall plan, to our forward 2040 plan. Five directive on protecting neighborhoods from inappropriate industrial encroachment. So I wanna agree with that conclusion. And additionally, I'd like to, I guess, publicly urge our county commissioners and city electeds to consider similar moratoriums on such projects as we've seen in Charlotte just in the last week as we continue to recognize that our UDO ordinances don't give us the proper tools to accurately respond to the scale and speed of these types of projects.

Thank you. All right, Mr. Steele.

From five miles looking down, I get the gut feeling that we are blessed tonight with a wonderful community and the opportunity for a wonderful project, the combination of which may not result in a good marriage. We have been reminded as board members to focus on land use issues. and it's hard to keep me focused, but I have tried. The proposed zoning is intended for uses which shall have little or no adverse effect upon adjoining properties. The proposed secondary entrance is immediately adjacent to residential properties. Area plan recommendations state that new industrial uses should be located in a manner that makes them compatible with nearby residential areas and that neighborhoods should be protected from inappropriate industrial development. I feel like that's my responsibility to uphold these rules and principles as a member of this planning board. I welcome the project somewhere to Forsyth County. This just might not be the right where.

Thank you, Mr. Stim. Mr. Fairby?

Something interesting, 10 years ago when the plan for rural hall was made, I was actually on staff. I was the leader of the project. All the things you all were talking about, I wrote in coordination with our team and in their support. I rode the streets. I walked many of them. And actually, I went back up there the other week because I had to get my license tag renewed. And I realized just how close the property is to the adjoining homes. When we look at 2045, we know we need economic development. We know we need jobs. We also understand the importance of fit and appropriateness of uses. Then when we talk about the rural hall plan, When we discussed it internally as a staff and also with probably some of you here 10 years ago up in Rural Hall at the Town Hall during our meetings, it came to this recommendation of mixed use. It was a sizable property in the somewhat center of Rural Hall. It was close to other residential, also commercial uses. So the mixed use idea was that it could have some restaurants it could have office it could have apartments town homes and single-family housing which is consistent with a good majority of its adjoining properties now there is industrial to the north but it is somewhat i guess you could say legacy industrial is not what we think of industrial today large box buildings and whatnot so My opinion and recommendation is that this does not fit. It is not compatible and my concern is, I know we talked about noise, which is somewhat outside of or in gray area of our purview of this board, but we talked about My concerns are compatibility, also massing. These are huge buildings. They're 80 feet tall. That's an eight-story building, just a couple hundred to a couple hundred feet behind homes. Imagine, you know, a hotel or something like that right behind your home. It doesn't fit, and that's my recommendation would be for denial.

Thank you, Mr. Fairman. Ms. Smith.

Well, not to be too repetitive, but I just had keeping notes and track, and you always want to find some way, if possible, that everybody involved can benefit from something. Community could have jobs. It wouldn't be too much impact on it. And I don't see that happening in this case, just from the inadequate way to categorize it within our zoning ordinances. It's not clear, but it's what we have to work with. The deciduous trees are not... buffers especially as you said with the scale and the scale is a big part of that the noise and the nuisance I think that's hard to quantify when we're sitting sitting here with that but one of the comments that really comes to play for me when you're trying to work out something something that could be beneficial for everyone someone made the comment about losing a community identity and And to me, that kind of wraps up what the whole issue comes to in these different ways. Is it compatible or not? Is it a nuisance or not? Do our rules allow it? How should we do this? So for all of those reasons, and you hate to turn down someone's opportunity to do what they want to with their property too. You have to consider their view on all of this. But I just think it's not a right fit for those reasons.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Mr. Lamb. I come with a predisposition that I'm a booster for Forsyth County West Asylum. my small town of Kernersville. I like to see development. I like to see opportunity for my grandchild to have a job here, stay in the area and not have to move away. I also like to utilize existing infrastructure. If there's 50 million gallons of water of excess capacity, we need some water intensive uses. If we've got a Duke Power substation right next to a piece of property, I can't think of a better place to locate a data center. There are not a whole lot of Duke Power substations located all over the place. However, the almost universal disdain from the folks that have shown up today and the letters, I did read every one of the emails. and the text messages and things like that gives me a great pause. I do believe in the citizen participation and uh and i appreciate all of you others have already told you thank you but i thank you as well for taking the time to participate i am torn with uh this project i think it's a high quality project uh it is a second or third generation data center type of development project and they're going to improve them And they'll probably even get better in the future because citizens are going to demand that they're great neighbors. But in any event, I'll let you know in just a minute how I'm going to vote.

Thank you, Mr. Lamb. Mr. Patino. I also want to echo thanks to everybody who sent letters and emails and everything else. We did take the time to read them all, including the one that used AI-generated art to complain about data center, but that's neither here nor there. That said, something that I keep thinking about is during one of the presentations for 2045, was that 70% of the developable land in Forsyth County has already been developed. And properties of this size are very rare and hard to come. so then what we have to weigh is is this the right use for such a large scale property and does it fit what is near it uh we've all talked about kind of the compatibility with the vicinity and i don't think it is compatible but another thing is uh that compatibility with forward 25 i don't think We would be getting the most out of what this property could achieve and I don't think it's Compatible with that as well. So I will be voting against as well Thank You, mr. Tina

I go back to something that was said at the very beginning of the proponents presentation, which is that the data centers and the need for them is a national security issue. And I couldn't agree with that more. It absolutely is. It is critical that we find a way in this country to make these decisions. these facilities work. And I really hope, as Mr. Lamb alluded to, that the technology evolves in a way that we can figure out how to pair them with something else that works to make sure that we have that resource. I think to dismiss those just because you hear data center in just a knee-jerk way, you know, In the early 1800s when Nissan Wagon Works was built, I'm sure people didn't like wagon factories and somebody didn't like that R.J. Reynolds started processing tobacco downtown and Haynes started knitting. And where would we be as a community if we had not found a way to embrace that and coexist with it? I think the developer has done a very commendable job at trying to make this project work in a way that was sensitive to the community's concerns. I don't know that there were too many things that they were asked to do that they didn't try to find a way to do. And so that is the type development and type developers that we need in this community. but something that Mr. Woodard said really struck home with me that he and his spouse used the area plan to decide to relocate to rural hall. And I've never heard anybody say they've done that before. I would commend that to the realtors that are watching to have your clients look at that. I have found myself in my time on this board many times Telling people that it's great that you came out tonight to tell me that you don't want this property rezoned. What would have been much better... Because it's asking to be rezoned for something that fits. And what I have told them in the past is it would be much better had you come to the community meetings about the area plan and told us what your community wanted in that spot. That's the purpose of those area plans. That's where you need to make your voice heard. That's where you as a community give this staff and this board your vision for what your community is going to be. And so... As often as I've sat here and told people you should have come and told us on the area plan what you wanted, because now we're going to allow this because it fits. If I'm going to do that, I can't look at an area plan that says this project doesn't fit and try to cram a square peg into a round hole. Those area plans are vital to what we do in planning. And so it reflects that community and that sort of collective sense of what you want to be as rural hall. And coming from a small town myself like Mr. Lamb, I value that. And as Mr. Patino said, there's not a lot of land and we got to make sure we're making very conscientious choices about it. And there's something to be said for preserving some rural land and some small town settings while still embracing industrial development, and there's a way to do that. We've done it for hundreds of years in Forsyth County, and we can continue to do it. I'm going to end with a caution to all of you after I thank you again for being here and taking the time. You're a part of Forsyth County. has changed immensely with the coming of the Beltway. It's much like the coming of the railroad to my hometown of Kernersville in the 1800s. It is going to forever change what your part of Forsyth County looks like, rightly or wrongly. Nobody ever thought it was going to be built, and lo and behold, it was. And so you as a community are going to continue to struggle with issues like these, and I I just caution you, be careful what you ask for because you might get it. The next project might fit better, but you might not like it as much as you may have liked this one. So just keep that in mind. Development, we will not remain stagnant. It's just as part of the human existence. Mr.

Chair, just a comment on that. We have not typically done Every person goes so I wasn't exactly sure. Yeah, I made you go second. That wasn't really fair. You can jump on in. We probably should have gone in reverse. But I was not going to say something to your comment there. I mean, there is, with all the comments that I read, there was a large majority of folks that wanted it to be rural. The signs I saw driving down the street, Keeper Hall, rural. The alternative could be a mixed-use community with 400 plus homes that would be the opposite of that and so i'd one alternative is something that is very much not 400 homes no impact to traffic nothing like that so it's a it's a tough balance for a project like this but it it's been interesting to hear these comments and reading all the statements that we've seen that kind of go against if you would be presenting a mixed-use community here as well

That's a very good point, Mr. Pitt. Thank you. Any further comments from the board? Are we at a point where anyone would like to make a motion?

If I've done my math sort of closely, I'd like to go on before the vote and encourage the developer and your team to continue working with us. There's a fit for you, and you're welcome in this area. We just have to find it. Thank you.

All right.

What's the pleasure of the board? I move that the planning board find that the request is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

Second. Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

I move that the planning board recommend denial of F1669. Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any further discussion? All in favor of denial, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed? Mr. Pitt and Mr. Lamb. All right, so that is seven to two. So we will be recommending denial to the county commissioners. Again, that is not the final decision on this. This will go on to the county commissioners. Stay tuned. I think Mr. Murphy may have some details on that for you.

Yeah, again, this has not been said and so on yet. I mean, I don't think we'll have any problem producing the minutes and getting that stuff ready. It's my understanding that the plan is for this to be heard at the county commissioners' night meeting at the end of July, which would be July 30th. If you got a notification for this meeting, you will get a notification for that meeting. If you signed up to speak at this meeting tonight, even if you didn't get to speak, if your name and address are on the sign-up sheet, you will also get notification as well. But again, at this point, it should be heard, it's my understanding, on July 30th. That would be a 6 p.m. meeting at the Forsyth County Government Center. But again, I'm sure the media will also let you know when it will be heard. If it happens to be a different date, but again, that's my understanding. It's preliminarily slated for July 30th.

Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Fortunately for most of you, I believe that concludes what you were here for. Unfortunately for the folks sitting up here, we're not quite finished yet. I think we are going to take just a very short recess to allow the chamber to clear, so we're not trying to talk over you. Thank you for coming. We're going to go ahead and try to come back to order if we could, please. I know it's well past when we're normally finished with our business, so let's try to get back. We've got a few more items to knock out. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Murphy for the staff report.

Mr. Chairman, the good thing is I do not have a lot under staff report. I will let you know that as you see, Kirk's streak of quick meetings while he is on vacation came to a screeching halt tonight. Kirk is on vacation. We did send out a call for items for work session. If I had to look in my crystal ball, I don't think we have anything for your work session in June. I would imagine we will probably cancel your June work session two weeks from today, but Stay tuned. There may be something I am unaware of, but I think we'll probably end up canceling that meeting. With that being said, more than likely at your July meeting, you will probably, we will have a meeting in July, and that's probably where you will get your first view of the Northeast Suburban Area Plan that we just wrapped up. For those that... Don't know we will. I was thinking it was our third plan, but apparently it's our second plan and I was mistaken. But the rural hall area plan update will be the next plan that we do, which is kind of timely. So that's the first item under the staff report. Probably will not have a meeting in June. With that, the only other item I have is the July zoning preview. And if you, I will... I think Mark's in here, but I can handle it for him. If you look at it, July 2026, plenty more cases. We have nine total items. There are four new rezoning cases. You have one continued rezoning case, one continued subdivision. You've got two new PBRs, and you've got one continued PBR. So we have a total of nine cases. As far as I know, none of those are too controversial. And then what is playing is the video of the installation of the dandelion. I know we talked about it a couple weeks ago at your work session. The dandelion ribbon cutting was yesterday. Unfortunately, sorry, two days ago. Unfortunately, I could not be there. I had an appointment that popped up that I was not aware of, but great installation. has obviously sparked lots of discussion. But as opposed to the first round of discussion when there wasn't anything tangible that could be pointed to, I think you can point to the art and say that it is impressive in installation. You may not agree with the expenditure of it. You may not agree with the art itself and that folks perhaps don't like a weed. But if you look at the story behind the art and invasive hope, you know, again, it does show our community's resiliency. So again, I just wanted to point that out. Again, public art is something that is under the purview of the planning board and the planning staff. And this represents years of work, both for our staff and for the folks that fabricated it. So it is something to be celebrated. And with that, I stand ready to answer any questions.

A question about just a couple of other bridges, especially now that we're looking at these crossings, like the Fourth Street Bridge looks like it's got space for future lights or something. What's kind of when we're going to wrap some of that stuff up?

It's Duke Power. It's one of those things where, you know, it was the hope that whenever we shut down the shut down Salem Parkway for the installation, these dandelions, we could shut everything down at one time and do it. But it is I don't know exactly what the issue is, but there are some issues with that. doing it through Duke Power, and that's all I know at this point. But you are correct. Those bridges have pedestrian lights on them, and I think we'll have to close Salem Parkway again one night whenever those are installed, both there and along the highway itself.

Got it.

Thanks.

Any other questions? I want to thank the staff for all their hard work. I know y'all have put in a lot of effort on this case we just heard, and we had a big agenda, so everybody's been busy, I'm sure. I hope you get some time to catch your breath. So anything else for the good of the order?

Go Knicks.

I'm not sure that's for the good of the order, but... How about go Canes? Yeah, I think we can all agree on that, hopefully. All right.

All right, motion to adjourn.

All right, thank you, Ms. Smith.