Regular Meeting

down. Heat. Good evening and welcome to the planning and zoning board meeting. Thank you for joining us tonight. I'll call this meeting to order. Our board clerk, Julie Mitchell, will take roll call this evening.

Thank you, chair. For the record, Andy Co is absent this evening. And tonight, tonight's board members who are present are Sel Camarada, Bosshanna Etton, Chris Johnson, Mike Rosselli, Jeff Monre, Shawn McAndrew, Ruben Moore, Diane Mayo, and George Ken George.

Thank you. Um well so the Kerry community plan will continue to be our guiding document for this board. Our role is to function as citizen adviserss to the council who will ultimately make the final decision on all resoning activity. We recognize that not all resoning requests are supported unanimously by our members of our community. We strive to balance the impact of increased building density required to support K's growth while maintaining the historic charm and character of our town. The Kerry community plan was initially adopted in 2017 following a collaborative effort between Kerry's citizens and our town government. That collaboration has continued and resulted in recently updated version of the plan adopted by council in January of 2025. The chapters of the plan include live, work, shop, engage, shape, move, enrich, serve, and act. The community plan can be found on

car's website. Your citizen opinions based on the Kerry community plan document play a very important role in advising our leaders. We encourage our citizens to refer to the plan and provide feedback that's based on the guiding principles of plan as it relates to the zoning request. While this is a public meeting, it is not a public hearing. There's no opportunity for the public to speak during this meeting. If you have comments about any of the items, we encourage you to reach out to staff by email or phone. You may also reach out to board members through email. You may also contact your council members directly through email or during various public speaks out portions at any regular regularly scheduled council meeting. These meetings may be streamed live on K's website and will be posted to YouTube. All past planning and zoning board meetings are available to view on YouTube as well. Uh at this point we would be looking to adopt our agenda. And so if someone's willing to make a motion to adopt the agenda, I would appreciate that.

So moved.

Second.

All right. All those in favor, please state by saying I.

I.

Any opposed?

All right. We will move forward with that. And we also now need to review our minutes from the November 27th meeting of 2025. Um is anyone like to make a motion to approve those minutes?

I make a motion to approve the minutes from November 17th. Thank you.

Uh, okay. Sorry, I've got the wrong date. So, November 17th. Let's document that and make sure we get that uh corrected in the uh in in the uh record.

Any second?

Second.

All right. All those in favor, please state I.

I.

Any opposed?

Thank you. All right. That brings us to our cases tonight. We have two cases. Our first case is 25 Rez05 Fitter Sears Road resoning. Uh the it's on the agenda. Miss Aaron Pucket, our principal planner, will share the staff's presentation. Following that presentation, the applicant will share their remarks. All board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and the applicant. And Miss

Pucket, you may proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. And good evening, board. This is a request to annex and apply initial carry zoning to approximately 12.6 acres at 606 and 694 Pittard Sears Road. The site is located in Chattam County on the northwest side of Pittard Sears Road approximately.3 miles east of the American Tobacco Trail. The site is surrounded by detached residential development. Car's GIS indicates a stream buffer impacting the northern portion of the site and field determination of such features is required at time of development plan review. The parks, recreation, and cultural resources master plan does not identify any greenway corridors within or adjacent to the site. A streetside trail along the south side of Pitter Sears Road is currently under construction as part of a capital project that will complete a gap between Okelly Chapel Road and the American Tobacco Trail. Pitter Sears Road is identified as a two-lane collector on K's planned roadway width map and will require roadway improvements including sidewalk along the site frontage. The site is currently within Chattam County and is zoned Chattam residential one and the applicant proposes an initial carry zoning of residential a conditional use or RHCU. The applicant has offered several zoning conditions, including limiting development of the site to a maximum of 23 detached dwellings, which is approximately 1.8 units per acre. Ensuring lot size will be calculated exclusive of stream buffers, which would otherwise be allowed by North Carolina general statutes, providing a twocar garage for each unit, and wiring each garage for future electric vehicle charging. Ensuring all perimeter buffers will be within common open space. Increasing the required site frontage improvements to accommodate a five- foot

wide bike lane in lie of the 4ft wide lane that would otherwise be required today. Removing the temporary turnaround to the north on Bataso Drive as that street will connect into the site. and installing a midblock pedestrian crossing which will include a rectangular rapid flashing beacon or RFB. An analysis against the Imagine Carry community plan finds that policies in multiple chapters apply along with the guidance of the Chattam Kerry joint land use plan. As seen on this slide, the site is within the lowdensity residential subdisting area. These areas recommend a maximum density of two units per acre and as noted previously, this request proposes approximately 1.8 units per acre. The plan also underscores the importance of transitions within this area. In this case, the request proposes lot sizes and density generally consistent with those northeast of the site. And we note the densities are intended to generally decrease and lot size increase from east to west within this planning area. The site is largely surrounded by existing carry development and could therefore address the live chapter infill policy. Regarding the shape chapter, transitions can be made via land uses, form, and buffers. And the proposed resoning would provide the same use as surrounding development, thereby making a logical use and form transition. And the R8 minimum lot size of 8,000 square ft is consistent with development to the north, although slightly smaller than that of the development to the west. Buffers are proposed to default to LDO minimum widths with a condition ensuring they will be located on common open space as some buffers may otherwise be on individual lots. The proposed resoning includes frontage improvements increased slightly to accommodate a 5-ft wide bike lane. And additionally, the proposal would provide a pedestrian crossing as I mentioned

previously on Pitttered Sears Road with an RRFB or rectangular rapid flashing beacon subject to carry in NC dot approval. That enhanced crossing would facilitate access to the streetside trail on the south side of Pittard Sears Road. The proposed resoning commits to wiring garages for potential future electric vehicle charging, which may help speak to sustainable energy practices. and as noted previously ensures a commitment to locating all uh required buffers in a common open space and this may help to ensure tree preservation over time. A neighborhood meeting was held in June of last year and 72 members of the public attended. Questions and concerns included those about site access and connections to adjacent development, questions about buffers, concerns regarding traffic, drainage, loss of open space and tree canopy. And following the meeting, staff received calls and 311 inquiries from seven citizens, most of which were seeking additional information about the resoning process and opportunities to have their feedback heard. Staff also met with representatives of the Dunhill neighborhood to the west who shared concerns with traffic and pedestrian safety, drainage, and the site density. A public hearing was held in August of 2025, and I do want to note that at that time, the proposed zoning district requested was transitional residential conditional use with smaller lot sizes. There were five written comments and five in-person speakers at the public hearing. Comments included concerns with the lot size and proposed density in regard to consistency with the surrounding development, general traffic concerns including bicycle and pedestrian safety, concerns regarding the required road connection from the subdivision to the north, and concerns regarding area drainage. Council also had clarifying questions regarding the surrounding transportation network and the guidance of the Chattam Kerry joint land use plan and shared

comments regarding a concern that the lot size may be too small and the density of the site could appear denser understanding there were site constraints which may limit the developable area and a more detailed summary of the public comments and council discussion was included in your staff report. Following the public hearing, the applicant changed their resoning request from from transitional residential conditional use or TRCU to R8CU, which guarantees a larger minimum lot size of 8,000 square ft. Previously with the TRCU request, the applicant had offered a minimum lot size of 6,500 square ft and the maximum number of lots was reduced from 24 to 23. Staff find that the overall density is consistent with the maximum density recommended in low density residential areas of the Chattam Kerry joint land use plan and development of the site for detached residential lots could address the residential infill policy of the LIB chapter as well as providing a good use transition. Also, regarding shape, we note lot sizes are consistent with those of Sequoia Creek to the north, although smaller than those in Dunhill to the west. The change in request from TRCU to R8CU guarantees this minimum lot size as well as slightly larger setbacks which collectively may help with that overall transition. Provision of a pedestrian crossing with an RRFB to help facilitate pedestrian traffic to streetside trail on the south side of Pitted Sears Road helps to meet move chapter policies and commitments to future EV EV wiring in the garages for all homes and providing perimeter buffers in common area help to at least modestly address some enriched policies. This concludes my presentation. Worth Mills, the applicant's representative, is here to provide comments and then I'm available for your questions. Terrific. Thank you. I have an opportunity for our uh

requester to present. Good evening board members. Worth Mills with Longleaf Law Partners here on behalf of Gala Investments LLC who is the applicant and the uh contract purchaser of these three lots. When we initially filed this reszoning request, we did uh we were pursuing a transitional residential zoning district for up to at that point 25 homes with minimum lot sizes between 6,500 and 8,000 square ft. After multiple meetings with the adjacent neighborhoods, primarily those within Sequoia Creek and Dunhill Estates, and following the town council meeting, we then amended this application to request the R8 zoning uh to allow up to 23 single family detached homes and which would also require a minimum 8,000 square foot lot size. And that results, as Miss Pucket said, in a density of 1.8 8 units per acre. We think that that update is more compatible with the minimum lot sizes that you see in the Sequoia Creek neighborhood to our northeast. Um, and this update also furthers the Chattam County Kerry joint land use plan, which recommends density uh be lowered as you move from east to west uh as you approach the western boundary of that uh land use plan area. And so, as you can see on the screen, um the resulting zoning districts, uh decrease in intensity as you go from the transitional residential in Sequoia Creek to the R8 zoning district that we're requesting to the R12 zoning at Dunh Hill Estates and the resulting density uh decreases as well. Sequoia

Creek is 2 units an acre. This resoning would allow for 1.8 eight and Dunh Hill Estates at 1.4. So both in zoning district and density moving that um that development potential uh down as you go from east to west. A couple of conditions that I did want to highlight. We are providing a new pedestrian connection to the multi-use path on the south side of Pitter Sears Road. Um that multi-use path will connect uh Okelly Chapel Road and the American Tobacco Trail, giving uh new residents as well as uh existing residents uh new ways to get on and off the American Tobacco Trail. We are also offering a wider bike lane along our Pitter Sears frontage than is required uh to improve pedestrian mobility there. And we are requiring that each home have a twocar garage that is wired to support EV charging. To summarize, we think that this requested zoning is consistent with the Kerry Cadam joint land use plan uh and furthers many of the goals in the overall community plan as outlined in the staff report. Uh I'm available to answer any questions, but appreciate the opportunity to be heard this evening. Thank you.

Terrific. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

So now we have an opportunity to ask questions as a board. Um, just as a reminder, the Kerry community plan is in place to guide the development. As you think about your questions, keep in mind how the proposed case fits or does not fit within the Kerry community plan. Uh, and when making a motion, it would be helpful to describe how you see your motion impacting the Kerry community plan. For example, is it the work shape or live chapter that you've decided, you know, supports this request? Um, it's not a requirement, but it would be helpful for town council as they consider the uh final approval. So, do any board members have any questions at this time?

Go ahead.

I guess this would be for uh planning staff. I just want to find out if the treatment for the multi-use path and the bike lanes is uh intentional. Um, McConnell Lane going towards American Tobacco Trail. Um, that's where the multi-use path starts at McConnell going towards the trail. And going away from the trail, there's a bike lane and a sidewalk. So, for this frontage, are we talking about a consistent bike lane? And I assume there would be sidewalk also if it was a bike lane.

So, and I'll looked at transportation to correct me if I'm wrong, but this would be a wide outside lane for bikes. And then it would be a sidewalk along this northwestern frontage. It would just be sidewalk. So, the street side trails just on the south side, which is part of why they're offering the pedestrian crossing so they can bring pedestrians across to that wider treatment.

Did I get that wrong about the outside lanes?

How much wider would the road be?

Um, it's just an addition. Well, so we don't know the how much rightway is out there. Now, just like any other site, they're required to improve their half out to what the Kerry community plan requires. What they've offered to do is where our cross-section typically requires a 4 foot wide bike lane on the outside, they're increasing it to five feet.

Um, which is more in line with

one of the things, a couple things I'm curious about. Is the sherro marking going to be 4 foot from the curb or the center of the lane?

I'm going to let Priyam Condo with our transportation department.

Thank you. Good evening. Um the sheriffs are probably going to be centered in the lane and the reason for that being when Peter Sears was uh built or widened along this stretch it was done in a peacemeal manner. So the crosssection um varies a little bit from OK Chapel Road down all the way down to the uh trail head. Uh couple years ago there were several concerns from the residents and uh we worked with DOT to have some level of consistent uh notation for bikes and

uh the resolution of that was that there's not sufficient payment to have a striped separate striped bike lane along the entire length and so for now the most consistent treatment would be to place the shadows in the center of the lane. So it's a clear indication to the drivers that it is going to be a shared path between vehicles and bikes. Um at some point in the future when the Chattam District NC do

office resurfaces the street we would have an opportunity to work with them to decide whether we want to continue that same notation or if we want to stripe a separate bike lane depending on the asphalt that we would have. So that's why it's it's a it feels a little bit uncertain but just uh just a couple years ago we did some resurfacing and uh restriping and we added additional signage just so the drivers are aware that bikes have uh right of way also along the street. Part of what I'm um confused about is there's already a widening on the McConnell lane side and this development is on the narrower lane side where you're talking about the rightway. Doesn't that land use approval include building to whatever rightway is required?

Yes. So there is also another element here. The road in this area is not exactly centered within the right of way. So you're you're dealing with that asymmetry here. So once we get the additional 5 ft of asphalt, we'll have to see if it makes sense to stripe that area out so it is not confusing to the bikes or we include that asphalt and center the sherrows in the total asphalt on the southbound direction.

So I wonder why you couldn't pull a consistent road width from the curb that exists on the other side of the road. Um I'm not entirely sure because we haven't looked at a full striping plan for that entire segment of Peter Sears road uh at one time before it all happened in a peacemail fashion. So you have uh segments that have a certain width that would allow you to stripe a

bike lane and you have segments that would not allow you to stripe a bike lane.

So your project is an opportunity to correct those.

Yeah. Yeah, I when when the development plan comes in, we'll look to see where we can maximize uh consistency of the signage and striping

and you know we'll we'll do whatever is is best and also we'll have to respect how much the developer is willing to go beyond their frontage to make changes. Um NC DOT uh from the Chadam district also is going to be looking at that.

Um a lot of times they will have the final say on how striping should be done. So, it'll be a it'll be a team work from everybody.

I just want to express my opinion that whatever you do out there should match the other side of the road.

Yes.

And don't take NC DO's word for what you can do.

Yes. No, we we have uh we have good uh bike experts on our team as well. So, and uh we're also following the latest uh um Astro guidance for bicycle accommodations and uh we've been uh requesting DOD to um allow Kerry to strike bike lanes according to that.

Don't overlook NACTO along with Ashtto.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you.

That's good. You're good. Any other questions? Go ahead, Ken.

Clarification. Uh bucket. Um, so when we have a two dwelling units per acre and we say that, are we applying the state statute which does include the stream buffers and the two per acre is that what the official two per acre was was set by?

No. And that's a great clarifying question. So that density calculation is gross. So that's whether you have a stream buffer on your site or not. It's just total acreage. the calculation of density. Um, so I think I know what you're getting at, which is it feels more dense. You know, if you're accounting for the stream buffer, the fact that there's going to be a portion of the site that's undevelopable.

It feels more feels more dense, but we're not we're getting 1.8

for the area, but that's counting. But that but you say you don't we don't count that's without the adjacent street buffer, the 1.8.

Well, so that's just a gross density calculation. It's the total acreage

that's separate of the condition that they will calculate each lot size separate of the stream buffer and that's that additional provision that is allowed in state code if they don't write themselves out of it which they have in this case.

Okay. So back so back so the two are we comparing apples to apples when we say two per acre versus 1.8 are we comparing similar measurements?

We are. So it's gross density versus gross density. make sure that

No, it's a great question.

Okay. And then the second thing uh I think I'll just assume is that u it said chargers um and it's a two-car garage. I'm I'm assuming they're wiring one charger for a two-car garage,

I believe. So there's no the way the condition is written, it would just require the wiring.

That's okay. That's all. Thank you.

You go ahead, D. Yeah, I just I noticed a couple of neighbor comments about drainage and storm water runoff and I was looking at the enriched policies as part of the plan. Could you speak to that?

Yeah, so any development of the site today would have to meet K's stringent storm water requirements, mitigating to the 100-year storm, making sure that preconstruction runoff rates um are not exceeded by post construction. So, all of those things will be in play if the site is developed in the future. Um, I cannot speak to whether that will help reduce some of the impacts on adjacent sites. Sometimes it does, just depends on the way that the drainage is running currently from that site. Um, but yes, they will have to meet our very stringent storm water requirements at time of development plan if they're reszoned.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Bashan,

I have a quick one. Were there any champion trees identified on the site that might want to be saved? So because this is a conditional use resoning, they've not yet completed a tree survey, but that will be part of the discussion

at time of development plan. And of course, our LDO puts the priority on preservation, unless of course it's right where a road or a storm water device or something critical has to go.

Anyone else?

Yeah, go ahead, Ruben.

Do we know what the existing and proposed speed limit are on Sears?

I'm not certain. And

it's I believe it's 35.

35 unless otherwise posted. I'm just kidding.

Um we can verify that. I believe it's 35, but I would have to double check. I think that question came up at council 2 and it's been a while ago.

Sorry, I have one at the bottom. Go ahead. I so the in the I read about the connectivity and obviously people we we have to have connectivity because that's our ordinance but I that I didn't quite that back corner for Cole Culmer Manor Drive.

Yes. Let me pull up

really in the corner. I don't it doesn't look like it's connectable. Um but I just want to be sure if that I'm looking at that right or if it's

Sorry my number lap is not on. Um so you're speaking about the Kar mana drive that comes Yes. right there in the corner where there's no room to connect to anything really it looks like.

Yes. So default requirement is for it to connect and then in reality we are aware that's where that stream buffer is that I spoke about previously. So assuming that is an environmental feature that's there. They would still have to go through the modification process at time of development plan to not connect it through. But if that's a physical impediment to the connection it is likely that that may just culdeac into that corner of the site. That's certainly a possibility at this time.

That's okay. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Not a qu not a question, but um I just wanted to point out that you going back to the drawing board, coming back as a R8CU uh really to get in the context of the adjacent developments. I think that did a really good job threading the needle

like you I don't think you could more appropriately set the the density and zoning here. So, I really appreciate that. Yeah, I appreciate that you preempted my comment. I I think too that this shows really the spirit of collaboration and cooperation uh in my mind and what I've seen. So, um to that extent, if anyone's willing to make a motion, they're in your package. Uh would be willing to entertain an inter motion a motion for this uh uh resoning request. I move that the board find 25 rez05 is consistent with the compre comprehensive plan and all other applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report presentation and discussion by the planning and zoning board.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

All right. So, we've got a motion on the floor. Um Sean, I'll let you provide any uh additional commentary on that motion. I I think to echo what has already been said, um it's thread the needle very well. Um it's appropriate for the area. Um and it's, you know, the continued, you know, collaboration for, you know, responsible development.

Chris, do you have anything else you want to add to that?

Pretty much the same thing.

Um S, I'll just start with you in case you have any additional questions or comments or

uh just one question. Is there going to be uh sidewalks within the development? So there would be um it's required to put them on at least one side of the street. We will encourage two, but they have to do at least one.

Thank you. Anything to Sean? No, Mike.

Anyone? Ruben?

Yeah. Based on George's uh comment about the deadend roads that exist now and their connections. I noticed both of them are marked for future road extension. So has uh has that already been looked at? You know, you talked about it going into the stream buffer. Um

yes, I can speak to that a little bit further. So the one to the north of Ataso Drive connection that we know will connect into the site as you've noted

that's marked as a future street extension. The one coming in in that northern corner Karman Drive is also shown as a future road extension but may be constrained by the physical topography and environmental features. So, we don't have that full engineering yet to know for certain, but we're aware that there could be an impediment to that full connection um in that that northern corner.

Can I just add a comment to that? Um other situations like this have been handled with a good pedestrian connection. Sure.

Even if there's not a road or automobile connection and that would be a shortcut to the uh American Tobacco Trail if they could come this way. And I think a time of development plan that typically is our approach from a transportation side. If you can't facilitate the full road connection, we often look at a pedestrian connection as an alternative.

Thank you.

That's a good that's a good point. Thank you, Diane or Ken. Any any comments?

All right. Well, then I guess I would uh take the motion to a vote. So, all those in favor, please uh state I.

I. Any opposed?

Nay.

So, we've got a motion carries. Um, well, thank you. I appreciate the presentation and uh we appreciate your uh appearance this evening as well. Thank you.

All right. So, we're moving on to our second case today and this is uh 25 ReZ8 and it's 8732 Green Level Church Roadzoning. And so, uh Micah Arnold, our senior planner, will share the staff's presentation. Following the presentation, the applicant will share their remarks. All board members will once again have an opportunity to ask questions of the staff or the applicant. Miss Arnold, you may proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. And good evening, board. Uh this is a request to reszone approximately 3.31 acres located at 8732 Green Level Church Road. The site is located east of Green Level Church Road and south of the existing

stub of Nautily Place in the Tuscana subdivision. The parks, recreation, and cultural resources master plan does not indicate any greenway corridors planned within or directly adjacent to the site. A streetside trail is proposed along Green Level Church Road and Mills Farm Road to the west. Thomas Brooks Park is located about a third of a mile northeast of the subject property. Green Level Church Road is a thoroughfare west of the site and Mills Farm Road is a proposed collector southwest of the site. Not only place the only public street directly connecting to the site is a local street. The current zoning is residential 40 or R40 and the applicant requests resoning to residential 12 conditional use or R12CU. The proposed zoning conditions include limiting the use to detach dwellings and associated accessory uses, a maximum density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre, which could allow up to six homes, a commitment to providing perimeter buffers and common open space as some may otherwise be located on lots. a minimum of 750 square feet of community gathering space, which is 150 square feet more than the LDO requirement for a development of this size. And finally, a commitment to curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of streets within the development. As shown by the blue star, the site is located within the green level special planning area, neighborhoods east of Flat Branch sub area. This special planning area supports a gradual downward transition in density moving west from NC540 towards the Chattam County line with areas east of the flat branch stream not to exceed about three dwelling units per acre. Additional policy guidance includes cluster

subdivision design and a predominant land use of detached dwellings. The proposed R12 zoning and density of 1.9 dwellings per acre is in keeping with the area's current land use pattern and generally meets the policy guidance of the special planning area. When looking at the live chapter, we note the proposal will add a maximum of six additional homes on a small site at a density comparable to adjoining developments. Regarding shape, the proposed resoning would provide detached dwellings amidst existing detached residential developments, thereby making a logical use and form transition. The applicant has committed to providing 5-ft sidewalks on both sides of any streets within the the development exceeding the current local street cross-section requirement of sidewalk on only one side supporting the move chapter policy of applying multimodal street designs. When looking at the enriched chapter, the proposal includes a commitment to ensuring all required buffers are in common open space. The LDO otherwise allows buffers for 8,000 or more square foot lots to be on individual lots. This commitment may help better ensure tree preservation over time, which can help protect existing tree canopy. The project would otherwise meet minimum LDO requirements for open space and buffer planting rates. A neighborhood meeting was held on June 4th of 2025 and 14 citizens participated. Questions and concerns were related to an adjacent resoning request, the proposed density, storm water control measures, and the extension of Nautily Place. Staff has since received one email citing concerns with the proposed density of the development and received one call with questions about the proposal. A public hearing was held in October. There was one written comment and two speakers who expressed concerns regarding compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, the adjacent

resoning, drainage in the area, and potentially prohibit prohibitive costs related to storm water ponds for a small subdivision. The lot size and suggestion that the lots be larger for better consistency with the surrounding development. general traffic concerns, including a desire for a traffic study and concerns regarding the road connection from the subdivision to the north. Council comments and questions included clarifications regarding traffic studies, including support of a signal warrant study on Green Level Church Road, clarification that there are existing neighborhoods with swelles connected to newer neighborhoods with curb and gutter, clarifying questions about the surrounding density and lot size, and observations that community gathering area and perimeter buffers and open space are positive. Following the public hearing, the applicant made no changes to the proposal. Staff notes that many of the policies of the Kerry community plan apply as detailed in your staff report. A highle summary is provided here. Staff find that the small in residential infill site is supported by the green level special planning area neighborhoods east of flat branch and some live policies. The proposed use of detached dwellings amidst existing detached dwellings makes makes a logical use and form transition supporting shape policies. The commitment to providing sidewalk on both sides of all new street construction ensures consistency with move policies. And finally, the proposal's commitment to locating all perimeter buffers and open space may help with tree canopy preservation which supports the enriched chapter. This concludes my presentation. Randy Miller, the applicant's representative, is available to provide comments and following the public hearing, I'm available to answer your questions.

Terrific. Thank you,

Mr. Miller. Thank you,

good evening, board members.

Good evening.

Which one? Maybe that one, I think. Yeah, just lift make get it high enough for you. There you go.

Good evening. My name is Randy Miller with Thompson Associates. On behalf of the owners who are also here tonight, um staff presented I think everything uh very well. Uh this is a unique piece of property in fact that it's sort of landlocked. There's only one access to it. It's through Nly Place. I know there was some concerns about um access to it, but uh there's only one access is that's the extension of Nautily Place down into the site. Uh I do know there was some talk uh that any development we'd have to provide a stub to the west to the adjacent property. Um and any development would be posed to do that. I know um homeowners were concerned about the fact that the curbon gutter will be required and sidewalks along this street extension where the existing street is just a ditch and shoulder section. I know we'll have to work out some issues on how to make that transition and uh I know some other concerns with storm water but um there is we believe there's enough area to control the storm water and part of any development plan would have to control it anyways to meet the requirements and the intent is to do so. Um other than that uh that's about it and there's any questions I'll be glad to answer.

Sure. Thank you. Okay. Um, so at this time we have an opportunity for the members of the of the board to ask questions. Once again, just please keep in mind the relevance to the Kerry community plan. Um, I guess we went down to the left previously. Sal, any questions?

Yeah. Could could I see the slide on the um, uh, PRC's slide on connectivity to

Sure.

So the blue is existing just felt that there was it looks like there's it sort of begs to have some connectivity to the south to the bottom along that that um those property lines and seeing that if nothing's going to happen in this with this site then I would expect that probably nothing will happen with the other site. anything reasoning behind, you know, no connectivity to the existing street side trail?

Well, the site does not have frontage along Green Level Church Road or Mills Farm Road. The site's only frontage is along Nautily Place, which is why they're required to provide the connection there

just through the the access streets.

Correct. Okay. I thought sometimes they put them on the borders of of um some of the um the lots and sites.

So, are you talking along

street

north of Holston Bank Way? Um I just um sort of along the um let's see along the borders where the buffers would be.

So they would be required to provide a stub to the site to the west

uh which that site has frontage along Green Level Church Road but is not part of this resoning. So if that site were to eventually develop, um this the stub that would be provided by this site would eventually connect out to Green Level Church Road and provide that connection.

Okay. Thank you.

So kind of going off what you were talking about. So is that is then we're not we're not going to be having like um culdeac situation. You will have to come through and stubbed out.

Yes. and I'll look to transportation to

talk about the details of what that stub may look like at time of development plan.

I'll try my best to answer that question because we don't we don't have any design uh drawings uh for this. So the notly place would come down south and then it would it would have to curve west. So we don't know if that curvature would work or they would have to put a a small roundabout there to provide a continuous circulation but it will not be a culdeac.

Okay, that's what I was wondering.

I mean even if it is a culdeac then there would be another T intersection that would go west. Yeah.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. There has to be still.

It would not be a dead end. So there will be some connectivity.

That's what I was wondering. So that answered my question. Thank you.

Oh, while he's still up there, can I ask one?

Yeah, sure. Before you go too far, uh, so if if it came down from the north to the south and there was a culde-sac at the bottom and there was a an angle off the T off to the left, it did they did require that they have five foot sidewalks on all streets. So if they stub, they're going to put a five foot sidewalk on both sides, even if it's just a stub, because I think they said all streets.

Yes.

All right. Okay. Just make sure of that. Okay. Thank you.

Sure. Um Chris, any questions?

Um did I hear right is the the the density it is at the same or greater than the surrounding?

Yes, it's similar to surrounding.

I thought that's the case. I just wanted to verify that's all I had.

Mike, anything.

We said 3.3 acres at a density of 1.9. It's basically a maximum of six units.

Correct.

Okay. No more questions. Thanks,

Sean. Anything?

I same thing. Good.

RI

I'm curious about why we are going from sidewalk section to existing shoulder section and I'm wondering about where the high ground is related to that.

That was a commitment of the applicant

to make that uh resoning condition for the curb and gutter. Um the existing uh conditions in Toscana along Nautil Place and the subdivision to the north was a condition um based on previous plans that the town had for a more rural uh subdivision feel that we do not use anymore.

It's I guess Stormwater is has reviewed this or will review it.

They will. Yes, Stormwater will review this at time of development plan.

I just voice a concern that there's a transition And generally ditch sections are better for storm water runoff, but I understand we're transitioning. I think it's going to be a weird transition between the two.

Yes. And we have seen other conditions around the town where um curbon gutter is connecting to existing swale and we've reviewed those.

Also think we're going to end up with sidewalks that end in a ditch.

Yes.

We're not careful.

Do they curve at these other places? How how do they handle it? If you if if it lines up with a ditch, do they curve it back out to the road so people can continue along the road rather than falling in the ditch right at a sidewalk?

I would have to get more details for you on that.

There there's got to be I mean if they know there's I'd like to hear that because that was my fault, too. It it can't line up with a ditch. It's got to turn or something to get to the road so people can keep walking.

Yeah, that's good. So, to answer the first part of the question, we do not allow shoulder and ditch sections anymore. Okay. Those are gone.

Um

I'm sorry. did not allow what

shoulder and ditch sections for for new roadways. Okay.

Um over time, you know, when when they are initially built, they have better conveyance of the water and stuff, but over time, maintenance becomes an issue. So, it's a lot easier to maintain a carbon gutter section. That is why we only have a curb gutter section for storm water conveyance. And to answer your question, um you know, what would happen to the sidewalks? We'd have to see where a logical terminus is. You know, we may have to put some object markers letting people know that doesn't sidewalk doesn't go beyond that. Uh or

would have to terminate it a little ahead of the ditch so we don't have a situation where people are running into the ditch.

So we we don't have too many situations like this. The neighborhood to the north is an older neighborhood that was built with, you know, shoulder bridge sections, no sidewalks back in the day. But multimodel um having our streets having multimodel uh accommodations has become very important for us. Um, in the future maybe the neighborhood to the north will come and say, "Hey, we want sidewalks here." We don't know that. But we want to make sure we set up the new subdivision streets in the right way where if people want to walk, they're able to walk. And again, the sidewalk doesn't go anywhere yet. But once they once the properties to the west develop, they'll have a connection to Greenville West Road. Sorry, Greenville Church Road.

I got a related.

Yeah, stay out there. Well, see, where else was I going with that? Have we ever considered stubbing out a sidewalk to the edge of the road? Because in the absence of sidewalks, um, pedestrians have a defined place on the roadway. In a lot of neighborhoods that don't want sidewalks, this guy's walking in the streets perfectly safe, right?

So, instead of having a dead end and it'd be 50 years before they ask for sidewalks on the other side, could we just transition the sidewalk to the edge of the street?

A great question. So I don't know the answer to that because when this comes in goes through the design we'll have to evaluate what the national guidance is for these kind of situations. Okay.

Um it makes sense in a neighborhood situation where you know if there's a culdeac nearby you know you do not really expect too many cars flying by. So maybe maybe that's considered safe

but along a mid street segment

I'm not sure we should be directing people to go into the street.

I agree 100%. So, so that's a decision that we have to make at

given it's a residential neighborhood already and fairly new homes. It's probably not like to be sidewalks anytime soon.

But, but we do we are looking and thinking about some kind of uh uh signage that that tells pedestrians that you know this is dead end and you know try not to go you know ahead of that.

So,

yeah,

it's kind of like can like for bicycles it's a neighborhood greenway on the streets perfectly fine and safe. Same thing for pedestrians. I just hate to see that concrete wasted where, you know, that last little leg nobody's ever going to use.

Okay. Thank you.

Anything else, Diane? Okay. Um, well, yeah, I would say too that a lot of those last things that we've discussed are a little bit beyond maybe the scope of, you know, whether or not this zoning is consistent with the plan, but all very good feedback for consideration in the future. Well, I I was I was thinking that that we're trying to make it fit to the neighborhood. That was that was how I was thinking about it because part of the care community plan it's got to fit in the fit. So that I was trying Ruben was talking I was trying to say how is this going to fit? Yep.

Because that's part of the care community plan. It's a technical part

but there's got to be something and to me dead end signs on the street. It's like separates these two neighborhoods. I'm sorry. You can't go any further. You know, you you hit the end of the road. Yeah.

You can't go in the next neighborhood. It seems like we got to make it fit if we're going to follow the care community.

No, no, I agree 100%. I just think that that's the next phase of the equation and and it's good feedback for people to consider as this thing moves forward. Uh I think it's very very valid and I'm glad you guys were

willing to detail the details, but since it's in the planning document, I feel like it needs

absolutely good good comments. And and I would say this this goes back to what um beat it beat the drum again is that when you when you have a handful of checks on a on your on your list of where it fits care community plan. I really really would like to see an NA for the ones that just don't apply to this thing so that as the public looks at these things they don't have to digest everything. And then if it fails in one thing, I'd like to see an X because then I think we would we would get a better overview and the public would get a better overview of of how it lines up because it said something about, you know, commerce. Well, that's NA. You know, we're not doing commerce. That's they're selling, you know, lemonade on the street. But I

think it's important. It would be better, I think, for, you know, to show that because then if if there is an X because sometimes the staff says it doesn't fit something. But it's not it'd be nice to know that. And this is one thing where I think that the fitting in the neighborhood's kind of a it's gonna be difficult with the the neighbors have a right to be a little concerned. It goes from one a ditch to a sidewalk. It has a different feel and that's what I'm concerned about. Yeah.

Understood.

So, well, at this point, absent any additional questions or comments, we're willing to accept a motion which is in your package. If someone's willing to provide a motion on 25 Z08, uh, I would appreciate that. I move that the board find 25 re08 is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all other applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report presentation and discussion by planning.

Second.

Any additional questions or comments? Mike, do you want to make any additional comments?

No, I think there's only so much you can do here. I think uh um even you know in the context of some of the great comments on sidewalks things like that the applicant is going to have to conform to town's current standards um and that's going to get figured out. So that's what I got.

Ken, anything?

Current current standards. We got to do it that way.

All right. So, uh it sounds like we're in a good spot. We can willing to entertain the motion that's been before us. So, all those in favor, please state I. I.

Any opposed? All right, motion carries. And just as a uh a comment, uh both of these cases came and I think they both demonstrated a really good collaboration between the town and the applicant. Both considered feedback, made changes to their plan. The end of the day, you know, maybe not everybody's satisfied, but I really feel like both of these sort of garner uh what what what this whole process is about. I appreciate both the applicants and the staff for uh for working together to bring these to us. Um so as

we move forward, let's see, get me find my spot here. We have finished that. So we're heading on into new business. And so for the 2026 meeting schedule, it's been presented to all of us. Uh does anyone recognize anything from that schedule that uh there's a conflict or any over the holiday uh issue that we should be aware of otherwise? um you know we we'll move forward and we would be prepared to adjourn. Any additional comments other than let's go home. All right. I deem this meeting adjourned. Thank you very much. Have a good evening.

Thank you.