Cary Planning & Zoning Board - April 28, 2025

Summary

Highlights

• The board approved the Piney Plains Multifamily rezoning project, emphasizing transitions between different housing types. 🏙️
• There was a strong focus on providing affordable housing and integrating Habitat for Humanity into new developments. 🤝
• Zoning amendments now allow for the inclusion of swimming pools in the Town Center Cottage Business and Residential District. 🏊‍♀️
• Environmental and traffic impact considerations were discussed, highlighting the intricacies of urban planning. 🚦
• Community feedback played a vital role in shaping the discussions and outcomes of the meeting. 📣

Key Takeaways

• Cary is actively managing community growth through detailed planning and zoning discussions. 🌆
• Affordable housing remains a top priority, with innovative solutions like collaborating with Habitat for Humanity. 🏡
• Adjustments to zoning laws, such as allowing pools in more districts, reflect changing community needs. 🏊‍♂️
• Public engagement is crucial, with the board inviting community feedback to guide decisions. 🗣️
• The meeting highlighted the importance of balance between development and preserving community character. ⚖️

Overview

Chapters

• 00:00 - 04:00: Opening Music and Introduction The chapter features the opening music and serves as an introduction, setting the tone and atmosphere for the content that follows in the subsequent chapters.
• 04:00 - 07:00: Roll Call and Meeting Purpose The chapter titled 'Roll Call and Meeting Purpose' features background music and references to heat, suggesting a thematic focus on warmth or intensity. No concrete details about the meeting's roll call or specific purpose are provided in the transcript, indicating that additional context or content might be necessary to fully understand this chapter's intent.
• 07:00 - 11:00: Kerry Community Plan and Agenda Adoption Chapter discusses the Kerry Community Plan and the process of adopting the agenda for community development.
• 11:00 - 24:00: Piney Plains Multifamily Rezoning Presentation This chapter covers the presentation and discussion regarding the rezoning proposal for a multifamily development in Piney Plains.
• 24:00 - 38:00: Applicant Remarks on Piney Plains Rezoning The chapter titled "Applicant Remarks on Piney Plains Rezoning" seems to begin with casual greetings, as indicated by the phrase "Hey, Taptain." There is also a mention of music, possibly signaling interruptions or moments of pause, but without further content, no substantial summary of topics or discussions related to 'Piney Plains Rezoning' can be provided from the given text. Further transcript details are needed to provide a comprehensive summary of the chapter's content.
• 38:00 - 58:00: Board Questions and Discussion on Piney Plains The chapter titled 'Board Questions and Discussion on Piney Plains' is accompanied by musical interludes. There is no detailed text provided in the transcript, indicating that it possibly focuses on visual or auditory content rather than dialogue or narrative.
• 58:00 - 59:00: Approval of Piney Plains Rezoning The chapter is titled 'Approval of Piney Plains Rezoning'. The transcript for this chapter appears to be missing and only includes music notation '[Music]'. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a summary based on the given content. For an accurate summary, additional transcript details would be needed.
• 59:00 - 69:00: LDO Amendments Presentation The chapter titled 'LDO Amendments Presentation' begins with the chairperson calling the planning and zoning board meeting to order. The meeting is set in the evening, and Julie Mitchell, the board clerk, is introduced and tasked with taking the roll call of attendees. The ambiance of the meeting is marked by applause and music, creating a welcoming atmosphere for the participants.
• 69:00 - 87:00: Board Questions and Discussion on LDO Amendments The chapter titled 'Board Questions and Discussion on LDO Amendments' involves a meeting where certain board members, Andy Co, Ruben Moore, Jeff Monreef, and Chris Johnson are noted as absent. Julie confirms the presence of other members including Sale Camarada, Bosshanna Etton, Mike Rosselli, Shawn McAndrew, Diane Mayo, and Ken George. The meeting reinforces the Cary Community Plan as the guiding document for the board's operations.
• 87:00 - 90:00: Approval of LDO Amendments and Meeting Adjournment The chapter titled 'Approval of LDO Amendments and Meeting Adjournment' discusses the role of citizen advisers who assist the council in making final decisions on rezoning activities. It is acknowledged that not all rezoning requests receive unanimous support from community members. However, the aim is to balance the necessity of increased building density to support growth while preserving the historic charm and character of the town. The Kerry community plan, a product of collaboration between Kerry's citizens and the town government, was initially adopted in 2017.

Cary Planning & Zoning Board - April 28, 2025 Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 [Music] [Music] [Music]
• 00:30 - 01:00 [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music]
• 01:00 - 01:30 [Music]
• 01:30 - 02:00 [Music] [Music]
• 02:00 - 02:30 Hey, Taptain. [Music] [Music]
• 02:30 - 03:00 [Music] [Music]
• 03:00 - 03:30 [Music] [Music]
• 03:30 - 04:00 [Applause] [Music] Good evening and welcome. Welcome to the planning and zoning board meeting. Thank you for joining us tonight. I will call this meeting to order. Our board clerk, Julie Mitchell, will take roll call this
• 04:00 - 04:30 evening. Thank you, chair. Um for the record, Andy Co, Ruben Moore, Jeff Monreef, and Chris Johnson are absent this evening and I will verbally confirm the pre presence of the other members. Sale Camarada, Bosshanna Etton, Mike Rosselli, Shawn McAndrew, Diane Mayo, and Ken George. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. The Kerry Community Plan will continue to be the guiding document for this board. Our role is to function as
• 04:30 - 05:00 citizen adviserss to the council who will ultimately make final decisions on all resoning activity. We recognize that not all resoning requests are supported unanimously by members of our community, but we strive to balance the impact of increased building density required to support K's growth while maintaining the historic charm and character of Kerry. The Kerry community plan was initially adopted in 2017 following a collaborative effort between Kerry's citizens and our town government. That
• 05:00 - 05:30 collaboration has continued and resulted in a recently updated version of the plan adopted by council in January of this year. The chapters of the plan include live, work, shop, engage, shape, move, enrich, serve, and act. The community plan can be found on K's website. Your citizen opinions based on the Kerry community plan document play a very important role in advising
• 05:30 - 06:00 our leaders. We encourage our citizens to refer to the plan and provide feedback that is based on the guiding principles of the plan as it relates to the zoning request. While this is a public meeting, it is not a public hearing. There is no opportunity for the public to speak during this meeting. If you have comments about any of these items, we encourage you to reach out to staff by email or phone. You may reach out to our board members through email. You may also contact council directly through email or during
• 06:00 - 06:30 the public speaks out portion of any regularly scheduled council meeting. These meetings may be streamed live on car's website and will be posted to YouTube. All past planning and zoning board meetings are available to view on YouTube as well. At this time, we will adopt the agenda. Will someone please make a motion to adopt the agenda? Motion to adopt. Second. All those in favor state I. I.
• 06:30 - 07:00 Any opposed? State nay. Passes [Music] unanimously. First item on the agenda is the approval of the regular meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve the March 24th meeting minutes? So moved. Second. All those in favor state I. I. I. Any opposed? state nay approved unanimously. Our first case on the agenda is
• 07:00 - 07:30 19Z25 Piney Plains Multif Family Reszoning. Aaron Pucket, principal planner, will share the staff's presentation. Following the presentation, the applicant will share their remarks. All board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and the applicant. Miss Bucket, you may proceed. Thank you and good evening board. This is a request to reszone approximately 31 acres located at on Piney Plains Road at Stevens Road. The site is located south of US1
• 07:30 - 08:00 and west of Walnut Street and the Crossroads area. There are existing residential subdivisions to the west, including portions of Wellington Park, as well as the Winwood South neighborhood. The recently approved Lavano multif family development is located across Piney Plains to the east. There is also a large regional power line that bisects the site. This area is within an easement and therefore no structures or trees would be permitted in this central portion of the
• 08:00 - 08:30 site. I also want to note that a forthcoming NC DOT interchange project is likely to impact the site in the future. That project will redesign the crossroads junction interchange to increase safety and to relieve congestion. The Walnut Street eastbound on and off ramps will be closed and relocated to Piney Plains Road. Based on the most current information available from NC DOT, the project area, which is shown in purple, will likely impact the northernmost portion of the site. Car's GIS indicates stream buffers
• 08:30 - 09:00 along portions of the northern and western property lines. Field determination of such features is required at time of development plan review. Piney Plains Road is a five-lane thoroughfare with existing sidewalk on both sides. Stevens Road is a two-lane collector that is presently lacking sidewalks and bike lanes which would be required by the future crosssection. The site is currently served by Go Triangle Route 305. Kerry transit staff will work with the
• 09:00 - 09:30 applicant to evaluate the location for a potential transit stop during development plan review. The parks, recreation, and cultural resources master plan proposes an extension of the Piney Plains Greenway through the northern portion of the site that's shown here in the green dashed line. That greenway corridor will ultimately connect the existing greenway segment to the west with the proposed Piney Plains Road Streetside Trail on the east. The site is currently splitz zoned. It
• 09:30 - 10:00 is zoned office and institutional on the northeastern half of the site and office and institutional conditional use on the southwestern half as well as transitional residential conditional use for a small portion of the site adjacent to the existing residential neighborhood. The OICU portion of the site was reszoned in 2008 and allowed a variety of office and institutional uses with larger buffers and setbacks provided from the adjoining neighborhoods on Stevens Road. The applicant proposes to reszone
• 10:00 - 10:30 the site to mixeduse district with a preliminary development plan or PDP and to expand the mixeduse overlay district across the entirety of the site. The PDP proposes up to 370 multif family units in the southern half of the site within 10 buildings. Buildings 1 through 4 in the southern and eastern eastern areas of the site which are shown in the darker orange color will be larger multif family buildings which may be as tall as 65 ft or roughly five stories.
• 10:30 - 11:00 The six buildings closest to the adjoining residential neighborhoods and closer to the center of the site are limited to 30 feet in height and a maximum of seven units per building with units side by side. So, a more townhouse style design. 5% of the multif family units are proposed to be affordable to renters making 80% of area median income or AMI for a period of 30 years. The proposal also includes up to 16 workforce townhouse units in the rear of
• 11:00 - 11:30 the site. All of which would be affordable to those at or below 80% AMI for 30 years. No conceptual layout, minimum number of units or phasing of this portion of the development has been committed to at this time. A minimum of 31,000 square feet of community gathering space is proposed to be dispersed throughout the site. At least 5,000 square feet would be provided in the townhouse pod. The applicant also requests a modification to allow decorative
• 11:30 - 12:00 retaining walls around storm water control measures to be up to 10 ft in height, which exceeds the LDO requirement of 6 feet, but only when they're not visible from a public street. The applicant proposes the removal of 10 champion trees. Staff notes that most of these are in central locations that could make their preservation difficult. 12 Champion trees are proposed to be preserved. Most of these are within the stream buffer areas. Some of these trees, particularly
• 12:00 - 12:30 the two northernmost ones shown on this map, could be impacted by the forthcoming interchange project. The PDP would meet the LDO requirements for the 100 foot highway corridor buffer along the northeastern boundary of the site. And it proposes a 30-foot type A buffer along most of the eastern property line as well as a 30-foot type A streetscape on Stevens Road and a 50ft type A streetscape on Piny Plains Road except at a pinch point that's created
• 12:30 - 13:00 with the dedication of rightofway associated with the Labano project to the south. The applicant proposes to reduce the streetscape to a 10-ft type C as needed at that location. Also, as noted previously, a large overhead power line easement bisects the site, and the applicant proposes to use this space for surface parking, thereby requiring a modification to carry parking lot tree requirement. As an alternative, the PDP proposes to provide shrubs within the parking area and displace trees along
• 13:00 - 13:30 the perimeter of the easement as space allows, otherwise elsewhere on site. The site also proposes modifications to carry required greenway connections. As shown on this slide, a greenway segment is shown through the site in the green dash line, ultimately connecting to Piney Plains Road and future connections on the southeastern corner of the site. The applicant does propose to construct the northern portion of this greenway, routing it closer to the center of the site, which may help avoid conflicts
• 13:30 - 14:00 with the future interchange project. And again, that's anticipated to be in the purple area shown on this map. The applicant then proposes connecting the off- streetet greenway to an internal streetside trail which extends east along Piney Plains Road. Staff's notes, the inclusion of a streetside trail for a portion of the development is a beneficial enhancement to the 5-ft sidewalk that is otherwise required. However, the applicant also proposes a modification in order to not dedicate the LDO required greenway easement along the western property line
• 14:00 - 14:30 I showed in my previous slide and instead proposes an easement stubbing to the future interchange which will create a permanent gap in the planned greenway network in the area. There was a traffic study completed for this resoning. The applicant committed to improvements at site access points on Piney Plains Road and Stevens Road. And the applicant will also extend Putney Drive into the site as required by Car's LDO. The applicant has also committed to a signal warrant and installation of the signal if approved by Kerry and NC DOT
• 14:30 - 15:00 at the intersection of Stevens Road and Piney Plains Road. An analysis against the imaginary community plan found that policies in multiple chapters apply. I first want to note the site's unique location on the border of a destination center and traditional neighborhood. The shape chapter of the imaginary community plan notes that future growth framework categories are not intended to provide precise parcel level guidance and for sites located on the boundaries between these categories. the edges of a
• 15:00 - 15:30 particular development category are not rigid lines but may be interpreted in light of other relevant policies or site circumstances. In this case, staff interpreted this imprecise line could be used to allow the applicant to request to extend the mixeduse overlay district and utilize the tool of MXD zoning. Staff used the destination center guidance to evaluate this resoning while still giving cons traditional neighborhood excuse me. Guidance for destination centers include emphasis on
• 15:30 - 16:00 mixing of uses which can occur on individual sites or within the larger center, an active pedestrian realm with buildings fronting streets, a large share of structured parking, buildings of three to seven stories, a well- definfined and interconnected street and pedestrian network and multiple gathering spaces. The PDP proposes buildings up to 65 ft in height, including some buildings in the western portion of the site where smaller buildings are better supported, although this was reduced from 75 ft at the time of public hearing. Buildings have been
• 16:00 - 16:30 oriented to Front Piney Plains Road as encouraged in these areas and significant gathering space is proposed. However, no structured parking is provided and removal of the greenway connection is also in contrast to the destination center focus on pedestrian connectivity. Although some streetside trail connections are proposed. Therefore, it appears the destination center guidance is only partially met. Transitions to the traditional neighborhood may also only be partially met. While the well-buffered town houses in the rear of the site may transition
• 16:30 - 17:00 well to nearby detached residential, it is less clear that the multif family development fully considers transitions to these areas. Regarding the live chapter, the resoning does provide smaller housing types that could support housing choice. While with the majority of existing housing in the immediate vicinity being multif family, staff notes that a greater commitment to town houses could help with this policy along with the transitions policy discussed later. A variety of housing types, particularly those other than detached dwellings, are
• 17:00 - 17:30 supported in destination centers, and a more modest variety is encouraged in traditional neighborhoods. Residential infill can be supported as long as contextsensitive transitions are considered which can include density, form, height, buffers or other strategies. And in terms of the affordable housing policy, the site could include up to 16 affordable town houses along with at least 5% of the multif family units, which could be 19 units if the maximum yield is achieved, rented to those making 80% or less of
• 17:30 - 18:00 AMI for a period of 30 years. Greater assurance as to the phasing of the workforce townhouse pod could even better support this policy. The related work chapter policy referencing the importance of diverse housing options also applies. And regarding the engaged chapter, as I mentioned, while the PDP proposes to construct a portion of the greenway through the site, the missing greenway easement removes a planned off- streetet greenway connection in this area, although a streetside trail link was added since the public hearing.
• 18:00 - 18:30 Commitment to dedication of an easement as shown on car's plan would more fully meet this policy. The shape chapter encourages the most intense development in destination centers. At the same time, that intensity should transition down across the site in recognition of the location on the edge of a traditional neighborhood. Commitments to excess gathering space and LDO required buffers along with some champion tree preservation may help speak to the aesthetics of the site. However, the surface parking area underneath an
• 18:30 - 19:00 easement negates the LDO required shade trees. Shape policy 6 outlines a number of methods for providing transitions to adjacent development. Form transitions can include stepping down in terms of building massing or height. In this case, the PDP does propose primarily smaller townhouse style multif family buildings closest to the existing residential development to the southwest. These smaller buildings may help facilitate a form transition where the use transition is less clear. The
• 19:00 - 19:30 exception is a larger multif family building that fronts Stevens Road in close proximity to the Windwood South neighborhood which makes a comprehensive form transition somewhat challenging. Buffer transitions focus on separating development with existing or planted vegetation. The PDP proposes a 30- foot wide type A buffer where directly adjacent to residential development, which is the minimum LDO requirement. A neighborhood meeting was held in January of 2020. A number of questions and concerns were raised, including
• 19:30 - 20:00 concerns about the height, density, and use of the site, the site's connection to Putney Drive, concerns around drainage and tree removal, and questions about the greenway. Given the length of time since the initial neighborhood meeting, the applicant held a second neighborhood meeting in February of 2024. Concerns voiced were similar to those shared at the initial meeting. staff received continuous feedback from citizens between the time of the neighborhood meeting last year and the public hearing along with some communication since that hearing. We
• 20:00 - 20:30 largely heard similar concerns about the transitions from existing neighborhoods and we also received some comments in support of the development due to the affordable housing conditions. A public hearing was held in August of last year. There were 22 written comments, one call-in speaker, and 16 in-person speakers. Concerns included those regarding increased traffic, environmental and drainage concerns, the potential for increased crime, and objection to the density and height of the development, with some
• 20:30 - 21:00 noting a preference for a smaller housing type. Several written and in-person speakers noted support for the project, specifically for the affordable townhouse component, with some noting they wish to see a minimum number or phasing to ensure those units. Council members had a number of comments as well and all questions and comments are summarized in your staff report. Some members expressed a concern with the use and height transition and suggested town houses as a potential transition use. Council supported the affordability aspect. Some suggested a
• 21:00 - 21:30 greater commitment to the number of units or reduced income level could be beneficial as well as a minimum number of affordable town houses and also noted the importance of providing good buffers and amenities for affordable housing projects. The applicant made a number of changes since the public hearing. They decreased the building height for buildings 1 through 4, those are the larger multif family buildings from 75 to 65 ft. and for buildings 5 through 10 which are the smaller bu multif family
• 21:30 - 22:00 buildings from 35 ft to 30 feet. They also clarified a 35 foot height limit for the townhouse pod which is comparable to the typical townhouse height limit in the LDO. They clarified that the smaller multif family building units must be side by side and not stacked for more assurance of a townhouse style form. They added streetside trail along the northeastern half of the site's Piney Plains Road frontage and clarified the location of sidewalk along the site's
• 22:00 - 22:30 frontage. Staff notes that many policies of the imaginary community plan apply as detailed in your staff report. I'll provide a highle summary here. The proposal can support a number of live policies through the provision of a mix of housing types including affordable units. Phasing of the affordable townhouse pod could even better ensure this. Smaller housing types and affordable units can also support car's workforce. Regarding engage, provision of some streetside trail links helps to bolster greenway policies, while the removal of
• 22:30 - 23:00 a required off- streetet greenway link is not supported by engage policies. The proposed use and intensity of the development can be appropriate in a destination center, but should transition clearly to the adjacent traditional neighborhood. This is partially addressed by the town houses and smaller format multif family, but the larger building along Stevens Road adjacent to the residential neighborhood does not clearly retain this transition. The proposal includes elements that appear to meet the future
• 23:00 - 23:30 growth framework designation, such as substantive gathering space and density cited in a destination center with smaller buildings transitioning to the traditional neighborhood in some locations. The lack of structured parking, which also necessitates large surface parking areas under power lines, is not entirely consistent with destination center guidance, nor is the removal of a greenway easement in an area where pedestrian connections are of increased importance. Transition policies may not be fully addressed for the reasons mentioned
• 23:30 - 24:00 previously. This concludes my presentation. Excuse me. Jason Baron, the applicant's representative, is here and then I'm available to answer your questions. Thank you, Aaron. Hi, good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Jason Baron with Morning Star Law Group here on behalf of the applicant. Uh, joining me tonight are
• 24:00 - 24:30 representatives of the developer, but also the seller is here as well. Um, and I mentioned that the seller is here because they're very interested in the outcome of tonight's hearing. uh most sellers are, but it's specifically unique in this particular case. You may notice from the case caption that this is 19 rez 25. And to avoid any confusion about which one of those represents the year this case was filed, it's not the 25. Um it was filed in 2019. We had our first pre-application meeting on this case back in 2018. There were a number
• 24:30 - 25:00 of things that happened during that time that resulted in delays associated with the case through uh through nobody's fault. Although DOT did play a hand in that. We spent their better part of a year and a half to two years trying to understand where that future interchange was going to be. Uh they had they hadn't even started the public portion of the process when we filed our zoning case. So, um, out of the gate, we were kind of hijacked a little bit on where was that going to go, how it, how was it going to impact the site, what was going to
• 25:00 - 25:30 change about the site. And one of the things that we learned during that during that process, and you saw the slide showing where the future um interchange is now going to be, and that's the that's Walnut Street. So, Walnut Street is going away, as you may be familiar, kind of the the US one and Walnut Street exit is being removed in its entirety by DOT as part of this plan. and it's shifting south. And so instead of the Walnut Street exit being the exit you take when you get off US1 to get into Crossroads, it's now Piney
• 25:30 - 26:00 Plane/Diller Drive. I don't know exactly what they're going to call it, but that interchange that you saw, that off-ramp that you saw uh will be an off-ramp and an on-ramp. And so just just so you understand in orders of magnitude kind of what change we're talking about the impact of that slide. The impact of that slide not only represents a physical impact to our site and we've designed our improvements around that impact but it also represents a significant change with respect to the character of this
• 26:00 - 26:30 particular property. Instead of it being a property that was kind of just isolated on Piney Plains and Dillard Drive, you know, within walking distance of Sententrum, within walking distance, certainly bike distance of Crossroads, suddenly it is now at the corner of an interchange of US1 and and and you know, a major thorough affair. And so I just mentioned that because what we learned during the process wasn't just where the physical improvements were were going to be, but it helped informed my client about the type of development that would
• 26:30 - 27:00 be suitable for this site just given the fact that instead of it being again along Piny Plains, the neighbor to buildings one and two that you see on your screen is going to be an interchange. I mean it, you know, there, you know, and they've put parking between the two to try to buffer the possibility that the that the site could still be impacted by what DOT is planning over there. They don't know exactly where it's going to go, but they've got a pretty good idea and that was reflected in that slide. So, I just wanted to kind of give you a little bit
• 27:00 - 27:30 of history associated with kind of how we got to where we are on that front, but also as it relates to again where is this site located because where it's ultimately going to be located is going to feel a lot different as a result of this interchange than it does today. Uh the second thing I want to talk about a little bit is the history associated with this case and how the building heights have come into existence based upon in part the DOT uh recommendations but certainly based upon the fact that we have single family detached neighbors
• 27:30 - 28:00 to our south. Now they are smaller lot single family detached u but they are single family detached nonetheless and we've been cognizant of that all along. When this case started, this portion of the site that is now designated for affordable town homes originally was planned for apartments. This entire site was planned for kind of four-story apartments scattered throughout the development. Um maybe smaller buildings, certainly smaller than buildings 1, 2, 3, and four. Um, but the idea was much more of
• 28:00 - 28:30 a traditional kind of just put multif family where it can fit, build multif family in addition to the DOT factor changing and impacting how the site sits, which encouraged my client to consider doing larger buildings, taller buildings in buildings one and two. Um, just because taller buildings make better neighbors for interchanges interchanges than do smaller buildings. Uh in addition to that, as you all are aware, there has
• 28:30 - 29:00 there there has started to be and there is now a fervor pitch discussion associated with housing affordability in the town and in the market in general. Back in 2018 when we started this process, the discussion associated with housing affordability was kind of lingering out there, but there certainly wasn't a zoning condition that had ever been adopted by the town. That was first adopted uh in 2021. I worked on that case. It was Highway 55 and Carpenter Fire Station Road. That was the first case that incorporated a zoning condition for housing affordability. Uh
• 29:00 - 29:30 and so when we started this case, the affordability discussion certainly wasn't where it is today and it was just kind of operating on the periphery of what are folks concerns. Well, obviously over the course of time, housing affordability has become kind of the number one issue in the eyes of voters. Uh the town conducted a survey, I think it was back three years ago, where the voters resoundingly said housing affordability is the number one issue for the town um in in in their opinion, at least the voters who participated in that survey. And I mention that because as the as the process has moved its way
• 29:30 - 30:00 through and going through the pandemic and going through DOT, I encourage my client to think about housing affordability, not only with respect to the 5% of the units at 80% AMI, which we're seeing on a lot of cases, but to try to figure out a way that they could be creative around how to address housing affordability and that resulted in bringing Habitat for Humanity to the table. Habitat has a signed LOI or memorandum of understanding rather anou uh to receive a a a deed of this
• 30:00 - 30:30 property, it's going to be gifted to them at no cost and they're going to build town homes on the back portion of the site. The result of that is instead of planning for an apartment community back there and four-story buildings or potentially threetory buildings back there, those town, you know, those buildings needed to shift or the density associated with that needed to be to be changed. And so that resulted in a much more primary emphasis on buildings 1 through 4 of being the taller buildings buil being the buildings where the vast majority of the density needed to be
• 30:30 - 31:00 located. Additionally, with respect to the transitions component of this and I know that transitions with, you know, as as Aaron noted in her presentation, transitions happen in a number of ways. Form, height, oftentimes use. We believe we are doing that. Now, buildings 5 through 10, but I'm going to focus on specifically 5 through 8, those are multif family buildings, but as noted in your staff report, they are two-story maximum height. They are 30 feet in height maximum. And I would note that
• 31:00 - 31:30 the adjacent zoning classification in the existing single family neighborhood. The maximum building height is 35 ft in that neighborhood. So technically speaking, those two-story units that we're planning that my client is planning along that boundary are in fact shorter than the zoning classification for the adjacent residential. Additionally, they are sidebyside units that are being designed to look, feel, and operate as if they were town homes. And so while they're considered multif family because they are single plat while they are considered multif family
• 31:30 - 32:00 because one user is going to be owning the the building as opposed to multiple units users owning the owning the building. At the end of the day from a form standpoint they create a form transition which we believe is very appropriate in this instance. And ultimately what we're trying to achieve with that is to create you know kind of a a town home zone. Again, they're multif family, but they're going to look, feel, and act like town homes between the multif family units that are proposed in buildings one through four
• 32:00 - 32:30 and the existing single family detached. Um, and so, uh, I just wanted to mention to you kind of the role of transitions and the effort my client has put in to focusing on that boundary, recognizing that those people are going to be most impacted by this development. Hands down, without a doubt. And I believe my client has done a good job, a very an admirable job, an exemplary job in adjusting its form, adjusting its expectations, pushing density as far away from the existing single family homes as they possibly can in an effort
• 32:30 - 33:00 to provide for those transitions and to minimize impact to the adjacent neighborhood. The second thing I want to talk about is the greenway location. the greenway location as as was noted uh in Miss Pucket's presentation, we are winding the greenway generally kind of where it's currently shown and as noted, we are stubbing it out from a we're not building this. We're dedicating the right of way for it, but we are pulling the greenway trail into this street side trail. And I do want to note for you because it may not have been clear from the staff report or the presentation,
• 33:00 - 33:30 this trail that we're showing through our neighborhood is 10 ft wide. So, it is effectively a streetside trail through the neighborhood. So, the greenway width, which is 10 feet wide, it's it's going to be 10 feet wide as you make your way around the town homes. It will be a continuous 10 ft adjacent to that street out to Piney Plains and then north to Piney Plains. And there's a couple of reasons that we believe this is actually a better outcome for the town. Um, and it's certainly a better outcome for my client just given the
• 33:30 - 34:00 challenges we have with being able to park these taller buildings from a density standpoint that we've located it. The biggest reason why we believe this is preferable is because we, like I said, we still don't know where DOT is going to put that greenway. We actually think even if we were to put it in and DOT were to locate the the interchange immediately north of this site, the the greenway would be next to an interchange. We believe a a a treelined street, a 10-ft wide
• 34:00 - 34:30 streetside trail through our neighborhood with street trees consistent with the ordinance requirements for the same. We think that's a better experience for people who are going to be using that greenway to get out to Piny Plains to get up to the connection. And so I just want to let you know, you know, as as is the case with every recommendation from the staff. We weren't callous in not honoring the staff's recommendation. We couldn't squeeze it into where they were asking for it to go. We couldn't squeeze
• 34:30 - 35:00 it in where the map shows that it is located. And we believe for the benefit of our residents, for the benefit of people that are going to be using that greenway, that where we are showing it provides greater predictability on on where it could be located and where it should be located with the DOT changes that are coming. Uh the last thing I want to talk about, and I'm going to circle back to the affordable uh side of the equation because it's not just you bring in habitat and density moves. What is unique about this case is it is the single most creative affordable housing
• 35:00 - 35:30 development from a private sector standpoint that I've ever worked on. And I give kudos to my client for their flexibility to pull Habitat in to be willing to gift the property to Habitat rather than have to sell it to them. And so in addition to that, they still made the commitment for buildings 1 through 4 that 5% of the units in those buildings are going to be at 80% AMI. So you think about what housing affordability is designed to achieve, right? It's not just to provide a place for somebody to live today. The idea is you provide
• 35:30 - 36:00 affordable housing and it allows people to build equity, to build wealth so that they can move from the smaller units and potentially into a single family detached home. What we love, what I love as somebody who's a huge fan of affordable housing, what I love about this plan and what I believe makes it the most unique and the most creative a way to approach housing affordability the town has ever seen in the private sector is that somebody could get one of those 5% at 80% AMI units in one of the
• 36:00 - 36:30 multif family buildings. They could then generate enough equity to move out of one of those 80% units and into a 100% unit, a market rate unit. they could then move into a Habitat town home be, you know, gen generate enough equity to qualify for an Habitat town home and then build enough equity to be able to buy in the adjacent neighborhood. And I mention it because the adjacent neighborhood, it's a very nice neighborhood built within the last 10 years. Very nice homes, but they al they
• 36:30 - 37:00 are smaller lot. They are smaller building products and smaller stock, single family, detached. So it really represents an opportunity to capture a tremendous section of the market and watch people be able to work their way through very various socioeconomic statuses and do so in one place without having to have their children change schools, find another community. I do believe, like I said, it's thoughtful, it's creative, it's aggressive, and it's
• 37:00 - 37:30 kind of what you're looking for in in in in providing and creating communities that are going to be mixed income. Otherwise, I believe the staff report uh does an excellent job of kind of covering the degree to which the Kerry community plan addresses or or deals with this property. I would note with respect to the traditional neighborhood that's shown on the map, even though it wasn't interpreted that way, we believe what we are doing with the the twostory multif family units along this property
• 37:30 - 38:00 line, the reduced building height here, having town homes that the vast majority of the property that was already being planned for traditional neighborhood is are those are our transition areas. We are using that property generally speaking and it's you know that you know that line would kind of run through here. So we're picking up some of building three as well but generally speaking we believe that the my client and I believe my client has done a good job of using those areas to provide the types of transitions to ensure that this
• 38:00 - 38:30 development won't have a negative impact on folks way of life. And so with that we're here to answer any questions that you all may have. We appreciate the time and we would respectfully request you all's finding that this is consistent with the Kerry community plan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Baron. The Kerry community plan is in place to guide development in Kerry. As you think about questions, keep in mind how this proposed case fits or does not fit the community plan. When making a motion, it would be helpful to describe
• 38:30 - 39:00 how you see your motion impacting the Kerry community plan. For example, with work shape or live chapters. While this is not a requirement, it would help the town council understand how you think this case applies to the plan. Do any board members have any questions for Miss Pucket or Mr. Baron? And uh let's let's start with Mr. George. Yes. Um that was great great u presentation from both of you. Um, I certainly understand this trouble
• 39:00 - 39:30 with with the building a stub that goes nowhere uh because of DOT. I I know I I think DOT even lost in the US the North Carolina Supreme Court by holding people hostage by saying you can't sell your land because we might put a road there one day and they wound up losing to and DOT wind up having to pay people millions of dollars. I don't think a developer should have to build something here. I think in the engage would would speak the engage part of the care
• 39:30 - 40:00 community speaks to that because we don't it it serves no purpose to put a a road to nowhere. Um that's not going to and I don't think it's a good good use of it. I love the the the movement through the middle. So I think that that fully in my mind that certainly works with the engaged engaged part and I appreciate you sharing that. Um, I have a runoff question and maybe it's for for you, uh, Jason or one of your representatives. Um, I know you can't
• 40:00 - 40:30 exceed the existing runoff, but I if if memory served me correctly, there's a runoff problem caused by the parking lots up the hill from this property, from all the the old crossroads Ford, the car dealerships, all the, you know, when they used to come and yell at us that they had acres and acres of Fords that they couldn't sell, come out and get a deal. those acres and acres of fords were parked here on asphalt and that water runs downhill. What are you guys going to do
• 40:30 - 41:00 about it as that comes through? That's going to be your problem because right now it's just running through and running to the neighborhood downhill. So your runoff if you only have to protect from what's no more runoff than what you've got. How are you going to handle that massive amount of runoff from the from the car dealer or the former car dealer and how that works? Yeah. And you could see the way that this slide shows you where those low-lying areas are and where that drainage feature runs. And as you know, Mr. George, you know, the town within the last several years um adopted
• 41:00 - 41:30 the most aggressive storm water standards in the market requiring modeling for the 100red-year storm. Um which will which is what we are subject to and we're required to comply with. the existing drainage challenges, the existing drainage patterns really kind of operate away from the improvements that are planned for our site. Uh so they don't really necessarily impact us directly just because they are technically on our site, but they are running through our site at, you know, to essentially Wellington. Yeah. be and
• 41:30 - 42:00 because you're not going to build there, you're not going to be changing the amount of runoff that you produce or or you destroy because it's going to be a in that area where the runoff is happening, you're not even planning to build in that area. That's correct. Okay. Y All right. Yeah, that that that answers that question. Um and then under the power lines, I just another question. So under the power lines, um obviously it seems like um standard parking is the best thing. It's the best use of that land. Does that mean that
• 42:00 - 42:30 under under power lines you can't you can't fit like tabletop parking or is or is any kind of elevated anything under power lines? Structures would typically not be permitted in that overhead. So this is the best use and so I have no problem with no lack of structured parking because it's the best use of whatever's underneath that. Uh I think that's good. Um um are buildings five through eight that you mentioned, Mr. Baron, are those um they're to look like
• 42:30 - 43:00 town homes, but they're they're they're going to be single story. They're going to be twotory units side by side. So, but you will go you will have steps to go up and down. Yes. Okay. So, I I But but you mean you'll have lower floor entry and a twotory unit again like a like a town home. It's it's going to look, feel, and act like a town home, but it's it's all going to be on a single lot with the rest of the multi I didn't know if the look and feel was like a mask for like it's really singlestory and you'll go up and you'll
• 43:00 - 43:30 sneak in the the upstairs or whatever be a separate but it will be we have a condition requiring those units to be side by side they can't be stacked can't be stacked okay yes sir um and then on the affordability help me understand because I know we've got a lot of apartments that come before 80% AMI um when there are u I guess if there's town homes that if they're not well this is up to Habitat because if they if they do it then all of this uh there's no
• 43:30 - 44:00 percentage of anything affordability because it's just gifted to them. So you're only conditioning the zoning condition requires them all to be affordable at 80 even if it's habitat builds them right. So zoning runs with the land and not the property owner. Okay. So if no matter who builds them how is 80% AMI calculated how's the difference in that on purchasing versus renting? Renting is easy to calculate. Can you explain somebody explain how the difference on purchasing and does interest rate come into that and
• 44:00 - 44:30 payment? How does that work? It it it comes down to and the way HUD calculates this and I'm going to give you the Reader's Digest version of the answer. Um it generally relates to your ability to cover your your mortgage payment. And so that factors in interest payments, that factors in having to buy down points if necessary. It factors in origination costs and kind of everything that goes into it. It also factors in things such as if there are applicable homeowners associations dues and things
• 44:30 - 45:00 along those lines. So it's it's kind of the total cost to get into the unit and continue to be able to pay your mortgage. That is what HUD uses. Okay. So which would also be taxes if the taxes because you're paying your escrow because the total pay would include those taxes as well. Okay. Uh that helps. Um, hey, just if I could just piggyback on that question, it's actually why uh when when I talked to my client about this town home section of the development, the decision to bring in a
• 45:00 - 45:30 developer like or a builder like Habitat was so easy for them to make. As you could probably imagine, one of the challenges that market rate builders have is they don't know what to do with affordable units. They don't know how to build them. They don't know what the restrictions are supposed to be. there's just more questions because they don't operate in that world. The beauty of the town homes at the back of the site is Habitat knows exactly what they're doing. You know, you don't they're the experts in the room. We don't have to my client doesn't have to be the expert with respect to what goes on with those units. Awesome. Awesome. Now, respect to
• 45:30 - 46:00 buffers and I appreciate your transition discussion. I think there was some question I think the town brought as far as whether that was it was 300 ft closest to that building number four and that might be not a proper transition. Uh sometimes we face things where you have to like drive through a neighborhood to get to denser uh and some of those have come up in the past and it's like this is or to get to you go the big lots to get to the smaller lots. In this case, it seems
• 46:00 - 46:30 like we're going big to small all the way down and and that that to me seems like a transition whether or not that big building that faces the road. I I so I think it meets the the transition in my mind to go from from multi to town houses to small lots to large lots. Um Mr. SP your comment. I just made a note when you were making that comment about the the chance to to Habitat uh to you know to to move from an AMI apartment to
• 46:30 - 47:00 maybe buying a Habitat house or building a Habitat townhouse then moving in a neighborhood. I think that's a to build equity. I think there restrictions though with Habitat on the equity that you can build in that house and they don't let you have all the equity that you can build in that house. So it's not quite as effective. Yeah. I mean build buying power. Okay. Yeah. It's about by growing their income. Correct. Gotcha. By growing the income, not by selling their Habitat house and moving into That's right. By being able to live in an affordable place. It it better positions people to be able to build the
• 47:00 - 47:30 clarify that that helps. Um let me see if I missed anything. I think um generally this is um to me, you know, some things check all seem to check all the boxes, but but then they're it's kind of like questionable. this time, not all the boxes are checked, but they seem to be good reasons why some of the boxes aren't checked. Um and and I appreciate your explanation of those reasons. Um Um All right, that's that's all I've
• 47:30 - 48:00 got for now. Um I also appreciate the thought put into the transitions and the buffers. I do have one question just um looking at the town homes. Has thought already been given to the orientation of those like direction they'll face and how that will interact with the traditional neighborhood for that yellow pod that's in the rear of the true town houses. Um so there's no conceptual layout that's a condition of this reszoning because as you can see there's no layout shown
• 48:00 - 48:30 there. So they would still have to meet the LDO requirements in terms of fronting on a public street certain building separations and other dimensional requirements. Um, but no, there's no specific layout or even approximate layout for that pot at this time. If I could just clarify one aspect of that and and Miss Pucket is exactly right. We we don't have a zoning commitment along those lines. Um, but staff made us aware of that. Also made us aware of the fact that some folks have recently had a challenge trying to
• 48:30 - 49:00 figure out how do you get public streets to town homes and how to, you know, can you actually yield what you think you can yield. So, uh, we went ahead with Habitat did a design essentially of what that the back of the portion back portion of the site could be and we did a pre-application meeting with the town to start to get feedback relative to that. We don't know exactly how the design is going to go. That'll be determined by Habitat when they are ready to move forward on the site, but we're starting to get some idea about how it could lay out. Thank you.
• 49:00 - 49:30 Going back to the affordable, um, on the local, uh, presentation, it says you're going to do the townhouse is available 80% for 30 years. Yes. Since you're selling them, how do you do that? As a condition, it's more complicated than rental. Um, and the if I can give you the short answer, um, our housing and legal staff have worked very hard to construct language that, and I'm going to look to legal to correct me if I say anything out of turn, but to um, come up
• 49:30 - 50:00 with language for an owneroccupied product that would still allow us to enforce that 30-year time limit. Um, so that's the short answer. So we do have condition language that was put together not just by the applicant but our legal and housing staff um that we believe is enforceable to keep those affordable for 30 years. Right. So is that a fair? So they'll have a covenant that basically caps the essentially yes the market value of the house. Okay. Thank you.
• 50:00 - 50:30 Nope. So I have one quick question. Um the greenway, is that going to be built uh by the developer independent of the town houses? Is that going to start when the housing development is going to start? You know, the apartment buildings and everything else, or are we waiting for that greenway when the town houses are going to get built? I believe, and I'll have to double check, but I don't believe there's a timing on that condition, Jason. Um so, at this point, it would be great if it was phased to be
• 50:30 - 51:00 built with the initial phase. I don't believe that's in writing currently. Yeah. I mean, and I think the ordinance would suggest that we need to do that. My my client is planning on putting in the greenway as part of the initial phase of development of the multif family. Okay. Yeah. Um and if we need to clarify that, Erin, we're happy to do that. Yes, that's fine. Okay, great. Yeah, because I was just thinking, what if the town houses only come up 10 years after everything, you know, the greenway connection still would be great to have? Yep. Agree. All right, that that was actually my only question.
• 51:00 - 51:30 Um yeah, on the um the maximum townhouse is affordable. Um I mean I like that um that Habitat is involved in that. Um but that's a maximum, right? So I mean if something blows up with Habitat, there could be none. How how does where's the commitment? Right. So the maximum is 16. And when I noted earlier in the presentation, some of the things that we've talked about or the council talked
• 51:30 - 52:00 about was, you know, could there be a minimum? Could there be phasing? Right now, that's not on the table. Um, so you're correct. We'd be kind of waiting on a developer. The zoning runs with the land, not with the owner or the developer. So, for some reason, Habitat chose not to develop it. It we could be waiting for some time. Yeah. And the only reason we haven't made a specific commitment with respect to timing of the town homes and when those would happen is because Habitat kind of prioritizes
• 52:00 - 52:30 how they spend money. And I don't want to speak for them, but as I understand it, they prioritize their developments based upon kind of a variety of options and and kind of what's going on. And so we didn't want to put in a zoning condition, and I've explained this to council as well. We didn't want to put it put in a zoning condition that would unnecessarily tie their hands with respect to when they got around to developing this site. So, it's certainly not reflective of of a desire for it to not happen. It's really just a matter of giving Habitat the flexibility to be able to put this site into a priority
• 52:30 - 53:00 list with a number of other competing projects that they're working on at any given time. Uh, thank you. um on traffic and and the traffic study. Um was was this new interchange considered? Um also was the uh Lavana Apartments was it done after those were built? Um and my other question is did does it appear that any of the
• 53:00 - 53:30 traffic would be sent south on um on Piney Plains? So to answer the first part of that, Lavano is still under construction today, right? Um so that you know the real traffic generated from that would not be considered. In terms of the question about the interchange and the flow of traffic, I'm wondering if I can call on my colleague Priyamond in transportation. He might be able to better clarify that.
• 53:30 - 54:00 Good evening. Um so the buildout for NC dot's project is you know much longer right so it's not going to show up for another maybe 5 10 years um so when we do the when we do the traffic studies the traffic changes from the new interchange are not factored into this star because this would be built out sooner but what we did was um we have a I think I believe it's a 2040 analysis that looked at a few
• 54:00 - 54:30 intersections to understand how uh things would work along Piney Plains Road after the interchange is built. So we looked at some queuing at uh Stevens and Piney Plains Road. Um and that was okay by DoD at that point. So that's the level of uh consideration that was given for the DOT's project in this star. Okay. And and on the warrant the the um light warrant. So, right now it's not warranted, but the developer is willing to do another study
• 54:30 - 55:00 to see if it's warranted after some level of buildout on the project. So, you're asking about the traffic signal at Yes. The warrant. Yeah. So, the the traffic signal at uh Piney Planes and Stevens Road. Um so, there are total of nine warrants. It is we did a preliminary analysis with the TAR. Uh we don't do a full warrant study with the TAR. um it is showing that it is warranted warranted during one of the peak hours. Okay, that gives you an indication as to okay is the signal
• 55:00 - 55:30 going to be warranted into the future. Um we do expect and encourage uh the developer to go and install the signal uh because there are going to be other benefits from the signal not just capacity increases but also uh a safer way for pedestrians to cross this area. If you look up and down the street on Piney Prince there there are not really many places where people can cross safely. Yeah. Okay. Right. Thank you. While you're still up there, can I um it said you media Piney Plains is a five
• 55:30 - 56:00 five lane right now. It was there not discussion this was going to be median divided. Uh and is that still a plan that'll be median divided at some point? Um I don't believe so. I think there was at one point uh there was discussion on um looking at Piney Planes as a four-line median divided section. Um but uh no decisions yet. Yeah, but that that was not pursued um further. Thank you.
• 56:00 - 56:30 Any other questions? I think it looks great. I think uh specifically to the live, shape, work, and engage chapters, it's very consistent. I like the transition um between the taller buildings and the existing neighborhood. Um I think initially I had some concerns
• 56:30 - 57:00 about the removal of the greenway connection. Sounds like the easement will still be dedicated. Um and actually like Mr. George. Uh, I like the uh multi-use trail coming through the through the development. Provided there are no other questions. The only other item I wanted to mention was just making sure we're all aware that this goes with the land regardless of owner. Um uh I
• 57:00 - 57:30 particularly very fond of Habitat for Humanity, but of course they just have a memorandum of of understanding to uh purchase the site in the back. Would someone make a motion for 1902 Piney Plains Multif Family Reszoning? The motions are provided on the screen for you and a printed copy has been provided. I move that the board find 19 RZ25 is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all applicable
• 57:30 - 58:00 plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report presentation discussion by the planning and zoning board and especially in my comments about that is part of that discussion would be the last comment you made. We can't consider the applicant we consider the use and regardless it's just a great uh attempt at making it all work together. Sorry, I didn't get a second before I made my comments. Second the motion. Any any other discussion on the motion?
• 58:00 - 58:30 All right. All those in favor state I. I. I. All those opposed state nay. Unanimous approval. All right. Our second case in the agenda is act 35 land development ordinance amendments. Rachel Smith, principal planner, will share the staff's presentation. This is a staff initiated amendment. There will not be
• 58:30 - 59:00 any applicant. All board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff. Miss Smith, you may proceed. Thank you. Good evening board. For your consideration is act 35, a proposed minor amendment to the land development ordinance. This amendment stems from a request to build a swimming pool behind an existing detached dwelling in the Town Center Cottage Business and Residential District or TCCBNR, which is currently not permitted.
• 59:00 - 59:30 The proposed LDO amendment adds swimming pools, hot tubs, or spas as a permitted accessory use in the TCCBNR subd district. In response to public feedback on noise impacts, the amendment also revises the use specific standards to include screening and setbacks for above ground mechanical and utility equipment. These standards will apply to all accessory pools, hot tubs, or spas across all zoning districts.
• 59:30 - 60:00 Carry pool regulations come from the LDO, the North Carolina building code, and the carry code of ordinances. The LDO requires pools to have 5-ft setbacks from side and rear property lines. It also sets standards for gates and enclosures, including a minimum 4ft fence height. The NC building code adds safety requirements for stairs, fences, gates, alarms, and release mechanisms and outlines inspection
• 60:00 - 60:30 procedures. Car's noise ordinances set a 60 decel limit for residential areas with some exemptions such as lawnmowers. This is enforced by the police and was discussed at the public hearing, which I'll cover more later. To understand the first part of the amendment, let's briefly review the origin and current status of the CBNR subd district. The town center district and its 15 subd districts were created in
• 60:30 - 61:00 2003 to implement the 2001 town center area plan. The CB&r subdist was applied to residential lots along parts of Chapel Hill Road, South Harrington, Harrison, Faculty Avenue, Dry Avenue, West Park Street, and Walker Street. The subdist covers 80 properties across roughly 40 acres. Its goal is to preserve residential character while allowing commercial uses on busier
• 61:00 - 61:30 roads. For example, homes may be converted into offices or low impact businesses like photography studios. Permitted uses include retail and personal services along with some residential, office, and institutional uses. The 15 TC subdists may be characterized as residential, commercial, office, institutional, parks, and mixeduse subdists.
• 61:30 - 62:00 Eight TC subdistricts currently allow pools as an accessory use. Typically, those that permit permit residential or mixed uses. While the CBNR subdist also allows a mix of uses, including residential, it is the only mixeduse subdist that does not allow pools. Staff found no record explaining why pools were excluded from the CBNR when the LDO was adopted in 2003.
• 62:00 - 62:30 The entirety of the town center area contains approximately 18 pools across all subdists. The public hearing was held on January 23rd of this year. The public input at the hearing included one speaker who had also submitted written comments in support of the amendment and one additional speaker with concerns regarding noise impacts. Council shared concerns regarding the noise associated
• 62:30 - 63:00 with pools in denser areas, including a request that additional research be done on mitigation possibilities. There were questions regarding the existing noise ordinances and discussion regarding enforcement challenges. Since the public hearing, staff revised the amendment to require screening for all pool, hot tub, or spa equipment. The equipment and its screening must follow the same five-foot rear and side setbacks as the pool
• 63:00 - 63:30 itself. Screening must fully surround the vertical sides of above ground equipment, be fully opaque, and match the equipment's height. Walls and fences are acceptable materials. Encapsulated equipment typically found in hot tubs are exempt. This change updates the existing use specific standards for pools in section 5.3.4 of the
• 63:30 - 64:00 LTO. The impact of this amendment in terms of the TCBNR subdisted to be minimal. It only affects 80 properties and most of which are still used as detached homes. If approved, we may see more permit requests for pools. This could lead to an increased development in the residential use, possibly delaying the shift to cottage style businesses. However, future conversions could still occur, even if a home has a
• 64:00 - 64:30 pool. This is a photo of pool equipment from a recently inspected pool. Here, the fence screening exceeds the height of the equipment, but does not fully enclose the equipment as is proposed by the amendment. The use specific standard amendment is nearly focused on reducing the noise impacts from pool heaters and pumps by requiring fully enclosed and opaque screens. As infill and densification increases, especially downtown and in
• 64:30 - 65:00 neighborhoods with smaller lots, pool equipment noise can more directly affect neighbors. This amendment addresses that concern for new pools only. Existing equipment will be treated as legal nonconformities. This concludes my presentation and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Miss Smith. Please keep in mind the Kerry community plan as you think about your questions and how these proposed amendments fit or do not fit
• 65:00 - 65:30 the community plan. Do any board members have any questions? I'll start with you, S. I've got no questions. I'm good. Especially knowing that there's an apartment building with a pool right next to the park. So, I don't see this being as much of an issue in mind. Sure. No questions. No questions. It makes sense given the other subdists. Yeah. I I heard the uh answer about the enforcement by the police. Um um I guess they carry decibel meters. Um
• 65:30 - 66:00 not come to my house with one. Um even when I had teenagers. Um, but these slits between that picture that you showed when when you said opaque, you said it was didn't meet it. The picture that you had that didn't show it wasn't fully enclosed. It doesn't appear to be opaque even on the side that the fence is. So, is there some sort of definition of opaque because there were slits in that thing? So, if it if it's if they can't hardly see it, but they don't hear 60 dB, is that opaque or that's what I want
• 66:00 - 66:30 to understand. So, yes. So, we did not put right in a definition on how much slits or openings you could have. There are some industry accepted standards on generally what opaque would mean when it comes to a fence or a wall is an easier thing to measure certainly. Um, there were also a lot of internal work on this. I'm really thankful for all of the permit and inspectors um who provided feedback on this amendment. Um, and they they did help with write this. Um, and they had strong opinions about not using
• 66:30 - 67:00 landscaping because it would not be opaque all times of year. It would not have the same sound mitigation. Um, so really this was a group a group effort to help to get to where we are. And then if someone were to try to to to build that within standards, is this is a a a well-known built standard that that a pool installer would know how to keep it to 60 dB. Or do we have homeowners are going to get stuck saying, "Whoops, it's not quite quiet enough." So, we recognize through this process that we
• 67:00 - 67:30 need to have more education on the front end and in our permitting materials to help folks to understand how loud the equipment is. Anecdotally, it does seem like some of it has gotten louder in recent years. Pools have maybe gotten bigger. Um, more of them are heated than perhaps were in other times of life. Um, so that was definitely part of this discussion was providing more information on what 60 dB looks like and how to mitigate that. And especially with those um the lap pools that you don't have to lap that the water moves
• 67:30 - 68:00 and you don't. Um, those are very loud and I don't I don't know. I just want to make sure we provide that planning that they provide enough internal because I think it's important for uh internal help to help find those materials or whether it's sound dating material whatever because I don't I'd hate for somebody to get stuck and then find they're not in compliance and then they've got thousands of dollars that they haven't counted on. So I hope I appreciate the what you said about trying to work up front. That's all I have. Oh. Oh, also we we don't require
• 68:00 - 68:30 the same things of air conditioning units, do we? Uh so in one and two family it's not required. So if you require a development plan then mechanical mechanical equipment would be required as part of the development plan. But if you've just got a single family house you don't have to meet a decel standard for your air conditioning outside. That's a good question because are we let are we are we are we going to try to keep pools quiet but not air conditioners? Uh, and I'm trying to be
• 68:30 - 69:00 fair because um, and of course they could be rattling because of fans going out or whatever, but uh, I need to I don't know if we make air conditioners. We're giving them a a free pass, but not pools, which doesn't seem fair for the noise for the neighbors. We're trying to do this for noise reasons. It seems like we ought to be fair and that whatever you got outside that runs that makes noise. Seems it should be fair to fit the care community plan. Shouldn't penalize pool builders
• 69:00 - 69:30 and not homeowners that put noisy air conditioners in. Yeah, I think that's a great question. So, I've got the noise ordinance here in front of me. That might be something we want to take more look at. I do see some exemptions for things like lawnmowers, landscaping equipment, marching bands. Have Yes, they did that. They marched through the neighborhood, don't they? Yeah. Um, so Rachel's right. There is no current exception
• 69:30 - 70:00 for air conditioning in the noise ordinance. So if there's not an exception, that means they have to abide by the noise ordinance. Correct. That's where I'm going. That's great. Just so they're not We don't pick on pools. Yeah, I'm just checking here to make sure that I am telling you the truth, but um yeah, there is no current exemption for Yeah, no current exemption for this.
• 70:00 - 70:30 And where is that? And is that measured at the property line that 60 dB? Yes. So, um, the adjacent property, the adjacent property, the closest property clearly within five feet or or or more can't be less. So, well, uh, my question kind of related to that, um, was because there was a concern, you know, what what happens if someone gets the equipment, installs it, and it winds up being too loud. Um, there's a pool permit that someone needs
• 70:30 - 71:00 to pull before they install a pool. Correct. Um, and as part of that paperwork, do they submit something that says the manufacturers That's what Rachel was intimating when she said, um, education on the front end and updating our permit requirements. Sure. So, if this were to pass, then the plan, I believe, is to implement that kind of stuff in in the permitting. Perfect. So, yeah, the goal is to make it very clear on what you have to do. And if we do what we want to do, the person who doesn't apply, we
• 71:00 - 71:30 will feel and it and it could comply upfront, but it could be malfunction, right? A fan noise or something. So then they would have to obviously they'd have to fix it. That would be that would hopefully resolve itself as in someone would come out and say, "Hey, you're currently violating the ordinance." They would, it's not like we would slap them with a violation immediately to say, "Hey, yeah, it's malfunctioning. We'll fix it. We'll give them a reasonable amount." Like we try to be reasonable in how we Awesome. And we don't Yeah, we don't we
• 71:30 - 72:00 try to not draft our ordinances to violate folks for things like mal like temporary malfun like that kind of stuff because we know that they um it's not working as as it should. So if they get it working as it should then it should. Awesome. Thank you. Perfect. Any other concerns, questions? Would someone make a motion for act 35 land development ordinance amendments? The motions are provided on the screen for you and a printed copy
• 72:00 - 72:30 has been provided. I move that the board find act 35 amendments to the land development ordinance be consistent with the 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? Second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in Go ahead. Just makes sense. Okay. All those in favor say I. Any opposed state nay.
• 72:30 - 73:00 Motion carries unanimously. You're on a roll, Mr. Roselli. Thank you. I don't see any new or old business on the agenda after those items. So, we'll move to adjournment. Thank you for participating in tonight's meeting. This meeting is adjourned. [Music]