Name: Planning Commission
Uploaded: 2026-09-03T00:00:00Z
Duration: 1 h 40 min 5 s
Description: Open space This application is eligible for a 50 percent open space reduction due to proximity to Ferguson Park. So that's shown on the exhibit on the right hand of the screen.

[0:02] So you're all in the right spot.

[0:04] So good evening. My name is Chad Goreley. I am the chairman of the Gastonia Planning Commission. On behalf of the commission, I would like to welcome you to today's meeting. I will now call the September 3rd 20 26 meeting of the Gastonia Planning Commission to order. If you plan to address the commission in favor or in opposition this evening, please sign the appropriate sign in sheet on the table outside the door.

[0:25] Item 1, roll call sound check.

[0:28] Commissioners,

[0:29] go around the room now asking,

[0:31] state your name and if you had any calls or contacts. We'll start from my left.

[0:37] Meghan Mason, Chapman, no calls, no contacts, ward 6.

[0:43] Julie Coffee, ward 5, 3 contacts.

[0:48] Jeff Howell, ward 3, no contacts.

[0:51] Carl Harris, ward 4, no contacts. Deanna Murphy, ward 2, no contacts.

[0:56] Juan Garcia, large, number 1, no contact.

[0:59] Chad Goreley, ward 1, no contacts. Hereby declare a quorum for the meeting.

[1:06] Item 3, 3 a, approval of August 6 20 26 meeting minutes. Are there any corrections or additions to the August 6 20 26 meeting minutes?

[1:15] Hearing none, is there a motion to adopt the meeting minutes as submitted and or revised?

[1:20] Motion.

[1:21] A motion. Is there a 2nd? 2nd. 2nd.

[1:24] All those in favor of motion, please raise your right hand.

[1:29] Motion carries.

[1:33] Rules of procedure.

[1:35] Before we begin the public hearings, let me 1st explain the procedures that will be followed.

[1:40] A time limitation policy is used to conduct the meeting. Generally, we ask that opponents and proponents limit their total time to a total of 20 minutes, distributing this time to 2 to 3 minutes per speaker. Time will be available for rebuttals if needed.

[1:52] At any time following the opening of the public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider continuing the hearing to a later meeting or in order that sufficient information may be obtained for the commission to make a decision.

[2:02] Following the hearing, the planning commission will consider action on the request. The commission may take action this evening or delay an action to another meeting.

[2:11] Actions of the planning commission for rezonings may include granting the item requested, granting granting the request request with a reduction in the area requested, granting a more restrictive rezoning than the 1 requested, or denying the request.

[2:24] If the decision of the planning commission for rezonings is by 0.75 vote, no 1 appeals our decision, then the decision of this body shall rest as final action.

[2:32] On the other hand, if our vote is by less than 0.75, then the case will automatically go into the city council for a new hearing and their consideration.

[2:40] Also, regardless of how the planning commission voted, if anyone appeals our decision, the case will go on to city council for a new hearing and final action.

[2:47] Any such appeal must be filed with the city manager or city planning office by 5 PM on Friday, September 18th 20 26 unless otherwise noted at the beginning of the hearing.

[2:57] Notice of any potential or required hearing before the city council was given with notice of the hearing. Therefore, no separate notification will be made if there is a city council hearing. If you would like to be notified of any appeal hearing before the city council, call or email the planning department.

[3:14] Item item 4.

[3:16] Item 4 a public hearing the Grove at Airport Road file number 2 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 8.

[3:24] Subject hearing involves a request to rezone approximately 4.65

[3:27] acres from RS 12 single family residential minimum 12000 square foot lots to RS 8,

[3:34] conditional district, single family residential minimum 8000 square feet lots conditional zoning district. The subject properties are located

[3:41] at 4 40 Airport Road and 4 50 Airport Road and are owned by the Development Solutions Group LLC.

[3:49] I'd like to recognize Veronica Bateson, AICP senior planner for staff's presentation.

[3:54] Thank you, chair.

[3:56] As he stated, the owner is Development Solutions Group and the applicant is Kent Olson.

[4:03] These 2 parcels are located at 4 40 and 4 50 Airport Road for a total of 4.65

[4:09] acres and are located within Ward 3.

[4:13] The request is to rezone both parcels from the current RS 12 to r s 8 conditional to facilitate the development of 13 dwelling 2 family commonly known as duplexes,

[4:25] which will result in 26 units in total.

[4:28] Here, you can see an aerial overview of the properties.

[4:33] And this is the rezoning site plan that is proposed for tonight.

[4:37] It includes elements such as front loaded with shared driveway,

[4:41] and here is an enhanced view of the rendering

[4:45] as well as a sand filter due to its proximity to the airport.

[4:50] It also features a divided median entrance and sidewalk both throughout the complex as well as on the current street.

[4:59] The rezoning site plan also features common open space in 2 locations and tree save.

[5:06] Here you will see the elevations and renderings that are proposed.

[5:10] Note that there is no vinyl siding. It will be fiber cement with stone or brick accents on approximately 0.333 of the front elevation, and garage doors will feature glass elements.

[5:22] The conditions can be found in your packet, but for those in the audience, I will take the time tonight to read them out. Condition 1 is for the development to be generally consistent with the attached site plan.

[5:34] 2 is for street cross sections, access points, parking, sidewalks, and other required road improvements to be finalized during the preliminary plat and subdivision review processes.

[5:45] Condition 3 is that the developers shall provide on-site storm water management to be reviewed and finalized during the site plan review process.

[5:54] And condition 4 is that additional review of access points parking driveway locations

[5:59] and internal drive aisles will be required during the site plan review and the final approval will be granted by TRC which is our technical review committee. Please note that the technical review committee has already provided preliminary approval of this site plan that you see before you tonight.

[6:16] Condition number 5 is that tree save requirement in the code of ordinances section 20 dash 41

[6:22] shall be met utilizing a combination of alternative methods replanting and or fee in lieu to be reviewed and finalized

[6:30] during the site plan review process. Please note that the applicant is meeting the tree safe requirement with the site plan and therefore

[6:38] they have met this requirement.

[6:41] Condition 6 is construction shall be generally consistent with the character and details as depicted in the submitted elevations and architectural standards of 8.1 0.177

[6:52] is that in no instant shall the zoning conditions exempt a project from other development requirements.

[6:58] For those in the audience, that means that this plan must maintain compliance with the UDO and these conditions are in addition to that.

[7:06] And number 8 is where notes or depictions on the site may conflict with conditions the conditions shall govern.

[7:14] Here you will see the public hearing sign that staff has placed on the property

[7:20] and it is consistent with the 2050 future place type.

[7:25] This location is designated as district which allows for up to 35 percent residential use.

[7:33] Staff has found that this district has a residential use of 12.21

[7:39] percent and the total of these parcels contributes to the overall 1.27

[7:44] residential use.

[7:47] A neighborhood meeting was held on June 3rd 20 26 at the Gastonia Community Church and there were 16 attendees.

[7:57] Staff has received multiple communication

[8:00] after the time that this report was finalized.

[8:04] To date, staff has received 8 oppositions to this request. 2 were via email, which I will pass out after this presentation.

[8:12] 5 were via phone call, and 1 was both in person with a follow-up email.

[8:17] There are also multiple people here tonight to speak as well. The main items of note that were discussed with me were traffic concerns, including impacting schools and local business,

[8:28] the addition of 52 cars and what this would cause to the current traffic, the dead end street for turning around, and potential trespassing with 4 wheelers and dirt bikes, which would also lease lead to an impact in noise, concerns for safety of children nearby,

[8:45] as well as impacts to wildlife as this is currently a wooded area.

[8:50] Staff does recommend approval as presented based upon the provided site plan conditions and the consistency with the 2050 comprehensive plan.

[9:00] Therefore, Planning Commission is asked to make a motion.

[9:04] You may either approve,

[9:06] which is what the staff recommendation is.

[9:09] You may also deny.

[9:12] And I will say, there any questions for staff at this point? But I would like to interject with the applicant is not here tonight. He had an emergency and is unable to attend, and he is unable to send representation.

[9:26] I just spoke with him on the phone and he did state that he is comfortable with this being heard tonight and did not want it to be continued.

[9:34] However, he would like me to relay to the commission

[9:37] that he has made concessions

[9:40] during the 1st neighborhood meeting and has sold land and reduced his total proposal.

[9:47] And he has also worked very hard to work with the neighbors as well.

[9:53] Are there any questions for staff? Thank you, Veronica.

[9:56] Any questions for staff?

[10:02] Has a TIA been done for this? I

[10:07] don't.

[10:09] TIA is not required because of the threshold. Okay. So the number of units does not trigger the TI requirement. Okay. And the other question I had is,

[10:19] about

[10:20] is there a tree save?

[10:22] Yes, they are providing 0.7

[10:24] acres of tree save. I

[10:28] will flip through here

[10:32] right

[10:34] there. Okay.

[10:37] And

[10:41] that can be found on attachment d in your packet. Thanks.

[10:56] Are there any further questions for staff?

[11:01] Thank you, Veronica.

[11:11] Commissioners currently we do not have anybody signed up for this item as she heard from staff that the applicant cannot be present due to emergency however there are

[11:21] 10 folks signed up against this item.

[11:26] As you heard in my

[11:28] my 1st spiel there that we try to condense the time down to 20 minutes. So, what I would like to do is go through each name here to ask if you still would like to speak. So we'll have a proper number and how we can divide that time up equally amongst you.

[11:40] Sheila,

[11:41] Sheila

[11:42] Everhart? Yes, present. You'd like to still speak? Yes, please. Thank you, ma'am.

[11:48] Bob Edwards? Yes, sir. Let me get through these for we're get we let me state that. We're get go through and make sure everybody will speak so we can appropriate the time because some of you may want you know, we see some couples on here. You might wanna speak as 1. So we'll get the time to divide up equally as we can. Mister Edwards, you say you still want to speak? Yes, sir. Thank you.

[12:07] Samantha McCants.

[12:15] You still wanna speak? Okay, thank you.

[12:19] Emma Freeman.

[12:28] She did not wanna speak. Yeah.

[12:30] Thank you, miss Freeman.

[12:32] Chris Freeman.

[12:36] Yes.

[12:37] Thank you.

[12:39] Ellis Smith? Yes. Thank you.

[12:45] I'm having trouble reading his last name. Jim. Freeman. Freeman. Another Freeman.

[12:51] Thank you.

[12:54] John Freeman? Yes.

[12:57] Thank you.

[13:01] Robert starts with an h. Can't read the handwriting.

[13:06] It looks like Hawkins.

[13:08] You still want to speak, sir? Yes, sir. Thank you.

[13:13] Dottie Murphy?

[13:15] Yes, Thank you.

[13:18] Alright. Somebody do some math for me. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

[13:45] Can I write it?

[13:59] So the math's not mathing equally. 2.25.

[14:04] So, I'll use my authority to grant 3 minutes per speaker. That should be plenty. Just keep in mind, keep it to 3 minutes if you can, please. There'll be a it'll be it's on the clock up here. You'll see 3 lights up there like red light, caution light, green light. Caution means you're getting close and red means you've gone over and you'll need to discontinue speaking.

[14:24] Anybody understand?

[14:25] Thank you. I'd like to call Sheila

[14:29] Everhart.

[14:31] Did it. I can read handwriting.

[14:33] Good evening. Thank you. If you would state your name and your address for the record, please. Yes. I'm Sheila Everhart, and I reside at 17 80 Gaston Day School Road.

[14:42] I've been asked to attend, and if it's permitted, I would like to read a letter from our house of representative,

[14:49] Donnie Loftus

[14:50] Absolutely. That he has written in regards to this.

[14:54] He writes to share some information of the possible rezoning request for 2 parcels of approximately 4.65

[15:01] acres located at 4 40 and 4 50 Airport Road. And I think we are a thorough understanding of what's gonna happen

[15:10] at this location. He says, and he reiterates what everything has been said by miss Veronica about the 59 units down to current 26

[15:24] reports,

[15:25] public outcry of this being planned, extremely busy.

[15:30] There's no doubt that affordable housing needs to be here in Gastonia and across North Carolina.

[15:36] However, cramming 26 duplexes and 4.65

[15:40] acres will negate

[15:43] negately impact a quiet community by trying to leverage as much profit as possible.

[15:50] And I skip on in time in essence of time. Additionally, current zoning is an r s 12, which has been explained,

[15:59] and it will bring into

[16:01] and reduce

[16:03] the lot size to approximately 12000 square feet. This zoning designation is typically intended for low density residential development.

[16:13] Rezoning these parcels

[16:15] to RS8CD

[16:17] refers to the residential single family district that allows for minimum lot size of 8000 square feet and needs additionally zoned as a conditional

[16:28] district.

[16:31] Moving on in this letter,

[16:33] Mr. Loeffless says, In measuring the RS 12 square feet as it relates to a typical measurement, it would measure approximately 1 point

[16:43] hundred and

[16:45] 9.59

[16:47] feet square. When measuring the RS8

[16:50] CD square feet as it relates to a typical measurement,

[16:54] it would measure approximately 88 feet. It is apparent that this proposed change would fit the new standard by some developers to gram as many units as possible to maximize the return

[17:07] on this investment.

[17:09] I respectfully request

[17:11] that this application be denied and that the current r s 12 zoning remain in place.

[17:18] Please consider this correspondence with the planning commission members before their meeting scheduled

[17:24] tonight.

[17:25] Thank you, Donnie Loftus.

[17:27] He is a neighbor of mine.

[17:29] I know I know that this is very hard, and we hear all the time you can't fight city hall. We hear all the time, well this this happened to me in my neighborhood, yada yada.

[17:41] I'm over my time. You made efficient use of your time. You did a good job.

[17:45] I just I just appeal to this board,

[17:49] to the commissioners,

[17:51] that visit

[17:52] this road. Go down to Airport Road.

[17:56] Look to see what is in that area.

[18:00] It's not that.

[18:02] We oppose

[18:04] this rezoning. Thank you. Any questions for speaker?

[18:07] Thank you ma'am.

[18:09] Thank you.

[18:14] Mister Bob Edwards.

[18:18] Good evening, sir. State your name and address for the record. Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Bob Edwards. My address is 17 80 Gaston Day School Road.

[18:27] Thank goodness for the air conditioning.

[18:30] So I am addressing you this very hot afternoon regarding the possible rezoning

[18:37] request for the 2 parcels of land on Airport Road.

[18:41] I began commuting from Charlotte to Gaston County,

[18:46] Gastonia

[18:47] back in 19 70.

[18:48] I attended Gaston Tech that was before it became Gaston College

[18:53] majoring in electronics engineering.

[18:55] After graduating and beginning my professional career, I was able to purchase 1 piece of property in Gaston County where I've remained as a permanent resident since 19 81.

[19:07] If I do the math correctly, that makes me a resident for 45 years. You know, where does the time go?

[19:15] I enjoy the community and lifestyle which we reside in

[19:19] being single family homes with attached garages, some with unattached garages,

[19:26] whether there is any space inside to put the car or not.

[19:30] Most of us have the yards to fertilize and groom with room for the kids to run-in the yard.

[19:36] And of course the leaves to fall

[19:38] that we have to take care of.

[19:42] And almost forgot the taxes. Yes, we pay taxes. We pay a lot of taxes. I

[19:48] say

[19:49] all of this

[19:51] because we are a single family residential community

[19:55] for at least

[19:56] 1

[19:57] mile

[19:59] around Airport Road.

[20:01] There are no other

[20:03] multifamily homes that we are aware of.

[20:06] Airport Road is a 0.5 mile long

[20:10] dead end single lane

[20:14] with 1 business, 1 church, and several homes.

[20:18] Airport Road connects to the busy Gastonia School Road within less than 100 yards of the entrance to Gaston Day School.

[20:29] As we all know, Gaston Day School Road is already

[20:33] busting at the seams with traffic conditions that are almost intolerable,

[20:38] almost impossible

[20:39] at morning commutes,

[20:41] school opening times,

[20:43] school closing times, and the commutes home from work.

[20:48] Gastonia Road

[20:49] is a popular cut through from the connecting Franklin Boulevard area

[20:55] to multiple home developments and Union Road.

[21:00] EMS,

[21:01] fire, police are already

[21:04] very active on Gastonia School Road, especially around Gastonia School.

[21:10] Excessive traffic

[21:12] at this intersection of Airport Road and Gaston Day School Road will

[21:18] negatively affect the safety of our children.

[21:23] Traffic pattern analysis will show you that

[21:29] safety

[21:30] of our children should be considered.

[21:34] The zoning request for 4 40 and 4 50 Road Airport Road. Excuse me, Edgerton. Your time's expired.

[21:41] Yes, sir.

[21:43] We therefore respectfully

[21:45] request

[21:46] that the request for zoning change

[21:49] be denied

[21:51] and that we retain

[21:53] the zoning that is compatible

[21:55] with the established

[21:56] neighborhood. Thank you, judge. Thank you, mister Edwards. Any questions from mister Edwards?

[22:01] Thank you, sir.

[22:16] You're Emma. Already had you already had you not speaking. You're

[22:20] Samantha.

[22:23] You're give them so combine between y'all. You're give them 6 more You're

[22:30] gonna give

[22:31] somebody else wanna use 3 give him 3 and somebody else wanna use 3?

[22:36] What's

[22:38] your name? Murphy. Murphy?

[22:39] Okay. Remind me, you get 6 minutes. How

[22:44] many minutes you up to now? The meter's running.

[22:48] My goodness.

[22:50] Go for it.

[22:52] You got 9 minutes.

[22:54] Well, I I hope I don't need that long. So

[22:58] Samantha When does my time start, sir? Now.

[23:01] Now. Thank you very much. The rezoning request for 4 4 0 and 4 5 0 Airport Road is in reference to 2 parcels of land located at the end of this airport road.

[23:12] The purpose of the request by Kent Olson and

[23:16] Development Solutions

[23:18] Group

[23:20] is to construct 26

[23:23] high density

[23:24] duplex

[23:26] units.

[23:28] A complex of this size will generate an additional

[23:32] minimal

[23:33] 52 vehicles,

[23:35] automobiles

[23:36] that add to the traffic congestion in this area.

[23:43] This doesn't even take into account the potential for Amazon deliveries, FedEx, UPS, Grubhub, Grubhub door,

[23:50] Domino's, Pizza Hut, and what's gonna happen when we get Uber?

[23:56] The industrial business located at 1 0 9 Airport Road will be negatively affected

[24:02] by the addition of congestion and traffic

[24:05] associated with this development.

[24:09] The utility infrastructure

[24:11] on Airport Road will not accommodate

[24:15] this type of development.

[24:18] The electric supplier, Rutherford Electric,

[24:21] struggles

[24:22] to maintain

[24:24] continuous power

[24:26] with the existing customers

[24:28] and industry on Airport Road.

[24:32] We have several from JF Heat Treating, the industrial corporation on that road present this evening.

[24:40] If Ken Olson

[24:42] would be willing to build 1 home

[24:45] on each of the 2 lots

[24:47] as single family homes,

[24:50] they would be graciously accepted into the community.

[24:55] We're not asking the city to prevent

[24:58] reasonable

[24:59] residential use of the property.

[25:03] We realize

[25:04] the owner's right to develop it under appropriate

[25:08] zoning.

[25:10] Our objection

[25:12] is to the increasing

[25:14] of the density

[25:15] to approximately 26 homes

[25:18] on 4.6 acres

[25:21] when the surrounding area is substantially

[25:24] less dense,

[25:27] meaning R-twelve.

[25:30] However, it's very evident in our minds

[25:33] that the purpose of this request

[25:37] for the rezoning

[25:39] is directed

[25:41] at cramming as many units into a 4.6 acre plot

[25:46] of land to maximize profits

[25:49] for an out of town

[25:52] land development

[25:53] corporation

[25:55] at the expense

[25:56] of Gastonia

[25:58] citizens.

[26:00] Once again,

[26:02] we therefore respectfully

[26:05] request

[26:07] that this request

[26:09] for zoning change

[26:11] be denied

[26:13] and that we retain

[26:15] the zoning that is compatible

[26:18] with the established

[26:19] neighborhoods.

[26:22] We thank you very much.

[26:24] I'm still grinning.

[26:26] Thank you, mister Edwards. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any more questions? Any questions for mister Edwards? I I have a question.

[26:32] Mister Edwards? Yes, sir.

[26:35] Thanks. Yes, sir. The to your knowledge, do you know of any opposition

[26:39] from Gastonia Community Church?

[26:42] The response that I received from the church was that they wish to become neutral or stay neutral.

[26:49] K.

[26:51] Thank you.

[26:54] I mean, it's it's a church. They they wish to be neutral with their congregation. K. Thank you. Yes, sir. Now that was speaking of the pastor and the upper management of the church. K. Any

[27:06] further questions?

[27:10] Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Yes, sir.

[27:18] Moving on down the list.

[27:20] Ellis Smith.

[27:24] Good evening, State your name and address for the record, please. Okay. Name is Ellis Smith, and closest home to the airport is at 61 21 Rosemore Lane off of New Hope Road.

[27:35] And the main address is I just built the new hangar over at the airport, so I'm operating an airplane out of the airport. So I'm gonna give you an airport perspective or a pilot's perspective.

[27:46] By trade, I'm a professional engineer.

[27:49] So for the the hangar, did all of the plans and construction and all of that. I know that airport pretty good now.

[27:55] And I've been flying out of it for a couple years.

[27:58] And so 1 concern I'd have with this project, and I'm just getting up to speed on it here, so I'm not I don't know all the details.

[28:05] But I can tell you there's no fence on that side of the runway, and we're talking a runway.

[28:10] I'm coming in at 100 knots usually on landing in that runway.

[28:15] The when I touch down, it's from here to that parking lot from where the these houses would be.

[28:20] And so I'm always concerned about animals.

[28:24] We'll have the usual deer or wild turkey because there's no fence back there. Right? That's scary enough. I can't imagine small children running around the this this development. This is probably a starter home development, it looks like. So now we're all gonna be terrified of kids

[28:41] on that runway.

[28:43] So you need to be thinking about a fence, and that that airport is not ready for this next to it. So if the airport were maybe upgraded at some point, you might have to pull this off. But I'd be really concerned from a safety perspective.

[28:56] And 1 thing that's happening in the industry is you're seeing a lot of planes come in to Gastonia, that's gonna expand over the next few years. So for 1 thing, they're bringing in turboprops more now because a lot of that stuff's getting pushed out of Charlotte and Concord.

[29:11] They they come in even faster, and I've just got a single engine plane. I cannot you cannot stop 1 of those planes. If there was a kid near that that runway, you cannot stop it. There's nothing you can do.

[29:22] So I would be extremely cautious. I'm not sure if you've had engineers looking at this from a safety review, but I'd be extremely careful just from a common sense viewpoint and from a pilot. And I'm always concerned when I'm touching down on that dark runway at Gastonia. And I fly out of there every week, all the time. I fly the plane personally,

[29:41] and I have other people flying my plane as well. So we we always talk about the lighting, and it's dim. It's already dim, but the lighting isn't gonna save you. If there's a dog or a cat or a kid on that runway, they're gonna get hit,

[29:56] and it's not gonna be pretty when that happens. This airport does not have any fencing on that side of the runway, and it's so close. I don't know if you guys have been out there, but I'd encourage you, before you vote on this, go stand on these lots and just walk to the center line of that runway because it is right there.

[30:14] And if I were a small kid, I'd play on that runway all day long if I could get away with it. You

[30:19] know what? So it it is something to consider because it'll be on 6 o'clock news when it happens. And none of us pilots, we're all about safety.

[30:27] We're continually trying to make sure we're safe and we all work together, watch each other's backs.

[30:33] And I I can tell you everyone tries to do a good job, but there's nothing you could do about this 1.

[30:39] If if someone lands a plane on that dark runway at 8 o'clock at night or 9 o'clock at night, they're probably not even gonna know they hit the kid. So anyway. Thank you, sir. Yep. Thanks. Any questions for mister Smith? I have a question.

[30:53] Sir? Yeah.

[30:54] I'm just trying to understand what you were talking about looking at the aerial map. Yeah. So I'm it looks like the the the runway runs

[31:02] pretty much parallel to the property.

[31:04] Right. A lot of trees in between. So is more of the concern

[31:08] kids coming out through the woods or down the end of Airport Road onto the runway?

[31:13] I think it's a probability thing. So I'd be worried about children for sure and also pets. So if you bring this many people that close to that runway, your probability just dramatically increased of something happening.

[31:27] That's what my concern is. Does that answer your question? Well, there just appears to be a lot of trees

[31:32] between the the the property being developed and the the runway. There's trees, but, Jeff, I don't think there's any fencing down that side. There's a fence over on the main road,

[31:42] and that's nice. That's a pretty helpful fence. It's not very tall. You can just climb right over it, you know, and I've seen people doing that. But on that side where those houses are, no fence. There needs to be a 10 or 12 foot tall fence right there if you guys do this. Okay. Thank At least.

[31:58] Could I entertain any further questions for mister Smith?

[32:03] We can't sir, sir, you can't you can't speak. You have to sign up to speak. Sorry.

[32:09] No further question, mister Smith.

[32:11] Thank you, mister Smith. Thanks.

[32:17] Next will be mister Jim Freeman.

[32:24] Name is Hey, mister Freeman. My name is Jimmy Freeman.

[32:27] I've been living in this area on these properties.

[32:31] Could you state your go ahead and state your address for us, please. Well, my shop address is 4 0 9 Airport Road. Thank you.

[32:39] I am part owner of the company.

[32:42] I do see lots of problems

[32:45] with the situation.

[32:47] Know we got a little bit of trees up there, and my concern was about the planes too.

[32:53] I have I've lived long enough to see planes crash there. You may not not have been here that long,

[33:02] And they can.

[33:05] And I see that housing development with more lights nearer to the airport

[33:12] can cause more problems for the aircraft.

[33:15] And

[33:17] growing up there, I know how easy it is for a kid to cut it want to cut across to the airport

[33:24] and also run

[33:26] motorcycles or minibikes

[33:28] there. They hadn't in recent years, but they have in the past.

[33:35] And the animals,

[33:37] there's a lot in the area.

[33:39] The congestion part about it is

[33:42] we have

[33:46] about

[33:47] 100

[33:49] well, we have over

[33:51] 1000 customers

[33:52] that come in and out of there, from tractor trailers

[33:56] every day, customers driving in there and out with heavy loads

[34:01] every day.

[34:03] And

[34:05] I see the traffic problem

[34:07] would be more hectic.

[34:10] The road will not

[34:13] stand for much more traffic on that road as a 1 actually a 1 lane road.

[34:20] You got expansion there where it would have to be widened

[34:25] and everything,

[34:26] and that would be taking other people's property

[34:30] for something that doesn't need to be.

[34:33] I didn't understand his profits and stuff,

[34:37] but I also

[34:41] I enjoy our space, family space all the way down through there.

[34:49] A lot of the property belongs to part of my family.

[34:53] And so

[34:56] traffic is just a little bit too much

[34:58] and safety issues

[35:02] to be concerned.

[35:05] He I know we know he tried to get another part, but he ended up selling the other part.

[35:12] And now he's trying to salvage the rest. We understand that. But he just made a bad choice

[35:18] to me for where he wanted to try to develop.

[35:23] And I thank you for

[35:26] Thank you, mister Freeman. Any questions for mister Freeman? Thank

[35:32] you, sir.

[35:36] Next on the list is John Freeman. Yes.

[35:41] I'm John Freeman, 126 John Freeman Lane, just off of the airport road.

[35:46] And I'm sorry for the interruption a while ago, but the gentleman made a good point. You mentioned that there was trees,

[35:54] forest along the

[35:57] runway and this development. But if I'm not mistaken, a lot of this has just been cleared, and it's become open range now. Sorry. If could address

[36:05] this. I was well, I was directing it to Bob because Bob lives right on this same property. His his property faces the runway.

[36:14] And he mentioned it, and I have noticed too that it has been recently cleared. So this is an opening up for the wildlife and the the possibility of children in the future that could be out there playing.

[36:27] We've walked that property ourselves, like Jim said, that we've lived there over 60 years.

[36:34] We we know that property quite well.

[36:38] The other problem again, reiterating

[36:41] on the road, we actually paid to start having that road

[36:46] paved. It was a dirt road when we 1st started our business there, JF Heat Treating. So we paid for the the original entrance to that that airport road.

[36:58] The state later

[37:00] came in and added the additional pavement

[37:04] to connect the rest of the houses.

[37:06] And we have water

[37:08] down to 1 of the 1st houses or residents on that street, including the church, I think, also has tapped into that line. So we don't have a lot of infrastructure

[37:19] there

[37:20] to

[37:22] maintain, I think, this additional 26 homes.

[37:26] I was under the impression these were gonna be luxury homes and not just low income housing.

[37:32] So that to me is also a drawback.

[37:35] So, yes, I'm against the additional housing.

[37:39] I don't think it can maintain

[37:42] the the

[37:44] roads. The road infrastructure we have now cannot maintain

[37:48] this additional add on.

[37:51] I'm done. Thank you, mister Freeman.

[37:53] Commissioners, you have any questions?

[37:56] Airport Ms. Freeman, come back to the podium, please. Airport Road is now

[38:01] state maintained, right?

[38:03] If

[38:04] it is, we haven't seen them in 40 years.

[38:08] I understand.

[38:09] So

[38:10] I would just like to point out, and

[38:15] not that we're discussing

[38:17] that part of it, but your statement

[38:20] that these are low income housing. Well, that was what I heard stated from the previous But

[38:26] we don't make judgments

[38:28] based off of that. There's any number of reason why people might choose to live in a duplex. And I understand what you're saying. But

[38:37] affordable

[38:39] housing

[38:40] doesn't necessarily mean low income housing. Well, I sure can't afford the housing in this But just want make

[38:46] point clear.

[38:49] Yeah, I'd just like to go on further and compliment that statement that our responsibility here as commissioners is to evaluate the proper land use that's there.

[38:57] You know,

[38:58] you've mentioned local fire, EMS, 1st responders, all that. We're all concerned about that. We're all concerned about schools and everything but this body here is to take action on the proper land use of it so just to educate you guys a little bit but we certainly appreciate your concerns and bringing those up

[39:15] thank you

[39:18] And

[39:20] Robert,

[39:21] I guess it's Hawkins.

[39:23] Yep.

[39:27] 2 for 2.

[39:36] Good evening, mister Hawkins. Can state your name and address for the record, please. My name is Robert Hawkins. I live at 18 40 Gaston Desch School Road.

[39:43] And

[39:45] I'm concerned more about the children that's gonna be living there

[39:50] and the wildlife that we've got in there. I have deer that walks up in my yard at least twice a week.

[39:57] They don't pick the day I mean, I don't pick the days. They pick the days. And they eat our roses.

[40:03] And that's great. That's what I'm I like to see them. I also like to see the possums and the raccoons come through because they do their jobs too.

[40:12] We

[40:13] have a small pond in our yard

[40:17] that comes up to here,

[40:19] and that's deep enough for a little child this size

[40:23] or bigger that's wandering through the woods

[40:26] to find.

[40:28] I don't wanna have to put a fence around that pond.

[40:31] Wildlife comes up to it and drinks water out of it.

[40:35] The

[40:36] hawks try to get the fish that's in it and the frogs.

[40:40] I also do maintenance work on apartments,

[40:45] rental property,

[40:46] and stuff like this.

[40:49] When you have that many units crammed into 1 small spot

[40:55] and you've got kids,

[40:57] you develop crime.

[41:00] As for the law of the ambulance getting there,

[41:03] my back door wasn't fully locked. And I was in West Gastonia at Walmart.

[41:09] My door came open.

[41:14] I beat

[41:15] the police

[41:16] to my house.

[41:18] Sorry. And I was checking out at Walmart.

[41:21] Immediate purposes, I'm sorry. Just pull that if you can pull that microphone over just a little bit. Oh, I'm sorry. There you go.

[41:27] It takes them over 17 minutes to respond,

[41:31] either 1.

[41:33] And they go by my house every day.

[41:36] Every day. We've got a lot of retired people in our community.

[41:41] And,

[41:43] personally, I've been living on Gastonia School Road for 28 years.

[41:48] And

[41:50] it's really

[41:52] upsetting me about the wildlife that we're gonna lose because when they move in, where's those where's those deer gonna go?

[41:59] I have 4 to 13 comes in my yard periodically,

[42:04] and that's a god's gift.

[42:07] And I enjoy seeing that.

[42:09] I don't wanna wake up 1 morning and see some child in my pond.

[42:15] And I guess that's about all I got to say because

[42:18] I know the rest is just like I've already said, crime's coming.

[42:22] It always follows it follows the pattern, and it doesn't matter if it's low income or high income housing.

[42:29] When you put that many

[42:31] people in a community, you've got a problem.

[42:34] If it was stretched out all the way across Airport Road,

[42:38] that would be something

[42:40] even different you could talk about,

[42:42] but not crammed up like that. Just not enough space. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Any questions for Mr. Hawkins from the commission?

[42:52] Thank you. Last person I had on my list was, I just want to confirm this, Doddy Murphy. You allocated your time prior, right? Correct?

[43:00] Thank you.

[43:03] That's all the speakers we have for or against.

[43:08] I do have a question for staff, if I can.

[43:14] The airport road, it's been a while since I've been over there. Can you confirm that's a single lane road?

[43:20] I

[43:21] drove it yesterday

[43:23] and I cannot confirm. I did not recall any line markers, but it was very narrow. Okay.

[43:33] Another question. The land in front

[43:35] of the proposed development

[43:38] is can you tell me what zoning that is?

[43:41] Would that be

[43:43] Yeah.

[43:45] Yeah. Like, if you come in like, in front of the proposed

[43:49] Yeah.

[43:51] In front of that. Across the road. Oh, let's see properties on that. So

[43:58] Okay. On

[44:02] the screen, just for the minutes, you can see the multiple zonings there's airport r s 12 r s 8 and r s 12 c u p. Okay thank you. I've

[44:13] got I've got a question. I

[44:16] know we've heard a couple of times about safety, kids running into the airport

[44:21] runway,

[44:23] etcetera. I know we have houses already ready in the area. I know they're expensing along

[44:29] the main road.

[44:33] I guess it's art.

[44:36] Well, will be will the airport be required or are they required to fence in around

[44:42] their airport for buffer?

[44:45] Not

[44:46] not that I'm aware of. However, we have had the director of transportation has reviewed this site plan specifically with our airport consultants and has recommended approval.

[44:57] And if there were any concerns, would work with them to address those. Okay. Because we're hearing

[45:03] concerns

[45:04] and people already live there. So

[45:08] guess that,

[45:09] you know, that brought that concerned me. I know most airports I've been to, many,

[45:15] and they're fenced in.

[45:18] Right. When I was out there on-site, and I'll use the mouse if I can, right here at the dead end,

[45:25] this goes from a paved road to gravel or right about here. It goes from a a paved road to gravel,

[45:33] and the fence was open so we would be able to drive onto the property.

[45:38] However, we reversed out. It said no trespassing.

[45:42] Good choice. Thank you.

[45:45] Thanks.

[45:49] Any further questions for staff?

[45:52] I 1

[45:54] question. Going

[45:57] back to the talking about the tree save.

[46:01] Mister Kent, he was willing to pay in lieu of putting the proper amount of trees. Is that right? That was a generic comment. However, they've met the tree save requirements. So the tree save requirement for these 2 parcels would be 0.7

[46:16] acres.

[46:17] And with their proposed site plan, they have met that minimum requirement of 0.7

[46:23] acres.

[46:26] Hang on, Veronica. Let me find this spot again. I I want

[46:32] it's on the

[46:34] no. The it's It's on it

[46:38] says required tree safe is 0.65

[46:42] and provided 0.59.

[46:44] An applicant is proposing to pay a fee in lieu of.

[46:49] Oh, okay. You. Maddie Gross has clarified that that is the next application.

[46:54] I'm ahead of ahead of myself. Thank you for answering the question, Veronica. You're welcome.

[47:16] Airport? Do we know?

[47:20] Because I'm pretty sure

[47:22] the FAA and TSA require perimeter fencing.

[47:27] Well,

[47:28] I don't know about the certification, but what I know is the airport staff and engineering consultant that reviews land use around airport to ensure that it is operated safely

[47:41] reviewed this plan and say there were no objections to it. If there are any safety requirements needed or fence, I'm pretty sure those will be installed as required by law. As required.

[47:53] I

[47:54] have a question.

[47:56] Do you know if there's any proposed expansion of the airport?

[48:02] Again,

[48:04] we received

[48:07] email from

[48:09] miss Randy Gates, who is the transportation director that oversees the airport.

[48:13] Any future expansion

[48:15] is not impacted by this project.

[48:21] I know you can land a C-one hundred 30 on it because I was on that plane.

[48:28] Any further questions for staff?

[48:33] Here, I'll make this. I think it's all wrong. Thank you. I'll read it by phone and then pass it.

[48:41] Mr. Roberts.

[48:42] Yes, sir. If you could come back to the podium if want to ask another Could I have 60 seconds? Just 60 seconds. I'm giving you a lot of latitude here. Yes, sir. Veronica,

[48:52] could I use your pointer for the map?

[48:57] I just have the back and the arrow. Feel free to flip through back in here. Does the mouse work? Yep. Okay, just go back to the map.

[49:09] That 1 will be fine. That 1 works.

[49:13] I

[49:15] am the owner of this property in this area.

[49:20] My mouse doesn't work exactly the way I want it to. There are no children involved.

[49:25] There are 2 adults.

[49:27] The parcel of land here is owned by the Jenkins, and unfortunately, they it's a 2 family. I'm sorry. 2 person family, and they were unable to attend tonight because of health issues. But there are no children there either. So this entire line,

[49:43] if I can get the cursor to go

[49:46] down the runway,

[49:47] there are no children

[49:49] presently,

[49:51] period.

[49:52] Thank you, sir. Thank you.

[49:56] Okay, commissioners. That's all the speakers we have.

[49:59] Any further questions for the staff before we move forward?

[50:03] A question about this document. So it does say that because the proposed I'm sorry. This and I'll pass this down because I think there's only 1. This is from the director of transportation regarding

[50:14] the airport.

[50:15] Is that Sorry to interrupt. Is that the email? I do have additional copies if you would like me It is the email.

[50:21] It says because the proposed development is adjacent to the airport property, TBE has recommended

[50:28] that the developers submit FAA form 7460

[50:33] for an aeronautical study.

[50:35] While no airspace conflicts are anticipated,

[50:38] the FAA's resulting determination

[50:41] should be provided to the city for review. Do we know if that's been done?

[50:47] That will come later once the if and when the property is resound.

[50:55] So we need to make a determination on this before he decides whether he's going to submit for an aeronautical study, correct? That's correct. So basically, that letter is confirming that there is further assessment

[51:08] that needs to be done, and the applicant needs to comply by that.

[51:18] Any further questions?

[51:22] I think that's it, Veronica. Thank you.

[51:28] If

[51:31] there are no further questions, what are the wishes of the board? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded.

[51:38] There's a motion to close the public hearing with a 2nd.

[51:42] Any names for her? Don't have access to staff, correct? Right. We don't have access to counsel. Okay. Just a reminder, we will only have access to counsel.

[51:52] There's a motion and a 2nd. Be prepared to vote. All those all those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand.

[52:03] Public hearing is closed.

[52:05] Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves.

[52:21] We going to talk about Somebody's prepared to make a motion up here. Do you want anybody to discuss anything further? No. I do. I

[52:31] I have concerns

[52:33] with

[52:35] moving forward with this in any direction without the developer being here

[52:41] with

[52:42] such implications,

[52:44] such impactful implications for

[52:49] that

[52:51] the residents have raised.

[52:55] That's my So you're you're just concerned because of the app. She's not here to present the property. And That's part of it. Yeah.

[53:05] So I think

[53:07] for me,

[53:09] with this being

[53:11] a legislative hearing,

[53:13] which means that we are

[53:17] setting or changing rules that apply broadly

[53:20] per the that's

[53:22] the spreadsheet that Maddie sent us. That was That's for the next 1. 0, it's for the next no. It has both. It has on them. This is for both.

[53:31] And that decisions based on policy and public interest

[53:36] And then in parentheses, she put community opinion.

[53:41] And then the next bullet says flexible

[53:44] and discretionary.

[53:47] So unlike

[53:48] the next item,

[53:50] which is judicial,

[53:51] which is only based on facts,

[53:55] those are the things that I am looking to

[53:59] take into account. And so this is tough for me because

[54:03] the landowner, in my opinion, has the right to develop.

[54:07] And he's been before us before.

[54:11] And he offers a potentially really nice product here

[54:15] elsewhere in the city.

[54:18] But

[54:20] at some point,

[54:21] we must also

[54:23] honor the sentiment of those most closely affected by these changes.

[54:30] And I feel like the attendance at the previous meeting

[54:33] and the attendance here tonight

[54:36] would indicate

[54:37] that the modifications

[54:39] offered by the developer, while very thoughtfully considered,

[54:44] do not do enough to alleviate concerns from those most likely to be impacted.

[54:53] And coupled with concerns for

[54:56] neighboring businesses,

[54:58] potentially safety and wildlife,

[55:00] and we still have some pending potential studies that need to be done,

[55:06] I,

[55:07] in good conscience,

[55:08] must

[55:10] do my best to represent the wishes of the community.

[55:14] And what I am hearing overwhelmingly

[55:18] is that

[55:20] they are not

[55:22] in favor of moving forward.

[55:24] So that's where I'm

[55:26] stuck

[55:27] because

[55:28] for me, this is tough. On paper,

[55:32] it meets the criteria.

[55:35] But we have the right

[55:38] to be discretionary.

[55:41] And I think a packed room

[55:43] warrants

[55:45] attention.

[55:47] And I'll add to that. I the area well. I actually built a church there several years ago.

[55:55] So I know the road well.

[55:57] To me, the density on Airport Road is too much density.

[56:02] That is a lot of a lot of homes to put on that road in my opinion.

[56:08] I was really kind of surprised to see that much

[56:11] proposed. I can't imagine even before

[56:14] they changed the plans and backed up.

[56:18] So

[56:19] I strongly believe that the density is too much for that area.

[56:23] And so I would make a motion to deny the rezoning

[56:27] request as presented.

[56:29] 2nd.

[56:32] We have a motion to deny the rezoning request as presented. A motion by Commissioner Howe with a 2nd

[56:37] by Commissioner Chapman.

[56:41] Any further discussion?

[56:45] All those in favor of the motion to deny the rezoning request as presented, please raise your right hand and say aye. Aye.

[56:52] Opposed?

[56:54] That's 6 to 1. That's greater than 0.75, correct? Yes, sir. All right. That motion passes. We'll make the 2nd motion.

[57:04] Yeah, I'll make a motion to adopt the statement of consistency and reason what is based on the 2050 comprehensive plan as well as existing and surrounding zoning and land uses. The planning commission considers an affirmative vote

[57:15] to rezone to RS8CD

[57:18] to not be reasonable, compatible, and in public interest.

[57:21] You read the wrong 1. I read the wrong 1.

[57:24] This 1 is in our packet. It's

[57:28] in our packet.

[57:35] Oh, it is. It is wrong. That's

[57:39] mixed up.

[57:41] I

[57:43] don't have the correct 1. All right, I'll read up here then because this is wrong.

[57:47] I'll make emotional note.

[57:50] That's wrong

[57:52] too.

[58:01] I'll make a motion to deny the statement.

[58:05] Not be reasonable.

[58:08] Is right. So I've already read it. Commissioners,

[58:16] what your

[58:18] motion is, is to adopt the statement in blue.

[58:22] So you're making a motion to adopt what is written in blue. Oh yes,

[58:27] because we've already voted. And what is written in blue is this is not reasonable and compatible with the public interest. Correct. Okay, So he read it correctly. Okay.

[58:38] So

[58:40] he read it correctly 1st time, correct? 2nd. And we have a 2nd

[58:44] for a motion to adopt a statement that consists in reasonableness. Any any further discussion?

[58:50] All those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand and say aye. Aye.

[58:54] Opposed?

[58:56] 1 opposed.

[58:58] The vote passes 6 to 1. The rezoning request as presented is denied.

[59:05] I want to we mentioned about the state of talking, you know, having a packed packed room in here. 1 of the pleasures we have up here as commissioners is

[59:13] is listening to the citizens who it affects the most. And we do certainly respect the right of the landowner to develop their property as well.

[59:22] But 1 of the pleasures we have is listening to the citizens.

[59:26] I've been here 5 years now. And I want to reiterate to you guys. You guys bring a wealth of information to us that we might not otherwise understand what's going on in in your world. We don't get in your backyard. We don't go drive down your roads or whatever. So with that being said, I just want to thank everybody for coming to speak tonight and sharing your feelings. I know these these can get emotional and and and with things that are going on, but I just want to make sure that we hear you, and we appreciate you being here and speaking. You're welcome. Stick stick around for the next round. It's probably gonna be just as lengthy. If not, you can you're more welcome to go go get in the heat. Thank

[1:00:01] you all. Thank you very much for your time.

[1:00:43] Was

[1:00:44] Oh, what? Think of that. It's judicial.

[1:00:47] Special

[1:00:50] use, judicial.

[1:00:51] We can only vote on what the facts are presented, which means they're gonna throw everything.

[1:01:39] The next item on the agenda is a request for a special use permit, which will be conducted as a quasi judicial evidentiary hearing. A special use permit authorizes development or land uses in particulars on the district upon presentation of competent, material, and substantial evidence established in compliance with 1 or more general standards or specific standards requiring

[1:02:00] judgment and discretion be exercised.

[1:02:03] During the consideration of each request, the planning commission shall receive evidence to determine if the proposed use is appropriate at the particular location, meets the requirements of the unified development ordinance, and protects public health safety and welfare.

[1:02:17] The judicial judicial format of the hearing requires that the planning commission planning commission be impartial. If any commissioner has had reason to discuss specific details of the special use permit before today or has any other conflict of interest, they shall ask to be excused from the hearing from from that request.

[1:02:35] An appeal to the decision made by the planning commission in terms of approving or denying a special use permit may be taken in writing to the Superior Court of Gaston County within 30 days after decision of the planning commission.

[1:02:47] Only competent, substantial, fact based testimony or evidence will be considered by the planning commission in deciding the quasi judicial matters listed on today's agenda.

[1:02:57] Pure speculation or opinion not based on competent facts cannot be legally considered by the planning commission in weighing the findings of the fact of the special use permit request.

[1:03:07] North Carolina law provides that individuals have opportunity to address any request on the agenda. If you intend to comment, provide evidence, or testimony on any request,

[1:03:17] please keep this in mind.

[1:03:19] Finally, before addressing the planning commission, all speakers shall be sworn in and must state their name and address for the record.

[1:03:29] Because of the quasi judicial format of this hearing, people wishing to speak and offer evidence are required by North Carolina law to be sworn in or affirmed. I will now ask missus Rebecca Mintz to administer the oath.

[1:03:47] Anyone that plans to speak on this matter, if you signed up to speak and you intend to speak, please come forward so you can be sworn in.

[1:04:44] Item 4 b, public hearing 1 7 3 5 Union Road apartments, file number 2 0 2 6 0 0 2 5 1. The subject hearing involves a special use permit request for

[1:04:56] office light commercial rezone or zoning for approximately 4.75

[1:05:00] acres. The subject property is located at 1 7 3 5 Union Road and owned by the Wait Realty LLC. I hope I pronounced that right. I'd like to recognize Maddie Gross, AICP senior planner for staff presentation.

[1:05:13] Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission.

[1:05:16] As Mr. Chair mentioned, this request before you is for a special use permit for office light commercial zoning

[1:05:23] the subject property is located at 17 35 union road

[1:05:28] the adjoining zoning in this area is a combination of office and residential

[1:05:34] Directly to the north is office medical zoning, which consists of an assisted living facility.

[1:05:40] Properties directly to the west are owned by the city of Gastonia,

[1:05:44] and those do consist of the Catawba

[1:05:48] golf course.

[1:05:49] And then properties

[1:05:51] sorry.

[1:05:53] Sorry.

[1:05:55] Properties

[1:05:56] on the eastern side of Union Road, those are zoned RS 12, which consists of Firestone, Wesley, and Church.

[1:06:04] And then to the north of that is RMF zoning, which is residential

[1:06:08] multifamily,

[1:06:09] and those consist of the Union Station condos.

[1:06:15] As you can see from the aerial map, the site is currently wooded,

[1:06:19] and there is a easement that runs through the middle of the property, shown slightly here if you can see the mouse, and then a Duke Energy power line to the north as well.

[1:06:32] So the request is to OLC

[1:06:34] SUP, which is office like commercial special use permit.

[1:06:39] The request is to allow for a multifamily residential development with a maximum of 108 apartment units.

[1:06:47] According to the UDO,

[1:06:49] the used dwelling multifamily under OLC zoning requires a special use permit to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses and to assess potential impacts on surrounding properties,

[1:07:01] which requires individual consideration

[1:07:04] given the location, design, access, and configuration.

[1:07:08] Overall, the evidence you hear tonight and the assessment shall determine if the proposed

[1:07:13] use is appropriate at this location,

[1:07:16] if it meets the requirements of the UDO, and if it protects public health safety and welfare.

[1:07:24] We did receive this site plan on behalf of the applicant which has gone through several rounds of review with city staff.

[1:07:32] We also got a color rendering version,

[1:07:35] which is slightly easy easier to see.

[1:07:38] As you can see, the the site's

[1:07:41] separated by into 5 buildings,

[1:07:43] equating to 108 units.

[1:07:46] Building number 1 consists of 12 units and is 3 stories.

[1:07:51] Buildings number 2 through 5 are also 3 stories. They consist of 24 units each.

[1:07:58] Buildings 1 and 2, as designed, they face Union Road. And buildings

[1:08:04] 3, 4, and 5 are internal to the site with perimeter parking.

[1:08:09] The primary and secondary accesses are located off Union Road. The primary access is proposed as full movement and the secondary access is a ride in ride out.

[1:08:23] When reviewing a special use permit, the planning commission should consider compliance with the UDO.

[1:08:30] This is provided in your staff report, but I'll I'll go through briefly.

[1:08:34] 1st is zoning. So this request does meet all zoning requirements including setback, lot requirements, and maximum building heights.

[1:08:43] There is a set of supplemental regulations

[1:08:45] for multifamily development.

[1:08:48] That's UDO section 8.1 0.10.

[1:08:51] As designed, the development does meet all of the site design and development regulations

[1:08:56] including the design of the elevations.

[1:08:59] In the UDO, we

[1:09:02] rely on parking maximums.

[1:09:04] So our parking for multifamily is 2 spaces per unit.

[1:09:09] The proposed parking is 148

[1:09:11] spaces so that would be 1.3 spaces per unit which is within our maximum.

[1:09:21] Open space This application is eligible for a 50 percent open space reduction due to proximity to Ferguson Park. So that's shown on the exhibit on the right hand of the screen.

[1:09:32] Otherwise, they were required to provide just shy

[1:09:36] of an acre and they also are meeting the improved open space requirements.

[1:09:44] Greenway compliance.

[1:09:45] Any development that abuts a greenway in the city's public trail network, the developer is required to provide a public connection.

[1:09:53] They are proposing a 7 foot public access trail connecting to the existing Catawba Creek Greenway and to Union Road.

[1:10:01] And lastly, Tree Save Area,

[1:10:03] they were required to provide 0.625

[1:10:06] acres

[1:10:07] which they are meeting with a combination of preservation,

[1:10:11] replanting,

[1:10:12] and a minor fee in lieu.

[1:10:17] Additional site elements.

[1:10:19] The applicant has agreed to provide landscape screening along the western property line which

[1:10:25] softens the transition to the Catawba Creek Greenway and the golf course.

[1:10:29] And they're also proposing landscaping along the front yard

[1:10:33] where the proposed U-turn bulb out is located.

[1:10:37] And then to the south of the screen, you'll see that they are also providing underground stormwater detention.

[1:10:46] The subject property is located within the floodplain.

[1:10:50] As you can see from this map, it's shown in the 100 year floodplain and the 500 year floodplain.

[1:10:56] And the subject property is represented by the yellow star.

[1:11:02] And this is just a more zoomed in version.

[1:11:07] The city of Gastonia does regulate development in the hundred year floodplain.

[1:11:12] It does require a floodplain study and a development permit, which would be submitted to the floodplain administrator

[1:11:18] and that would be have to be reviewed prior to any site work.

[1:11:23] The development would have to cause no rise in the base flood elevation.

[1:11:27] In February of 20 25, a floodplain study and a no rise certificate were approved for this property.

[1:11:34] However, based on the final impervious surface and the grading,

[1:11:39] a revision to that flood study or a new study may be required.

[1:11:46] Subject property is also located within the NCDOT

[1:11:50] Union Road widening project,

[1:11:52] which is also known as U5961.

[1:11:56] Subject property is shown on the left hand side of the screen by the yellow star.

[1:12:01] This widening project is 1.12

[1:12:05] miles,

[1:12:06] and it extends from Osceola to Niblik.

[1:12:11] The resulting will be the cross section in the bottom right hand corner, and that would be a 4 lane median divided with bike ped facilities on both sides of the street.

[1:12:24] There is a proposed u-turn bulb out between Wellands and Niblik, which has happened to fall within the subject property.

[1:12:31] The developer is required to dedicate right of way to accommodate the overall design,

[1:12:37] including the utterm bulb out.

[1:12:40] This is the most recent design we've received

[1:12:43] and right of way is estimated to begin in 20 28 and construction is estimated for 2030.

[1:12:52] This slide, I've reoriented the site plan. So this is how you would look at the site if you were driving down Union Road.

[1:13:00] And then the yellow shows the proposed right of way dedication.

[1:13:07] We received the following elevations from the applicant

[1:13:10] which show a 3 story multi family

[1:13:13] building.

[1:13:15] This is a variation of fiber cement siding

[1:13:18] and

[1:13:19] brick.

[1:13:20] And I believe this is building type 1,

[1:13:23] which has 24 units,

[1:13:25] and building type 2, which has 12 units.

[1:13:31] We also have included some elevation floor plans just for reference.

[1:13:37] As always, we have a list of agreed upon conditions.

[1:13:44] Condition 1 states that the applicant shall

[1:13:47] develop the property that is generally consistent with the attached site plan which would be a maximum of 108 units.

[1:13:55] Condition 3 is regarding building materials which would consist of brick and fiber cement siding.

[1:14:02] Condition 4, there is a portion of open space on the site that's located within a Duke Energy easement.

[1:14:09] So this is the applicant will coordinate with Duke Energy just to make sure that that location of open space is okay.

[1:14:15] And if Duke Energy prefers, they may need to move it.

[1:14:22] Number 5, this shows that buildings number 1 and 2 will orient their front along Union Road.

[1:14:28] Condition 6, this is regarding landscaping along the western property line and front property line, we discussed earlier.

[1:14:37] Condition 7 is the requirement for tree save

[1:14:41] and their potential to pay a fee in lieu for any deficiencies.

[1:14:46] Condition 8 is that they are required to construct a 7 foot public access path which connects to the existing Catawba Creek Greenway.

[1:14:56] Condition 9, the city does have a new trailhead signage. So, is the commitment from the applicant to install that signage.

[1:15:04] Condition 10 is that they will dedicate right of way in accordance with the design plans for the Union Road widening project.

[1:15:12] Condition 11, 12, and 13,

[1:15:14] those came from our 2 Rivers utilities department,

[1:15:17] engineering department, and storm water department.

[1:15:21] Condition 12

[1:15:23] is related to the flood study, and then condition 13

[1:15:26] is related to the underground stormwater detention,

[1:15:29] which is located in the floodplain

[1:15:32] and would have to adhere to the 2 year, 100 year storm detention,

[1:15:35] show no rise, and they would also be required to have a soil scientist verify the seasonal high water table.

[1:15:47] The city did post public hearing signs in advance of the meeting. So the pictures on the left side of the screen simply just show that we met that requirement.

[1:15:55] For a neighborhood meeting, they're not required for a special use permit. However, they are recommended.

[1:16:01] The applicant did hold 1 on June 29th but did not receive any attendees.

[1:16:09] And that concludes staff's presentation.

[1:16:12] Since this is a special use permit, we do not have a recommendation.

[1:16:17] The applicant team is here and they are prepared to present as well.

[1:16:24] Thank you, Maddie. Are there any questions for staff?

[1:16:29] I don't believe they are right now, Maddie, but I believe there will be some.

[1:16:37] Maddie, have a Sorry, This may not be a question for you.

[1:16:42] So given that it is

[1:16:45] seated

[1:16:46] in the flood zone,

[1:16:48] but it's an apartment complex,

[1:16:50] does that require the residents to hold additional flood insurance or is that burden on

[1:16:58] the owner,

[1:16:59] the developer?

[1:17:04] Do we know?

[1:17:05] We don't know.

[1:17:06] Okay. I don't know. I'm sorry. Legally, the insurance would be the responsibility of the owner.

[1:17:12] Tenants can get their own.

[1:17:14] As you aware, renter's insurance is what it's commonly called. But the buildings would

[1:17:21] have to be insured by the owner. Insurance company would insure the tenant for the And that's not a condition that is required for development of this plan. Okay. Okay. Maddie.

[1:17:32] Yes. I do have a question or 2.

[1:17:38] On that NCDOT

[1:17:39] plan, guess that's what 20 28, whatever that was,

[1:17:43] I couldn't really see it.

[1:17:46] Were are they calling for a stoplight in that curve or is it just widening?

[1:17:51] I believe there was no proposed signals on this would be the southern side closer to Osceola there is 2 proposed signals.

[1:18:02] Okay,

[1:18:03] another question.

[1:18:04] I heard you say 2 spaces per

[1:18:08] unit?

[1:18:09] Max.

[1:18:10] Max, but they could go down to 1.5 or something

[1:18:14] different.

[1:18:15] Yeah. They could provide any parking below the maximum 2 per unit.

[1:18:20] Gastonia

[1:18:21] does not mandate parking requirements.

[1:18:23] We actually have a ceiling for maximum parking.

[1:18:26] So if the applicant chooses to provide no parking, we would be okay. Okay.

[1:18:32] The other question is on that hundred year floodplain and

[1:18:37] I guess the footprint of the site.

[1:18:39] And it may be a question for engineering but

[1:18:43] Probably Tucker. A bit.

[1:18:50] Tim has meant I've gotten that far ahead. I didn't know if the terrain or the elevation

[1:18:55] is lifted

[1:18:58] a couple of feet or planned to be lifted.

[1:19:00] So we haven't we don't have the grading plan yet. The whole site is almost all floodplain. If you look at it, you can see the where the floodplain is, and it's almost the entire parcel.

[1:19:10] But we have a prohibitive flood ordinance,

[1:19:13] and the applicant will be required to show no rise in the base flood elevation. So they can't raise the lot. They can't do anything that would raise water levels.

[1:19:22] And so they'll have to achieve that with no rise. And we'll review the study also. So

[1:19:27] we're fully prepared to review those, you know, whatever they submit and just make sure it's factual. But,

[1:19:33] yeah, I don't I don't know if they're gonna have any issues with it, but they have to prove that they can't they're not raising flood levels or they don't get permitted.

[1:19:41] Thank you.

[1:19:44] Maddie, you stated that they held a community meeting and that nobody

[1:19:49] from the community attended.

[1:19:51] Am I to assume the 4 names that are on the community meeting sign in sheet are the developers?

[1:19:57] Yes ma'am. Okay.

[1:20:01] Was And also to clarify,

[1:20:04] SEP does not require a neighborhood meeting per our current ordinance. But they held the neighborhood meeting anyways. I just wanted to clarify that. Thanks.

[1:20:15] I have a question for you. So was the neighborhood meeting mailing list the same as the 100 foot adjoining

[1:20:24] owner list in the Attachment A?

[1:20:27] And it was not as mailed within the timeframe of the UDO

[1:20:32] requires? Yes, the mailings were sent within the requirements of the UDO.

[1:20:37] For a neighborhood meeting, we required notification

[1:20:39] to be sent 10 days in advance of the neighborhood meeting.

[1:20:43] For a public hearing, we would send it 2 weeks in advance.

[1:20:47] I believe the only discrepancy

[1:20:50] was

[1:20:51] so we notify 100 feet Mhmm. And then we could go across Union Road as well. The

[1:20:57] city typically does an additional 10 to 25 feet just to get if we're close enough, but they're not quite in our hundred. So the only additional neighbor I know of was Charles Murdock.

[1:21:09] Okay. So he did receive a notification from the city, but not for the neighborhood meeting. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Let let me clarify. So there are 2 different things. Right? So 1 was strictly to hold a neighborhood meeting,

[1:21:21] which again we established. It's not a requirement,

[1:21:24] but it was done beyond that. The 2nd part, Maddie just explained, is notification

[1:21:29] for this public hearing, which

[1:21:32] is hundred feet plus that 25 feet. It's both for both. Yep. Thank you.

[1:21:41] Any further questions for staff?

[1:21:45] Thank you, Maddie.

[1:21:48] Commissioners, we have

[1:22:03] 3 folks signed up for this item. Looks like there'll be 1 speaker, I guess for the applicant. And then a number of

[1:22:10] 9 people signed for it can't. So we'll start with the applicant

[1:22:14] 1st.

[1:22:16] Just let me know if you're going to speak for the whole group.

[1:22:20] Thawait? I'm

[1:22:22] here. I'm going to speak and then I will go ahead and go ahead this meeting. Thank you. Okay.

[1:22:30] Good evening. Would you state your name and address for the record please? Chair, vice chair, commissioners, thank you for the opportunity. My name is Jason Dolan. My address is 6 10 East Morehead Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.

[1:22:48] Okay. Oh, it's already up. I do have a presentation.

[1:22:52] We're the civil engineering firm representing Vasu Developers who is the developer of the project.

[1:22:58] Speaking to Mike. Is that better?

[1:23:02] Making mic taller for tall people like that. Super tall person. There

[1:23:08] you go.

[1:23:10] How's that? Is that better? Sure.

[1:23:13] I think I think I can get close to it.

[1:23:17] So as as was mentioned and Maddie did a great job on the presentation, we held a community meeting on the 29th.

[1:23:25] Existing conditions have already gone over, but I'll review a few more items. This is an undeveloped site we do have easements that cross the site which we're working around

[1:23:34] and then there was also the discussion about the proposed and CDOT improvements along Union Road which are significant

[1:23:42] and I think on 1 of the maps that was shown previously it listed the main driveway as full movement which it will be at the time it's developed but will eventually become

[1:23:52] limited with the median that's installed as part of the roadway improvements.

[1:23:58] 4.74

[1:23:59] acres 144

[1:24:01] parking spaces we've actually reduced a few since since previously was listed but we are still around 1.3 spaces per unit so again below the maximum of 2 units per 2 units per 2 spaces per unit. I'm sorry.

[1:24:17] We are meeting the tree preservation

[1:24:20] and open space along with all of the conditions that the city of Gastonia has provided to us with with no question.

[1:24:28] And the architect has prepared renderings which some of you've seen and I'm going to go through these because I know 1 of the important items that we want to make clear is that

[1:24:42] are being compliant with the neighboring development making sure that we're compatible both with materials with look with height and so as you can see in the rendering we have gabled roofs we have a mixture of materials

[1:24:55] on the faces that front the roadway primarily those are brick

[1:25:01] greater than 50 percent in most cases in fact as you can see on the rendering approaching 75 percent on those buildings that that are up on Union Road

[1:25:11] And then the elevations show how those

[1:25:14] elevations of the building are broken down.

[1:25:18] Although we are proposing some 24 unit buildings

[1:25:22] the way the architecture is articulated

[1:25:24] it appears to be smaller units grouped together.

[1:25:31] And then this last slide shows some of the materials that will be utilized as part of that architecture.

[1:25:40] So a few items that I just wanted to go over.

[1:25:43] I know that safety is important.

[1:25:45] This site will have a lighting plan for the parking lot as well as around the buildings that will meet the city of Gastonia's lighting code. We're obviously not going to trespass light onto the adjacent properties. We know that that's an important part of what we want to do.

[1:26:01] Some of the older layouts that were done for this project had a different layout of the roadway.

[1:26:07] Just what? I'm sorry. Sorry, I'll go back to the 2nd Okay, there we go.

[1:26:16] The internal vehicular circulation that we're proposing on this provides a loop, which we felt was important for not only the tenants,

[1:26:23] but also for emergency access for fire trucks. And so we feel like that's a

[1:26:30] strong advocate for this being a very safe environment.

[1:26:36] We did look at the intersection sight distance for the driveways that are going out not only onto the existing Union Road but also onto what Union Road becomes with the improvements and we are meeting those. We did commit to a write in write out for the southern driveway as there was some concern about oncoming traffic from the south and that being full movement and we had no issues with accepting that

[1:27:01] we are committed to meeting all of the UDO requirements. Again, I mentioned the conditions a few moments ago as well as section 8.1.10,

[1:27:11] the multifamily guidelines.

[1:27:14] And we are planning to

[1:27:18] provide them, as I said, the materials that will be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood.

[1:27:29] Happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Dillon?

[1:27:36] On this screen you have 106 units and we have 108.

[1:27:48] My friend in the back. My

[1:27:59] name is Amid Khawaid, 10106

[1:28:02] Stones by L. In Waxhaw, NC.

[1:28:04] 108 is the total unit count. The 2 unit in 1 of the front,

[1:28:10] the unit basically is going to be used for the office center.

[1:28:14] That is why we reduced the 2 count.

[1:28:17] So the 106

[1:28:19] total count is going to be offered for the tenants and apartment purpose. 2 units basically for internal leasing and other purposes. That's where some modifications. So let me ask you this.

[1:28:30] So is the site plan in attachment C on the package showing the 5 buildings in 108

[1:28:36] units, right? The plan that you are asking this commission to book tonight.

[1:28:41] So I

[1:28:43] think we should fix that typo, just acknowledging right away. Total construction is going total unit count construction is going to be 108.

[1:28:51] For our internal purpose or for

[1:28:54] the apartment purpose, going to be offered 106 unit. 2 is just basically for internal. And then 5 buildings? Yes. The building count everything the same. So the application signed back in May in the neighborhood meeting noticed that both described 9 3 story

[1:29:10] buildings. So

[1:29:12] the site report and the site plan shows 5.

[1:29:16] When did you decide the change and and why? We have been working with the city staff and we have been con con con continuously adopting the feedback and enhancing the plan.

[1:29:26] And and that's the change. What we are seeing it basically from 9 to 5 and a lot of great feedback which help us improvise our overall floor plan and building counts and stuff like that. Do you have any evidence

[1:29:37] to offer tonight

[1:29:39] beyond the materials that we already

[1:29:42] in the staff packet

[1:29:44] if you have it? So please exhibit it right now if you have it. I don't think so. We have it.

[1:29:50] You're sorry. Yeah, sorry. You're asking evidence that would extra evidence that you have that would support our change from 9 units to 5 units. No, there's already 5 units. You already said yes. Any evidence that you want to clear? No. Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

[1:30:09] Any

[1:30:13] further questions for our speaker?

[1:30:15] I still have some questions, mister chairman. That okay? Absolutely. Just to make sure that we focus in the right direction. So Excuse me, commissioners. You started asking questions. I'm not sure he's finished his presentation. Oh. So you might wanna let him do that.

[1:30:31] Oh, thought he was. He said I'm finished.

[1:30:33] Okay. Thank you. I just want to clarify that. Thank you. So

[1:30:38] what portion of the side lies within the FEMA zone 8E

[1:30:42] floodplain?

[1:30:43] And is any building

[1:30:45] parking or field proposed within the regulation floodway?

[1:30:50] As was stated,

[1:30:51] nearly 90 percent of the site is within a floodplain.

[1:30:55] Our intent is to raise the elevation

[1:30:58] so that all of the buildings are above

[1:31:01] protection elevation. So the flood planning study and permit for this property were approved back in February 20 25, I believe.

[1:31:08] And before the new owner,

[1:31:11] the title of this new property back in March 20 26. So was this study based on the 5 building laid out or

[1:31:19] it does

[1:31:20] actually

[1:31:22] still remain valid?

[1:31:24] I haven't seen the 20 25 study so I cannot

[1:31:29] I can't provide any response to that. We are in the middle of we're in the process of grading the site in order to meet the flood protection elevation

[1:31:39] and then we will take that grading plan and move into our flood study to provide the no rise study as we move into construction documents. So are you committed as a condition to submit a revised non rise certification approved by the floodplain administrator

[1:31:54] before

[1:31:56] the site plan approval?

[1:32:00] Yes,

[1:32:01] yes, we will. That process will be will begin after this meeting. Okay, you don't mind to describe the the underground detention system by any chance and

[1:32:13] Has the soil scientist confirmed

[1:32:15] the seasonal high water table

[1:32:18] at this location by any chance? We have not had the soil scientists out to the site yet. That'll be again. We're waiting

[1:32:26] to see how tonight goes

[1:32:27] and then we will send the soil scientist out and cut the flood study loose.

[1:32:32] But we will have him go out there to verify the location of the seasonal high water table. Regarding

[1:32:38] your 1st question about the underground storm water system, it's it's obviously not typical

[1:32:43] to have an underground system in an area where it's inundated with floods or with the with flooding.

[1:32:51] So in this case we will have to utilize some different.

[1:32:55] Backwater valves in order to prevent any water from actually moving into the system in the event of a flood before our storm water flows in.

[1:33:05] It is so so how this up well how the development will affect the storm water discharge to the Catawba Creek in both 0.25?

[1:33:15] Well, no, by by code we cannot. We have to only allow

[1:33:21] outflow that meets or is less than what the pre existing conditions are.

[1:33:30] Has a traffic study been completed?

[1:33:34] It has not. But I also don't know that we're required to do 1 given our unit count. No.

[1:33:40] I think that is correct. This did not trigger the TIA threshold.

[1:33:45] So traffic study is not required.

[1:33:50] So your intention is to raise the construction level above

[1:33:56] the flood

[1:33:58] zone.

[1:33:59] Am I understanding that correctly? So you're raising the grade of the ground to get it above?

[1:34:06] That is correct. Yes. And what impact, if any, will that have on neighboring properties,

[1:34:12] businesses? I think you're right up against Brookdale.

[1:34:16] Actually

[1:34:17] that won't have any off-site impacts. There

[1:34:21] is enough in fact by the time we get to our northern property line where we border the Brookdale project

[1:34:27] we're actually very close to grade. There's just a significant amount of rise from the southern end of the site to the north. So we're filling primarily in the southern end. Okay. But we don't have any like

[1:34:40] illustrations or documentation

[1:34:43] to show

[1:34:45] where that looks or how that flow? At this time, we do not. Okay.

[1:34:52] I was going to say, is it dependent on the soil study or?

[1:34:56] No. It's really, again, just dependent upon how far we want to get with documents

[1:35:02] before we know

[1:35:04] where we It

[1:35:07] is also because of the expense and time it takes. Of course. Going through the SEP is the 1st step. Once it is approved, the conditions noted in your staff report

[1:35:18] clearly outlines storm water,

[1:35:20] management issues, the flood study.

[1:35:23] All of those requirements have to be still met. Thank you. Have you reached to NCDOT for any review or approval of the 2 proposed driveways by any chance? We have provided NCDOT with plans. In fact, we sent them our plans once we had received their documents for the road widening and had dropped those in there you can you can barely see it just in the background where the bulb out is so back in June we had begun communicating with them to get those plans from them. We put them in our plans to make sure that we were coordinated. And then we provided them with a layout. But they haven't responded. No access permit yet. Okay.

[1:36:02] So these

[1:36:03] NCDOT

[1:36:04] is TIP,

[1:36:06] U dash 5961

[1:36:08] is not a schedule for construction until probably 2030.

[1:36:13] So between and then, how will the full moment primary

[1:36:17] driveway operate in the 2 lane road with no median?

[1:36:22] Well, as was stated, it will be a full movement driveway until the road improvements are completed.

[1:36:31] But at that location, there is greater sight distance both to the north and the south.

[1:36:40] By any chance, do you know the available

[1:36:43] sight distance between the 2

[1:36:45] access point or driveway by any chance? Between our 2 driveways?

[1:36:50] I do not have that with me right now, but I can very easily

[1:36:54] provide it to you. I

[1:36:58] do know that that was 1 of the questions that came from city staff from their transportation department while we were in review.

[1:37:05] And they had just asked us to verify that distance and I believe 1 of their responses was that it did meet the

[1:37:12] meet the minimum separation.

[1:37:16] Including the stop site distance required by NCDOT as well or I don't think that they made any statement with regard to NCDOT requirements. Okay. Thank you.

[1:37:25] Yeah. Again, to clarify, we do not speak for DOT. But our city traffic engineer reviewed the access points And it does meet those side distance requirements. Right. This is an NCDOT

[1:37:37] right away. Yes,

[1:37:39] sir.

[1:37:46] Any further questions for our speaker?

[1:37:51] I just have 1 clarification.

[1:37:55] So the DOT widening is expected to be completed in

[1:38:00] 2030

[1:38:01] and

[1:38:02] start

[1:38:04] 2030?

[1:38:06] If everything goes well. That when

[1:38:10] how that works?

[1:38:11] And what would be the expected

[1:38:14] obviously I know that's a big ask roughly what would be your expected time to occupy the building?

[1:38:23] Again,

[1:38:26] as per the plan what we're looking forward if things will go as planned, then probably 1st 0.25 or 2nd 0.25 of next year, we're going to begin constructing or break the ground and as things will move forward.

[1:38:37] Maybe the end of the next year, maybe The year construction time? Yeah, in area of construction time, 20 28,

[1:38:43] Q2,

[1:38:44] somewhere in between. So possibly,

[1:38:47] have a couple of years

[1:38:49] of

[1:38:50] completion of your project before the DOT

[1:38:54] widening? Yes, sir. Okay. Thanks.

[1:39:00] Any further questions?

[1:39:03] Yes. Sure. Have a couple more. Absolutely. Sorry. No, that's fine. Under utilities and services,

[1:39:09] has 2 Rivers Utilities issued a willingness to serve letter or confirm the water?

[1:39:14] Sewer capacity for the 108 units they have. Thank you.

[1:39:19] And have you consulted the Gastonia schools regarding the.

[1:39:25] The number of students in generation that we have not.

[1:39:43] Thank you.

[1:39:45] Thank you Mr. Dillon. Alright

[1:39:48] and moving on to the speakers who are against this project. I have a list of 9 names here and just as we did earlier

[1:39:55] as I stated in the rules of procedure, we try to keep our time to a total of 20 minutes for all speakers. Do have a little bit of leverage. So I'm gonna go down the list just like I did prior and if you just indicate, I'll state your name, you just indicate if you still want me to speak.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript