TOWN OF STOKESDALE  NORTH CAROLINA  NOVEMBER: 9.1989)  DALE  AGENDA PACKET  REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETING  STOKESDALE TOWN HALL BUILDING  8325 ANGEL-PARDUE ROAD STOKESDALE, NC 27357  JULY11,2024  7:00 PM    AGENDA TOWN OF STOKESDALE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 8325 ANGEL-PARDUE ROAD STOKESDALE, NC27357 JULY11, 2024AT7:00PM  AVAILABLE VENUES TOWATCH/ATTEND:  a) Attend in Person at Stokesdale Town Hall in Council Chambers at 7:00 PM b) View Live Stream on Town of Stokesdale's YouTube Channel at 7:00 PM: tps/www.youtube.comychamneyUCIDHZIVO 56F EDH6wliA/live c) View & Participate (Public Comments) Virtually via Zoom at 7:001 PM: ttps:/us02web.z0om.s//86951453486/pwd-EyBMKT94kirMClymltyoej0ia1G.1 Meeting ID: 86951453486-1 Passcode: 895418-One-Tap Mobile: 1-646-876-9923  01. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, and Invocation. 02. Review and Adopt the Agenda: July 11, 2024 03. Review and Adopt the following Minutes: a) 03-14-2024 - Board of Adjustment Minutes b) 04-11-2024 - Regular Town Council Meeting  c) 05-07-2024 - Special Called Town Council Meeting (Budget Workshop)  04. Public Safety Reports: a) Stokesdale Fire District b) Guilford County Sheriff's Office  05. Administrative Reports:  a) Administrative: Town Clerk Robbie Lee Wagoner II b) Planning Board: Town Clerk Robbie Lee Wagoner II c) Property Committee: Councilman Jim Rigsbee  d) Town Park Improvement Committee: Committee Chairman Tee Stephenson  06. Financial Reports: Town Finance/Budget Officer Kimberly Thacker a) Financial Report: Town of Stokesdale General Fund b) Financial Report: Town of Stokesdale Water Enterprise Fund  PAGE1OF3    07. Public Comments from the Floor (3-Minute Limit per Speaker).  PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:  08. Rezoning Case 24-04-PLBD-00076, 7800 Eversfield Road From AG (Agricultural) To RS-40 (Single-Family Residential) - Located on the east side of Eversfield Road (SR 2109), 1.02 miles north of the intersection of Eversfield Road with Oak Ridge Road, Guilford County Tax Parcel #150401, this is a request to rezone the subject property, which contains a total of 45.79 acres from AG (Agricultural) to RS-40 Single-Family Residential). The Stokesdale Town Council will have the final authority to approve or deny the request. The request is consistent with the Stokesdale Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential; thus, if approved, a future land use plan amendment is not required. (Continued from June 13, 2024,  regular Stokesdale Town Council meeting.)  09. Public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Thoroughfare and Collectors Street Plan as prepared and adopted by the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) and subsequently amending the Town of Stokesdale's Future Land Use Plan - The Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) provides multi-modal transportation planning for the Town of Stokesdale among other communities in Guilford County, and the updated Thoroughfare and Street Collector Plan addresses thei network of roadways that makeupoarcommunitis, considers their function, ensures overall network stability, balances volume and access, and informs roadway design and speed limit. The Plan implements provisions of the Land Development Ordinance, establishes street design standards, manages access and connectivity, and secures rights-of-way as development occurs. This update is required to maintain consistency with the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Upon the potential adoption of the Plan and subsequent resolution, the Town of Stokesdale's Future Land Use Plan would be amended.  OLD BUSINESS ITEMS:  10. Consideration of a Resolution Requesting the Guilford County Board of Elections to Addal Referendum tot the November 2024 Ballot fora Vote to Enable the Location of an ABC Store in the Corporate Boundaries of the Town of Stokesdale (Resolution R-2024-02). (Councilman Jim Rigsbee) (Continued from June  13, 2024, regular Stokesdale Town Council meeting.)  11. Consideration to resolve outstanding water bill debts owed to the Town of Stokesdale Water Enterprise Fund. (Councilman Jimmy Landreth) (Continued from  June 13, 2024, regular Stokesdale Town Council meeting.)  PAGE20F3    NEW BUSINESS ITEMS:  12. Consideration of a Three Percent (3%) Cost of Living increase for Stokesdale  Town Staff. (Mayor Pro Tem Derek Foy)  13. Public Comments from the Floor (3-Minute Limit per Speaker).  14. Closed Session in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11. (a) Permitted Purposes. It is the policy of this State that closed sessions shall be held only when required to permit a public body to act in the public interest as permitted ini this section. A public body may hold a closed session and exclude the (3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order toj preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body,  public only when a closed session is required: which privilege is hereby acknowledged.  15. Council Comments.  ANNOUNCEMENTS:  16. Council Announcements:  a) The next Stokesdale Town Planning Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 25, 2024, at 7:00 PM: inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council b) The next regular Stokesdale Town Council meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 08, 2024, at 7:00 PM inside the Stokesdale Town Hall  Chambers.  Council Chambers.  ADIOURNMENT:  17. Adjournment of Meeting.  PAGE30F3    AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 03a  MINUTES TOWN OF STOKESDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING 8325 ANGEL-PARDUE ROAD STOKESDALE, NC2 27357 MARCH14, 2024 AT7:001 PM  Members of the Stokesdale Town Council present (serving in their capacity as members of the Stokesdale Town Board of Adjustment): Mayor. Pro Tem Derek Foy; Councilman Jim Rigsbee; Councilman Jimmy Landreth; and Councilman Tim Jones. Alternate Member of the Stokesdale Town Board of Adjustment present: Chris Sumner. Members of the Stokesdale Town Staff present: Town Attorney Charles H. Winfree; Town Planner Justin Snyder; and Town Clerk Robbie Lee WagonerI II.  01. Call to Order.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy called the meeting to order at 7:34 PM. 02. Review and Adopt the Agenda: March 14, 2024.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to adopt the agenda as written.  Councilman Landreth seconded thei motion.  Chris Sumner Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (5-0).  YES YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee YES  EVIDENTIARY HEARING ITEMS:  03. Case #24-02-BOA-00001, 7886 Eversfield Road, Stokesdale, North Carolina  27357:  Daniel Myers, on behalf of property owners Thomas and Carrie Johnson, is requesting a variance from Section 4-4.1(a), Dimensional Requirements, Agricultural and single-family districts, which requires a minimum 15-foot side yard setback in the AG, Agricultural, zoning district. This setback applies tot the proposed accessory structure because its size exceeds the 600 square foot  PAGE10F14    threshold to permit the setback reduction to five feet from any side or rear property line allowed under Section 4-5.1(b). The subject property is zoned AG, Agricultural, and it is located in Bruce Township at 7886 Eversfield Road, Guilford County Tax Parcel #236516, comprising 1.02 acres. The specific request is to allow an eight-foot setback variance to allow a 27': x40' detached accessory structure to be constructed seven feet from the northern property line. Town Clerk Wagoner announced that any person in attendance who wishes to provide testimony during the abovementioned evidentiary hearing should please stand and be Town Clerk Wagoner swore in Town Planner Justin Snyder, Daniel W. Myers (The Applicant), Thomas P. Johnson (The Property Owner), Kevin Stewart (The Neighboring Property Owner), stating to them simultaneously the following: "Do you solemnly swear [or affirm] that the evidence you shall give to the board in this action shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but thei truth, sO help you God [as your solemn affirmation]?" To which they all verbally stated "yes" or "Ido." Mayor Pro Tem Foy declared the Evidentiary Hearing open at 7:421 PM. Town Planner Justin Snyder presented his staff report for Case #24-02-BOA-00007 stating that Thomas and Carrie Johnson, owners of the subject property located at 7886 Eversfield Road (Guilford County Tax Parcel #236516containing +/-1.02 acres) and zoned AG, Agricultural, are requesting a variance from Stokesdale Development Ordinance Sections 4-4.1, Agricultural and single-family districts, Subsection (A), Dimensional requirements for agricultural and single family districts, and Table 4-4-1, Agricultural and Single Family District Dimensional Requirements, specifically as it relates to the minimum required interior side yard setback of 15 feet in the AG, Agricultural, zoning district for primary structures and accessory structure greater than 600 square feet in area. The applicants are requesting an eight-foot setback variance to allow a 27' X 40 accessory structure to be constructed seven (7) feet from the northern side yard lot line. While they do state in the application that the purpose is to construct at three-car garage to house classic cars, staff would note that the ordinance does not distinguish the use of the accessory structure for purpose of setback calculations for accessory buildings. Rather, iti is the size of the proposed structure that puts it over the threshold of 600 square feet to require it to meet the full 15-foot side setback. Town Planner Snyder read the description for the agricultural district stating that the purpose is to preserve and encourage the continued use of land for agricultural, forest and open space purposes; to discourage scattered commercial and industrial land uses; to concentrate urban development in and around area growth centers, thereby avoiding premature conversion of farmland to urban uses; to discourage any use which, because  sworn in.  PAGE20F14    ofits character, would create premature or extraordinary public infrastructure. and Town Planner Synder said that the agricultural district is a single-family residential district, in addition to allowing certain agricultural uses, iti is intended to accommodate those uses of agricultural nature which also includes farm residences, farm tenant housing, as well as scattered non-farm residences on larger tracks of land. Iti is not  service demands.  intended for major residential subdivisions.  Property Specifics:  Applicant/Property Owners: Thomas and Carrie Johnson Property Location: 7886 Eversfield Road, Stokesdale, NC Legal Description: Reference Deed Book 8731, p. 1372  Setbacks - AG: zoning district.  Character of the Area:  Existing land use on the property: Residential single-family dwelling, attached  two-car garage, and detached shed.  Surrounding Uses:  North: Single-family dwelling (zoned AG) West: Single-family dwelling (zoned RS-30)  South: Single-family dwelling and outbuildings (zoned RS-30) East: Undeveloped single-family residential land (zoned RS-30)  Area Visual Survey: Primarily agricultural and single-family residential uses.  Topographic & Stormwater Features: County Soil Survey map.  There are: no: mapped streams on the site per USGS topo quad map and Guilford There is no regulated floodplain on the site per the Flood Insurance Rate map. The existing site generally drains gently from north to south with slopes of 5% or less based on Guilford County GIS Data Viewer contour info. The: northern portion of the site lies at approximately 918 feet and transitions to approximately The site is below 24% BUA (built-upon area), which is considered low-density development in the NPDES General Watershed Area; therefore, on-site treatment  909 feet on the southern portion of the site. of stormwater would not bei required. Date of Application: February 8, 2024  Notice Information  Date of Adjacent Property Owners Notified: February 27,2024 Date Sign Posted on the Subject Property: February 27, 2024  PAGE30F14    Date of] Hearing: March 14, 2024  Proposed Findings of Fact  Stokesdale Development Ordinance Sec. 4-4.1 (A) refers to' Table 4-4-1, which states that the side yard setback for a primary building or any accessory structure larger than 600 square feet in area shall be a minimum of15 feet from any side There is currently one 2760-square foot single-family home on the property. Property is served by private septic, and the drainage is located in the rear yard behind thel house. The septic tank is next to the house to the south. A12 x 27' (324 square feet) shed is located in the southeast portion of the The applicant shows 40 feet of distance between the septic drainage area and the The applicant shows 45 feet between the septic tank and the south side property The applicant shows 57 feet between the north side property line and the existing Stokesdale's Development Ordinance in Section 4-5.2: requires all accessory structures and buildings tol be located behind the front building line of the principal structure when the lot size is less than two acres. The proposed accessory structure could be built in thej proposed location and meet the required setbacks if reduced in size to 27' deep x 32' wide (or smaller) The existing house, as well as the homes to the north and the homes to the west, Thej proposed accessory building is 1,080 square. feet in area, which is 39% of the size of the existing dwelling, and which is 270% the size of a traditional 20' x20 There are: no other properties in the Warren Place subdivision with a detached Lot 3, the subject lot, at 1.02 acres in size is thel largest lot in the Warren Place The typical garage layout for equitable purposes in Stokesdale and most other The garage is oriented north-south on the proposed plot plan. The garagec could be oriented east-west and located on the opposite side of thel home to allow a garage of the intended size to be constructed while still meeting the required The topography of the site is comparable in both drainage and slope to other lots  property line.  property. rear property line. line. house.  from 27' x4 40',  were all built with attached two-car garages.  (400 square feet) two-car garage.  accessory structure larger than 400 square feet.  subdivision, and itl has the second widest average lot width.  communities is a two-car garage.  setbacks and other Ordinance requirements.  in the same subdivision.  PAGE40F14    Houses on 7884, 7886, and 7888 Eversfield Road were. all constructed by the same  builder, AFC Rehab Solutions.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy formally received the evidence as presented by Mr. Justin Snyder  including exhibits1 1-16. Proponents:  Thomas Johnson, the owner of the property located at 7886 Eversfield Road, Stokesdale, NC, presented a PowerPoint presentation explaining why hei is asking for the rezoning. The. PowerPoint presentation included an introduction with information pertaining to the) Johnson Family along with research on the location. Mr. Johnson along with his wife and two children officially moved to the Town of Stokesdale on August 1st after purchasing the property in May of 2023. He was: relocated to the area by his job in order Mr. Johnson and his wife conducted research to determine that the northwest section of Guilford County was a good fit for their family primarily because of the local school system. The housing market in May 2023 proved to be difficult for the family who were trying to find a place to live. Mr. Johnson purchased the house at 7886 Eversfield Road while it was being built after expressing interest in purchasing the neighboring home He then presented a slide on his cars which represents a family tradition to him. As an autoworker working at the Toyota Plant in Liberty and being the son of a 32-year retiree of General Motors, Mr. Johnson expressed his love for automobiles. Two of the three cars featured in the PowerPoint slide were physically built by his father back in the The house that they moved into in Stokesdale was chosen based on the ability to Mr. Johnson spent months looking at options and placed them into a matrix trying specifically to locate a garage that would fit the: needs for the three cars to be housed around thej property and come up with a solution that was most feasible based on the application that he submitted for a variance on the north side of the property. The specific variance request was to encroach on the 15-foot section on the north side of his property line hindering into 8 feet of the 15 feet utilization for the 27: x 40 discussed Mr. Johnson answered the four questions included in the application which is part of  tol help build a new manufacturing plant.  which was sold before he had a chance to make an offer.  1970s.  recreate garagespace for the cars.  in the application process.  thej process:  PAGE50F14    1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. Strict application of the side yard setback would: reduce the size proposed of the garage requiring Mr. Johnson to sell one of the classic cars or store them offsite indefinitely at a cost. Mr. Johnson would have to sell one of the three cars. He claimed that renting a storage unit not at his residence would not be feasible with price being $120 a month per vehicle while the garage is being constructed, as well as no heat or humidity control, and insurance sustainability 2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. (Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common toi the neighborhood or public, may not be the basis for granting the variance.) Hardship results from location of dwelling, septic, and well, such that there is only one feasible build location. Most other surroundings properties have larger lots or dwellings situated on thel lots such that accessory structures could bel built  also playing a factor.  without a variance.  3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. (The act of purchasing property knowing that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of the variance is not regarded as self- created hardship). Hardship was created by the original dwelling builder in determining location of dwelling, septic, well, etc. Location of dwelling eliminates all other possible build locations. Owners seek to build only large 4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. The proposed garage would mimic the style and material of existing dwelling and neighborhood. Housing cars inside a permanent structure reduces the chance of theft and vandalism, while increasing the visual appeal of the neighborhood as opposed to storing the cars outside under a cover. Owners specifically researched and found a builder to do a traditional "stick" built garage to increase the property value and enhance curb appeal.  enough to house the cars and parts, nothing more.  Mr. Johnson then presented a rebuttal disclosing why alternative options would not  work in his case.  Exhibit 14 - Alternative compact garage design. vehicles, parts and shop area.  Mr. Johnson said that 600 square feet was not an adequate size for his He mentioned that the previous residence that he provided examples of  had two spaces with a total of1 1,288 square feet.  PAGE60F14    The proposed 27x40 was reduced by about 200 square feet making it where he can physically fit the vehicles, car parts, utilities, and activities  within 80 square feet.  Exhibit 15 - Potential alternate garage location.  Mr. Johnson said that the garage without the drive in the front for the proposed location does come right up to the septic tank from the The car lengths were measured, and they are roughly 16 to 17: feet. The proposed location provides 18 feet of clearance to the corner of the house. Thej proposed location did not show the two HVAC: systems that are part of the dwelling that is located directly in the center on the south side of thej property which would further reduce the 18-foot clearance needed to clear the ability to move the vehicles in and out of that, meeting the 15 foot  proposed map.  clearance on that side of thej property as well.  Mr. Johnson shared three examples within 1.1 miles of his home that has other detached garages that are fairly large in size as he sees as he drives his daughter to and from school and his son to and from basketball practice. The houses mentioned include: 7827 Athens Road, Stokesdale, NC 27357 (Large detached garage greater than 77781 Eversfield Road, Stokesdale, NC: 27357 (Two large, detached garages greater 7870 Eversfield Road, Stokesdale, NC: 27357 (Three car detached metal garage  400 square feet) - 1.0 mile from his property. than 400 square feet) - 1.1 miles from his property. greater than 400 square feet) - 0.2 mile from his property.  Ins summary, Mr. Johnson is requested variance approval tol be less than 15 feet setback on side of his property. The purpose for the request is to construct a stick-built car Mayor Pro Tem Foy announced that the Council would accept Mr. Johnson's presentation as evidence. Mayor Pro Tem Foy then invited anyone else that wanted to Kevin Stewart of 7888 Eversfield Road, Stokesdale, NC, spoke in: favor of Mr. Johnson who is his neighbor. Mr. Stewart said that he and his wife have no problem with Mr. Johnson building a detached garage. He mentioned that there is another house down the street from them that also had a detached garage that you can see from the road. Mayor Pro Tem Foy then opened the floor for those to speak in opposition of the  garage, 27 by 42 feet for personal use to house his classic cars.  speak in favor of the requests to the microphone.  Opponents:  request. There were: no speakers in opposition.  PAGE70F14    Mayor Pro Tem Foy mentioned that Mr. Snyder mentioned that there were other locations on the property where the structure could be built and asked if that could be Mr. Johnson said that two options were provided in section 15 and 16 in the evidence section. One of the options provided was: rotating the garage 90 degrees and placing it on the south side of the property, but it would be right up: near the septic tank. The other option was to reduce the garage to the 600 threshold, which Mr. Johnson pointed out was: not physically feasible based on the square footage that he needed to house his Councilman Rigsbee asked Mr. Johnson if he had considered reducing 8-feet in the proposed garage or if he had considered attaching it to his house to move it over several Mr. Johnson said that he has a set of prints that will equal the 32x27 if the variance is not approved, but that he will not be able to get three cars in addition tol his equipment in the space based off of the square footage. He said that if thel Board denies his proposal, then he will reduce the size of the space, but will most likely have to get rid of one of his cars. In response to Councilman Rigsbee' 's inquiry about attaching the garage tol his house, Mr. Johnson said that on the north side of his house is where the main power line is, which runs out through the side of thel house and into the backyard behind his neighbor'sl house. There would not be any feasibility to move it any closer based off of the requirement by Duke Energy. He also has a backup generator installed in the event of a power outage, which would also not allow for the garage tol be  expanded upon.  vehicles.  feet.  attached due to the layout.  Councilman Jones asked if Mr. Johnson had considered raising the vertical height of the structure and stacking one car over the other using one of the commonly available hydraulic lifts or building a two-car garage over the driveway and putting a single-car structure on the other side of the house to accommodate the third vehicle. Mr. Johnson said that he did investigate the first option but that it was just not feasible since it was going to be around $25,000 to $30,000. The height of the garage to put the lift in would require 15: feet. With the additional height and the different pitch of the roof, the activity toi restructure and then the secured concrete for the lifts would be too costly. Hesaid that he would do research into the second option proposed by  Councilman Jones.  Councilman Landreth asked Guilford County Planner Justin Snyder if the building was 27x20 under 600 square feet, ifi ito could be 51 feet from the property line. Mr. Snyder said that was correct, he could have anything under 600 square feet. Councilman Landreth asked what would happen to the ordinance: if thel Board gave Mr. Johnson the variance.  PAGE80F14    Mr. Snyder said that the variance effectively supersedes the ordinance and will become the ordinance for thej property. Whichever decision is granted is what would follow in perpetuity whether Mr. Johnson sells the property or not. The variance runs with the land. Councilman Landreth clarified that it would not change the ordinance for the rest of the town. Mr. Snyder said it would not change for the rest of the town, but there would be a case. law that says that a variance granted in a neighborhood that has other Councilman Landreth asked ifi it made a difference that the neighbor was okay with the changes because from his point of view the matter should be handled between the two of them. Attorney Winfree said that just because someone consents to it, does not Councilman Rigsbee brought up that it looked like there was a considerable distance between Mr. Johnson's driveway and Mr. Stewart's house. He asked Mr. Johnson if he considered buying that piece of property. Mr. Johnson said that he and Mr. Stewart had discussed that but decided that it was not ai feasible option because Mr. Stewart's utilities, well, water, and septic appear tol be within that 15 foot on his side of the property. It did not seem feasible on Mr. Johnson's side of thej property if he decided to Mayor Pro Tem Foy asked Attorney Winfree that based off his packet he could see that the set-back is listed as being 10-feet. He asked to confirm whether the set-back is 10 or 15-feet. Attorney Winfree said that the 10-foot setback was what was promised to the Councilman Landreth asked if they were opening themselves up for any type of lawsuit in case that he changes his mind if they were to pass it. Attorney Winfree said that they could have a condition written up, notarized, and sent to the owner of lot four to Councilman Jones asked Attorney Winfree to clarify that the Town of Stokesdale does not enforce private restrictions. Attorney Winfree confirmed that the Town does not Mayor Pro Tem Foy reminded everyone present that thel hearing is for the variance on the set-back. Mr. Johnson said he included additional information in the packet because Councilman Jones asked ifa a licensed surveyor marked the property line confirming that the information being provided to the Board is accurate. Mr. Johnson said that a contractor pulled a partial map that was part of the county records. Mr. Johnson welcomed contractor Daniel Myers to the podium to answer Councilman Jones'  lots with similar circumstances could then be extended as well.  address all the factors.  rezone.  property owner.  protect the Town.  enforce private restrictions.  item 14 did: not state anything about the variance.  PAGE90F14    concerns. Mr. Myers said that the measurements were dictated from a Guilford County diagram. He said that he understood that there was a disclaimer but that it was the best Councilman Landreth asked Mr. Snyder if they would have to go through and answer every question. Mr. Snyder said that it was a statutory requirement because the Board Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to declare thel Evidentiary Hearing closed at 8:25  source ofi information that he was able to find.  would actively be changing thel law.  PM.  Councilman Jones seconded the motion. Chris Sumner Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (5-0).  YES YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy introduced the first conclusion that the Board must reach before they may issue a variance: (1) Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Foy asked for the Board's thoughts on that. Mayor Pro Tem Foy said that looking at the property in the setback, he believes that the hardship needs to be more than an inconvenience or preference for a more. lenient Councilman Jones said that after reading through the documents, he believes that iti is harsh towards those seeking a variance as far as the legal tests go. He said that they do not have a lot of latitude to insert their own opinion about how it should be. Councilman Landreth said that Mr. Johnson meets the criteria for number four. He mentioned that the neighbor is okay with it and because of this iti is fair that he wants to Councilman Jones said that if the Board were to find that Mr. Johnson does not meet the requirements for the variance and they do: not approve it, that the Board would only need to state one or more that apply, which is a different standard from approving the Town Attorney Winfree said that in order for the variance to be granted, thel Board members must find all four of the factors tol be true. To deny the variance, all they would need is for two of the Board members to find that one is not met.  standard as the way the ordinance is written.  build a building.  variance.  PAGE100F14    Mayor Pro Tem Foy went back to number one focusing on the unnecessary hardship that would result from the strictapplication of the ordinance. He stated that he struggled to see the hardship that is unique to the property itself. Any regulation from the government is a hardship or inconvenience to any property owner, but the setbacks Councilman Landreth said that is something that should be looked at and changed if Mayor Pro Tem Foy said looking into the findings of fact for any hardship that exists here; he requested If the Board sees a hardship due to the strict application of the  are common.  consent is granted and the property owners agree.  ordinance to share it.  Councilman Jones said that in regards to: number one after reading in detail, based off of his oath of office and his understanding of what he is required to do by the strict letter of the law, that there are other options for the use of property and because of this he does not think he could sign off and state that there is an unnecessary hardship that will result from the strict application of the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Foy agreed. Councilman Rigsbee agreed with Councilman Jones and Mayor Pro Tem Foy, as well. Hej pointed out that there are other options that would still give Mr. Johnson four garage spaces for three cars. Mr. Sumner said that he could not find any hardships either. Councilman Landreth said that he thinks the ordinance is written poorly. He The Board then moved on to the second conclusion: (2) Thel hardship does result from conditions that are peculiar to the property such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood, or the general public may not be the Councilman Landreth asked whether they needed to go through each: number if they Town Attorney Winfree said that it sounded like it was unanimous that number one was not met and that they could move to deny without discussing the rest. Mr. Snyder said that since the applicant answered all four questions in the application of thel Board, Mayor Pro Tem Foy proceeded to discuss the second conclusion. He said that he did not think that topography was thei issue and asked about size. Attorney Winfree said that thel location of the well and the septic were the most inhibiting factors in other locations. Mr. Snyder said that they are trying to determine whether the property has peculiar  said that he believes in people's property rights.  basis for granting a variance.  had already decided that number one does not meet the criteria.  that the Board give a rebuttal for each one.  PAGE110F14    conditions that others in the same area do not have. Mayor Pro Tem Foy said that he does not see a hardship that would result from being peculiar to the property. Councilman Rigsbee agreed saying that he viewed it as a personal request instead ofa a The Board then moved on to discuss the third conclusion: (3) The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or thej property owner. (The act of purchasing property knowing that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of the variance Attorney Winfree said that the Board could find in favor of the applicant on some of the Councilman Rigsbee asked for clarification if the Board should consider what could be versus what has happened up until thej point of the discussion concerning the property. Attorney Winfree clarified that you consider what has been done previously. Councilman Rigsbee said that the applicant did not create the hardship that resulted in actions. Councilman Landreth and Councilman Jones agreed. The Board then discussed the fourth conclusion: (4) The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. Councilman Landreth said that in his opinion it would be justice for Mr. Johnson tol build ifiti is okay with his neighbor. Councilman Jones agreed with Councilman Landreth saying that he thought that would keep with Mayor Pro Tem Foy said that having the adjacent property owner taking time out of his day to come before them and share his support with the Board meant a lot and that he The Board agreed on items three and four that the applicant has shown what would be needed toi request a variance, but they did not agree with items one and two. Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to deny case #24-02-BOA-00007, 7886 Eversfield Road, Stokesdale, North Carolina 27357 to grant a variance within the side setbacks based off thel Board of Adjustment not finding unnecessary hardship that would result from the strict application of the ordinance and that it is not a result of hardships from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography.  need to maintain a residential dwelling. Mr. Sumner agreed.  is not regarded as self-created hardship).  conclusions.  the spirit of full use property rights in the' Town of Stokesdale.  respected that. Councilman Rigsbee agreed.  Councilman Jones seconded the motion.  PAGE120F14    Chris Sumner Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (5-0). ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:  YES YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee YES  04. Discussion of Town of Stokesdale Board of Adjustment 2024 Meeting Mayor Pro Tem Foy said that he would like to stop having Board of Adjustment meetings on Town Council meeting nights. At the time he did not have any proposed alternative dates, but he said that he would like to see the Board consider moving the Attorney Winfree recommended that the Board defer the approval of the schedule and let the Town Council discuss what schedule they want to adopt at an upcoming meeting. Councilman Jones pointed out that a schedule for the Board of Adjustment had already been adopted at a previous meeting and that it is in place if a citizen needs  Schedule.  dates outside of the" Town Council meetings.  to apply for a Board of Adjustment hearing.  ADIOURNMENT:  05. Adjournment of Meeting.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM.  Councilman Jones seconded the motion. Chris Sumner Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (5-0).  YES YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee YES  Being no further business to come before the Town of Stokesdale Board of Adjustment,  the meeting was adjourned at 8:501 PM.  PAGE130F14    Approved:  Derek Foy, Mayor Pro Tem  ATTEST:  Robbie Lee Wagoner II, Town Clerk  PAGE140F14    AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 03b  MINUTES TOWN OF STOKESDALE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 8325 ANGEL-PARDUE ROAD STOKESDALE, NC27357 APRIL11,2024. AT7:00F PM  In attendance: Mayor Pro Tem Derek Foy; Councilman Jimmy Landreth; Councilman Tim Jones; Town Attorney Charles H. Winfree; Town Finance/Budget Officer Kimberly  Thacker and Town Clerk Robbie Lee Wagoner II. 01. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, and Invocation. Mayor Pro Tem Foy called the meeting to order at 7:001 PM. Mayor Pro Tem Foy led the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilman Jones delivered the opening invocation. 02. Review and Adopt the Agenda: April11,2024.  Councilman Jones requested an Amendment to add a discussion of inventory of closed Councilman Jones requested an Amendment to add a discussion of Transportation Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to adopt the agenda as amended. Councilman  session minutes as agenda item 13a.  Window Open for the 2024-2025 School Year as agenda item 13b.  Jones seconded thei motion. Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0).  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  03. Review and Adopt the following Minutes:  a) November 02, 2023, Special Called Town Council Meeting  PAGE1OF9    Councilman Jones requested an Amendment to include Mr. Brian Ketner's] place of Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to adopt the November 02, 2023, Special Called  employment in the second paragraph of page 2 of the minutes.  Town Council Meeting minutes as amended. Councilman Jones seconded the motion. Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0). 04. Public Safety Reports:  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  a) Stokesdale Fire District  Stokesdale Fire ChiefTodd Gauldin presented the Stokesdale Fire District report.  b) Guilford County Sheriff's Office  Town Clerk Wagoner read thei report provided by the Guilford County Sheriff's Office.  05. Administrative Reports:  a) Administrative: Town Clerk Robbie Lee Wagoner II Town Clerk Wagoner presented the Administrative Report.  b) Planning Board: Town Clerk Robbie Lee Wagoner II Town Clerk Wagoner presented the Planning Board report. c) Property Committee: Councilman Jim Rigsbee  No Property Committee report was presented.  d) Town Park Improvement Committee: Committee Chairman Tee  Stephenson  Committee Chairman Tee Stephenson presented the' Town Park Improvement  Committee report.  PAGE20F9    06. Financial Reports: Town Finance/Budget Officer Kimberly Thacker  a) Financial Report: Town of Stokesdale General Fund  Town Finance/Budget Officer Thacker presented the financial report for the' Town's  General Fund.  b) Financial Report: Town of Stokesdale Water Enterprise Fund  Town Finance/Budget Officer Thacker presented the financial report for the Town's  Water Enterprise Fund.  07. Public Comments from the Floor (3-Minute Limit per Speaker)  Name: Haven Medley  Address: 8424 US Highway 158, Stokesdale, North Carolina 27357 Comment: Ms. Medley of thel local boutique said that she had come up with an alternative plan in place of shutting down Ellisboro Road for the upcoming Spring Festival. Instead, a short section of Ellisboro Road, between Newberry Road and Shilling Street, would be closed for vendors for the festival on April 20  from 10AM to 4PM.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to endorse street closing on April 20, 2024, from 10:00. AM to 4:00 M tol NCDOT. Town Clerk Wagoner was tasked to send an email to  the NCDOT. Councilman Landreth seconded the motion.  Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0). Name: Bill Goebel  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  Address: 1402 Westridge Road, Greensboro, North Carolina  Comment: Expressed gratitude to the! Town Council, mentioned signatures that has required in support for to secure the Guilford County Board of Election's approval to appear on the ballot as unaffiliated, and said that he is planning on  running in the upcoming election for the Board of Education.  PAGE30F9    OLD BUSINESS ITEMS:  08. Consideration of a resolution to the Guilford County Board of Commissioners regarding sales tax distribution. (Continued from March 14, 2024, regular Town  Council meeting)  Councilman Jones asked to receive direction from his fellow Council Members on this matter pointing out that Mayor Crawford and Councilman Rigsbee were absent and  that they should be present to discuss this matter.  No formal motion was made. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS:  09. Consideration of North Carolina League of Municipalities Health Benefits Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to: renew dental, vision, and short-term disability insurance through thel North Carolina League of] Municipalities Health Benefits Trust with the Town to pay 85% of the total cost for each full-time employee's premium.  Trust renewal for Fiscal Year 2024 - 2025.  Councilman Landreth seconded the motion.  Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0).  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  10. Consideration of ai resolution consenting to the addition of Lambert Lake Road (Extension of SR 5088), Seven Springs Court, and Quail Crossing Road in the Old Moores Mill Phase 2 Subdivision to the Secondary Road Maintenance  System of North Carolina.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to adopt resolution 2024-01. This is a resolution consenting to the addition of Lambert Lake Road, Seven Springs Court, and Quail Crossing Road in the Old Moores Mill Phase 2Subdivision to the Secondary Road  Maintenance: System of North Carolina. Councilman Landreth seconded thei motion.  PAGE40F9    Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0).  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  11. Consideration of cost proposals for janitorial services at the Stokesdale Town Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to accept a quote dated April 3, 2024, from Brittany Willard for custodial services at a cost of $500 per month. Mayor Pro Tem Foy requested that Town Attorney Winfree prepare a service agreement with the time Councilman Jones requested an amendment to request that anyone assisting Ms. Willard be identified and a criminal background check be completed before they are  Hall and Stokesdale Town Park.  parameters for the work tol be completed.  allowed inside town-owned facilities. Councilman Jones seconded the motion. Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0).  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  12. Consideration of cost proposals for professional assistance in the revision of the Town of Stokesdale Development Ordinance to ensure alignment with the requirements outlined in North Carolina General Statue 160D.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to approve the Piedmont Triad Regional Council's quote toj join the PTRC effectively immediately for $1,304 for the 2024-2025 fiscal year.  Councilman Jones seconded the motion. Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0).  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to approve PTRC's quote for 160D compliance for  $3,500.  PAGE5OF9    Councilman Landreth seconded the motion.  Councilman Jones requested an amendment that PTRC put "must change" in red and "suggest change" in blue. Distinguish difference between "must change due to state  and federal law" versus suggestions from PTRC. Mayor Pro Tem Foy accepted the amendment.  Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0).  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  13. Consideration to utilize the Guilford County Website for Town of Stokesdale This agenda item was continued to the May 09, 2024, regular Town Council meeting.  Legal Advertisements.  13a. Discussion of inventory of closed session minutes.  Councilman Jones made a Motion for Town Staff to provide Town Council with inventory of closed session minutes. This inventory is to contain the date, purpose, and description for the closed session minutes. Thisi inventory is to be completed within 3  weeks (May 02, 2024).  Mayor Pro Tem Foy seconded thei motion.  Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0).  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  13b. Discussion of Transportation Window Open for the 2024-2025 School Year. Councilman Jones made a Motion to accept a document from District School Representative Michael Logan and have Town Staff upload the document to the' Town's Facebook page and Website showing that it was provided by Mr. Logan on April 11, 2024, along with a note: informing citizens to submit through Guilford County Schools.  Councilman Landreth seconded the motion.  PAGE60F9    Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0).  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  14. Public Comments from the Floor (3-Minute Limit per Speaker)  No] Public Comments from the Floor were presented.  15. Council Comments. in the midst of the weather.  Councilman Landreth - Expressed his appreciation for those who attended the meeting Councilman Jones - Expressed his appreciation for Mr. Tee Stephenson and Mrs. Karen Mayor Pro Tem Foy - Expressed his gratitude to the Town of Stokesdale Staff for all of their hard work. Mentioned that it is a busy time of year with Budget Workshops and concluding the fiscal year. Thanked Town Clerk Wagoner for taking thel lead on all the items on the agenda to prepare for the meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Foy also recognized the North Carolina State University Men's and Women's basketball team for their fantastic  Landreth for being in attendance.  success in March Madness.  16. Closed Session in accordance with $143-318.11 (Closed Sessions).  (a) Permitted Purposes. It is the policy of this State that closed sessions shall be held only when required to permit a public body to act in thej public interest as permitted in this section. A public body may hold a closed session and (3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the  exclude the public only when a closed session is required. public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to enter into closed session in accordance with  North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11(a)(3) as written above.  Councilman Landreth seconded the motion.  Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  PAGE70F9    Motion carried (3-0).  (CLOSED SESSION: 9:07 PMTO10:00 PM)  Mayor Pro Tem Foy made a Motion to enter back into open session at 10:00 PM.  Councilman Landreth seconded the motion.  Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0).  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  The Town Council entered back into open session at 10:00 PM.  ANNOUNCEMENTS: 17. Council Announcements:  a) The next Town Planning Board meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 25, 2024, at' 7:00 PM inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers, has b) The next special called Town Council meeting (budget workshop) is scheduled for' Tuesday, May 07, 2024, at 7:00 PM inside the Stokesdale c) The next regular Town Council meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 09, 2024, at 7:001 PM: inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers.  been canceled.  Town Hall Council Chambers.  ADIOURNMENT:  18. Adjournment of Meeting.  Councilman Landreth made a Motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:01 PM.  Councilman Jones seconded the motion. Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0).  ABSENT YES  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee ABSENT  PAGE80F9    Being no further business to come before the' Town Council, the meeting was adjourned  at1 10:01 PM.  Approved:  Derek Foy, Mayor Pro Tem  ATTEST:  Robbie Lee Wagoner II, Town Clerk  PAGE90F9    AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 03c  MINUTES TOWN OF STOKESDALE TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL CALLED MEETING (BUDGET WORKSHOP) 8325. ANGEL-PARDUE ROAD STOKESDALE, NC: 27357 MAY07,2024A AT7:001 PM  Ina attendance: Mayor Pro Tem Derek Foy; Councilman Jim Rigsbee; Councilman Jimmy Landreth; Town Finance/Budget Officer Kimberly Thacker and Town Clerk RobbieL Lee  Wagoner II.  01. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, and Invocation. Mayor Pro Tem Foy called the meeting to order at 7:001 PM. Mayor Pro Tem Foy led the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilman Rigsbee delivered the opening invocation. 02. Review and Adopt the Agenda: May 07, 2024.  Councilman Landreth made a Motion to adopt the agenda as written.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy seconded the motion.  Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0).  ABSENT ABSENT  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee YES  03. Public Comments from the Floor (3-Minute Limit per Speaker).  No public comments from the floor were presented. 04. Discussion of 2024-2025 Fiscal Year Budget.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy introduced Finance/Budget Officer, Mrs. Kimberly Thacker. Mrs. Thacker presented the proposed budget for the fiscal year 2024-2025.  PAGE10F3    Following this presentation, the Town Council and the' Town Staff deliberated upon the proposed budget pertaining toi the General Fund of the Town of Stokesdale. Additionally, discussions ensued regarding the proposed budget concerning the Water Comprehensive analysis involved a comparison of the proposed budget for both funds Subsequently, the' Town Council and the Town Staff offered feedback regarding 05. Public Comments from the Floor (3-Minute Limit per Speaker).  Enterprise Fund of the Town of Stokesdale. with actual figures from recent fiscal years. potential adjustments to the proposed budget.  Noj public comments from the floor were presented.  06. Council Comments.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy: Expressed his appreciation for the Town Staff and for their Councilman Landreth: Expressed his appreciation for the Town Staff and for their diligent efforts on thej proposed budget. Conveyed his joy of the Town's ability to successfully operate without charging Town residents a property tax. Councilman Rigsbee: Expressed his appreciation for the Town Staff and for their  diligent efforts on the proposed budget.  diligent efforts on the proposed budget.  ANNOUNCEMENIS: 07. Council Announcements:  a) The next regular Town Council meeting is scheduled for' Thursday, May 09, 2024, at 7:00 PM inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers.  ADJOURNMENT:  08. Adjournment of Meeting.  Councilman Landreth made a Motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15] PM.  Mayor Pro Tem Foy seconded the motion.  PAGE20F3    Mayor Crawford Councilman Landreth YES Councilman Jones Motion carried (3-0). at 8:151 PM.  ABSENT ABSENT  Mayor Pro Tem Foy YES Councilman Rigsbee YES  Being no further business to come before the Town Council, the meeting was adjourned  Approved:  Derek Foy, Mayor Pro Tem  ATTEST:  Robbie Lee Wagoner II, Town Clerk  PAGE30F3    AGENDAITEM NUMBER 04b  Robbie Lee Wagoner II  From: Sent: To: Subject:  Ryan Seals asegulorcounynegon Monday, July 1, 2024 9:31AM Robbie Lee Wagoner II June 2024 Stokesdale Crime Stats  Fort the month of June, the sheriff's office responded to at total of 173 calls for service in Stokesdale town limits and  took: 24 case reports. Ofnote:  Wet took two residential burglary cases for the month. One occurred on 6/20 in the 8300-block of Patricia Drive and as second on 6/23i ini the 8700-block of Belews Creek Road. Both remain under investigation.  Calls by type:  This ist type of call upon initial dispatch, call nature often was changed after further investigation upon Numbers denoted on the mapi indicate multiple calls fors service at the same location.  deputyarrival.  BURGLARY RESIDENTIAL DISTURBANCE ALARM ALCOHOL ASSAULT DOMESTIC WEAPONS OFFENSE FRAUD  2 1 25 3 1 8 5 2  MISSING PERSON ACCIDENT OTHER SUSPICIOUS VANDALISM THEFT TRESPASSING TRAFFIC  1 3 72 18 2 3 4 23    Stokesdà  rince  pEFa  Haw Riret Rd - V  Sergeant Ryan Seals District! Guilford County Sheriff's Office 7504: Summerfield Road, Summerfield, NC: 27358 336-641-2303 I m: 336-382-8877  eabegulorcoumyncgor I www.gulfordcountysheriff.com  000  2    AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 05a  ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT TOWN OF STOKESDALE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 8325 ANGEL-PARDUE ROAD STOKESDALE, NC 27357 JULYI1,2024AT7,00) PM  WATER SYSTEM REPORT:  a 7 5  water meters installed 27 water meters in stock 13 work orders 35 811s 819 water bills mailed out 13 park entals/reseryations  applications for transfer of service & water meters in 28 water meters / applications on hold for builders  Water Line Extension Project (Coldwater Road)  This project is still advancing into the preliminary design phase, which encompasses geotechnical investigations and environmental assessments. Todate, significantmilestones, including survey completion and alignment selection, have been successfully achieved without any unforeseen challenges. ARPA grant funds have been allocated to support surveying and preliminary design activities. Hazen and Sawyer still plan to initiate the bid phase in the third quarter of 2024 (July - September), ensuring that  the funds are appropriately allocated by the deadline.  Water Line Extension Project (Ellisboro Road)  Town Clerk Wagoner contacted Kennerly Engineering with a list of comments regarding areas of thel bid documents that needed revision. Once Kennerly Engineering incorporates these comments into the bid documents, they will distribute the updated documents to the vendors  previously identified by the Town. Upcoming Water System Report Deadlines:  Lead Service Line Inventory - Due October 16, 2024  PAGE1OF3    ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:  June 20, 2024: The Town of Stokesdale Town Park Improvement Committee held June 24, 2024: Town Clerk Wagoner attended the virtual Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) Technical Coordinating June 26, 2024: Town Clerk Wagoner and Deputy Town Clerk Martin participated ina a virtual meeting with Bret Keast, President of Encode Plus. Thej purpose of this meeting was to obtain a cost proposal and to discuss thej potential for Encode Plus tocodify the Town of Stokesdale's Code of Ordinances, in addition to maintaining June 27, 2024: The Town of Stokesdale Planning Board held a regular meeting at July 04, 2024: The Stokesdale Town Hall building was closed in observance of the July 08, 2024: Town Clerk Wagoner submitted a monthly Contribution Summary July 09, 2024: Town Clerk Wagoner and Deputy Town Clerk Martin participated in a virtual meeting with Rich Frommeyer, Codification Consultant for American Legal Publishing. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain a cost proposal and to discuss the potential for American Legal Publishing to codify the Town of Stokesdale's Code of Ordinances, in addition to maintaining the Town of July 10, 2024: Mayor Crawford, Town Clerk Wagoner, Town Finance/Budget Officer Thacker, and Aaron Babson, of Hazen and Sawyer Engineering, are scheduled to participate in a virtual meeting with a representative of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality's (NCDEQ) Grants Team to discuss the Initial Assessment Questionnaire for the two (2) NCDEQ grants that Hazen and Sawyer assisted in obtaining for the Town of Stokesdale. July 10, 2024: Quarterly financial and performance reports are due for state and July 11, 2024: The Town of Stokesdale Town Council iss scheduled tol hold a regular meeting at 7:001 PM inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers.  as scheduled meeting at 5:15 PM.  Committee (TCC) meeting at 2:001 PM.  the Town of Stokesdale's Development Ordinance.  7:00F PM.  Independence Day holiday.  Report to the North Carolina Retirement System.  Stokesdale's Development Ordinance.  county grants awarded to the Town of Stokesdale.  PAGE 320F3    July 18, 2024: The Town of Stokesdale Town Park Improvement Committee is scheduled to hold a regular meeting at 5:15 PM inside the Stokesdale Town Hall July 25, 2024: The Town of Stokesdale Planning Board is scheduled to hold a regular meeting at 7:001 PM inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers. August 01, 2024: The Town of Stokesdale Town Park Improvement Committee is scheduled to hold a regular meeting at 5:15 PM inside the Stokesdale Town Hall August 07, 2024: The submission of the: monthly ContributionSummary Report to August 08, 2024: The Town of Stokesdale Town Council is scheduled to hold a regular meeting at 7:00 PM: inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers.  Council Chambers.  Council Chambers.  the North Carolina Retirement System is due.  PAGE3OF3    AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 05b  PLANNING BOARD REPORT TOWN OF STOKESDALE TOWN COUNCIL KEGULAR MEETING 8325 ANGEL-PARDUE ROAD STOKESDALE, NC27357 JULY11, 2024AT7:00PM  The Town of Stokesdale Planning Board held its regular meeting on June 27, 2024, at 7:00 PM. This meeting was held inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers, located At this particular meeting, the Planning Board's agenda contained the following public Public hearing to consider adoption of thej proposed Thoroughfare and Collectors Street Plan as prepared and adopted by the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) and subsequently amending the Town of Stokesdale's Future  at 8325 Angel-Pardue Road, Stokesdale, North Carolina 27357.  hearing item:  Land Use Plan.  The following recommendation was submitted by the Planning Board:  Chairman Chris Sumner made a Motion to adopt the proposed Thoroughfare and Collectors Street Plan as written and recommended the proposal to Town Council.  Planning Board Member Tee Stephenson seconded the motion.  Chairman Chris Sumner Ron Southard Andrea Meylor Motion carried (5-0).  YES YES YES  Tee Stephenson Michael Threatt  YES YES  The next regular Town of Stokesdale Planning Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 25, 2024, at 7:00 PM. This meeting will be held inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers, located at 8325 Angel-Pardue Road, Stokesdale, North Carolina  27357.  PAGE10F1    Balance Sheet General Fund June: 2024 ASSETS Current Assets Bank Accounts American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)- Fidelity Bank -7869 Bank of Oak Ridge Checking (Money Market) Bank of Oak Ridge-CDARS CDAR Acct #1028153712 CDAR- Acct#1028610315 CDAR- Acct#1028430228 CDAR Acct #1028503632 CDAR- Acct#1028610323 CDAR- Acct1028610285 CDAR- Acct1028646557 CDAR- Acct1028646557 CDAR- Acct#1028765335 CDAR- Acct*1028153704 CDAR AcCt#1028047114 Total Bank of Oak Ridge-CDARS Fidelity Bank- 002762 Petty Cash Total Bank Accounts Accounts Receivable Salary &F F.I.C.A. Due from' Water Enterprise Expenses due from Water Enterprise Due to GF from GC Grant $3.1M Sales Tax 2022-2023 Water Enterprise Reimbursement Total Accounts Receivable Total Current Assets TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES Other Current Liabilities American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) $725,475 NC General Assembly State Grant Small Town Development $50K Total Other Current Liabilities Total Current Liabilities Total Liabilities EQUITY Open Balance Equity Reserved1 for Specific Purpose (Public Safety) Stabilization by State Statute Net Revenue Total Equity TOTALI LIABILITIES AND EQUITY  AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 06a  Town of Stokesdale Balance Sheet Jun-24  Total  Interest % Mature Date  305,699.74 0.00% 23,893.32 1.4900% 52,249.42 4.16241% 11/29/2024 180,407.56 3.92228% 2/26/2026 331,322.33 3.92228% 1/22/2026 147,185.92 3.92228% 2/5/2026 284,193.77 3.92228% 2/26/2026 294,101.22 3.92228% 2/26/2026 453,471.63 3.92228% 3/5/2026 663,990.30 3.92228% 3/26/2026 56,248.22 3.92228% 3/26/2026 47,692.20 4.16241% 11/29/2024 187,805.59 3.92228% 11/7/2024 2,698,668.16 554,475.25 0.05% 150.00 0.00% 3,582,886.47 596.82 0.00 6,375.25 9,590.38 16,862.95 3,599,749.42 3,599,749.42 305,699.74 175,000.00 480,699.74 480,699.74 2,968,330.73 23,500.00 96,663.00 30,555.95 3,119,049.68 3,599,749.42  300.50 Chemicals purchased with CC  Pageiof1  Prepared by:Kimberly Thacke,Finance/Budget Officer    b    00  00 14  B    80  9 d    6 N  6 $  3    de  - - &  X  R R  a - - $    R R    Balance Sheet Water Enterprise June 2024 ASSETS Current Assets Bank Accounts  AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 06b  Water Enterprise Account Balance Sheet Jun-24  Total  Interest % Mature Date  Bank Of Oak Ridge CDARS CDAR- Acct# 1028153682 CDAR- A Acct# 1028083196 CDAR Acct*1028955169 CDAR- Acct# 1028153739 Total Bank Of Oak Ridge CDARS Capital Reserve Fund- CRF (0345) Fidelity-Water Enterprise (0504) NCCMT Regular Savings (0403) Total Bank Accounts Total Current Assets Accounts Receivable AR- Water Sales Active- 90+Days Past Due Inactive 90+Days Past Due Total AR- Water Sales Sales Tax Refund 2023-2024 Total Accounts Receivable Other Current Assets Prepaid Expenses Total Prepaid Expenses Contra Expnense Acccounts Allowance for Doubtful Accounts Total Contra Expense Accounts Total Other Current Assets TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES Accounts Payable Water Reimbursement duet to General Fund Expenses paid by GF due to GF Payroll due to General Fund Account Total Accounts Payable Other Current Liabilities Water Deposits Refundable Capital Reserve Fund- SDF Fees (Restricted) Guilford County ARPA $3.1M NC House Bill1 1163 Total Other Current Liabilites Total Current Liabilities Retained Earnings Net Revenue Total Equity  262,705.30 4.16241% 11/29/2024 78,339.38 3.92228% 11/14/2024 122,174.01 3.92228% 4/30/2026 63,983.36 4.16241% 11/29/2024  527,202.05 128,391.97 1,330,087.28 572,101.54 45,070.57 2,602,853.41 2,602,853.41  0.05% 0.05% 0.02%  27,880.74 Includes May billing 0.00 OA Account 6,114.63 24 Accounts 33,995.37 639.60 34,634.97 0.00 $0.00 -6114.63 6,114.63 6,114.63 2,631,373.75 9,590.38 0.00 596.82 10,187.20 41,425.21 128,391.97 424,802.24 594,619.42 604,806.62 1,317,087.42 709,479.71 2,026,567.13 2,631,373.75  -$ -$ $  $  TOTAL LIABILITIES & Equity  Page 1of1 Prepared by: Kimberly Thacker, Finance/Budget Officer    9    3        R R R R R R  a a  R a a &  a    e 8   R R R & R R R R R R A  o  a    R R a R R R 000000E    AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 08  REZONING CASE 24-04-PLBD-00076, 7800 EVERSFIELD RD FROM AG (AGRICUTURAL)T TO RS-40 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)  Property Information  Located on the east side of Eversfield Road (SR 2109), 1.02 miles north of the intersection of Eversfield Road with Oak Ridge Road, Guilford County Tax Parcel #150401, this is a request to rezone the subject property, which contains a total of 45.79 acres from AG (Agricultural) to RS- 40 (Single-FamilyR Residential). The Planning Board willi make ar recommendation: to the Stokesdale Town Council, which will have the final authority to approve or deny the request. Zoning History of Denied Cases: There is no history of denied cases for this parcel.  Nature ofthe Request District Descriptions:  The AG, agricultural district, is primarily intended to accommodate uses of an agricultural nature, including farm residences and farm tenant housing. It also accommodates scattered non-farm residences on large tracts of land. Iti is not intended for major residential subdivisions. The district  is established for the following purposes:  1) Top preserve and encourage the continued use of land fora agricultural, forest and open 3) To concentrate urban development in and around area growth centers, thereby 4) To discourage any use which, because of its character, would create premature or The RS-40, residential single-family district is primarily intended to accommodate single-family detached dwellings on large lotsi in areas without access to public water and wastewater services. The district is established to promote single-family detached residences where environmental features, publics service capacities or soil characteristics necessitate very low-density: single-family development. The overall gross density in RS-40 areas will typically be 1.0 unit per acre orl less.  space purposes;  2) To discourage scattered commercial and industrial land uses; avoiding premature conversion of farmland to urban uses; extraordinary public infrastructure and service demands.  Character of the Area  The parcel is surrounded by single-family residential and agricultural uses on all sides, with the Haw River providing a natural boundary from the Town of Summerfield to the south.  Existing Land Use(s) on the Property: This parcel is vacant.  Surrounding Uses:  1    Land Use Analysis  Land Use Plan: Stokesdale Land Use Plan (2007) Plan Recommendation: Residential:  Residential development makes up approximately 12% of the land area. The majority of this is low-density, single-family residents. One exception is the Countryside Village Retirement Community located on US 158. The majority of the residentially used and zoned property is located along the NC 68 corridor, in the Town Core Area, and along Athens Road and Southard Road. Major residential: subdivisions have been added along Haw River Road, Ellison Road, Angel Pardue Road, and Belews Creek Road. Excepti int thet town core, homes are on large lots that cover an acre or more. This is because there is no public sewer service available and significant area  must be available for septic drain fields on each lot.  Recommendation Staff Recommendation: Approve  Statement of Reasonableness and Consistency  Reasonableness: This proposed rezoning action is reasonable and in the public interest because itisi in an area where single-family residential uses are prevalent, and there would be no change in the minimum required lot size between the AG, Agricultural, zoning district and the RS-40, Consistency: The request is consistent with the Stokesdale Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential; thus, if approved, ai future land use plan amendment is not required.  Single-Family Residential, zoning district.  3    Tuesday, May 28, 2024 The Honorable Mayor Crawford & Members oft the' Town Council Town of Stokesdale Post Office Box 465 8325. Angel-Pardue Road Stokesdale, NC: 27357  Dear Mayor Crawford and Members of the' Town Council:  The Town of Stokesdale Planning Board held its regular meeting on May 23, 2024. At this particular meeting, the Planning Board's agenda contained the following rezoning case: Rezoning Case 24-04-PLBD-00076 for the property located at 7800 Eversfield Road, Stokesdale, NC 27357. A public hearing was held in accordance with the Town of Stokesdale Development Ordinance and the North Carolina General Statutes. The following recommendation was Kurtis Gentry made a Motion to Town Council to approve. Rezoning Case 24-04-PLBD-0076 for the property located at7 7800 Eversfield Road, Stokesdale, NC: 27357, and to recommend approval tot the' Town of Stokesdale Town Council based on the facts that the proposed rezoning action is consistent with the recommendation of the future land use. plan, and that it is consistent with  submitted by the Planning Board:  zoning in the area, in addition to the surrounding areas. The motion was seconded by Andrea Meylor. Vice-Chairman Stephen Louie YES  Tee Stephenson James Greene  YES YES  Kustin Gentry Andrea Meylor Motion carried (5-0). K-PA Mason P. Winfree Deputy Town Clerk Town of Stokesdale  YES YES  Respectfully: submitted this the 28th day of May, 2024.  PAGE10F1    167509 RS-30  EEO9ID RS-40  AG to RS-40 +/- 45.79 acres  413  007680  AG  BB0423  067809  STOKESDALE  150404 150411  807591  050403  81583  AG  150447 150465  G9500  405 150437  HAWRIDGE RD  150450  167500 167505. SUMMERFIELD 107607 RS-30  150464  50445 50439 150140 5eH 100441  150434  OAK RIDGE 167502  1607585  157600 RS-30  150433 Case Area: Parcels- 150401 7800E EversfieldRd Stokesdale NC  Jurisdiction: Stokesdale  Case Number: 24-04-PLBD-00076  Planning & Development Department  Scale: 1"= 400"    AG to RS-40 +/- 45.79 acres  RS-40  IRS-30  7559 SuffieldRd 150421 AG  K 7851 Eversfield 167594 Rd. Everss  7BA-dRd. AG  B 7854 EversfieldRd. 167588  STOKESDALE  A 7800 EversfleldRd. 150401  AG  7803. EversfieldRd, 167582 7801 Eversfield Rd. 167583  H EversfieldRd. 7789 167591  AG  73102 ZZ Haw Ridge Rd 150403  7400Z ZZ Haw Ridge Rd 150405  SUMMERFIELD  7798ZZ1 EversfieldRd 167580  A. Fulton, Rutho B.Fulton, Rutho C.Smith, Gary; Smith, Brendal D. Spencer, Kevin Sherrill E.Smith, Richard Dewight; Smith, Mary Webb FSidam, Paul: Vanzee. BradleyR G.F Rebo, Josephs Scott; Rebo, Judy M H. Pine Needlel LNG COLLC L.Pinel Needlel LNG COL LLC J.Dezern, Randy Steve K.Fulton, Rutho  OAK RIDGE  7778 EversfieldRd. RS-30 167585  RS-30 Case Number: 24-04-PLBD-00076  LGeoghegan, GaryF Patrick; Geoghegan, Cheri Marguarita  Jurisdiction: STOKESDALE  Case Area: Parcels 150401 7800E EversfieldRd Stokesdale, NC  Planning & Development Department  Scale: 1": = 400'    AG to RS-40 +/-45.79 acres  STOKESDALE  SUMMERFIELD.  HAW RIDGE RD:  Jurisdiction: STOKESDALE  Case Number: 24-04-PLBD-00076  Case Area: Parcels- 150401 7800E EversfieldRd Stokesdale, NC  Planning & Development Department  Scale: 1"= 250'    AG to RS-40 +/-4 45.79 acres  STOKESDALE  SUMMERFIELD)  OAK RIDGE  Jurisdiction: Stokesdale  Case Number: 24-04-PLBD-00076  Case Area: Parcels- 150401 7800E EversheldRd Stokesdale, NC  Planning & Development Department  Scale: 1"= 400'    a  - a ! A   7800E EVERSFIELDI ROAD REZONINGE EXHIBIT  FEI    TOWN OF STOKESDALE  Rezoning Application Case Number:  Date Submitted:  Fee/Receipt: #: $1000.00 +$ $25.00 per acre  Provide the required information asi indicated below. Pursuant to the. Stokesdale. Development Ordinance, this application will, not be processed until application fees are paid: the form belowi is completed ands signed; and all required maps. plans and documents have been submitled to the. satisfaction ofthe Enforcement Oficer. Additional: sheets fort tax references and signature blocks are available upon request. Pursuant to the Stokesdale Development Ordinance, the undersigned hereby requests the' Town of Stokesdale to rezone the  MAKE CHECK PAYABLE: TO: THE TOWNG OFSTOKESDALE  property described below from the property is located in  AG  zoning district to the RS-40  zoning district. Said  5373 lincal feet from the intersection of Eversfield Road and Oak Ridge Road.  Bruce  Township; Being a total of 45.79  acres.  Further referenced on the Guilford County Tax Maps as:  Tax Parcel # 150401 Tax Parcel#_  Tax Parcel! # Tax Parcel#  Check One:  The property requested for rezoning is an entire parcel or parcels as shown on the Guilford County Tax Map. The property requested for rezoning isaportion ofa parcel or parcels as shown ont the Guilford County Tax Map;  written legal description oft thep propertyanda ar map are attached.  Check One:  XJ The applicant is the property owner(s) (financial figures may be deleted).  Thes applicant is an agent representing the property owner(s); thel letter of property owner permission is attached. The applicant has an option toj purchase or lease the property; a copy oft the offer toj purchase or lease is attached Thes applicant has no connection to the property owner andi is requesting a third party rezoning. Ihereby agreet to conform to all applicable laws ofStokesdale and the State ofN North Carolina and certif thatt thei information providedi is complete and accurate t0 thel best ofmy knowledge. lacknowledge that byfling this application, representatives) from Guilford Couty Planning and Development may  enter thes subject property for the purpose ofi investigation and analisis ofthisi request.  Respectfully Submitted, Aankilohlm Applfçants Signature Jackie 36 Fulton Name 051 Eversfied_Rl. Mailing Address Slokosdale NC 0735) City, State and2 Zip Code Phone Number:, 336 643-7926 Email: NONE  Representative Signature Name Mailing Address City, Statea and Zip Code Phonc Number: Email:    Being a portion of Guilford County PIN # 7819897159, properties of  Ruth O. Fulton, and located at 7800 Eversfield Road  Being all of that certain 45.79 acres +/- tract of land to be rezoned lying in the city of Stokesdale, Guilford County, North Carolina; and bounded by natural boundaries and/or lands owned by and/or in possession of persons, as follows: on the north by Gary P. and Marguarita C. Geoghegan, Ruth O. Fulton on the east by Gary E. and Brenda L. Smith and on the south by Kevin S. Spencer, Richard D. and Mary W. Smith, Paul Sidam and Bradley R. Vanzee, Joseph S. and Judy M. Rebo and on the west by Eversfield road said tract being particularly described by courses (according to the North Carolina Grid system) and distances according to an exhibit map titled "7800 Eversfield Road Rezoning Exhibit" dated 04/01/2024, job reference number 10021.002 prepared by FEI, to which reference is hereby made, as follows: Commencing at a 3/4" found iron pipe on the eastern margin of the 60' right of way (RWW) of Evesfield Road and at the northwest corner of Gary P. and Marguarita C. Geoghegan as described in deed book (D.B.)5017 page (Pg.).721, thence S09"46'19W to THE POINT OF BEGINNING said point being an iron pipe having North Carolina state plane grid coordinates NAD83(2011) of northing: 899879.69, easting: 1718146.33; thence along the lines of said Geoghegan for the following courses and distances S80°14'13"E a distance of 217.96' toa 3/4" found iron pipe; thence N0941'20'E a distance of 199.69' to a 3/4" found iron pipe at the northeast corner ofs said Geoghegan and on the southern line of Ruth O. Fulton as described in D.B.298 Pg. 704; thence along the lines of said Fulton for the following courses and distances S79°44'05"E a distance of 54.52' to a set iron rebar at the base of a 24" cedar tree; thence S11°5955W a distance of 193.99' to a set iron rebar; thence N80°0841"E a distance of 1138.46' to a 36" poplar tree at the southeast corner of said Fulton and on the western line of Gary E. and Brenda L. Smith as described in D.B. 7359 Pg. 2948; thence S13°10'57'E a distance of1 1014.51' to a 3/4" found iron pipe at the southwest corner of said Smith and on the northern line of Kevin S. Spencer as described in D.B. 8443 Pg. 2438; thence S58°53'56"W passing a 2" found iron pipe at the common corner of said Spencer and Richard D. and Mary W. Smith as described in D.B. 8706 Pg. 2151 at a distance of 587.74' thence continuing 131.97' for a total distance of 719.71' to a set iron rebar on the northern line of said Smith; thence along the lines of said Smith for the following courses and distances S57'1015Wa distance of174.18' to a 3/4" found iron pipe ini the center of old riverbed; thence S57"4130'W ad distance of 252.79' to a point in the center oft the Haw river; thence with the center of the Haw river for the following courses and distances $57'1859'Wa distance of 433.64'1 to a point at the common corner of said Smith and Paul Sidam and Bradley R. Vanzee as descried in D.B 8425 Pg. 2097; thence S58'1329'W: a distance of 180.91'1 to a point; thence S60°3437'W a distance of 121.03' to a point; thence S55'1618'W: a distance of 147.45' to a point at the common corner of Vanzee and Joseph S. and Judy M. Rebo as described in D.B. 6727 Pg. 2299; thence leavening the Haw river and with a new line for the following courses and distances N21°23'42"E passing a witness iron set on the bank oft the Haw river at a distance of 48.16' thence continuing 705.46' for a total distance of 753.62' to a set iron rebar; thence N05'48'55'E a distance of619.65' to a set iron rebar; thence N55"0737'W a distance of 153.18' to a set iron rebar; thence N80"2349"W: a distance of 191.26' to a set iron rebar on the eastern R/W of Eversfield Road; thence N10°05'19"E a distance of 476.43' to the point of  beginning.    RECEIPT DATE. 4/2./24 RECEIVEDF FROM. MeChesneyt 1Assotineh  No. L.S3,144.7  hpumim-rye 75/00DOLARS  78DD Everbfield Ra.  grRe2pnkng. OFOR.  ACCOUNT PAYMENT BAL DUE  OCASH PGHECK 5356 OUADEX  (FEI  OBB ImBba Buignckor  5356  TRUIST EH 66-112/531  am 3/20/2024 $ *2,144.75  McChesney & Associates LLC 3600 Winston Country Salem, Çlub NC2 Rd. 27104 suite 200  PAY1 TOTHE  ORDERC OF Town of Stokesdale  DOLLARS  Two Thousand One Hundred Forty-Four and 75/100*****  Town of Stokesdale   e 0Be a  MEMO  AamECaNe  :::E:    TOWN OF STOKESDALE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING  Al PublicH Hearing will bel held during the next regular Stokesdale Town Council meeting. This meeting will be held inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers, located at 8325 Angel-Pardue Road, Stokesdale, North Carolina 27357 on Thursday, June 13, 2024,  at7:001 PM.  PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:  REZONING CASE: 24-04-PLBD-00076, 7800 EVERSFIELDI ROAD FROM AG (AGRICUTURAL) TO RS-40 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) Located on the east side of Eversfield Road (SR 2109), 1.02 miles north of the intersection of Eversfield Road with Oak Ridge Road, Guilford County Tax Parcel #150401, this is a request to rezone the subject property, which contains a total of 45.79 acres from AG (Agricultural) to RS-40 (Single-Family Residential). The Stokesdale Town Council will The request is consistent with the Stokesdale Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential; thus, if approved, a future land use plan amendment is not required. For more: information, please call the Stokesdale Town Hall at (336)643-4011.  have the final authority to approve or deny the request.  PAGE10F1    LJustin Snyder, do hereby certify that notice has been mailed via first class USPS mail tot thei following  recipients for Case 24-04-PLBD-00076:  FULTON, RUTHO 7851 EVERSFIELDR RD STOKESDALE, NC2 27357 SMITH, GARY & SMITH, BRENDAL 7547SUFFIELDR RD STOKESDALE, NC2 27357 SPENCER, KEVINS SHERRILL 7300HAWF RIDGE RD SUMMERFIELD, NC27358 SMITH, RICHARD DEWIGHT & SMITH, MARYV WEBB 1301N NEW GARDENF RD.A APT3 337 GREENSBORO, NC27410 SIDAM, PAUL &V VANZEE, BRADLEYR 7736P PENNS GROVER RD SUMMERFIELD, NC27358 REBO, JOSEPHS SCOTT&R REBO,J JUDYN M 7778E EVERSFIELDR RD STOKESDALE, NC2 27358 PINEN NEEDLEL LNGO COLLC POB BOX2 2400 TULSA, OK7 74102 DEZERN, RANDY STEVE 3390D DOVER CHURCH RD CLIMAX, NC27235 GEOGHEGAN, GARYF PATRICK & GEOGHEGAN, CHERI MARGUARITA 7842EVERSFELDRD STOKESDALE, NCZ 27357 This 3rd day of. June, 2024    Order Confirmation Order# 0000870153  ncmg North arolina Media Group  PO Box 27283 Richmond, VA 23261-7283  Client: TOWN OF STOKESDALE Phone: 3366434011 Account: 4000762 Address: POBOX465 Sales Rep aboan Total Amount Payment Amount Amount Due Tax Amount: Payment Meth: Credit- Debit Card Invoice Text: Public Hearing Notice Rezoning Ad Number 0000870153-01 Production Method AdBooker (liner) Product and Zone GSO newsrecord. com Product and Zone  Payor: TOWN OF STOKESDALE Phone: 3366434011 Account: 4000762 Address: POBOX465  STOKESDALE NC2 27357 Accnt Rep Ordered By_ aboangso Robbie Lee  STOKESDALE NC 27357  Fax:  EMail: nacker@siokesdaleorg  $445.60 $0.00 $445.60 0.00 AdT Type CLSL Legal  Tear Sheets 0  Proofs 0 Color $0.00  Affidavits PONumber: 1  Ad Size 2X30li Production Notes  Placement C-Legal Ads Placement  Position Legal Notices Position Legal Notices  #Inserts 8 #Inserts 2  Run Schedule Invoice Text: TOWN OF STOKESDALE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Run Dates 6/3/2024, 6/4 4/2024, 6/5 5/2024, 6/6 6/2024, 6/7/2024, 6/8 8/2024, 6/9 9/2024, 6/10/2024 Run Schedule Invoice Text: TOWN OF STOKESDALE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING  GSO Greensboro News Recor C-Legal Ads Run Dates 6/32024,6/02024  Tagline: TOWNOFSTOKESDALENOTICEOFPUBLICHEARINGAPUBLICHEARINGWILLBEHELDDURINGTHENEXTRE  GULARSTOKESDALETOWNCOUNCIMEETINGTHSMEETNGWVILLBEHELD:  05/31/2024 1:14:59 pm  Page 1of2    Order Confirmation Order# 0000870153  ncmg North. mna Media Group Ad Content Proof Note: Ads size doesr notn reflecta actual ad  PO Box 27283 Richmond, VA 23261-7283  TOWN OFSTOKESDALE NOTICE OFF PUBLICHEARING  AF Public Hearing will be held during the next regular Stokesdale Town Council meeting. This meeting will be held inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers, located at 8325 Angel-Pardue Road, Stokesdale, North Carolina: 27357 on1 Thursday, June 13, 2024,at7:00PM. REZONING CASE: 24-04-PLBD-00076, 78001 EVERSFIELDROAD FROMA AG( (AGRICUTURAL) TORS-40 (SINGLE-FAMILYI RESIDENTIAL) Located on the east side of Eversfield Road (SR 2109), 1.02 miles north of the intersection of Eversfield Road with Oak Ridge Road, Guilford County Tax Parcel #150401, this is a request to rezone the subject property, which contains a total of 45.79 acres from AG (Agricultural) to RS-40 (Single-Family Residential). The Stokesdale Town Council will have the fi- The request is consistent with the Stokesdale Future Land Use Plan desig- nation of Residential; thus, ifa approved, af future land use plan amendment For more information, please call the Stokesdale Town Hall at (336)643-  PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:  nal authority to approve or deny the request.  isr not required. 4011.  05/31/2024 1:14:59 pm  Page 2of2    FEI  CIVIL. ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS  Transmittal Memo  To: Town of Stokesdale 8325 Angel-Pardue Road Stokesdale, NC27375  Attention: 336-643-4011  Robbie Lee Wagoner II, Town Clerk  From: Brent Sievers, PE 336-544-6432 evereleonutngcon Subject: Rezoning Continuance  Date: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 FEI Project Number: 10021.001  Urgent:a  Review:0  Please Comment:D Please Reply:0  Please Recycle:0  Notes  Good afternoon, statement.  This is the official request to have the rezoning request for the Eversfield property (7800 Eversfield Road) continued until the next town council meeting. The property owner has signed below beside the Irequest that the property located at 7800 Eversfield Road up for rezoning this month be continued until  the. July meeting date.  apkine Aulton  Thanks, Brent Sievers, PE Senior Project Manager  FEI  CIVIL. ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS  FEI  8518 Triad Drive Colfax, NC 27235  Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors    Robbie Lee Wagoner II  From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Morning,  Brent Sievers bseerleconsutingcom, Sunday, July 7, 2024 1:42 PM Justin Snyder; Robbie Lee Wagoner II Eversfield Road sight distance exhibit 2024-06-26 Eversfield Road Intersection Exhibit.pdf  Enclosed ist the revised sight distance exhibit for the Eversfield Road rezoning. Please send this to Derek Foy. The  entrance has been moved approximately, 200' south.  Thank' You  Brent Sievers, PE Senior Project Manager  FEI  Civil Engineers andl Land Surveyors 85181 Triad Drive Colfax, NC: 27235 Phone,336)544-6432 Website I Vcard Mapl Email    Robbie Lee Wagoner II  From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:  Justin Snyder snyder@guifordcountync.gov> Monday, July 8, 20247:56AM Derek Foy Robbie Lee Wagoner I; Deputy Clerk FW: Eversfield Road sight distance exhibit 2024-06-26 Eversfield Road - Intersection Exhibit.pdf  Good morning, Derek.  Brent Sievers has asked that we forward the attached revised potential driveway location to you showing that the driveway would be 200' south oft the previous potential location for the Eversfield rezoning request  Thursday. Sincerely,  g2p  Justin Snyder, AICP, CZO Senior Planner (336) 641-3591 400 W. Market Street Greensboro, NC: 27401 anyone at any time.**  Guilford County Planning and Development  **Pursuant tol NCGS Chapter 132, Public Records, this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto, as well as any electronic mail message(s) that may bes sent in response toi it may be considered public record, and as such are subject to request and potential review by  Justin Snyder Planner II Planning & Development Dept Guilford County Government 11 336-641-3591 600 Civic Portal Access  snyder@guilfordcountync.gov wwguloroumyntcgen  Self-Service Permits, Inspections, Plan Review and Development Projects clickhereforaccess  From: Brent Sievers bevenelecomutncom Sent: Sunday, July 7,20241:42PM Subject: Eversfield Road: sight distance exhibit  To:. Justin Snyder snyer@guilfordcountync.govo; Robbie Lee Wagoner II agonereblesdcOr    e  8 8  7800 EVERSFIELD ROAD INTERSECTIONEXHBIT  FEI    AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 09  TOWN OF STOKESDALE  NOTICE OFI PUBLIC HEARING  A Public Hearing will bel held during the next regular Stokesdale Town Council meeting. This meeting will be held inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers, located at 8325 Angel-Pardue Road, Stokesdale, North Carolina 27357 on Thursday, July 11, 2024,  at7:00. PM.  PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:  Public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Thoroughfare and Collectors Street Plan as prepared and adopted by the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) and subsequently amending the Town of Stokesdale's Future The Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) provides multi-modal transportation planning for the Town of Stokesdale among other communities in Guilford County, and the updated Thoroughfare and Street Collector Plan addresses the network of roadways that make up our communities, considers their function, ensures overall network stability, balances volume and access, and informs roadway design and speed limit. The Plan implements provisions of the Land Development Ordinance, establishes street design standards, manages access and connectivity, and secures rights-of-way as development occurs. This update is required to maintain consistency with the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Upon the potential adoption of the Plan and subsequent resolution, the Town of Stokesdale's For more information, please call the Stokesdale Town Hall at (336)643-4011.  Land Use Plan.  Future Land Use Plan would be amended.  PAGE10F1      Monday, July 1, 2024 The Honorable Mayor Crawford & Members of the Town Council Town of Stokesdale Post Office Box 465 8325 Angel-Pardue Road Stokesdale, NC: 27357  Dear Mayor Crawford and Members of the Town Council:  The Town of Stokesdale Planning Board held: its regular meeting on June 27, 2024. At this particular meeting, the Planning Board's agenda contained the following public hearing item: Public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Thoroughfare and Collectors Street Plan as prepared and adopted by the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) and subsequently amending the Town of Stokesdale's Future Land Use Plan. The following recommendation was Chairman Chris Sumner made a Motion to adopt the proposed Thoroughfareand Collectors Street Plan as written and recommended the proposal to' Town Council.  submitted by the Planning Board:  Planning Board Member Tee Stephenson seconded the motion.  Chairman Chris Sumner Ron Southard Andrea Meylor Motion carried (5-0). K-PMA Mason P. Winfree Deputy Town Clerk Town of Stokesdale  YES YES YES  Tee Stephenson Michael Threatt  YES YES  Respectfully submitted this the 1st day of] July, 2024.  PAGE10F1    ) @  QHGHISIBA9  e        Thoroughfare and Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Stokesdale Bypass  May 8,2 2024  Greensboro Oak Ridge Pleasant Garden Sedalia Stokesdale Summerfield Guilford County  STOKESDALE  OAKRIDGE  ODKBANS  GREENSBORO URBANAREA MPO  SUMMERFIELD GREENSBORO  MDAL N    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment  Executive Summary  This document recommends an amendment to remove the US 158 Stokesdale Bypass from the Thoroughfare and Collector Street Plan. The bypass route was established in 2016 during the alternatives analysis phase of environmental document (approved 2018) for NCDOT project R-2577C to widen US 158 between. Anthony Road and US 220 in Stokesdale. Based on that, the alignment was included int the consolidated Thoroughfare The Stokesdale Town Council, Guilford County Planning Board, and area property owners and residents have requested the MPO reevaluate the need for the bypass and if appropriate remove it from the Thoroughfare and Collector Plan. MPO has reviewed the matter via technical evaluation of current and expected future traffic, assessment of the project's performance in the NCDOT prioritization funding competition to date, consideration of relative cost to benefit, and comments and other input provided by interested persons and entities. Review findings are that the US 158 Stokesdale Bypass is unwarranted by area traffic, is prohibitively expensive relative to the benefits, and will not be a competitive contender for future funding in the years ahead. Roadway safety, operational, and capacity improvements on existing area roadways in a manner consistent provide a cost effective and appropriate alternative strategy for addressing future area roadway  and Collector Plan adopted by the MPO: inl May 2023.  needs.  Staff Recommendations because:  Staff recommends removal ofUS 158 Stokesdale Bypass from the Thoroughfare and Collector Plan roadway build-scenario analysis mobility improvements are marginal compared to no-build scenario; prohibitively high-cost (R-2577C cost estimate: $123,000,000) compared to marginal benefits make project a cost-ineffective and infeasible strategy for addressing area traffic needs; cost-ineffective projects with high price tags but only marginal benefits have no path to funding under 60% of commenters supported bypass removal. 40% who favored retaining bypass cited concerns over future traffic, however as documented herein, lower cost improvements on existing roadways would Itis further recommended that the MPO: and NCDOT continue to partner together to identify and implement further needed roadway safety, operational, and capacity improvements on existing area roadways on an ongoing basis including through the pending 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan development process and future updates, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and the NCDOT Strategic Transportation Investments prioritization process. NCDOT Project R-5823, conceived ofin part as an alternative to a US 158 Stokesdale Bypass, exemplifies this strategy by improving NC 65 and NC 68: in the Stokesdale area through a series of intersection, safety, and operational improvements with construction  NCDOT's STI prioritization process;  provide a similar or greater level oft mobility in a more economical way.  currently scheduled in FY 2026  Page 1  US 158 Stokesdale Bypass  May 8, 2024    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment  Documentation of Review & Findings  The MPO evaluation of the need for the bypass and its potential removal from the Thoroughfare and Collector Plan included a multi-part process including consultation with NCDOT and member agencies, analysis oft traffic and future funding potential, review of project history, and publicinvolvement.  Consultation with NCDOT and TCC member agencies  MPO staff and] NCDOT consulted on the matter on multiple occasions starting in early through March 2024. Staffcoordinated with Guilford County as well. This includeda Thoroughfare & Collector Plan presentation to Guilford County Planning Board in September 2023. After that meeting Guilford County requested the MPO review and address the Stokesdale Bypass issue and fully resolve it before bringing the plan back for consideration for adoption by the County. Significant consultation was held with the Town of Stokesdale also, culminating inj participation alongside NCDOT staff at the March 14 Town Council meeting where the matter was discussed in detail. Finally, staff consulted TCC and' TAC about the upcoming item at the March  2024 meeting. Public Input  A30 day public review period was held from April 1 through. April 30, 2024. A total of15 public comments were received via email and Survey Monkey. Please go to. Appendix A for ai full summary ofs survey  responses and all written comments received along with MPO responses..  Would you support retaining or removing  the US 158 bypass?  70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%  15 Total Responses  Support retaining  Supportremoving  Page 2  US 158 Stokesdale Bypass  May 8, 2024    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment  Staff Analysis  Trafic Analysis d Funding Competitiveness Summary  Staff performed high-level analysis using the regional travel demand model and historic traffic volumes. The analysis considered socioeconomic factors (housing, employment), effects on regional travel patterns overall, and effects on future traffic flow volumes in the project area. The analysis compared no-build and build scenarios to assess trafficvolumes and travel patterns with and without the project. Thel build scenario showed Staff assessed cost effectiveness in a qualitative manner using available information sources. First, given that R-2577C cost is estimated at $123,000,000 and the benefits compared to a no-build scenario are marginal in nature, the project would be highly cost-ineffective, meaning lower cost operational and intersection improvements on existing roadways would provide a similar or greater level oft mobility in a more economical and realistic way. Secondly, staff reviewed data from NCDOT's prioritization tool to corroborate this assessment. The project has consistently scored on the lower end of the Statewide and Regional roadway mobility funding competitions, puttingit it clearly out oft range of being a contender for obtaining funding. The MPO carried out an independent high-level analysis using the regional travel demand model and historical traffic volumes. This analysis included an examination ofs socioeconomic factors including population, household, and employment data, along with an evaluation oft theiri influence on overall regional travel patterns and projected traffic flow volumes within the project area. Historical traffic volume data spanning from 2017 to 2021 was examined, revealing a slight decrease in recent years. By leveraging the latest Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data from 2021 and utilizing the regional travel demand model (2017 - 2045), two scenarios were forecasted for traffic patterns: one without any construction (no-build) and the other incorporating the proposed project (build). Growth rates were derived from segments within the project area, utilizing outputs from the regional travel demand model.. A growth rate of1.75% was  marginal (minor) mobility improvements compared with the no-build scenario.  Trafic Anabyusis Details  applied in the forecasting process. Figure 1 illustrates traffic volume count stations (NCDOT), while the accompanying table presents the 2021 AADT and the forecast results for both no- build and build scenarios. The build scenario for the roadway demonstrated minor mobility enhancements in comparison to the no-build scenario albeit accompanied by ani increase in traffic volume on US 158 due to induced demand from increase roadway capacity.  AADT (Vel/Day) 2021 No 2045 build 2045 Build 7.800 11.840 14.626 8.100 12.296 15.155 7.000 10.626 5.934 9.800 14.876 8.875 7.600 11.537 12.487 NCDOT Forecast with PTRMS2rate AADTweh (1758a)  MAP ID Location US 158 (West of Merchants lake Rd) 2 US 158 (West of NC 65) 3 US 158 (between Belews Creck Rd and Vaughn St) 4 US 158 (between Vaughn St and NC 68) 5 US 158 (East of NC 68) ByPass Source  12.537  Page 3  US 158 Stokesdale Bypass  May 8, 2024    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment  Cost Efectiveness Revien  Table 1. R-2577C Prioritization Scoring Results, 2009-2021  Staff assessed cost effectiveness in a qualitative manner using available information sources. This included a review of results from NCDOT STI Prioritization Processes for the period 2009 through the present day. Table 1 indicates R-2577C results. Please note, the evaluation scale is on 20-100 basis. Variations in scoring between rounds reflect ongoing refinements to the methodology and data sources, as well as the pool of competing projects in the system. R-2577 Project History Praject History Summary  Round P1.0 P2.0 P3.0 P4.0 P5.0 P6.0  Statewide Tier Results (out of 100)  39.27 N/A 19.39 26.75 43.31 54.34  The 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) lists R-2577C in the 2045 horizon year. The 2024- 2033 MTIP and STIP list the project in unfunded status because iti is a subsection of R-2577 of which the A section is funded for construction inl FY2026. Recent estimates using the NCDOT Prioritization cost estimation tool indicate a cost of $123,633,000 (slightly higher than indicated in current TIP). R- 2577A and B arei in Forsyth County and are therefore includedi int the Winston-Salem MPO: MTP: rather  than the GUAMPO: MTP. Prgject History Details  NCDOT started worked on project R-2577 15-20 years ago. In those days, the entirety of US 158 between Winston-Salem and its easternmost terminus near the coast was on a short list of projects eligible for a large pot of dedicated funding under the Intrastate System established under the 1989. Act establishing the current State Highway Trust Fund. However, in 2013 the Strategic Transportation Investment (STI). Act established the Strategic Mobility Formula. Under STI, the same the State Highway Trust Fund revenues previously dedicated to Urban Loops and the Intrastate System became available for a wide range of potential improvements. Under the STT process needs-based data-driven scoring define base line need, and local input points applied by MPOs, RPOs, and NCDOTI Divisions are applied to set final rankings. The ranked results are used to select projects for funding under the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). STI removed the dedicated funding for Intrastate roadways, meaning potential projects such as R-2577 would have to compete for funding, and would only bei implemented if competitive against other projects statewide The first Public Meeting for R-2577 in Stokesdale was April 10, 2012. Work on the environmental document began with NCDOT and Merger Team years prior to thel Public Meeting. The first Public Meetings introduced the study area and alternate alignments. The Merger Team, representatives from NCDOT, all permitting agencies and two MPOs, met at decision set points in development oft the environmental document and project, beginning with Purpose and Need to final project alignment and environmental document. Thel last public meeting was October 26, 2017 which showed the proposed right- of-way and roadway configuration as a superstreet. The environmental document was completed December 13, 2018 identifying three segments for R-2577: A North ofI-40 Bus / US 421 to Belews Creek Road; B Belews Creek Road to. Anthony Road; C. Anthony Road to I-73 /1 US220. It defined the purpose and need statement as to improve the tnafic carying caparily and level of service along US 158, within the prjedt limits. However, the traffic forecast developed as part of this study showed that thel R-2577C would carry close to 12, 600 average annual daily  and in the area.  Page 4  US 158 Stokesdale Bypass  May 8, 2024    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment  traffic in 2045. This traffic level is well within the traffic capacity threshold of two-lane roadways.  R-2577CUS 158 Stokesdale Bypass and MPO/Local Plans  The federally required 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) was adopted December 9, 2020. An update is due by December 2025. The 2045MTPi identifies projects expected for construction through the year 2045. Project R-2577Ci is currently listedi in 2045. Thel MTP update may either remove R-2577C from thej plan altogether for movei it tot thel Illustrativel Listo ofu unscheduled projects, depending on which coursel better serves the interest of] R-2577A, scheduled for constructioni in FY: 2026, and] R-2577B, believed to bea contender for fundingint ther mid tolong-term. The state required Comprehensive Transportation Plan will The Thoroughfare and Collector Street Plan is a MPO developed plan used by the MPO in consultation with MPO area jurisdictions as the basis for development ordinance requirements for roadway improvements, right-of-way dedications and similar considerations. This is a locally oriented document rather than a federally-required or state-required one. Removing the US 158 Stokesdale Bypass from the Thoroughfare and Collector Plan will in no way effect the prospects of  be updated at the same time and manner consistent with the MTP.  R-2577A and B toj proceed.  Stokesdale Area  GREENSBORO R2577C US 158 Interchange & Grade Separation Exstngi Interchange Proposedir Interchange Excsing Grade Separation Proposedo Grades Separaion Thoroughfare Exeing Freeway I ProposedF Freeway Exstingn Major Proposed Major  STOKESDALE  Page 5  US 158 Stokesdale Bypass  May 8, 2024    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment  Staff Recommendations  Staff recommendation is to remove the US 158 Stokesdale Bypass from the Thoroughfare and Collector the roadway build scenario analysis showed minor mobility improvements compared with the no-build the prohibitively high cost (current R-2577C cost estimate is $123,000,000) compared to the marginal benefits of the project make ital highly cost-ineffective andi infeasible strategy for addressing area traffic cost-ineffective projects with high price tags but only marginal benefits have no path to funding under 60% of commenters supported thel bypass removal. The 40% who favored: its retention cited concerns over future traffic. As documented in this document, lower cost operational and intersection improvements on existing roadways would provide a similar or greater level of mobility in a more Itis further recommended that the MPO: and NCDOT continue to partner together toi identify and implement further needed roadway safety, operational, and capacity improvements on existing area roadways on an ongoing basis including through Metropolitan Transportation Plan review and updates, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and the NCDOT Strategic Transportation Investments prioritization process. NCDOT Project R-5823, conceived ofi in part as an alternative to a US 158 Stokesdale Bypass, exemplifies this strategy by improving NC 65 and NC 68 in the Stokesdale area through aseries ofintersection, safety, and operational improvements with construction currently scheduled: in FY  Plan because: scenario; needs;  NCDOT's STI prioritization process;  economical way.  2026.  Page 6  US 158 Stokesdale Bypass  May 8, 2024    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment  Appendix A  Page 7  US 158 Stokesdale Bypass  May 8, 2024    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Bypass  Appendix A  Public Outreach Summary  The Draft Thoroughfare and Collector Street Plan Amendment to remove the US 158 Bypass was made available for public comment from April 1 to. 30, 2024. The public outreach campaign notified interested persons, organizations, and other entities of the draft plan under consideration and the opportunity to provide comments directly or via a twelve-question web survey hosted on Survey Monkey. This effort yielded fifteen responses (12 from the survey, 3 from email) that offer a diverse range of perspectives and insights In addition MPO staff, along with NCDOT representatives, attended a meeting oft the Stokesdale Town Council Meeting on March 14. The purpose of the meeting was for Town officials and residents and other interested parties to learn about, discuss, and consider the merits of the planned US 158 Bypass and its removal from the MPOThoroughfare and Collector Plan and the draft Town of Stokesdale Thoroughfare and Collector Plan for future Town consideration of adoption. That meeting had been publicized to Stokesdale residents by the Town of Stokesdale using its regular meeting notification procedures. The agenda and draft minutes for that meeting is attached the end oft the appendix. This summary does not endeavor to summarize those proceedings except to say that the Town welcomed the public review period and MPO consideration oft the pros and cons of the currently planned US 158 Stokesdale Bypass and final determination of how to proceed see enclosed draft meeting minutes for more. information. The MPO did not hold an additional public meeting after determining that this meeting provided ample opportunity for This document includes (1) a summary of public comments received; (2) documentation of! how the comment  about the bypass.  interested and affected persons tol learn about and discuss the matter.  opportunity was publicized. Public Comment Summary  Sixty percent of respondents concurred with removing the bypass from the Thoroughfare and Collector Street Plan. This result reinforces the MPO staff and NCDOT recommendation to remove the US 158 Below are the survey response(s). Note that responses received by email are presented in question 5 with an  Stokesdale Bypass from the Thoroughfare and Collector Plan  asterisk (*).    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Bypass  Question 1.  Do you regularly use US 158 in  the project area?  100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%  EF Responses  Yes  No  Question 2.  What modes of transportation do you regularly use in the project area? (You may select more than  one option.)  120.00% 100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00%  - Responses  Driving Personal Vehicle  Walking  Biking  Public Transportation    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Bypass  Question 3.  What is your primary purpose for travel in and through the project area? (Please choose one.)  60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%  Responses  Work  School  Shopping  Medical  Question 4- What are your thoughts on current and future congestion in the project  area?  Comments concerned about congestion in the project corridor:  C1.I It's only going to get worse.  C2. Current congestion isn't tool bad most of the time BUT with developers building houses on every wide C3. Congestion is not getting any better. We need to place necessary roads to better prepare for the future.  spot in the road we are only a few years from this being a major headache.  C4. This area will get busier in the future  C5. Kernersville and Stokesdale are growing and US 158 widening is needed to lessen congestion, increase  safety and create more economic development in the area.  4  MPO Response: Thank you for your comments. As development in the area and traffic volumes on area roadways increase, thel MPO will work with NCDOT, the Town of Stokesdale, and Guilford County to identify and develop cost effectivei improvements to the existing street network measures to address  congestion and safety issues as they emerge.    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Bypass  Comments not concerned about congestion in the project corridor: C6. Not too bad. Can be handled by existing roads with improvements in future.  C7. Congestion is not that bad.  C8. No need for a bypass around Stokesdale. Traffic is not excessive and is in fact less since new: interstate C9.Ibelieve there is congestion during the school year at Stokesdale Elementary and 158. However, this is only twice a day (and the school has asked parents to enter the area from a different road rather than stay lined up (backed up) on 158.Ilive off158 and turn right onto the road every work day around 6:20.Ido not have to wait to turn onto 158. I cannot comment on future congestion, not knowing enough on development  road opened  plans.  C10. New connector from 68 to 220 has helped congestion stop light at Hwy 158 and Angel Pardue Road  C11. Bypass is NOT needed..spend money on existing intersections to make safer and more efficient. Install  :  MPO Response: Thank you for your comments. MPO and NCDOT analysis agree that current and foreseeable congestion levels do not warrant a multilane widening or a multilane US 1581 bypass. The future focus will be on developing appropriate, cost effective responses to area traffic and safety issues in ai manner Question 5-1 Do you think the US 158 widening and bypass are needed in the future? How much weight should be given to the cost of the projects versus the benefits to  consistent with community needs and preferences.  residents?  Comments in support of the Stokesdale Bypass:  C1. Yes, there should be weight. Everyone weights out cost and benefit to everything we buy. Maybe look at C2. This area is seeing latge scale development sO a road system ahead of congestion would be welcome. C3. Yes. Iti is needed. It's already dangerous pulling into 158. Iunderstand placing weight, however safety for drivers don't need weight. Iremember 158 being shut down because someone! lost their life. There no C4. Bypass needed along 158 from I-73 in Stokesdale to Winston Salem, but needs to be away from areas C5. Yes, the US 158 widening and bypass is needed. The Kemervll-Stokesdale area needs better roads to  risk as well as benefit. I've seen bad accidents. You can't put a price on al life...  weight for that!  with high population and houses.    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Bypass  handle growth, cost should not factori into the decision. Perhaps a local sales tax of1 1% could help raise funds  for the project.  :  MPO Response: Thank you for your comments. MPO staffand NCDOT analysis found the benefits to motorized traffic flowin the area would be relatively small when compared against the substantial cost of the Stokesdale Bypass. Operational improvements will be ai more cost effective and feasible strategy. This finding is substantiated by the fact that NCDOT prioritization process results over the last ten years make it clear that it is highly improbable that the US 158 Stokesdale Bypass would ever score highly enough to be  funded given its extremely high cost and relatively low benefits. Comments opposed to the Stokesdale Bypass:  C6. After very thoughtful consideration and memories ofl living in Stokesdale 50 yrs ago,I feel that a bypass around the town would harm rather be al help to businesses. My interest would bei in widening the existing road (Hwy 158). Residents along Hwy 158 may be concerned about the fast moving traffic, also a big  problem. Ilook forward to hearing about any changes.* C7.Nota at all. It's not needed and would be a costly boondoggle. C8. No. It think iti is disenfranchising landowners and taking their property.  C9.Idoubti it will ever be needed.  C10.Ido not know. I do feel the cost is entirely too high for the benefits to residents.  C11. No. Cost VS benefit is extremely important.  C12. Not need. Cost well exceeds any benefit as well as it will destroy land  C13. Remove the future planned project Part C: from the existing plans to bypass downtown Stokesdale.* C14.Iam pleased tol hear that the above action is not going to happen. I have lived in Stokesdale, very close tot the US 158: and have seen no need for any widening. The traffic does not warrant an expenditure of funds for this area oft this road. Traffic moves along well and since 173/ 220 have lightened the traffic load,I  believe you are making the correct decision.*  *  MPO Response: Thank you for your comments. The MPO concurs that the expected benefits would not justify the high costs of the US 158 Bypass. Current NCDOT cost estimates put the cost of R-2577C (which includes the Stokesdale Bypass at $123 million. Meanwhile, recent NCDOT: analysis of potential widening of NC 65 and NC 68, an alternate route around US 158 through the core of Stokesdale, would not warrant    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Bypass  four lane widening by 2045, and that instead a series ofi intersection and safety improvements will be more appropriate. These improvements, which NCDOT conceived in part as a potential alternative to a  Stokesdale Bypass are currently scheduled for construction in FY2 2026.  Question 6.  Would you support retaining or removing the US 158 widening and  bypass?  60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%  12 Total Responses  Supportr retaining  Support removing  Would you support retaining or removing  the US 158 bypass?  70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%  15T Total Responses  Support retaining  Support removing  Question 7 - Please share any remaining comments you have regarding this  amendment? C1. Please remove the bypass.    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Bypass  C2. More work needs to be done contacting landowners before adding projects like this to the map. Otherwise, the act of drawing roads over private lands violates the takings clause oft the constitution. C3. Please keep this project on its current timeline. Itwill help now and in the future.  C4.1 Money should be spent more wisely...  C5.Iwould like to see this project to remain on schedule.  C6. Too many large trucks are. using 158, including dump trucks from the rock quarry nearby. They are using  side roads which is dangerous.  C7. New connector from 68 to 220 has helped congestion.  4  MPO Response: Thank you. The MPO works with NCDOT and member agencies such as the Town of Stokesdale and Guilford County to identify and submit potentially viable transportation projects for consideration for the MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the NCDOTSTI: Prioritization process used to select projects for funding in the Transportation Improvement Program. Please visit the MPO Also, regarding the concern about dump trucks on side streets we recommend contacting Town Officials of  website Prioritization 7.0 page for more information. NCDOTI Division 7 toa review of thei issue.  Question 8.  What is your age?  70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%.  Responses  Under 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+  18    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Bypass  Question 9- What is your home zip code?  Six residents reported living in 27357. One resident each livedi in 27403, 27235, 27284, 27051, and 27009.  Question 10 - What is your work/school zip code? resident each reported 27402, 27265, 27408, and 27285. Question 11 - What is your gender?  Four residents reported working or going to school in 27357, and two reported 27410 and 27320. One  What is your gender?  70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%  Responses  Female  Male  Other Prefer not to  answer.  Question 12 - What is your race/ethnicity?    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Bypass  What is your race or ethnicity? (Check all  that apply)  100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%  Responses  White or Black or Hispanic Asian or American Native Another Caucasian African orLatino Asian Indian or Hawaiian race  American  American Alaska orother Native Pacific Islander    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Bypass  Public Outreach Materials  Figure 1. Press release distributed to MPO area media outlets  GREENSBORO CITY OF GREENSBORO FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  Contact: Lydia Mcintyre Phone: 336-373-3117  MPO Seeks Pubic Comment on Proposed Change to Future Planned GREENSBORO, NC (April 1)-1 The Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is seeking public comment on a proposed amendment and revisions to the Thoroughfare and Collector Street Plan. The amendment would remove a planned widening and construction of al bypass for US 158 between Piney Grove Road and I-73/US 220in Stokesdale. Members of the public have until April 30 at 5 pm to submit their comments in writing. The public may comment during a public hearing at the May 8 virtual meeting of the The Draft Thoroughfare and Collector Street Plan. Amendment is available for review online at www. guampo.org. Send comments to Engineering Supervisor Lydia Mcintyre via survey, email, fax to 336-412-6171, or by mail to PO Box 3136, Greensboro, NC, 27402-3136. The Thouroughfare and Collector Street Plan is designed to balance future development with The proposed US 158 widening and bypass was proposed to diverti increasing traffic from the Town of Stokesdale. The MPO is seeking input on whether to retain or remove thei future The Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) manages the federally required transportation planning process for the area's highway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian The Greensboro metropolitan planning area includes the City of Greensboro, the majority of  US 158 Widening and Bypass  MPO Transportation Advisory Committee by signing up here.  future planned roadways. planned project. facilities.  unincorporated Guilford County, and the towns of Oak Ridge, Pleasant  Garden, Sedalia, Stokesdale, and Summerfield.  ###    Thoroughfare & Collector Street Plan Amendment: US 158 Bypass  Figure 2. Emails were are distributed to the various MPO distribution lists including a broad based list of  interested parties. Town of Stokesdale also helped get the word out.  Mcintyre, Lydia  Metropolitan Planning Organizations SeeksPublic Commento onp Proposedo Changet toPlannedus 158V Wideninga andBypass  GREENSBORO CITY OF GREENSBORO FORI IMMEDIAT TER RELEASE  Contact LydisMcintyre Phone:: 336-373-3117  Metropolitan Planning Organization Secks Public Commento onk Change Plannedu us 158V Wideninga and Bypass  GREENSBORO, NCV (Apit2, 2024)- The Greensborot Urban AreaM MetimpoitanPlamnings Organization (MPO)is seeking publico comment onaproposeda amendmenta andi revisionst tothel Thoroughfare andCollectors StreetF Plan. T conshucionotabypasst forus 1581 belweenF Piney Grove Roada andi-73US 220in Stokesdale. Memberso ofthep public haveu unti5pm, Apil3 30tosubmito inwritingony whethertoretainor: removel theluturep plannedpro TheDraftT Thoroughfarea andCollectors StreetF PlanA Amendmentis: availablek forn onfinea atywwg quampoorg Sendo comments loEngineerings Supervisorl LydiaMcintyrev vias survey. esal, faxto3 336-412-6171, ormalloPOBa TheGreensborol UrbanA Areal MetropolitanP PlamningOrganizalion (MPO)r managest thef federallyr reguiredtanspotaton; planningprocess! forthea arealshighway. transit, bicydea andpedestriant facilities. TheG Greensboron metropolitar  attheMay8 Bvirtualn meetingoftheMPOT Transportation/ Advisory Comnitteeb bys signingupgnline TheT Thoroughfarea andCollectors StreetF Planisc designedtobalancet fulured  withf futurep plannedroadways. Theus1 158V wideningandbypassy wasp proposedtod divertimcrmasingtalic* fromtheT Towno ofStokesdale.  majorityo ofunincorporated Guilfordo County, andt thet towns ofOakF Ridge, PleasantG Garden, Sedalia, Stokesdale, ands Summerfield.  ###  Figure 3: Draft meeting minutes, Stokesdale Town Council March 14, 2024    DRAFT MINUTES TOWN OF STOKESDALE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 8325 ANGEL-PARDUE ROAD STOKESDALE, NC: 27357 MARCH14, 2024 AT7:001 PM  OLD BUSINESS! ITEMS:  12. Discussion of proposed 2023 Thoroughfare and Collectors Street Plan by the Stokesdale Town Council, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO). (Requested Mayor Pro Tem Foy of Stokesdale led a discussion, highlighting the 2023 Comprehensive Transportation Plan by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Concerns were raised regarding thei inclusion of the northern route oft theUS Highway 158 Bypass in Stokesdale. Mayor Pro Tem Foy emphasized the need for a unified stance from the North Carolina Department of Brian Ketner, representing NCDOT, addressed the council, acknowledging their concerns and explaining recent communications regarding the proposed Thoroughfare and Collectors Street Plan. He outlined the history of the R-2577 project, its sections, and the criteria for project prioritization under the Strategic Mobility Formula. Ketner clarified that the traffic projections did not justify the Options for the Town Council regarding the R-2577 project were presented, emphasizing the importance ofi informed decision-making. Councilman Landreth sought clarification on the Council's authority over thej project, which was confirmed by) Ketner, given theTowmsmemberahp: in thel MPO. Transportation Planner Craig McKinney provided insights from GUAMPO, indicating a public survey to gauge opinions on the US Highway 158 Bypass. He stressed the importance of Concerns were expressed by Councilman Landreth for property owners affected by the project. McKinney assured the council of ongoing efforts to reconsider the proposed plan, awaiting survey Attorney Amanda Hodierne represented impacted property owners and advocated for reconsideration of the Thoroughfare and Collectors Street Plan. She detailed the process of plan adoption and highlighted thej potential removal of the northern bypass based on traffic data. Hodierne In conclusion, Mayor Pro Tem Foy commended the representatives for their input and emphasized the need for thorough consideration before adopting the proposed plan. Discussions will continue  during thel February 08, 2024, regularTown Council meeting)  Transportation (NCDOT) before the Town Council could approve the plan.  need for a northern bypass by 2045, citing ample capacity on existing roads.  cost-benefit analysis in project funding decisions.  results for updated recommendations.  clarified thel MPO's role and confirmed ongoing discussions to amend thej plan.  pending survey results and further recommendations.  PAGE10F1    RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GREENSBORO MPO AREA THOROUGHFARE AND COLLECTOR STREET PLAN: US 158 STOKESDALE BYPASS  At motion was made by Tammi Thurm and seconded by Mike Fox for adoption oft the following WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has reviewed the current Thoroughfare and Collector Plan, adopted May 10, 2023 and has determined that an amendment is needed to remove the currently planned US 158 Stokesdale Bypass alignment to appropriately guide future development oft the street and highway system in the town of Stokesdale and northwest Guilford WHEREAS, the Town of Stokesdale, the Guilford County Planning Board, and area residents and property owners had requested MPO consideration of and action on this change; AND WHEREAS, MPO and NCDOT analysis found the benefits to motorized traffic flow in the area of the planned bypass would be minor and would not justify the prohibitively high cost of construction; and that improvements to existing roadways will be ai more cost effective and feasible WHEREAS, NCDOT Project R-5823, conceived ofin part as an alternative to a US 158 Stokesdale Bypass, will exemplify this strategy by improving NC 65 and NC 68i in the Stokesdale area througha series ofi intersection, safety, and operational improvements with construction currently scheduled in WHEREAS, the MPO and NCDOT will continue to partner together to identify and implement further needed roadway safety, operational, and capacity improvements on existing area roadways on an ongoing basis including through Metropolitan Transportation Plan review and updates, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and the NCDOT Strategic Transportation Investments WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has provided fora thirty day public comment period, sent staff to a Stokesdale Town Council meeting to discuss the matter, and solicited the NOW THEREFORE, bei it resolved by the Greensboro Urban Area Transportation Advisory Committee to amend the Thoroughfare Plan and Collector Street Plan dated May 10, 2023, to remove the US 158 Stokesdale Bypass alignment on this the day May 8, 2024.  resolution, which upon being put to a vote was duly adopted.  County area; AND  strategy; AND  FY2026;AND  prioritization process; AND  public for comments via surveys and other means; AND  May 3, 2024  US 158 Stokesdale Bypass Removal    I,  Marikay Abuzuaiter  TACChair  (Name of Certifving Official) (Title gfCertiping Official)  dol hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the minutes ofa meeting of the  Greensboro Urban Area TAC duly held on this day, May 8, 2024.  frikg Jafabo  GhwiTamponule-Xawinp Committce  Subscribed and sworn to mc on this day, May 8, 2024.  Recereeereeee Noary Public, DEIDRE El MAY gly  NOTARY PUBLIC Guilford County North Carolina My Commission Expires 03/07/2028  My commissiot  May 3, 2024  US 158 Stokesdale Bypass Removal    TOWN OF STOKESDALE  NOTICE OF PUBLIC: HEARING  A Public Hearing will bel held during the next regular Stokesdale Town Council meeting. This meeting will be held inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers, located at 8325 Angel-Pardue Road, Stokesdale, North Carolina 27357 on Thursday, July 11, 2024,  at7:00PM.  PUBLIC: HEARING ITEM:  Public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Thoroughfare and Collectors Street Plan as prepared and adopted by the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) and subsequently amending the Town of Stokesdale's) Future The Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) provides multi-modal transportation planning for the Town of Stokesdale among other communities in Guilford County, and the updated Thoroughfare and Street Collector Plan addresses the network of roadways that make up our communities, considers their function, ensures overall network stability, balances volume and access, and informs roadway design and speed limit. The Plan implements provisions of the Land Development Ordinance, establishes street design standards, manages access and connectivity, and secures rights-of-way as development occurs. This update is required to maintain consistency with the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Upon the potential adoption of the Plan and subsequent resolution, the Town of Stokesdale's For more information, please call the Stokesdale Town Hall at (336)643-4011.  Land Use Plan.  Future Land Use Plan would be amended.  PAGE10F1    Order Confirmation Order# 0000872197  ncmg North rolina Media Group  PO Box 27283 Richmond, VA 23261-7283  Client: TOWN OF STOKESDALE Phone: 3366434011 Account: 4000762 Address: POBOX465 Sales Rep aboan Total Amount Payment Amount Amount Due Tax Amount: Payment Meth: Credit- Debit Card Ad Number 0000872197-01 Production Method AdBooker (liner) Product and Zone  Payor: TOWN OF STOKESDALE Phone: 3366434011 Account: 4000762 Address: POBOX465  STOKESDALE NC2 27357 Accnt Rep Ordered By aboangso  STOKESDALE NC 27357  Fax:  Robbie $526.72 $0.00 $526.72 0.00 AdType CLSL Legal  EMail: knacker@siokesdaleorg  Tear Sheets 0 AdSize 2X35li Production Notes  Proofs 0 Color $0.00  Affidavits PO Number: 1  Placement  Position Legal Notices Position Legal Notices  #Inserts 2 #Inserts 8  GSO Greensboro News Recor C-LegalA Ads Run Dates 7/1/2024, 7/8/2024 Product and Zone GSOI newsrecord. com  Run Schedule Invoice Text: TOWN OF STOKESDALE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING  Placement C-Legal Ads  Run Schedule Invoice Text: TOWN OF STOKESDALE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Run Dates 7/1/2024, 7/2/2024, 7/3/2024, 7/42024,7/52024,; VIPANA77A02A,782MA  TagLine: TOWNOFSTOKESDALENOTICEOPPUBLICHEARINGAPUBLICHEARINGWILBEMELDDURINGTHENEXTRE  GULARSTOKESDALETOWNCOUNCIMEETINGTHSMEETINGWILLBEHELD:  06/27/2024 2:27:04 pm  Page 1of2    Order Confirmation Order# 0000872197  ncmg North lina Media Group Ad Content Proof Note: Ads sized doesn notr reflecta actuala ad  PO Box 27283 Richmond, VA 23261-7283  TOWNO OFSTOKESDALE NOTICEO OFPUBLICHEARING  APublic Hearing will be held during the next regular Stokesdale Town Council meeting. This meeting will be held inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers, located at 8325 Angel-Pardue Road, Stokesdale, North Carolina: 27357 on1 Thursday, July11,2024, at7:00PM. Public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Thoroughfare and Col- lectors Street Plan as prepared and adopted by the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) and subsequently amending the Town of Stokesdale's Future Land Use Plan. The Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) provides multi-modal transportation planning for the Town of Stokesdale among other communities in Guilford County, and the updated Thoroughfare and Street Collector Plan addresses the network of road- ways that make up. our communities, considers their function, ensures overall network stability, balances volume and access, and informs road- way design and speed limit. The Plan implements provisions of the Land Development Ordinance, establishes street design standards, manages ac- cess and connectivity, and secures rights-of-way as development occurs. This update is required to maintain consistency with the 2045 Metropoli- tan Transportation Plan. Upon the potential adoption of the Plan and: sub- sequent resolution, the Town of Stokesdale's Future Land Use Plan would For more information, please call the Stokesdale Town Hall at (336)643-  PUBLICI HEARING ITEM:  be amended. 4011.  06/27/2024 2:27:04 pm  Page 2 of2    GUILFORD COUNTY LEGAL NOTICES  Municipality: Stokesdale Public Hearings Datel Published: Jul 01, 2024  Expiration Date: Jul 11,2 2024  TOWN OF STOKESDALE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING  AI Public Hearing willl be held during the next regular Stokesdale Town Council meeting. This meeting will bel held inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers, located at 8325. Angel-Pardue Road, Stokesdale, North Carolina 27357 on  Thursday, July 11, 2024, at 7:00PM.  PUBLIC HEARINGITEM:  Public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Thoroughfare and Collectors Street Plan as] prepared and adopted by the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) and subsequently amending the Town of  Stokesdale's Future Land Use Plan.  The Greensboro Urban. Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) provides multi-modal transportation planning for the Town of Stokesdale among other communities in Guilford County, and the updated Thoroughfare and Street Collector Plan addresses the network of roadways that make up our communities, considers their function, ensures overall network stability, balances volume and access, andi informs roadway design and speed limit. The Plan implements provisions oft thel Land Development Ordinance, establishes street design standards, manages access and connectivity, and secures rights-of-way as development occurs. This update is required to maintain consistency with the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Upon thej potential adoption oft thel Plan and subsequent resolution, the Town of Stokesdale's Future  Land Use Plan would be amended.  For more information, please call the Stokesdale Town Hall at (336)643-4011.  Per S.L. 2017-210 and Guilford County Ordinance Chapter 17: Electronic Notice section 17-1(a), Guilford County is  permitted to publish legal notices on the Guilford County Electronic Legal Notices website at  tps/legalnoticesgulloncoumynegoy/Defautaspx.  Copyright O 20242024 Guilford County    TOWN OF STOKESDALE  NOTICE OF PUBLIC: HEARING  Al Public Hearing will be held during thei next regular Stokesdale Town Council meeting. This meeting will be held inside the Stokesdale Town Hall Council Chambers, located at 8325. Angel-Pardue Road, Stokesdale, North Carolina 27357 on' Thursday, July 11, 2024,  at 7:00 PM.  PUBLICHEARING ITEM:  Public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Thoroughfare and Collectors Street Plan as prepared and adopted by the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) and subsequently amending the Town of Stokesdale's Future The Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) provides multi-modal transportation planning for the Town of Stokesdale among other communities in Guilford County, and the updated Thoroughfare and Street Collector Plan addresses the network of roadways that make up our communities, considers their function, ensures overall network stability, balances volume and access, and informs roadway design and speed limit. The Plan implements provisions of the Land Development Ordinance, establishes street design standards, manages access and connectivity, and secures rights-of-way as development occurs. This update is required to maintain consistency with the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Upon the potential adoption of the Plan and subsequent resolution, the Town of Stokesdale's For more: information, please call the Stokesdale Town Hall at (336)643-4011.  Land Use Plan.  Future Land Use Plan would be amended.  Per S.L. 2017-210 and Guilford County Ordinance Chapter 17: Electronic Notice section 17-1(a), Guilford County is permitted toj publish legal notices on the Guilford County Electronic Legal Notices website at  htps/legalnotices.gullondeountynegoy/Defaultasps.    AGENDA ITEMI NUMBER10  TOWN OF STOKESDALE  R-2024-XX  AI RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS TO. ADDA REFERENDUM TOTHE NOVEMBER 2024 BALLOT FOR. A VOTETO ENABLETHE LOCATION OF AN ABC STOREI INTHE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THETOWN OF STOKESDALE WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 18B-600(a)(3) permits and authorizes al Referendum Election within the corporatel boundaries of the Town of Stokesdale for thej purposes oft the Stokesdale Town WHEREAS, the Stokesdale Town Council deems it suitable toj permit al Referendum before the citizens of the' Town of Stokesdale to vote either FOR or AGAINST an ABC Store tol bel located in the Town of WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority contained in North Carolina General Statutes ISB- 600(d) and ISB- 601(c), the Guilford County Board of Elections is hereby requested to add a Referendum to thel November 2004 Election Ballot to enable a votel before the citizens of the' Town of Stokesdale on thei issue of allowing the location of an ABC Store within the boundaries of the Town of Stokesdale. NOW, THEREFORE, BEI ITI RESOLVED BYTHETOWN COUNCIL OFTHE TOWN OF STOKESDALE that pursuant to the authority contained in General Statutes ISB- 600(d) and1SB-601(), the Guilford County Board of Elections is hereby requested to place upon thel November 2004 Election Ballot al Referendum vote for ABC Stores within thel boundaries of the" Town of Stokesdale. BEITFURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to General Statute18B-6028) thes said ballot for the  citizens voting on thei issue of ABC Stores; and  Stokesdale; and  Referendum vote shall state thej proposition for voting as follows:  Toj permit the operation of ABC Stores.  For Against  BEITI FINALLY: RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be filed with the Guilford County Board of  Elections within ten (10) days ofi its adoption.  Adopted this the. Attest:  day of  2024.  Michael E. Crawford, Mayor  Robbie Lee Wagoner II, Town Clerk  PAGE10F1    AGENIDAI ITEM NUMBER11  TOWN OF STOKESDALE  MEMORANDUM  TO: FROM: DATE: RE:  Stokesdale Town Council Robbie Lee Wagoner II, Town Clerk Tuesday, June 11, 2024  Consideration to resolve outstanding water bill debts owed to the Town of  Stokesdale Water Enterprise Fund.  Dear Stokesdale Town Council,  As reported by Mrs. Priscilla Hunsucker, the Customer Service Manager of the Town of Stokesdale's Water System, there are presently 26 inactive water customer accounts with anaggregate balance of $6,115.66owed tot the' Town of Stokesdale Water Enterprise Fund.  Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Respectfully submitted,  EYALRE Robbie Lee Wagoner II, Town Clerk  Tuesday, June 11,2024  Date  PAGE10F1