6746 The Smithfield" Town Council meti inr regular session on Tuesday, November 19, 2024 at7:00p.m.i int the Council Chambers oft the Smithfield Town Hall, Mayor M. Andy Moore presided. Councilmen Present: Roger Wood, Mayor Pro-Tem Marlon! Lee, District1 Sloan Stevens, District2 Dr. David Barbour, District4 John Dunn, At-Large Stephen Rabil,At-Large Councilmen Absent Travis Scott, District3 Administrative Staff Present Michael Scott, Town! Manager Elaine Andrews, Town Clerk Ted Credle, Public Utilities Director Jeremey Daughtry, Fire Chief Lawrence Davis, Public' Works Director Andrew Harris, Finance Director Pete Hedrick, Chiefo ofF Police Gary Johnson, Parks &F Rec Director Shannan Parrish, HR Director Stephen Wensman, PlanningDirector Administrative Staff Absent Also Present CALLTO ORDER INVOCATION Robert Spence, Jr., Town Attorney Mayor Moore called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Thei invocation was given by Councilman David Barbour followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman John Dunn made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roger Wood Add as Business item 1: Request for Funding from DSDC fora Software Program. toa approve the agenda, amended as follows: Unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Special Use Permit Request - Country Club Townhomes (SUP-24-03): Brian Leonard (BRL Engineering) is requesting a special use permit for Country Club Townhomes, a 60- unit Townhome development on 8.06 acres in the B-3 (Highway Entranceway Business District). The proposed development is located at the northwest intersection of South Brightleaf Boulevard and Country Club Road, identified by the Johnston County Tax ID#s Town Clerk Elaine Andrews administered affirmations tot those wishing to offer testimony during the Public Mayor Pro Tem Roger Woodi made ar motion, seconded Councilman Steve Rabil, to open the public! hearing. Planning Director Stephen Wensman presented stating the property is located at the intersection of US301 Southa and Country Club Road. ItisinaB-3, property: zone with B-3 single family homes tot the West, and North, and some R-10 residential to the north. The property sits on Holt Lake to the South. Wensman noted that this application was made prior tot the removal of multi-family as a special use int the B-3: zoning district so, this has to be honored by the old ordinance. He stated proposed Smithfield Fire District, Smithfield water and sewer District, served by Duke Electric. The developers are Cranton Land LLC. The project includes 60 Townhouse units on 8.026 acres near Holt! Lake, with a density of7.48 dwelling units per acre. The development features 12 Townhouse buildings, each containing 3-8 units, and over 1,400 linear feet of road. Access is planned from Country Club Road. Thep property includes floodplain areas and a 50-footr riparian buffer. Itwasi initially proposed with public streets, however the current plan indicates private streets. The development will construct a pump station and force main for water and sewer. Wensman stated the developer initially proposed 25-foot front setbacks fort thep publics streets, however that plan conflicted with B3z zoningr requirements of 35-foot fronts setbacks and 17.5-foot corner side yard setbacks. The developer's engineer submitted a revised plan featuring private streets that meets all requirements while maintaining the same overall layout. Sidewalks and a trail will line Brightleaf Boulevard. Wensman: stated that the revised plans submitted inr response to staff comments maintains the same overall layout, with thel key difference being the designation ofs streets as easements rather than rights- of-way. This change allows property lines to extend into the streets, enabling the development to meet the 35- footi front setback requirement. While the Town code typically mandates a 60-foot-wide right-of-way for local streets, ita allows for a minimum of5 50-feet with Town Council approval under special conditions. The proposed plan features a 50-foot-wide right-of-way, with streets measuring 27 feet wide from curb to curb. Should the streets be designated as private, staffr recommends establishing a written agreement with the police 15J11023. Hearing Unanimously: approved. 6747 department to enforce parking regulations ont these private streets. Additionally, itis suggested that one side of thes street! be designated as a no-parking: zone. Wensman: also noted that the Town's ordinance permits private streets ins subdivisions under specific conditions. The Town Council must determine that these streets provide adequate ingress and egress to collector streets. Additionally, there must be sufficient assurances, typically through al legally established homeowners association, that the private streets will be properly maintained. This provision allows for flexibility ins subdivision design while ensuring proper access and long-term maintenance of private streets withini the development. He alsos stated the proposed development: aligns with the Comprehensive Plan's vision for a mixed-use center int this area. The plan encourages high-density residential uses, including While the Town cannot dictate architectural details under as special use permit, the project's design includes varied building heights and exterior finishes, with end units facing the street where possible. He also stated that the Townhouses have an approximate depth of 38.5 feet, with lot depths of 100 feet. Building footprints may vary in the final development. Staff noted that Section 8.13.14 requires 35-foot front and corner side yards for Townhouses, matching the general district. However, the Townhouse definition only requires a perimeter yard. The initial submittal showed 25-foot setbacks, conflicting with regulations. In response, the developer revised the plan toi include private streets, allowing the 35-foot setback to extend into the easement. The Townhouses comply with building separations, landscape plans, and buffer requirements. However, the right-of-way is 50- feeti instead oft the required 601 feet. In B3 commercial: zones, driveways must be 361 feeti from intersections, but the general code allows 251 feet, whicht this planf follows. Driveways can't exceed 50% of property frontage, which Townhomes often can't meet. A 5-foot public sidewalk is included along Country Club Road. Wensman stated the developer proposed a 10-foot multi-use trail on Brightleaf Boulevard and sidewalks on both sides ofi internal Ifp private streets are allowed, conditions should be added for trash truck access without liability and police enforcement ofp parking. The plan includes 3 parking stalls per unit plus 16 overflow spaces. Emergency vehicle access must be ensured. As stormwater management pond is proposed adjacent to Holt Lake. Wensman further noted that al homeowner's association would maintain common areas and amenities. The developer plans to install a pump station and force main. The Town will provide water and sewer services. Ai future identification signi is required. Traffic generated is below the threshold for a study. Staff finds the project will not endanger Townhomes, alongside commercial properties. streets are planned. Trash rollout details are missing. public health, safety, orv welfare and will adhere to Town requirements Mr. Wensman reviewed staffs opinion oft thet findings. They are asf follows: STAFF'S OPINION ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT 4.9.4.5.1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to ore endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. The project will not be detrimental to ore endanger the public health, safety or general welfare. The development 4.9.4.5.2. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development andi improvement ofthes surrounding property for uses permitted int the district. The project will noti impede the normala and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. The townhomes provide a transition from commercial uses to the existing detached. single family uses. Townhouses in and adjacent to mixed 4.9.4.5.3. Adequate utilities, drainage, parking, or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The development will provide adequate utilities, drainage, parking and necessary facilities. For this project to proceed, the developer will extend a forced main 4.9.4.5.4. The proposed uses shall not ber noxious ord offensive by reason ofv vibration, noise, odor, 4.9.4.5.5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as tor minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Proper ingress and egress will be provided with a single access road onto Country Club Road that meets Town of 4.9.4.5.6. Thatt the use will not adversely affectt the use or any physical attribute of adjoining or abutting property. The use will have no adverse impacts on the abutting or adjoining properties. The adjacent properties are residential, and the townhouse development will 4.9.4.5.7. That the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located. The proposed townhomes will be complementary and in harmony with the adjacent homes. The architectural style willl blend well and dormers willl break up thes scale ofthel buildings. 4.9.4.5.8. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to all the applicable regulations oft the districti inv whichi itis located. The special use will meet all applicable regulations. willa adhere to all Town requirements. use centers are encouraged int the Town Plan. and construct: a pump station. dust, smoke, or gas. The use will not create such nuisances. Smithfield. standards. provide a4 40-foot perimeter buffer with landscaping. 6748 Planning Staff recommends approval of SUP-24-03 with the following conditions: 1. That the "streets" be dedicated: to the public and the front setbacks shall be ar minimum of 2. There shall be al homeowner's association to own andr maintain allo common amenities such ast the parking lot, sidewalks, landscaping, mail kiosk, ands stormwater managementi facility. 3. That NCDEQ approval be obtained for the stormwater management facility and retaining 25f feet. wall withint the riparian buffer. Ifthe desirei ist to allowt the private streets: 1. That an agreement be inp place orv within the HOA documents that permit Town trash vehicles to trespass onto the private roadi for trash collection without liability for normal wear and tear. 2. There shall be a homeowner's association to own and maintain all common amenities such as the parking lot, sidewalks, landscaping, mail kiosk, and stormwater. management facility. 3. That a written agreement to allow the town police department to enforce parking on the private That NCDEQ approval be obtained for the stormwater management facility within the riparian That site plan be modified to adhere to UDO Section 2.21 tor maintain a 36' distance between a street and the street be signed nop parking on one side. buffer. driveway andi intersection. Planning Director Stephen Wensman has incorporated his entire record and provided ittot the Council in written Councilman John Dunn asked about the 50-foot right-of-way, questioning Wensman's to clarify his statement regarding Townhomes meeting that requirement, noting that the Town has approved 50-foot driveways in the past, andi ity was never ani issue. Wensman stated 50-foot driveways are not feasible, and thati it was discovered inac detailed review oft the code that this standard existed. He stated this standard is not fit for a Townhouse Mayor Moore asked ift this development met the 50-foot driveway UDO requirement. Wensman said ito did not. Mayor Moore asked ift there was potential that a Town home subdivision could meet it. Wensman stated one Councilman David Barbour askedi if Smithfield has already approved or has existing Townhome developments thata arel like the current proposal, particularly regarding the mix ofp private driveways and public streets. Stephen Wensman explained that Smithfield has approved" Townhouse developments int the past. Some older ones were approved under different regulations. More recently, Townhouse projects have been approved through conditional zoning, which allows the Town to negotiate specific details with developers. Councilman Barbour askedi ifc oft the Town homes approved were the streets designated public or private. Wensman stated that he Councilman David Barbour stated that street ownership in Townhome projects was ofi importance as it pertains tol Town services, and residents not having tor reach out top private companies for assistance. Councilman Sloan Stevens asked sincet the developer is proposing a: 25-foot setback, but the UDO requirement There was also discussion among the Board regarding sidewalks and the multi-use path proposed in this development. Given that the code was updated after this development was submitted, the Board wanted clarification: for how thoser regulations would apply int this case. Wensman stated the developer planned toi install sidewalks, buth he recommended the trail, due tot the Mountains to Seai trail coming through. The developer was Councilman Sloan Stevens asked at what density would a second entrance be required. Wensman stated at Councilman John Dunn stated this development is built with a private road; under the assumption it will always be ap private road that the Town would not be required tot take over as in other developments in the past. That being the case, itr makesi itp possible for the developer to get aroundt the 35-foot setback. Mayor Moore clarified with Wensman that the developer was proposing public streets. Wensman stated that was the developer's submittal, and that this was what the UDO requires 65-foot-wide rights-of-way. Mayor Moore asked if this Councilman David Barbour stated that sincet the Board keeps finding issues with the development not being in line with the UDO, how can staffs opinion oft thet finding off facts be ok. Mayor Andy Moore statedt that the Board will discover allf facts during the quasi-judicial hearing and that opinion should ber reserved until all the facts are heard. Councilman Barbour reiteratedi that thel list OfUDO violations is aj problem. Wensman apologized, stating that there was some back and forth during his review of the project's originally submitted plans versus the alternative plans. Hes stated ifa private street, the developer meetst thes standards, but thatt the developer offered Mayor Andy Moore clarified thatt the developer was proposing public streets and stressed that the Board must formi int the November 19, 2024 agenda packet. Mayor Andy Moore asked ift there were: any questions fromt the Council. development. couldr meet the requirement ifthere were wide lots. believed they were public streets. 35f feeti inal B-3: zoning district, why was this case before the Board. readily agreeable to comply with the new: standards, addingt the trail. least one hundred units, and this development did nott triggerit it. development meets that. Wensman stated thati it does not. alternative plans ifthe other was nota approved. 6749 hear the case as the Special Use Permit request submitted before them, and that is not up for negotiation. Wensman agreed the developers were proposing public streets with a 25-foot setback, 50-footr right-of-way, and Thel Mayor asked if there were any further questions from the Board for staff. There were none. He asked for Attorney Andrew Petesch of Petesch Law of Cary, NC. testified that he represents about twenty-three homeowners near the development, and also wishedt top presentt two adjacent property owners as well as as state certified appraiser to speak ont the issue. He stated that he proposed to present evidence on standing to show that his party would suffers special damages distinct from the public atl large ift the project was allowed to move forward, in accordance with North Carolina state law. He stated thati ina accordance with presenting evidence on standing, itis his allegation that the Special Use Permiti is unlawful to approve, and in treating thats statement as true for standing purposes only, itsatisfiest thet first element ofs standing. The second element was that his party would suffer special damages, for which hei intended to present witness testimony. He called Eason Kenny to Marcia Eason Armstrong Kenny, adjacent property owner at1 125 Cypress Point was brought fortht tot testify. She clarified her property boundaries in relation tot the proposed project and in congruence with maps presented in Attorney Petesch obtained approval from the Boardt tol hand out an opposition notebook to pair with his hearing beforet the Board. The Board approved. Acopy oft this document is available as evidence ofr recordi int the office Attorney Petesch asked Ms. Kenny tot testify ast to any adversei impacts tol her property inr relation tot this project. Ms. Kenny stated privacy was an issue with the proposal of trees being cleared out to erect the development, given the density of people the development could house. She was also concerned with noise and littering with the development being essentially in her backyard. Ms. Kenny was also concerned about trespassers encroachingi in her backyard. She was also concerned" thatr runoff from the development may flood her property, which sits ata al lower elevation to the proposed development. She stated she experienced all of these issues Attorney Marcus Burrell of Stewart Law Group in Selma, NC. He addressed Ms. Kenny, asking if the property owner wanted to clear cutt their land, wouldi itr not bet their rightt to dos sO. Ms. Kenny asked Mr. Burrell ifhe could defer that legal question to her attorney, Mr. Petesch. Mr. Burrell asked Ms. Kenny aboutt the neighbors to the North and South who could potentially trespass on her property. Ms. Kenny stated that these were neighbors she already knew and the neighbors in question occupied two homes versus sixty homes in the proposed development. Burrella askedi ifthe reali issue was having neighbors she did not know. Ms. Kenny stated the real issue was having a development that abuts hers sO closely, with neighbors in such al high density which could Attorney Petesch presented Bobl Denning of 1052 NL Lakeside Drive, an adjoining property owner who is also an attorney. He stated he opposed the Special Use Permit asi it would be a disruption to the quiet development that exists there, of which Smithfield should be proud. Denning stated privacy and traffic are of concern. He stated a creek aligns the property, that is sometimes mistaken fora a ditch. He statesi itfeeds from Country Club Roadt to Holts Lake, andi itis conducive toi flooding. He stated that he enjoys the current quality ofl life and quiet that exists now. Denning further stated that the proposed 60 Townhomes on 8 acres ofl land could bring 240 people tot the area with children with no good places top play. He was concerned with trespassingt that could! bring tot his and neighbors' properties. He stated he was still confused as to whether the streets would be public or private, but nevertheless the streets would ber narrow, andl limited parking could present al hazard. He was also concerned with road noise, odor and flooding at the pumping station. Petesch asked the opposing attorney, Mr. Burrell referenced the comments Mr. Denning made regarding flooding and septic issues. Burrell asked whether Denning was al licensed civil engineer. Denning stated no but he has lived int the area, has looked out over the property and knows how the water flows about iti from personal experience. Mr. Burrell had not further Attorney Petesch presented a state certified residential appraiser, James Lucas, ofF Raleigh as ane experti in real estate evaluations. Mr. Lucas, at thirty-year appraiser, stated! he has appraised over 11,000 properties, taught courses, and trained trainees among other credentials for market analyses of residential properties. He stated he was familiar with the property which adjoins the proposed development having examined and personally visited the site in question. He presented a market impact analysis to the Board, which was included in the Opposition Hearing Notebook entered earlier as evidence. Lucas stated he singled out one factor of value for his adjustment out of about 251 things that could be adjusted for during ai full appraisal. That one adjustment factor was whether adjoining property was located away from or built next to a Townhouse development. He stated he found al brand-new neighborhood and a brand-new Town home community across the street from each other. He analyzed the cost, finding that properties facing the Townhouse community sold for less than the same homes located away fromi the Townhouse community by a five percent loss in value. Councilman Sloan Stevens askedi ifthese weret thes same typel houses on different sides oft the street. Appraiser, The Appraiser, James Lucas asked if there were any questions he could answer for Attorney Marcus Burrell. Attorney Burrell referenced the analysis of Cross Creek Subdivision in Selma, NC that Lucas presented as evidence, pointing out two properties inp particular which showed no difference int the price comparison. statedi itv was hisi faulti for notr making that clear. anyone int the audience who wishedt to speakt to come forward. testify. evidence by Attorney Petesch. oft the Clerk. beforei ina a past development near whichs she lived that prompted her to leave that area. Attorney Petesch askedi ifthe opposing counsel had any questions to ask Ms. Kenny. infringe upon her privacy and bring noise among otheri issues. Attorney Marcus Burrell ifh had any questions to ask ofh him. questions of Mr. Denning. James Lucas stated that they were. 6750 Mr. Lucas statedt that what he looks fori is at trend, and that trend was an average increase off five percent. He stated! hev wanted the Board tol be able to see allt the data in his analysis pursuant tov whether therev was eitherr no difference ora al big differencei inc cost by his comparisons. He directed Burrellt tol look att the trend and notj justt the one point of data that het found showed no difference by comparison. He stated the data pointed out common knowledge, which is you don't want to live next to a Town house. Burrell had no further questions for the Attorney Petesch followed up, asking if the methodology used in determining the five percent reduction in Attorney Petesch referenced all evidence as stated by his witnesses and experts, which he stated satisfied all Petesch stated that the case he has laid out as special damages is in direct alignment with satisfying all three criteria for evidence of standing. He noted that the leading case for quasi-judicial matters is Mangum vs the Raleigh Board of Adjustment, 2008i is used as the controlling case in North Carolina regarding special damages for adjacent property owners who would be adversely affected by a development. He asked respectfully that the Board consider andi find that his clients have standing as he laid out in opposition to the Special Use Permit Mayor Andy Moore askedi ift there were any objections from opposing counsel. Attorney Marcus Burrell stated that the issues brought up as special damages was that of having neighbors who might trespass, living neara drainage ditch that holds water when it rains and there's going to be a pump station. Burrell stated these are nots special damages, as they are present throughout Smithfield and are experienced by lots of people in Town Attorney Petesch gave a rebuttal stating Mr. Burrell has misapprehended the standing here. The special damages are specific tot the effects oft this development and the adjacent property owners, irrespective ofother property owners are experiencingt throughout Smithfield, unless they are near the development in question. Mayor Andy Moore stated that itis the opinion oft the Chair based on the evidence presented int this case that Mr. Petesch askedi ifMs. Kenny's testimony could be allowed to stand int the merits portion oft the case so that she can be excused to go home to her children. Burrell stated he had no objection. There was no further Marcus Burrell, attorney fort the developer, statedt that he petitions fort thel board to approve the special use permit with public streets, not private streets. He stated his clients agree with the three conditions as presented by staff. He referenced the UDO: setbacks for Townhomes, stating they are proposing the 25-foot setback asi isi in compliance with the UDO. He also stated the UDO allows for a 50-footr right of way. He called forth Mr. Brian Brian! Leonard of BRL Engineering and surveying in Smithfield, a civil engineer spoke ini favor ofa approval oft the subdivision. Leonard and Burrell had general discussion ofthel location ofthep property. Burrell asked specifically ifresidents would have access tol Holt! Lake. Leonard statedt they would not. In going through the eight finding off fact, which the engineer was ina agreement with, stating thatt the developer planned to comply with the current UDO and the Town of Smithfield's Comprehensive Development Plan, noting that they were before the Board forp preliminary approval, and thata a lot ofi in-depth analysis pertaining tos storm water and sewer would come after the preliminary approval. Detail design work is yett to be done, but they noted this project can be done to meet Mayor Moore asked ift there were any questions from the Council for the engineer. Councilman David Barbour questioned whatr materials would make up 40-foot perimeter buffer. The Engineer, Brian Leonard statedi itwould bea a Class Al landscape buffer, but he was noto certain ofh how manyt trees and shrubs there would be per hundred feet, but that there is ar minimum requirement defined by Town standards. Barbour questioned whether they would leave any existing trees as buffers. Leonard statedt that they certainly could. Mayor Moore asked ifthe current plans showed thet trees. Leonard statedt they did not. Mayor Moores stated thati is ar requirement for Town Mayor Moore asked Leonard if he was familiar with the area in question and if he lived around here. Leonard stated he lived on the other side oft the lake and was familiar with the property as well as its owners. Mayor Moore asked whats size homes were proposed. Leonard stated minimum: 2-story or3 3-story Townhomes and that he did not knowt the square footage. Mayor Moore asked Leonardi ifhe knew of any other 60, 3-story residential developments int the area. Leonard statedt they were not necessarily proposing 3-story units, but that he did not know of any. Mayor Moore clarified that the proposal was not clear, and that there could very well be 3-story units built. Leonard agreed stating itis a possibility and agreed that there were no others such developments in Mayor Moore further clarified that the developer was proposing public streets. The developer stated yes, this was what they were proposing. Mayor Moore asked ift this development was meeting the 60-foot requirement fort the right ofv wayf forp public streets. Leonard stated he was asking the Board to allow themt to have a 50-feet right of way. Mayor Moore reiterated that this was a quasi-judicial hearing for a special use, not a conditional usel hearing. The developer statedt they are not meeting the 60-foot requirement. Mayor Moore further askedi if the development met the 50f foot driveway requirement. Leonard stated he didn'tknow ofa any other development whichr mett thats standard. Mayor Moore statedt the question was ofv what the UDO required. Leonard statedt they did not meet that requirement. Mayor Moore asked ifthere were any further questions from the Council. There appraiser. valuation was commonly used and accepted int the appraising profession. Lucas said yes. three elements ofs standing as for his clients in opposition tot the Special Use Permit. request. and that he objects to standing. we allows standing int this case. testimony needed from Ms. Kenny, so she was allowed tob be dismissed. Leonard, the project engineer to set forth thet findings off fact. the standards dimensionally and bei inc compliance with code. site plans that existing trees be stipulated in the plans. Leonard stated he understood. that area. were none. 6751 Attorney Andrew Petesch addressed the engineer regarding the eight findings of fact. There was discussion about architectural standards being offered as a condition of approval. Leonard agreed. There was further discussion regarding the pumps station and mitigation ofc odor. Petesch asked what would happeni ini the event of ap power outage. Leonards stateda as stand-by generatory would come ona att that point, and thes station wouldt thereby continue to operate. Petesch statedt that generator isl located near al body ofv water subjectt to flooding, Leonard agreed. Petesch asked the applicanti ifhet thought a 60-foot Townhouse development was ag goodt transition for the neighborhood. Leonard stated it was a transition. There was further discussion about the two locations of the playgrounds ont the proposed site plans, as to whether to placei it near the entrances off a busy street. The developer offeredt tor relocatet the playgroundt to the central parto oft the development: as a condition ofthe approval. There wasi further discussion between! Petesch and Leonard regarding the layouto oft the proposed dwellings and fencing of the area. There was also discussion as to whether the proposed storm water retention pond is designed to NCDEQ and" Town requirements. Leonard stated they have done preliminary planning to address water quantity and quality ofv water storage arer met for the one-year, two-year andt ten-year eventt to be assured tor meet ande exceedi the minimums standards set by state andl local government. Petesch questioned ifthere was Attorney Petesch askedi if DOT had been contacted regarding the traffic. Leonard stated! he did not know what traffic cycle ors schedule ofa accidents would prompt a study. Petesch asked about the planting requirements for the type Ap plant buffer. The developer stated he was not clear, but each tree ont the plan was represented as required. There was discussion regarding final plat approvals during which Leonard clarified that he understood there were multiple levels ofa approvals yet to be granted. He stated he was not aware that he needed to come back beforet theb board for another quasi-judicial! hearing regarding the preliminary plat approval, butt that! he would adhere tot that requirement. Petesch askedt the developer if he planned to clear cut the trees. Leonard stated Petesch askedt the developert to clarify the 351 versus 25-foot setbacks from the publics streets fort these properties. Leonards statedt thatt the current plans proposeda az 25-foot setback, however they couldp possibly submit new plans at a later date which adhered to the 35-foot setback. Attorney Petesch stated they could not because Townhomes are no longer permitted ina a B-3 zoning district. Leonard concurred, and also stated his position was that 35-foot setbacks was not a requirement oft the UDO, and he understands itt the requirement is 25-feet. Councilman Sloan Stevens asked of Planning Director Stephen Wensman and Developer Brian Leonard whether there are any setback requirements fors storm water relevant tol lots and houses. Wensman stated there has tol be a placet to clean ito out as well as a place for access and a placet top put waste. Stevens referenced the mapi providedt tot the Board, and askedv what was the distancel between the back patio and the storm water pond. Leonard stated itv was about 151 feet. Stevens expressed concern that children could bei in close proximity tot the stormwater pond posing danger. Leonard stated they would put ai fence up around the pond. Mayor Moore There was discussion regarding the proposed pump station, and the Town may ultimately be responsible for maintenance. The Mayor also expressed concern about the generator for the pump station being very loud, reflecting upon how the power supply, whichi is not Town power, is frequently interrupted in that area. There was further discussion regarding the life oft the generator and thel location oft the manhole cover near Quail Run ort the intersection of Country Club Rd. Thel Mayor was also concerned with thel logistics of pumping sewer uphill Attorney Burrelll listed other uses that could be built on the property that would bei in compliance with the UDO, stating the! builder intended tob build thel least intrusive and most harmonious development contrary to other uses permitted by the UDO. Attorney Burrell stated they submit that they have met the findings of fact and they Attorney Petesch went through the findings off fact once more. He stated he did respectfully object to staffs opinion int the staff report, stating staffs findings were conclusory and not based upon fact. Petesch pointed out Attorney Petesch re-called the appraiser, James Lucas, to testify. Reiterating his market analysis, Lucas explained that he felt the proposed development was not in! harmony with the immediate community due to its density. Lucas stated! his analysis showed there was af five percent! lossi in property value because the properties were not harmonious with the current neighborhood. Hei further stated that they would not be before the Board Lucas was allowedi to be dismissed from the public hearing after his testimony reiterating the market analysis. Petesch also called on! hisi fellow attorney, Joseph Starling, who tendered as ane expert witness, Mr. Jim Spangler ane environmental consultant tos speakr regarding the environmental impacts oft the development. Jim Spangler of Raleigh, NC cited his educational background and experience in environmental consulting and land use development in the Carolinas. Spangler prepared an affidavit for the Council that was presented as evidence int the Opposition Hearing Notebook. He stated the Board could not reasonably conclude the findings off fact ast they pertainedt tot thei issue ofodor control. He also cited adverse effects on adjoining private properties in areas ofv water quality of Holt Lake Pond, sediment build up and lighting from the new development, which may bear nuisance. Spangler cited other violations related to outdated maps, and buffer requirements not being clearly defined, and wetland delineation not defined, nor verified by the US Army Corp of Engineers. Hei further noted thes site plani is subjectt to change, statingt the project asp proposed may not be permitted under federall law. He further noted other negative impacts with traffic congestion and noise from the development. He notedt the grading plan for the storm water plan was not clear. Spangler noted discrepancies in the site plan and int the narrative. He further noted thati it was not clear whether the development would use consistent materials as neighboring developments, citing materials were not clearly defined in the proposal. Spangler stated the plan excess storm water flow, where would the excess water runoff. Leonard stated Holt Lake. that he would tryt to preserve as manyt trees asp possible. pointed out thatt there was not fence proposed ont the current plan. toa ana already aging sewer system and back downt tot the gravity fed line. recommended approval oft the special use permit based ont those conditions. thats stafff found certains staff findings conflicted with the UDO. ifitv were only af few single-family homes proposed, rather than the sixty townhomes. does nots specify whati is being! built, butt that the Boardi is being asked tob blindly approvei it. 6752 He also referenced grading with respect to downstream impacts not being clearly defined as well. Spangler stated for all these reasons, itis his belief that the application is deficient, and the Board cannot approve the Special Use Permit, based ont thei information thati isi includedi int the Special Use Permit application. Councilman Sloan Stevens asked Spangler to clarify ownership of Holt Lake as an entity being negatively impacted by this development. Spangler stated yes, the lakebed itself was an asset owned by Holt Lake, LLC. Mayor Moore received clarification from the Spangler regarding his findings for the development, thereby requesting denial based on the development being a danger to public safety due to no traffic study, drainage issues due tos storm water planr not defined, the proposed use being noxious, with regard to noise and odor due to no information in the application regarding odor control nor a traffic study, and also due to no adequate measures fori ingress ande egress tor minimize traffic congestion inconclusive, again discoverable through at traffic study. Mayor Moore further referenced adverse impacts asi it relates tot the asset of Holt Lake as laid out by the Attorney! Burrell statedt that his application was about use, and whether that use met thei finding off fact. He stated the developer understood that they do need to come back before the Board for final approval on preliminary things and are willing to do that. He proposed thatt the finding ofi fact were all met, and stated her recommended Attorney Andrew Petesch presented his closing argument stating that this application was not about use, but abouta a special use. He statedt that whilel he agreed thati inas Special Use Permit, note everything was initially laid outi in concrete. He emphasized that al lotr more than what was presented to the Board needs to be in concrete as such is the nature ofs special use permits. He stated! he felt the developer proposed too many minimums to Petesch laid out his clients' objections tot the finding off fact, restating them as being concerns with finding one, detrimental to public health due to proximity of Townhomes near the drainage pond, finding four, noxious odor due to no odor controls being proposed with the development; finding off facti five, regarding ingress and egress, that there was no expertt testimony presented, nor traffic study presented, only hearsay evidence. Also finding six, adverse impact of adjoining property, referencing Ms. Kenny's testimony, Mr. Lucas' testimony regarding property values, andI Mr. Spangler's testimony with respect tos grading and fill oft thel lota and retaining walls which may raise flood elevations for adjoining lots, as well as the potential to lower the value of lakebed property belonging tol Holt! Lake, LLC. Petesch also referenced the highl level ofr nutrients that willf flow intol Holt Lake from thes storm water pond from development which couldr negatively impact that body ofwater. He further stated Mr. Petsch also noted that the Town's Comprehensive Land Development Plan outlines requirements for interconnectivity and pedestrian facilities, but they were not located in the proposed development where they made sense. Petesch stated the development did not concur with many standards and was missing conditions as necessary in the UDO. Petesch reiterated that during this prima facia hearing if one finding of fact was disproved, that the request should be denied. He noted that there were several findings disproven by expert testimony that have not been rebutted by the applicantt that prove that the standards cannot be met. He stated fort these reasons he respectfully requested that the Town Council deny the special use application request. Mayor Moore askedt the Board ift there were: any questions. consultant. Mayor Moore asked for closing arguments fort this public hearing. approval for the special use permit. address the standards required for the development. Lucas testified thatt the units would not bei in harmony with the adjacent properties. Mayor Moore asked ift there were any further questions from the Board. Councilman Sloan Stevens made a motion, seconded by Councilman John Dunn to close the public 4.9.4.5.1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation oft the special use will not be detrimental. to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. Councilman Barbour made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roger Wood to deny finding of fact one, due to the development containing a storm water pond within twenty feet of the units, which could pose a hazard to 4.9.4.5.2. The establishment ofthes special use will not impede the normal and orderlydevelopment. and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Councilman Sloan Stevens made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roger Wood to approve finding of fact numbert two, thatt the Town homes are a permitted uset for the property. Unanimously approved. 4.9.4.5.3.. Adequate utilities, drainage, parking, or necessaryfacilities havel been or are beingprovided. Councilman Barbour made ar motion, seconded by Councilman John Dunn to approve finding 4.9.4.5.4. The proposed use shall not be noxious or offensive by reason ofvibration, noise, odor, dust, smoke, or gas. Councilman Barbour made a motion, seconded by Councilman John Dunn to hearing. Unanimously approved. The Board reviewed each finding off fact individually as offered by staff below. children. Unanimously approved. off fact three, that adequate facilities are being provided. Unanimous. reject finding of fact four due tot the noise and odor. Unanimous. 6753 4.9.4.5.5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Councilman David Barbour made a motion, seconded by Councilman John Dunn to approve finding of fact number five, statingi it meets the 4.9.4.5.6. Thatt the use) will not adversely afectt the use or any physical attribute ofadjoining or abutting property. Councilman John Dunn made ar motion seconded by Councilman Rabil tor reject finding of fact six due to expert appraiser testimony of the five percent loss in value to adjoining 4.9.4.5.7. That the location and character oft the use, ifdeveloped according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located. Councilman Sloan Stevens made a motion seconded by Councilman Steve Rabilt to reject finding of fact number six due to expert testimony that the development would not be harmonious to the existing 4.9.4.5.8. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to all the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Mayor Pro Tem Roger Wood made a motion, seconded by Councilman David Barbour to reject finding off fact number eight. Unanimous. Councilman David Barbour made a motion, seconded by Councilman John Dunn to reject Special Use Permit request SUP-24-03 for Country Club Townhomes based ont the denials ofthe findings off fact as Mayor Pro Tem Roger Woodr made ar motion, seconded by Councilman John Dunn to recess for Town standards. Unanimous. properties. Unanimous. neighborhood. Unanimous. reviewed by the Board. Unanimously approved. ten minutes at1 10:28 pm. The Board reconvened at 10:38 pm. vote counts as ay vote int the affirmative. Councilman Marlon Lee left ther meeting unexcused at 10:28 pm. Thereby not being excused, his 2. Special Use Permit Request - Stadler Station Apartments (SUP-24-05): _Brown Investment Properties is requesting a special use permit for Stadler Station, a 168-unit residential apartment project on 13.17 acres ofl land int the B-3 Highway Entranceway Zoning District. The proposed development is located at the intersection of Peedin Road and Town Clerk Elaine. Andrews administered affirmations tot those wishing to offer testimony during the Public Councilman John Dunn made a motion, seconded Councilman Steve Rabil to open the public hearing. Planning Director Stephen Wensman stated Brown Investment properties was requesting a new development att the corner of Computer and Components Drive. He stated when this project was proposed, residential developments were allowed in the B-3 zoning district. He stated the developers are extending Components Drive to the North top provide for a second entrance into the complex. Wensman referenced the club amenity features and wheret trash receptacles would bel located. He showed ani illustrated plan that showed! buffers which showed general compliance with the UDO. He statedt the perimeter setback was forty feet in accordance with standards, and the fronty yard setback was fifty feet from the Peedin Road public right of way, with ai forty-foot separation between buildings. Wensman: statedt the site plan provides an areat tot the north oft the site fora a storm water facility. Water, sewer and electricity would be provided by the Town of Smithfield. Wenman stated that staff did not see the need for a traffic impact analysis because staff has demonstrated that one was not Mr. Wensman reviewed: staffs opinion of the findings, stating they have all been met and are ast follows: Components Drive with the Johnston County Tax ID# 15074012E. Hearing Unanimously approved. necessary. 4.9.4.5.1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation oft the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, org general welfare. The project will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety or general welfare. The development will adhere to all Town 4.9.4.5.2. The establishment oft the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development andi improvement oft the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The project will not impede the normal and orderly development andi improvement oft the surrounding, properties. Most of the adjacent industrial properties are low intensity industrialloffice uses. Several undeveloped light industrial parcels remain to be developed, but there is nothing to suggest the development would hinder future development of the area. The site is well bufferedby requirements. vegetation. 6754 4.9.4.5.3. Adequate utilities, drainage, parking, or necessary: facilities have been ora are being provided. The development will provide adequate utilities, drainage, parking and necessary: facilities. 4.9.4.5.4. The proposed use shall not be noxious or offensive by reason ofv vibration, noise, odor, dust, 4.9.4.5.5. Adequate measures have been orv will be taken to provide ingress and egress SO designed ast to minimize traffic congestion int the public streets. Proper ingress and egress will be provided with an extension of Components Drive. NCDOTis not requesting any improvements to their 4.9.4.5.6. That the use will nota adversely affect the use or any physical attribute of adjoining or abutting property. The use will have no adverse impacts on the abutting or adjoining properties. The site will have required buffers and setbacks and there is adequate existing vegetation that will 4.9.4.5.7. Thatt the location and character oft the use, ifdeveloped according to the plan as submitted anda approved, willl bei in harmony with the area in whichi itis to be located. The development will be ini harmony with the area. The development is well buffered from the adjacent industrial sites and located adjacent to commercial development which will be a likely destination for tenants. 4.9.4.5.8. The special use shall, ina all other respects, conform to all the applicable regulations oft the districti inv whichi itis located. The special use will meet all applicable regulations. Planning Staff recommends approval of SUP-24-01 with the following conditions: Basedu upon satisfactory compliance with the aboves statedf findings andi fully contingent ypon acceptance ando compliance with allo conditions as previously noted herein andy with fulli incorporation ofalls statements and agreements enteredi into the record by thet testimony oft the applicant and applicant's representative, Imove to approve Special Use Permit Application # SUP-24-05 with the following condition(s): 1. That the parking lot entrances be constructed in accordance with the Town's standard driveway Planning Director Stephen Wensman has incorporated his entire record and provided ittot the Council in written Mayor Prol Tem Roger Wood asked whether the Town coulds still impose at traffics study given the volume oft trips per day. Wensman: stated the Town Engineer reviewed ita andi foundt that there was nor need for a traffic study. Councilman David Barbour asked whati is DOT's trip minimum. Wensman stated three thousand trips per day. Councilman Roger Wood asked about the Town having no architectural standards for commercial, stating the Councilman David Barbour asked what was the target group for these apartments. Wensman stated he would Councilman Sloan Stevens askedi ifthe! buffers were all Class As standards. Wensman answered yes. Councilman David Barbour askedh how this development impacted they planned roadt that would eventually come through that area. Wensman stated that proposed road was removed from the Comprehensive Growth Plan The applicant, Steve Todd of Brown Investment Company, Raleigh, NC spoke on behalf of the development. Mayor Andy Moore asked" Todd if he agreed with the testimony as presented by the Planning Director. The applicant stated he did agree. He restated the highlights oft the project as presented by the Planning Director, also adding information regarding proposed open space. He askedt the Board ift they had any questions about the proposeds site plan development. There were none, sot the developer movedi forward with the finding off fact 4.9.4.5.1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. Todd stated there were no issues with this development that would raise concern for public health and safety. Hej further stated that the roads int the project are service level roads with a low volume oftraffic compared: to whatl NCDOT says that they can handle. He also stated a low-level study was completed by an expert at Davenport Engineering showed little impact on traffic. He provided the Board with a handout of the study, which wasi introduced. as evidence, which showed no traffic improvements were recommended. 4.9.4.5.2. The establishment ofthe special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surounding. property. forz uses permitted in the district. Todd stated the proposed development and! land use would neither impede nori impact surrounding development. Components Drive will be extended to provide as secondary entrance. smoke, org gas. The use will not create such nuisances. infrastructure with this development. contribute tot the buffer. detail. form in the November 19, 2024 agenda packet. Mayor Andy Moore askedi ift there were any questions from the Council. Town should explore thati int thet future. defer that question tot the developer, who was present. about one year ago. Mayor Andy Moore askedi ift there were: any further questions from staff. There were none. criteria for a Special Use Permit. 6755 4.9.4.5.3. Adequate utilities, drainage, parking, or7 necessaryf facilities have been or are being provided. Todds stated utilities ini this project would be provided by the Town. Hefurther noted that storm water facilities would be addressed and will come back before the Town Council for approval, but that he saw noi issues. Hes statedt they are anticipating a storm water pondj for the project, which will bes added 4.9.4.5.4. The proposed use. shall not be noxious or offensive by reason ofvibration, noise, odor, dust, smoke, ors gas. Todds stated that trash collection and storm water would be addressed. in the plans. He stated they did not anticipate any storm water spill over that would disrupt the adjacent uses. 4.9.4.5.5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to) provide ingress and egress SO designed as toz minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Todd noted that two entryways to the development are being proposed, therefore there is no impact on ingress and egress. He referenced the handout from Davenport experts which detailed that no traffic improvements were required. Councilman David Barbour asked tol be excused from the meeting at 11:06 pm. Mayor Pro Tem Roger Wood made a motion, seconded by Councilman John Dunn to excuse Councilman Barbour. There being a quorum of Board members present; the petitioner continued his review oft the finding of fact was The petitioner, Steve Todd, introduced the Public Engineer Dionne C. Brown of Davenport Engineering firm to speak on behalf oft the traffic analysis that was completed fort the project. Ms. Brown stated her credentials for the Board, and explained the report she created. She stated that in coordination with DOT, it was found that traffic for the proposed project did not meett the DOT minimum oft threet thousand trips per day. She stated the firmf further did ana analysis of Componenta and Outlet Center Drive, whichi included a count oftrips per day during peak hour from 7am to 9am, and also from 4pm to 6pm. Brown stated that based on their calculations thati it was her professional opinion that no additional turn lanes nor any other improvements were recommended, and 4.9.4.5.6. That the use will not adversely affectt the use or any physical attribute ofa adjoining or abutting property. The applicant, Steve Todd, presented: ane expert to prove that the development posed no Property Impact Reports were distributedi tot the Board, andi introduced: as evidencet for reference. The developer brought forth ar representative from IRR appraisal company, Andy Cable, appraiser, to explain the report. Mr. Cables statedt thath hev worked for Integral Realty Resources ofF Raleigh, NC. Hes stated his credentials for the Board, noting that he was a commercial real estate appraiser for Eastern NC. Cable prepared the report, which noted thei impact ofr rents for comparison properties located near a multifamily development. He further statedt that his findings were that such rents for industrial, retail and office properties were not impacted by a neighboring multifamily development and did not cause a detriment in value. He asked ift there were any questions from the Councilman Sloan Stevens asked from where did the appraiser acquire the data. Cable stated the data was Mayor Moore asked ift there were any further questions for the appraiser. There were none. The applicant, Steve Todd addedi that ina addition there would! be setbacks in compliance with the UDO that would also ensure 4.9.4.5.7. That the location and character of the use, ifdeveloped according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony witht the area in which it is to be located. Todd stated different uses can exist harmonious.y, and he believed this use does as the development will give residents a place 4.9.4.5.8. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to all the applicable regulations ofthe district in whichi itis located. Todds stated the site plan provided complies in all respects to the UDO, Councilman Sloan Stevens asked aboutt thet timeline fort the project. Todds stated hel believed itwould be atl least Planning Director Stephen Wensman pointed outt that Special Use Permits are good for six months, andi ifr need Mayor Moore askedi ifthere was anyone present whoy wishedt tos speaki in opposition tot the project. The applicant stated that he was not aware of anyone who opposed the development. There were none. Mayor Moore asked ifti there were any further questions from the Board. Councilman Sloan Stevens asked the question oft target market for the occupants inquired earlier by Councilman Barbour. Todd stated that this was notak kid-focused Mayor Andy Moore askedi ift there would be al lifts station. The applicant statedr no, there would be normalt tie-ins. Councilman Stevens askedy whatt the currents sewer capacity was ini thata area. Planning Director Wensman: stated they are still waiting fort thel linest to be completed. Town! Manager Scotts stated there is capacity int the area, that as part ofthe construction drawings. Unanimously approved. continued. ther roads willl be able to accommodate the traffic from the proposed development adverse impact to adjoining properties; Board. from Orange, Durham, Wake and. Johnston Counties. thatt there ber no adversei impacts, and there are no encroachments. tol live, work ands shop. and will continue to dos SO. ay year before they broke ground. be, the applicant would needt to ask for an extension. apartment, but one for multifamily use with rents atr market rate. they are just waiting for the lines to bef freed up. 6756 Public Utilities Director, Ted Credle spoke in regards to the sewer capacity in the area, stating that in quarter one ort two of2025, there willl be adequate capacity tos supportt the project. Credle further statedt thati ifby chance therei isr no capacity by thet time the project gets underway, the County will put the projecti int the que on! hold until itis available. Mayor Moore asked ift there were anyf further questions from the Board. There were none. Mayor Pro Tem Roger Wood made a motion, seconded by Councilman Steve Rabil to close the public Councilman John Dunnr made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roger Wood to approve that the Councilman Sloan Stevens made a motion, seconded by Councilman John Dunn to approve SUP-24- 055 based on one condition: That the parking lote entrances be constructed in accordance with the Town's 3. Special Use Permit Request - Heritage Townes at Waddell (SUP-24-02): Samuel O'Brien (Shovel Ready Johnson, Inc) is requesting a special use permit for Heritage Townes at Waddell, a 17-unit Townhouse development on 1.88 acres of landi in the R-8 Zoning District. The proposed development is located 19 and 21 Waddell Drive, approximately 460 feet north of the Brightleaf Boulevard and Waddell Drive intersection, and further identified by the Town Clerk Elaine Andrews administered affirmations tot those wishing to offer testimony during the Public Councilman John Dunn made a motion, seconded by Councilman Steve Rabil to open the public hearing. Planning Director Stephen Wensman: stated the property is: zoned R-8 andi multi-family land use isa a special use int the: zoning district. He stated The property considered for approval is comprised of 3-detached single family residential lots. There is an existing home and shed that will be removed by this project. An existing 3 high metal/barbed wire fence runs along the east property line. An existing 20' wide sanitary sewer easement runs north-west from Waddell Drive toward rear oft the lott towards the Nursing Home on Berkshire Drive. Waddell Drivei is an 18'-wide road with drainage ditches ont the sides withouts sidewalks. Waddell at N. Brightleaf Blvd. is unsignalized. Multi-family residential is a special use with supplemental standards in the R-8 Zoning District accordingt to Article6 6, Table 6.6 ofthe Unified Development Ordinance. Wensman statedt thatt thes supplementary standards for multi-family are found in UDO Article 7, Section 7.35. Comprehensive Plan/Density. The Town Plan guides this property for medium density residential with a maximum density of9.68 units per acre. This proposal will have a density of9.44 units per acre. There are 3-Townhouse buildings proposed (3-unit, 6-unit and 8-unite each). The Townhome development is being designed to have a central driveway leading tot the rear oft the units (parking courtyard). Each unit will have az 2-car garage. In the parking area isal landscape island with 7 overflow parking spaces and a kiosk mailbox. The fronts oft the Townhouses face outward towards the sides and rear lot lines. Each unit will have at front yard area linked to a shared sidewalk that encircles the buildings. A monument: signi is shown on the site plan. Thel location meets the required setbacks. The amount oftraffic generated by this developmenti is belowt thet thresholdi fora at traffic study. Waddell Drivei is a substandard road (18 with drainage ditches) and neither intersection onto Brightleaf Boulevard have traffic signals. No upgrades tol Waddell Drive are proposed. Wensman statedt that staffr recommends approval based ont thei finding hearing. Unanimously approved. applicant meets allt thet finding off facts one through eight. Unanimously approved. standard driveway detail. Unanimously approved. Johnston County Tax ID#s 15005023, 15005022, 15005022A Hearing. Unanimous. off facti for as special use permit with five conditions: RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL: Planning Staff recommends approval of SUP-24-02 with the following conditions: 1. That the driveway be constructed ina accordance with the Town's driveway apron detail. 2. That the existing sanitary sewer line and easement be relocated with the approval of the Town's 3. That rolloutt trash containers be screened from the public right of way ors stored within the garages. 4. That the developer constructs a 5' wide public sidewalk int the public right ofv way, orina ane easement 5. There shall be a homeowner's association to own and maintain all common amenities such as the parking lot, sidewalks, landscaping, mail kiosk, and stormwater management facility. Mayor Andy Moore asked for clarification for where the sidewalks extended. Wensman clarified that sidewalks dor note extend sot that they can be connected on with adjacent properties, and that the sidewalks stopj just short The applicant Sam O'Brien of Raleigh introduced himself then referred questions to his project manager Dan Danvers. Mr. Danvers stated! he was a project manager with Bohler Engineering in Raleigh. Danvers cited his experience as a landscape architect. He stated that they concur with the findings of fact and agree to the Public Utilities Director. fort the sidewalk along the right ofway. oft that line. That they goi internally and around the site. conditions ofa approval as stated by staff: 6757 FINDING OF FACT (Staff Opinion) 4.9.4.5.1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation oft the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. The project will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety or general welfare. The development will adhere to all Town 4.9.4.5.2. The establishment oft the special use will noti impede the normal and orderly development and project will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. The neighborhood is fully developed with only redevelopment occurring, this Townhouse project and commercial development along Brightleaf Boulevard. This development will potentially provide new customers in walking distance to the Brightleaf commercial 4.9.4.5.3. Adequate utilities, drainage, parking, or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The development will provide adequate utilities, drainage, parking and necessary facilities. For this project to proceed, an existing sanitary sewer line and easement will need to be relocated. 4.9.4.5.4. The proposed use shall not be noxious or offensive by reason of vibration, noise, odor, dust, 4.9.4.5.5. Adequate measures have been or willl bet takent to provide ingress and egress sO designed as tor minimize traffic congestion int the public streets. Proper ingress and egress willl be provided with a single driveway onto Waddell Drive. The developer will likely installa a stop sign at the exit lane to 4.9.4.5.6. That the use will not adversely affect the use or any physical attribute of adjoining or abutting property. The use will have no adverse impacts on the abutting or adjoining properties. The adjacent properties are residential. The design of the proposed. buildings will be complementary to the mostly single-story homes surrounding with dormers that break up the scale of the buildings. Furthermore, the site will be well buffered along all property lines. The design of the home will be such that the front (good) side faces outward. All vehicular access is toward the 4.9.4.5.7. That thel location and character oft the use, ifdeveloped according tot the plan as submitted and approved, will bei in harmony with the area inv whichi itis to bel located. The proposed Townhomes will be complementary: andi in harmony with the adjacent homes. The architectural style willl blend well and dormers will break up the scale of the buildings. The buildings will be positions such that 4.9.4.5.8. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to all the applicable regulations of the requirements. improvement oft the surrounding property for uses permitted ini the district. The establishments. smoke, or gas. The use will not create such nuisances. Waddell Drive. center of the site. they will have minimal impacti from the street. districti inv which itisl located. The special use will meet all applicable regulations. Mr. Danvers asked he Boardi for any questions regarding the project. Councilman Steve Rabila askedt the applicant ift they had any visuals for projects that they have done int the area. Mayor Moore askedi ifv what was being proposed was two-story units with two-car garages. Danvers stated that Manager Mike Scott asked whether the Town's trash trucks would be traveling down the private road in this development. Wensman stated the Town could make conditions on approval that the Town not be held liable for damage for driving on the private driveway. There was further discussion among the Board with regards to facilitating trash pickup att the development. The developer Sam O'Brien stated that the Town would circle the private drive to pick up each container, illustrating on the plat map that the drive how the drive could accommodate thet trashi truck. Hei furtherr mentionedi that hei is ok with the waiver with regard tot the private drive. Mayor Andy Moore addressed the issue of residents parking on the street, which would hinder the ability for ingress and egress. He asked without it being a public street, how would the Town regulate that, and do we havet the authority tor regulatei it. Mayor Moores statedt thatitd didr notr matter whether the street was public orp private, Danvers statedt the HOA could build ina ac clauset tos satisfy that mechanism to allow the police to police, orf for the HOAt to handlei it. Attorney Bob Spence addedi thati itcould! bev written ini thel HOA covenants that the development allows Smithfield Police to enforce parking on the private drive, and that the development would take care of maintenance. Mayor Andy Moore statedt this issue spoke tof finding off facti five, and thatt this was ac concern. Mayor Moore asked ifthese would bei individual units for sale. Danvers statedt this was thei intent. Moore added Mayor Moore askedi ift there were any further questions for the applicant. There were none. He asked if there Pam Lampe of2 2nd St., Smithfield spoker regarding the project. She stated! her concern was with Waddell Road, which ist the road into the development. She stateds she felt the road was substandard, and too smallt to allow two cars coming and going att thes same point. She also statedt thatt thei increased density tot thel location by adding this development wouldI likely pose a problem, but she was opent tol hear evidencet tot the contrary. Danvers stated not on hand. was correct. that the citizens would call the Town with complaints. that att that point the covenant could be givent tot the buyer sot that they would be aware. was anyone else present who wishedt to speak ont the matter. 6758 Danvers, the architect for the project, stated that the added units tot the area did not trigger a traffic study. He further noted, that although Ms. Lampe! had ag good point, he did not see ita as af feasible investment to wident the right ofv way. He statedt thatr maybe int thei future asr new developments come improvement toi the road would be Councilman John Dunn asked how wide was the road. Planning Director Wensman answered 18 feet, where the standard road is 271 feet wide, and the DOT minimum is 201 feet wide. Councilman John Dunn suggested making ita one-way road.. The developer Sam O'Brien agreed with and stated hel liked the one-way road idea. necessary. There was discussion among. the Boardi regarding other future development near this site. Mayor Pro Tem made a motion, seconded by Councilman John Moore to close the public hearing. Councilman John Dunns stated het feltt thatt there could be a potential problem with traffici int the development that wouldr need tol bea addressed.. Architect, Dan Danvers askedi ifthe Board could allow at traffic study as a condition ofa approval, so that they can move forward from a plan development standpoint ont their timeline. Mayor Andy Moore suggested that ther request bet tabled for al later time to give staff and the developer more time toa address the issue oft the Waddell Dr., potentially not being wide enough a road to handle traffic leading into and away from the development. Attorney Bob Spence stated the Board was not asking for them to redesign the private drive int the proposed development, butt to come back before the Board with betteri ideas on how' Waddell Road There was general discussion among the Boardr regarding moving tabling this case, to December 17th. Councilman John Dunn made a motion seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roger Wood tot table the request (SUP-24-02) until the December 17, 2024 Town Council Meeting. Unanimously approved. Mayor Pro Tem Roger Woodi made a motion, seconded by Councilman Sloan Stevens tot table the final item on the agenda, Powell Tract request (S-24-05) to the December 3, 2024 Town Council Meeting. Unanimously approved. can bes safe. Unanimously approved. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS: There were no citizens comments. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman John Dunn made ar motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem, Roger Wood, to approve the following items as listed ont the ConsentA Agenda. Unanimously approved: a. September 17, 2024 - Regular and Closed Session . October1 1, 2024- - Regular Session October 15, 2024- - Regular Session (Finance Director- - Andrew Harris) Smithfield' Water Main Project (#SRP-D-134-0037) (Finance Director- - Andrew Harris) Minutes Resolution No. 758 (20-2024) and Grant Project Ordinance for the Town of Smithfield Spring Branch Drainage Repairs -4 2nd Street and 4th Street Project (Project #SRP-S-134-0013) 3. Resolution No. 757 (21-2024) and Grant Acceptance for the Town of Smithfield--East BUSINESS ITEM: accounting software. 1. Requestf forf funding for DSDC Software Program: Thel DSDC is requesting funding for budgeting and Town manager Mike Scott stated DSDC is needing software to better manage events and make business more accountable. Manager Mike Scotts statedt the corporation needed a way to! have ana accurate accounting ofr managing events as well as vendor payments. Manager Scott asked that the Board allow them to use some oft the Town's tourism money top pay for a contract with software company. Overa a three-year period, the cost would be about $5,700.00. Manager Scott stated that he confirmed that this was aj justifiable Mayor Andy Moore asked how much money was int the tourism fund. Manager Scott stated almost a half Councilman Sloan Stevens made a motion, seconded by John Dunn to approve the DSDC request for expensef for marketing. Manager Scotti itemized the cost for all threey years separately. million dollars. funds usingt the tourism money. Unanimously approved. 6759 ADJOURN Councilman John Dunnr made a motion, seconded by Councilman Steve Rabil, to adjourn the meeting at approximately 12:30 pm. Unanimously approved. 1 Mhih M.Andy Mooré, Mayor ATTEST: Lhhhe Elaine Andrews, Town Clerk OFSMITA fp PRL