July 20, 2024 - 6:00 PM - Planning Board Meeting Minutes

10 MEETING OF THEJOHNSTONCOUNTYPLANNING BOARD Tuesday , July 16 , 2024 6 00 pm The Johnston County Planning Board met in regular session onTuesday , July 16 , 2024 at 6 00 pm in the County Commissioners Meeting Room , Johnston County Courthouse Annex , Smithfield , NC with the following members Present Jared Crenshaw , Michelle Davis , Brooke Holmes , Debbie Howard , Will Letchworth , Gary Lovering , Jay Sasser Absent Freddie Hudson , Timothy Little , BOCC Representative , BOE Representative Also present Braston Newton , Director ; Todd Marr , Senior Planner ; Cameron Pittman , Planner ; Jennifer Slusser , County Attorney Chairman Letchworth opened the meeting at 6 00 pm with the Pledge of Allegiance led byMr Crenshaw Chairman Letchworth stated that Rezoning Case 24 - 11 had been withdrawn by the Applicant Approval of the Minutes Upon a motion by Ms Holmes to approve the June 18 , 2024 Planning Board Minutes , seconded by Mr Crenshaw , and carried by a unanimous vote of 7 - 0 , the June 18 , 2024 Planning Board Minutes were approved as presented All speakers were sworn in Subdivisions Rickie Norris Tract June 2024 Owner Stricklands Crossroads - Lan , LLC Developer Stricklands Crossroads - Lan , LLC Surveyor Dalton Engineering & Associates , PA Acreage Lots 1598 acres , 11 lots Tax ID # 01G12029A Address 9000 Block of Stricklands Crossroads Rd Mr Marr introduced the subdivision and referenced the above information Mr Marr spoke about direct driveway access on Stricklands Crossroads Rd and from the Johnston County Land Design Manual regarding developments creating 4 or more lots Mr Marr stated that the proposed subdivision was presented to the Board and tabled at the March 19 , 2024 Planning Board meeting and was withdrawn from the May Planning Board agenda Mr Jerry Dalton , 446 E Main St , Clayton , NC , Dalton Engineering & Associates , PA , stated the particulars of the subdivision and was present to answer any questions from the 1PageBoard Mr Dalton stated that the proposed subdivision consisted of 11 lots and the drainage patterns were changed to improve the drainage Mr Dalton stated that they had spoken with NCDOT about the new design Mr Dalton stated that the proposed lots were accessible on an internal road system that met requirements Mr Dalton stated that the runoff patterns have not changed and water patterns have not been interrupted Mr Dalton stated that the water basin has not been changed and a drainage easement had been identified Mr Dalton stated that the drainage easement was over the top of what is considered to be subsurface drainage Mr Dalton stated that the internal roadway system would split at the crown of the road and was proposed to go from the crown northward to an existing ditch Mr Dalton also spoke about a blue line stream Mr Dalton stated that a small portion of the upper part of the subject property wouldgo over to the stream instead of sheet flow across the subject property Mr Dalton stated a swell has been proposed on every lot to break up the water as much as possible Mr Dalton stated that there was about 1,500 ft of drainage including the roadway that goes in front of each lot and down a swell toward the back Mr Dalton stated that there is a 36 - inch pipe under Strickland Crossroads Rd that captures water coming onto Eagle Road and puts it under Strickland Crossroads Rd Mr Dalton stated that the impervious area for the total project is less than two acres , 8,000 ft per lot Mr Dalton stated that there is no significant impact to the stream based on the proposed design Ms Davis asked Mr Dalton if he had spoken with NCDOT Mr Dalton confirmed and gave the Board a memo from NCDOT , as well as a preliminary map Ms Davis expressed concern for the driveway being located across from Eagle Rd Mr Newton clarified that the preliminary map from Mr Dalton came in after the packets to the Board had already been distributed MsHolmes asked Mr Newton if the new preliminary map had been accepted by staff Mr Newton responded that a comprehensive review had not been done but that on the surface it was an improvement There was discussion among the Board as they reviewed the new preliminary map Mr Dalton stated that the driveways were separated to meet the 500 ft standard Mr Lovering asked about the impervious area and if it wasmore or less than the original design Mr Dalton stated that it depended on how much each lot used , but that the maximum impervious available is 15 outside the environmental sensitive overlay district Mr William Samuel Godwin , Attorney , was present to represent Bruce and Glenda Adams at 2865 Hannah Creek Rd , Benson , NC Mr Godwin stated that Mr Adams and his wife own the 40 acre track adjacent to the subject property Mr Godwin spoke about 2Pagethe exhibits and testimony presented at the March Planning Board meeting Mr Godwin stated that additional materials and studies requested at the March meeting had not been submitted to the best of his knowledge Mr Godwin stated that Mr Adams was present Chairman Letchworth stated that Mr Godwin could submit the previous exhibits into evidence given that it was a new case Mr Godwin requested that exhibits one through 13 be entered into evidence Mr Godwin questioned Mr Adams Mr Adams stated that he was 74 years old and had lived onHannah Creek all of his life Mr Adams stated that he probably goes onto the property daily and that he has been on the property since receiving notice of the hearing and took pictures Mr Adams stated that his property is located behind the subject property Mr Adams stated that there is woodland and a stream in the upper right corner Mr Adams stated that his property was still an active farm Mr Godwin referenced some of the exhibits MsHoward asked about one of the exhibits Mr Adams answered and spoke about the drainage pipe Mr Adams stated that he owned several parcels Mr Adams stated that the land slopes and water will always run through it and run into his fields Mr Godwin referenced exhibits nine through 13 Mr Adams explained how the water flows across the properties and how the waterways connect on his properties Mr Adams stated that the water ultimately flows into a larger pond on a nearby parcel Mr Adams spoke about I - 40 and the I - 40 overpass and the increase in water flow after its construction Mr Adams spoke about taking out flood insurance due to high levels of water at times Mr Sasser asked about the current water flow without any development Mr Adams responded Mr Adams stated that no buffers had been proposed between the subject property and his property Mr Adams expressed concerns for water runoff onto his property from the proposed subdivision Mr Godwin questioned Mr Dalton Mr Dalton stated that runoff from the proposed subdivision will go into the jurisdictional buffer Mr Dalton stated that the buffer goes through the subject property and neighboring properties all the way down to the pond Mr Dalton stated that there should not be any increase in the water flow from new construction Mr Dalton stated that the amount of development to be applied to the land based on that project is minute considering the drainage area for the riparian buffer Mr Dalton stated that lines on the preliminary map show the embankment with the cut field for the highway Mr Dalton 3Pagespoke about the location of Stone Creek and his belief that it is large enough to handle the approximately 8 - 10 CFS that would be generated by the project Mr Dalton stated they would adhere to the ordinances of Johnston County Public Utilities for stormwater and erosion control Mr Dalton stated that he did look at subsurface drainage and found the corrugated plastic pipes Mr Dalton stated that he did not see any water running through the corrugated pipes Mr Dalton stated that they are not doing anything to disturb or impact the subsurface Mr Dalton stated that stormwater calculations were performed for the plan design Mr Dalton presented pictures to the Board of the inlet to the subsurface drainage and stated the surface water could not get into the drainage system Mr Dalton stated that the drainage easement would not impact building or septic systems and that there would be no building or septic system in close proximity to the easement Chairman Letchworth asked Mr Dalton about the runoff coefficient used to determine the volume of water of a residential development versus a farm field Mr Dalton responded that it is pretty close depending on the use of the farm field and that there are some residential developments that have a lower coefficient than farming Mr Dalton stated that typically both of them range from 30 to 50 to 55 Chairman Letchworth asked that depending on the way the farm field is used , if a residential type development could generate less volume than a farm field or depending on the use could be a very similar volume of water Mr Dalton responded that it could be very similar but it could also be less because a residential development typically has more year round vegetation on it than a farm field Chairman Letchworth asked if any buffers are required in the County ordinance between like uses Mr Dalton responded no Mr Kevin McLamb , 9328 Strickland Crossroads Rd , Benson , NC , and Mr Ronald Wood , 9360 Strickland Crossroads Rd , Benson , NC , are adjacent property owners and expressed concerns to the Board Mr McLamb provided pictures to the Board Mr Wood stated that the drainage pipe has been crushed and that the pipe was discharging 20 gallons of water a minute on Easter Sunday Chairman Letchworth asked about an image showing the inlet to the drainage pipe Mr McLamb stated that the inlet to the pipe is up north and the picture is showing the junction box used to keep the pipe cleaned out so water can continue to flow MsHoward asked about the location of the junction box 4PagePage pageNumber5Mr McLamb pointed out the location of the junction box and the inlet on GIS Mr McLamb stated that they had videos and notes showing that the pipe was running before it was crushed Mr McLamb discussed photos presented and expressed concerns for flooding on the proposed lots 1 - 4 Mr McLamb stated that it flooded on January 13 , 2013 , July 19 , 2020 , August 15 , 2020 , October 6 , 2022 , May 14 , 2024 , and May 18 , 2024 Mr Wood expressed concerns for the land being saturated with water when the drainage pipe is blocked or no longer in use Mr Wood stated that someone had cleaned out the ditch Mr McLamb stated that heavy rains did not wash the straw out of the ditch and that the water doesn’t flow towards the ditch Mr McLamb explained the direction of the water flow Ms Davis asked about Mr Wood’s property Mr McLamb confirmed the location of Mr Wood’s property Mr McLamb expressed caution to the developer for lots 1 - 4 and expressed concern for the maintenance of the drainage pipe Mr McLamb stated that water just stands on the subject property and takes forever to go down MsHolmes asked about the date of one of the photos Mr McLamb responded April 5 Mr Lovering asked about the size of the underground pipe and the length that it runs Mr Wood responded six inches and that it runs approximately 750 ft to the tree lines MsHolmes asked for confirmation that the underground pipe runs approximately 750 ft Mr Wood confirmed and stated that the whole total pipe is approximately 1,100 ft Mr Wood stated that the pipe drains Mr Norris ’ property just as much as it does his Mr Sasser asked if the drainage pipe was operating properly before it was crushed Mr McLamb responded yes MsHoward asked if it kept the water off of their property Mr McLamb responded yes Mr Wood stated that it kept the water drained down and explained how the drainage pipe worked Mr McLamb stated that the drainage pipe was added back in the day so the whole land could be worked and they didn’t have a ditch 5PagePage pageNumber6Mr Sasser asked if the pipe was fixed would there be a problem Mr McLamb responded that it would keep the water from standing and it would continue running Mr McLamb stated that he would like for the pipe to be fixed Mr Lovering asked if the pipe was solid or perforated Mr McLamb responded that it was originally terracotta but a combine broke it years ago Mr Lovering asked if it was a solid pipe Mr Wood responded that it was a drain pipe Mr Dalton responded that it was perforated Mr McLamb stated that it started out as terracotta Mr McLamb stated that Mr Norris told the developer that the pipe had been there for 70 plus years and that it had been there as long as Mr Wood had been there Chairman Letchworth asked for clarification about the drainage pipe and that the pipe handles some of the drainage coming through the area and that there is also drainage that in storm events exceeds the capacity of the pipe and flows over land Mr McLamb confirmed and stated that in his opinion the pipe is not there to capture any stormwater but is there to drain the land so it can be worked Chairman Letchworth asked if the storm runoff still primarily travels over land Mr McLamb confirmed Mr Dalton stated that there are two different purposes for drainage , subsurface drainage is for farmland and surface drainage Mr Dalton stated that there is a proposed drainage easement for the purpose of surface drainage Chairman Letchworth asked if the drainage easements flow parallel to the property lines to catch the water coming across the property Mr Dalton confirmed Mr Dalton stated that he believed the developer was willing to put a pipe around the field to ensure that there would still be an outlet should anything happen to the corrugated pipe Chairman Letchworth asked if they would be willing to add a condition for a pipe around the field to redirect the subsurface drainage Mr Dalton stated that the only way to handle the surface drainage is through a maintained easement along the property lines 6PagePage pageNumber7Mr Sasser asked about the water going down each property line Mr Dalton stated that it is so little and each lot drains about 1,500 square feet Mr Dalton stated that the water would probably go into the ground before it reached the easement on a typical rain Mr Dalton stated that conditions could be added for both , the easements and assisting in redirecting the pipe around the field MsHoward asked about the need to fix the current pipe Mr Dalton stated that the terracotta was already busted Mr Dalton stated that they could put an easement on it , repair it , and take it around the field for the subsurface drain to work Ms Davis asked about the drainage easement pipe maintenance Mr Dalton stated that it would be redirected around the property line and would barely impact any land other than adjacent to the property line Mr Dalton stated that any maintenance would probably be turned over to the HOA Mr Sasser asked if the pipe was proposed as an easement Mr Dalton responded yes , there is a proposed easement for both subsurface and surface drainage Mr Patrick K Smith , Professional Engineer with Soil & Environmental Consultants , PA , representing Mr McLamb and Mr Wood Mr Smith presented slides to the Board and discussed the material presented in the slides Mr Smith stated that he had visited the property multiple times and there is a lot of standing water that exists close to the surface and is an area that is typically going to be wet Mr Smith expressed concerns for on - site runoff , off - site drainage , and subsurface drainage Mr Smith stated that there are general water issues on Mr Adams ’ land where water tends to stand Mr Smith expressed concern for not having a thorough analysis of stormwater and stated that a drainage easement is critically important Mr Smith also asked about a grading plan Ms Davis asked about the possible relocation of the drainage pipe and if it would affect the flow and absorption Mr Smith responded that for simplicity reasons , the subsurface drain and the surface drain should be in the same location especially if there is going to be a permanent drainage easement Mr Smith stated that it would be complicated to redirect the surface flow Mr Smith asked about on - site wastewater and soil evaluations Mr Smith discussed various scenarios involving on - site wastewater Ms Howard asked if the stormwater plan , grading plan , and others wouldcome after the preliminary approval by the Board Chairman Letchworth confirmed 7PagePage pageNumber8Mr Smith stated that the difference in this case was that the Board asked for additional information at the March Planning Board meeting but none of the information materialized Chairman Letchworth stated that this is a separate case and the Board can ask for additional information again if the Board feels like they need additional information above and beyond any testimony provided Mr Sasser asked about studies discussed previously and if they would be needed before environmental and stormwater approval Mr Newton stated that the burden is on the Applicant to produce engineering designs and have performed a study of the site and be sufficient to conform to the County stormwater ordinance Mr Newton stated that level of detail was not required at the preliminary level Mr Newton stated that the Applicant does have to provide a stormwater statement and the Applicant has provided a stormwater statement There wasno further discussion Chairman Letchworth asked for the staff recommendation Mr Marr stated the staff recommended denial due to less than 500 ft of driveway separation and lack of a dedicated right - of - way meeting Johnston Co standards for a Major subdivision Mr Marr stated that a comprehensive review of the new preliminary map was not completed , but it did appear that those concerns might have been addressed in the new preliminary map Ms Holmes expressed concern that staff were not able to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest plans Ms Davis expressed concern for the drainage easement and maintenance of the drainage pipe Chairman Letchworth referenced the County ordinance and expressed concern for drainage and concern for lots 1 - 5 Ms Davis expressed concern for the septics Ms Holmes stated concern for potential problems for either future owners or adjacent property owners Chairman Letchworth stated that there wasn’t a concern for stormwater generated by the development There was discussion among the Board concerning the surface flooding on the subject property Mr Lovering expressed concern for the maintenance of the drainage pipe 8PagePage pageNumber9Chairman Letchworth spoke about stormwater dealing with surface drainage and this instance being a subsurface drainage issue Chairman Letchworth spoke about it being wetland that is only made dry through the existence of the pipe Chairman Letchworth expressed concern about the land being dry and suitable for a home site well into the future and referenced the County ordinance Mr Lovering discussed drainage concerns as well as the role of the engineers There was discussion among the Board concerning the roadway design and access points Mr Lovering spoke about the adjacent stream and runoff flowing into the existing stream Chairman Letchworth asked Ms Slusser about the Board’s ability to add conditions Ms Slusser responded that the conditions have to be consented uponby the applicant Mr Lovering asked about the easement and maintenance of the easement Chairman Letchworth responded that typically the easement is mowed and maintained by the homeowners A member of the audience asked about the width of the proposed easement Chairman Letchworth responded that the preliminary plat states a 10 ft public drainage easement Chairman Letchworth asked about the County’s stormwater process and if it takes into account the off - site stormwater coming across the subject property and how it is diverted into drainage Mr Newton responded that it would look at the pre and post development of the site and how that impacts downstream Mr Newton stated that he could not say for definite if it looks upstream Mr Newton stated that there was no representation from the stormwater division of Public Utilities Chairman Letchworth discussed possible conditions concerning drainage easements There was discussion among the Board Mr Newton reviewed the Board’s options Ms Slusser reviewed Johnston County Ordinance Section 14 - 176 with regards to consideration of the preliminary plat and possible Board actions Ms Holmes expressed concern for tabling it since it was withdrawn when tabled in March 9Page0There was discussion among the Board concerning possible conditions Chairman Letchworth asked Mr Dalton if they would agree to the two additional conditions , that the swells contained within the drainage easements were sized sufficiently to handle the off - site stormwater coming onto the site and that the existing drainage pipe be repaired and placed within a permanent easement Mr Dalton agreed to the two additional conditions Staff Recommendation Denial Upon a motion byMr Sasser to approve Rickie Norris Tract June 2024 with the inclusion of the two additional conditions , seconded by Mr Lovering , Rickie Norris Tract June 2024 was approved by a vote of 5 - 2 at the July 16 , 2024 Planning Board Meeting , with Ms Davis and MsHolmes dissenting Conditions and Requirements [ Planning ] 1 All lots must be a minimum of 30,000 sf 2 Complete flood plain information 3 Metes & bounds 4 Certifications 5 Entrance sign & street signs 6 Street name approval 7 Show shared driveway access easement and provide statement for shared maintenance on Final Plat 8 Complete improvements or provide performance guarantee 9 Stubout Street extension signage in accordance with LDC Sec 14 - 226 g 10 Provide final plat Street Disclosure Statement Certificate for street maintenance DM Sec 7 , L item 8 11 Fee - in - lieu of open space shall be paid prior to recording 12 Provide utility easements along all lot lines in accordance with LDC Sec 14 - 75 d 3 13 Drainage easements along the property lines and swells within those be sized to accommodate the offsite stormwater trailing on to the site 14 Existing drainage pipe be repairedand included within apermanent easement 15 Coordinate with the US Postal Service for the design of and utilization of cluster box mail receptacle units a CBU shall not impede the flow of traffic b CBU shall not obstruct the operation and maintenance of utility services c CBU shall meet ADA and Fire Code requirements [ Environmental Health ] 10Page116 Approval of all lots for onsite sewage disposal or statement for each unapproved lot [ NCDOT ] 17 A driveway permit and subdivision design approval must be obtained prior to construction 18 All design aspects of the plans shall comply with the current NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures , NCDOT Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction Standards , and Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways 19 It will be determined at the time the driveway permit application is submitted if any road improvements will be required 20 Driveways do not meet 200 ’ spacing requirement [ Public Utilities ] 21 Stormwater & Erosion Control Permits Required 22 Stormwater Statement Required 23 Wetlands should be delineated and shownon the plan if any are present as well as any jurisdictional features and buffers 24 Property is limited to 15 impervious area without stormwater management 25 Construction plans will have to be submitted and approved for waterline construction [ Emergency Services ] 26 Provide road dimensions , weight rating , and grade detail 27 Provide fire flow report and waterline hydrant detail 28 Please submit construction drawings prior to starting construction Items in bold were added by the Planning Board and agreed to by the applicant during the Planning Board meeting There wasa brief five minute break Steel Bridge Road Subdivision Owner Jimmy Dale Developer RRT Development , LLC Surveyor Stocks Engineering Acreage Lots 4387 acres , 28 lots Tax ID # 15H05024N Address 3316 Steel Bridge Rd Mr Marr introduced the subdivision and referenced the above information Mr Marr stated that the subject property was within the ESA , however no floodplain appears on the parcel Mr Marr also spoke about reverse frontage lots and stated that a reverse frontage buffer would be required for lot 13 along Cooper Branch Rd 11Page2Mr Ethan Averette , 801 E Washington St , Nashville , NC , Stocks Engineering , stated the particulars of the subdivision and was present to answer any questions from the Board Mr Averette stated that all lots would be 40,000 square feet since the subject property is within the ESA Mr Averette stated that there is a blue line stream and a frontage buffer would be added , the mail kiosk would be shown on the preliminary plat , and the lot lines would be modified so the pond would be fully located in the HOA owned open space MsHolmes asked about the location of the mail kiosk Mr Averette stated that it was not shown on the preliminary plat , but that it would likely be located near the pond and open space Mr Sasser asked about the modification of the lot lines and the pond Mr Averette confirmed that the full perimeter of the pond would be located within the HOA owned open space Ms Holmes asked about the David Sutphin property and if there was any type of planned buffer along the backs of proposed lots 1 - 3 Mr Averette stated that there is no planned buffer but they would be willing to add a buffer along the backs of lots 1 and 2 There wasno further discussion Chairman Letchworth asked for the staff recommendation Mr Marr stated the staff recommended approval with the stated conditions and requirements in the staff report Ms Davis asked about adding a condition for the pond Ms Davis expressed concern for the enrollment numbers for the school district Ms Holmes added two additional conditions as discussed , add a landscape buffer at the back of lots 1 and 2 and modify the lot lines to encompass the pond within the HOA maintained space Staff Recommendation Approval Upon a motion by Ms Holmes to approve Steel Bridge Road Subdivision with the inclusion of the two additional conditions , seconded by Ms Howard , Steel Bridge Road Subdivision was approved by a unanimous vote of 7 - 0 at the July 16 , 2024 Planning Board Meeting Conditions and Requirements [ Planning ] 12Page31 All lots must be a minimum of 40,000 sf 2 Complete flood plain information 3 Metes & bounds 4 Certifications 5 Entrance sign & street signs 6 Street name approval 7 All lots shall access internal streets 8 Cul - de - sac lots must have 40 ’ road frontage 9 Complete improvements or provide performance guarantee 10 Provide final plat Street Disclosure Statement Certificate for street maintenance DM Sec 7 , L item 8 11 Provide reverse frontage lot buffer for lot 13 along Cooper Branch Rd 12 Driveways shall be separated 500 feet apart 13 Show to whom open space is dedicated 14 Provide 20 ’ fee simple access to open space 15 Provide utility easements along all lot lines in accordance with LDC Sec 14 - 75 d 3 16 Modify Lot lines to encompasspond inside space maintained by HOA 17 Provide landscape buffer on lots 1and 2 18 Coordinate with the US Postal Service for the design of and utilization of cluster box mail receptacle units a CBU shall not impede the flow of traffic b CBU shall not obstruct the operation and maintenance of utility services c CBU shall meet ADA and Fire Code requirements [ Environmental Health ] 19 Approval of all lots for onsite sewage disposal or statement for each unapproved lot [ NCDOT ] 20 A driveway permit and subdivision design approval must be obtained prior to construction 21 All design aspects of the plans shall comply with the current NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures , NCDOT Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction Standards , and Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways 22 It will be determined at the time the driveway permit application is submitted if any road improvements will be required [ Public Utilities ] 23 Stormwater & Erosion Control Permits Required 24 Stormwater Statement Required 25 Wetlands should be delineated and shownon the plan if any are present as well as any jurisdictional features and buffers 13Page426 Property is located within the ESA and limited to 12 impervious area without stormwater management 27 Construction plans will have to be submitted and approved for waterline construction [ Emergency Services ] 28 Provide a fire flow report and water distribution details 29 Submit construction drawings prior to starting construction Items in bold were added by the Planning Board and agreed to by the applicant during the Planning Board meeting Earpsboro1C Owner Joseph & Joretta Vann Developer Darlington Advisors LLC Surveyor Adams & Hodge Engineering , PC Acreage Lots 3526 acres , 36 lots Tax ID # 11M02063C Address 600 Block of Earpsboro Rd Mr Marr introduced the subdivision and referenced the above information Mr Donnie Adams , 314 E Main St , Clayton , NC , Adams & Hodge Engineering , PC , stated the particulars of the subdivision and was present to answer any questions from the Board Mr Adams stated that there is a riparian buffered stream on the subject property that they plan to cross perpendicular Mr Adams stated that the mailbox cluster unit is located at the front across from lots 1 and 2 , on the front side of lot 36 Chairman Letchworth asked about the hammerhead design and if it was designed such that it could be extended onto the adjacent property Mr Adams confirmed Chairman Letchworth asked if there was a way to get a stub out between there and Earpsboro Rd without losing a lot Chairman Letchworth asked how it could be designed in case the adjacent property was developed to avoid another driveway on Earpsboro Rd with one entrance and exit Chairman Letchworth asked about a possible stub out around lots 9 , 10 , or 11 Mr Adams responded that it might be a possibility without losing a lot and he would look at it Chairman Letchworth stated that the County ordinance requires a sign at any stub out Ms Davis asked about a new traffic count on Earpsboro Rd Chairman Letchworth asked were there any anticipated roadway improvements 14Page5Mr Adams responded no There wasno further discussion Chairman Letchworth asked for the staff recommendation Mr Marr stated the staff recommended approval with the stated conditions and requirements in the staff report Staff Recommendation Approval Upon a motion by Ms Holmes to approve Earpsboro 1C , seconded by Mr Sasser , Earpsboro 1C was approved by a unanimous vote of 7 - 0 at the July 16 , 2024 Planning Board Meeting Conditions and Requirements [ Planning ] 1 All lots must be a minimum of 30,000 sf 2 Metes & bounds 3 Certifications 4 Entrance sign & street signs 5 Street name approval 6 All lots shall access internal streets 7 Cul - de - sac lots must have 40 ’ road frontage 8 Complete improvements or provide performance guarantee 9 Stubout Street extension signage in accordance with LDC Sec 14 - 226 g 10 Provide final plat Street Disclosure Statement Certificate for street maintenance DM Sec 7 , L item 8 11 Fee - in - lieu of open space shall be paid prior to recording 12 Provide utility easements along all lot lines in accordance with LDC Sec 14 - 75 d 3 13 Coordinate with the US Postal Service for the design of and utilization of cluster box mail receptacle units a CBU shall not impede the flow of traffic b CBU shall not obstruct the operation and maintenance of utility services c CBU shall meet ADA and Fire Code requirements [ Environmental Health ] 14 Approval of all lots for onsite sewage disposal or statement for each unapproved lot [ NCDOT ] 15 A driveway permit and subdivision design approval must be obtained prior to construction 15Page616 All design aspects of the plans shall comply with the current NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures , NCDOT Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction Standards , and Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways 17 It will be determined at the time the driveway permit application is submitted if any road improvements will be required [ Public Utilities ] 18 Stormwater & Erosion Control Permits Required 19 Stormwater Statement Required 20 Wetlands should be delineated and shownon the plan if any are present as well as any jurisdictional features and buffers 21 A 401 404 permit and buffer approval are required for the road crossing 22 Property is limited to 15 impervious area without stormwater management 23 Waterline construction will have to be to continue in both directions to the end of the street that lots 18 - 21 front 24 Construction plans will have to be submitted and approved for waterline construction [ Emergency Services ] 25 Provide a fire flow report 26 Provide construction drawings prior to starting construction Crocker’s Station Owner Dorothy H Creech Irrevocable Trust Developer Michael Ford Surveyor Alsey J Gilbert , PLS Acreage Lots 8355 acres , 38 lots Tax ID # 15M13007 & 15M13008D Address 1347 Crocker Rd MsHoward recused herself from voting on this subdivision Upon a motion by Ms Holmes to recuse Ms Howard , seconded by Ms Davis , the recusal of Ms Howard was approved by a unanimous vote of 6 - 0 at the July 16 , 2024 Planning Board Meeting Mr Marr introduced the subdivision and referenced the above information Mr Marr spoke about reverse frontage lots and that a reverse frontage buffer would be required for Old Sanders Rd behind lot 27 Mr Marr spoke about direct driveway access on Crocker Rd and from the Johnston County Land Design Manual regarding developments creating 4 or more lots Mr Alsey Gilbert , 442 - 1 2 E Main St , Clayton , NC , Surveyor , stated the particulars of the subdivision and was present to answer any questions from the Board Mr Gilbert described the unique size and shape of the subject properties and explained the design of 16Page7the proposed subdivision Mr Gilbert spoke about adding a reverse frontage buffer along the front of Old Sanders Rd along lots 35 , 18 , 31 , and 27 Chairman Letchworth asked about a shared driveway between lots 35 and 36 Mr Gilbert confirmed MsHolmes asked about a shared driveway for lots 1 , 2 , and 3 Mr Gilbert confirmed Chairman Letchworth asked about lots 32 - 34 plus another piece being retained by the owner sharing a 30 foot access Mr Gilbert confirmed Ms Davis asked about the reverse buffer on lots 18 , 31 , 27 , and 35 Mr Gilbert confirmed Mr Virgil Yansom , 952 Old Sanders Rd , Smithfield , NC , nearby property owner , expressed concern for current traffic , as well as increased traffic and safety concerns Ms Jane Creech Hales , 100 Elizabeth Rd , Smithfield , NC , adjacent property owner , stated that she grew upon the land and has been living there since 1986 Ms Hales spoke about the history of the land Ms Hales expressed concern for the entrance and exit of Old Sanders Rd Ms Hales asked questions about landscape buffers adjoining her property and expressed concern for water runoff Mr Walter Daughtry , 149 Elizabeth Rd , Smithfield , NC , nearby property owner , expressed concern for current traffic due to recent HWY 70 work Mr Daughtry stated that traffic has increased on Old Sanders Rd and Crocker Rd due to the HWY 70 and Creech Mill Rd work Mr Daughtry expressed concern for the proposed subdivision’s close proximity to another coming subdivision Chairman Letchworth asked about the change in traffic flow to HWY 70 Mr Daughtry responded that Creech Mill Rd was cut off and traffic has been rerouted towards them Mr Daughtry stated that there is 10 times more traffic onOld Sanders Rd Mr Daughtry asked for the Board to consider recently approved subdivisions in the area Chairman Letchworth discussed the County’s process of developing a Comprehensive Transportation Plan Ms Davis stated appreciation for the number of lots Mr Ben Daughtry , Smithfield , NC , adjacent property owner , stated that he grew up on the land and expressed concern about the density and the lot size for the proposed 17Page8subdivision Mr Daughtry expressed concern for the septic systems Mr Daughtry stated that the design is out of character for the area Ms Davis asked about the location of Mr Ben Daughtry’s property Mr Ben Daughtry confirmed the location of his property An audience member asked Ms Davis to repeat an earlier statement Ms Davis stated that the maximum density per County standards would allow up to 121 lots and the proposed subdivision consists of 38 lots Mr Steve Smith , 65 Elizabeth Rd , Smithfield , NC , adjacent property owner , expressed concerns about the density , traffic , and how wet the site is Mr Smith expressed concern for the septic systems and spoke in favor of preserving family farms Ms Leslie Daughtry , 979 Old Sanders Rd , Smithfield , NC , adjacent property owner , expressed opposition for the proposed subdivision Ms Daughtry had questions about septic systems , stormwater runoff , retention ponds , turn lanes , sidewalks , and other planned amenities Ms Daughtry asked about affordable housing Ms Daughtry expressed concern for the impact on local wildlife , as well as the increase in traffic Ms Sarah Williams , 1415 Hill Rd , Smithfield , NC , nearby property owner , expressed concerns for the increased traffic coming from HWY 70 and Brogden Rd Ms Williams expressed concern for infrastructure and the road damage Ms Williams also expressed concerns for local wildlife Chairman Letchworth discussed the process following the Board’s decision , including NCDOT review , stormwater review , and Environmental Health review Ms Davis discussed information concerning the Voluntary Agricultural District There wasno further discussion Chairman Letchworth asked for the staff recommendation Mr Marr stated the staff recommended denial due to less than 500 ft of driveway separation and lack of a dedicated right - of - way meeting Johnston Co standards for a Major subdivision Ms Davis asked Mr Gilbert about the driveway entrance distances between lots 1 - 3 and lots 4 - 16 and if it met the 500 ft driveway separation requirement Mr Gilbert confirmed that it met the distance requirement Ms Davis asked about another subdivision possibly going in across Old Sanders Rd and its proximity to the entrance to lots 18 - 31 Mr Gilbert responded that he did not think the other subdivision was at that location 18Page9Chairman Letchworth asked about any preliminary indications from NCDOT Mr Gilbert responded none yet Ms Davis asked about the portion of the subject property noted as retained by the owner Mr Gilbert responded that the retained area would not be a subdivision , possibly two ten - acre tracts Mr Gilbert stated that they had a very intense soil survey done and it depends on if another perk site can be found Ms Leslie Daughtry asked on behalf of her mother , Ms Jane Hales , about a possible buffer between her mother’s property and proposed lots 21 - 25 Ms Davis asked about access to Ms Hales ’ property Ms Leslie Daughtry responded that the landlocked property is accessed through Ms Hales ’ property off Elizabeth Rd Mr Gilbert responded that it would depend on the septic soils but that a 20 foot landscape buffer might be possible Chairman Letchworth stated that a buffer is not required between like uses Ms Davis spoke about the number of proposed lots Mr Lovering spoke about the distance between the driveways Staff Recommendation Denial Upon a motion by Mr Lovering to approve Crocker’s Station , seconded by Mr Cresnshaw , Crocker’s Station was approved by a unanimous vote of 6 - 0 at the July 16 , 2024 Planning Board Meeting Conditions and Requirements [ Planning ] 1 All lots must be a minimum of 30,000 sf 2 Complete flood plain information 3 Metes & bounds 4 Certifications 5 Entrance sign & street signs 6 Street name approval 7 Cul - de - sac lots must have 40 ’ road frontage 8 Complete improvements or provide performance guarantee 9 Provide final plat Street Disclosure Statement Certificate for street maintenance DM Sec 7 , L item 8 10 Provide reverse frontage lot buffer along lot 27on Crocker Rd 19Page011 Show shared driveway access easement and provide statement for shared maintenance on Final Plat 12 Fee - in - lieu of open space shall be paid prior to recording 13 Provide utility easements along all lot lines in accordance with LDC Sec 14 - 75 d 3 14 Coordinate with the US Postal Service for the design of and utilization of cluster box mail receptacle units a CBU shall not impede the flow of traffic b CBU shall not obstruct the operation and maintenance of utility services c CBU shall meet ADA and Fire Code requirements [ Environmental Health ] 15 Approval of all lots for onsite sewage disposal or statement for each unapproved lot [ NCDOT ] 16 A driveway permit and subdivision design approval must be obtained prior to construction 17 All design aspects of the plans shall comply with the current NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures , NCDOT Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction Standards , and Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways 18 It will be determined at the time the driveway permit application is submitted if any road improvements will be required 19 Shared driveways for 35 & 36 , shared driveway for 1,2 , & 3 , and shared driveways for 37 & 38 [ Public Utilities ] 20 Stormwater & Erosion Control Permits Required 21 Stormwater Statement Required 22 Wetlands should be delineated and shownon the plan if any are present as well as any jurisdictional features and buffers 23 Property is limited to 15 impervious area without stormwater management 24 Lots that front existing right - of - way shall have services installed prior to recording the plat 25 Construction plans will have to be submitted and approved for waterline construction [ Emergency Services ] 26 Provide road dimensions , weight rating , and grade detail 27 Provide a fire flow report and waterline hydrant detail 28 Provide construction drawings prior to starting construction Parker’s Landing Phase2June 2024 20Page1Owner Axiom Holdings LLC Developer Axiom Development LLC Surveyor Stocks Engineering , PA Acreage Lots 8316 acres , 46 lots Tax ID # 11L03030 , 11L03030D , 11L03030C , & 11L03030B Address Sweetfern Lane Mr Marr introduced the subdivision and referenced the above information Mr Marr stated that the subject property was within the ESA , however no floodplain appears on the parcel Mr Marr stated that a left turn lane will be required onNC96 turning onto Sweet Birch Ln per NCDOT Mr Marr also stated that no lots shall be recorded in Phase 2 until the existing stub of Sweetfern is improved and dedicated with the other proposed streets with a letter stating that they meet NCDOT standards Mr Marr stated that this subdivision was proposed and approved at the March2024 Planning Board meeting for 40 lots and they are now proposing six additional lots Mr Ethan Averette , 801 E Washington St , Nashville , NC , Stocks Engineering , stated the particulars of the subdivision and was present to answer any questions from the Board Mr Averette stated that more suitable soils were discovered during further evaluations leading to the additional lots Mr Averette addressed concerns from the previous approval and stated that Sweet Birch Ave and Yellowwood Ave have already been turned over to NCDOT and had a letter from NCDOT Mr Averette stated that Sweetfern Ln has not been built yet and is only gravel Mr Averette stated that the wetlands and stream have also been evaluated with the buffer shown on the preliminary plat Mr Lovering asked about the roads Mr Averette clarified that Sweet Birch Ave has been turned over to NCDOT and that Sweetfern Ln had not Ms Howard asked about Sweetfern Ln not having enough residents to be turned over to NCDOT Mr Averette confirmed There wasno further discussion Chairman Letchworth asked for the staff recommendation Mr Marr stated the staff recommended approval with the stated conditions and requirements in the staff report Staff Recommendation Approval Upon a motion byMsHolmes to approve Parker’s Landing Phase 2 June 2024 , seconded by Mr Sasser , Parker’s Landing Phase 2 June 2024was approved by a unanimous vote of 7 - 0 at the July 16 , 2024 Planning Board Meeting Conditions and Requirements 21Page2[ Planning ] 1 All lots must be a minimum of 40,000 sf 2 Complete flood plain information 3 Metes & bounds 4 Certifications 5 Entrance sign & street signs 6 Street name approval 7 All lots shall access internal streets 8 Cul - de - sac lots must have 40 ’ road frontage 9 Complete improvements or provide performance guarantee 10 Provide final plat Street Disclosure Statement Certificate for street maintenance DM Sec 7 , L item 8 11 Show to whom open space is dedicated 12 Provide 20 ’ fee simple access to open space 13 Provide utility easements along all lot lines in accordance with LDC Sec 14 - 75 d 3 14 No lots shall be recorded in Phase 2 until existing stub of Sweetfern is improved and dedicated with the other proposed streets with a letter stating that they meet NCDOT standards 15 Coordinate with the US Postal Service for the design of and utilization of cluster box mail receptacle units a CBU shall not impede the flow of traffic b CBU shall not obstruct the operation and maintenance of utility services c CBU shall meet ADA and Fire Code requirements [ Environmental Health ] 16 Approval of all lots for onsite sewage disposal or statement for each unapproved lot [ NCDOT ] 17 A driveway permit and subdivision design approval must be obtained prior to construction 18 All design aspects of the plans shall comply with the current NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures , NCDOT Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction Standards , and Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways 19 It will be determined at the time the driveway permit application is submitted if any road improvements will be required 20 All lots to be served internally , require no - access easements for all frontage lots 21 Require encroachment agreement for any proposed utilities within ROW 22 Require left turn lane for site onNC96 turning onto Sweet Birch Ln [ Public Utilities ] 22Page323 Stormwater & Erosion Control Permits Required 24 Stormwater Statement Required 25 Wetlands should be delineated and shownon the plan if any are present as well as any jurisdictional features and buffers A buffer call will be necessary 26 Property is located within the ESA and limited to 12 impervious area without stormwater management 27 Construction plans will have to be submitted and approved for waterline construction [ Emergency Services ] 28 Provide topographic information 29 Provide “ No Parking ” signage along access road at fire hydrant locations 30 Provide cul - de - sac details 31 Provide a fire flow test 32 Provide fire hydrant distribution plan layout Rezoningand Conditional Zoning Cases and Special Uses RezoningCase 24 - 11 Rezoning Petition Agricultural Residential AR to General Business GB Tax ID 16L05030D Owner Donald & Kimberly Waters Applicant Donald & Kimberly Waters Location 2321 acre tract located in the 2600 Block of Thanksgiving Fire Rd in the O’Neals Township Rezoning Case 24 - 11was withdrawn by the Applicant RezoningCase 24 - 13 Special Use Request Petition to request a Special Use Permit Tax ID 09G15019A Owner Gloria & Damion L Herring Applicant Network Towers II , LLC Location 6450NC Hwy242 in the MeadowTownship Special Use Request A 264 ’ wireless telecommunications tower Mr Marr introduced the case and referenced the information listed above Mr Marr stated that the request had been reviewed by the Countys technical consultant Mr Anthony Bologna , Attorney with Williams Mullen representing Network Towers II , LLC , 301 Fayetteville Street Suite 1700 , Raleigh , NC , stated the particulars of the request and was present to answer any questions from the Board There wasno further discussion 23Page4Rezoning Case 24 - 13 will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners at their September 3 , 2024 meeting Consistency Statement This request is consistent with the Comprehensive LandUse Plan in that the tower height is allowed in this land use area The request is reasonable and in the public interest in that , the use can be limited in scope using special conditions and the proposed development meets the standards found in the Johnston County Land Development Code The conditions will ensure that the request is compatible with the surrounding area and will not negatively affect the public Finding of Facts for the Special Use Permit 1 That the use or development is located , designed , and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health , safety , and general welfare ; Applicant The proposed wireless telecommunication facility has been sited and designed to maintain promote the public health , safety , and general welfare by improving voice and data usage in the surrounding area According to 911 gov over 81 of 911 calls are madeby wireless devices Cellular usage is the primary form of communication for most people today 2 That the use of the development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles II & IV of the Johnston County Land Development Code and the applicable specific standards in section 14 - 257 and with all applicable regulations ; Applicant The proposed wireless telecommunication facility will comply with all regulations and standards generally applicable with the zoning district AR - Agricultural Residential Additionally , the proposed use will meet the requirements and design standards governing wireless telecommunication facilities found in Section 14 - 257 3 That the use or development is located , designed , and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property , or that the use or development is a public necessity ; Applicant The proposed wireless telecommunication facility is a use that is a public necessity as cellular use is the primary form of communication for most people today The proposed use will allow students to have access to the latest educational opportunities , allow employees the opportunity to work from home , allow local business and emergency workers to communicate effectively 4 That the use or development conforms with general plans for the physical development of the County’s Planning jurisdiction , the Design Manual , or other development policies as adopted by the Board of Commissioners Applicant The proposed wireless communication facility is a use that will be consistent with Johnston County general plans for development of the county In today’s society , reliable wireless service is a necessity for residents , students , business and emergency personnel The use will provide Verizon with the 24Page5needed infrastructure to expand their wireless service footprint within the county Specific Land Uses APPLICANT Proposed installation of a 264 ’ telecommunications self - support lattice tower inside a 75 ’ x75 ’ fenced in compound The wireless telecommunications facility will be located within a 100 ’ x100 ’ lease area Special Use Conditions 1 Permitted Uses Proposed installation of a 264 ’ telecommunications self - support lattice tower inside a 75 ’ x75 ’ fenced in compound The wireless telecommunications facility will be located within a 100 ’ x100 ’ lease area 2 The Special Use Permit may be revoked with the violation of any Special Use Condition 3 Applicant shall submit a detailed site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Department Staff 4 All buildings and or structures must comply with rules enforced by Federal , State and Local agencies 5 Installation of a Class B landscape buffer along the outer perimeter of the chain - link security fence surrounding the base of the tower 2 large trees , 3 small trees , and 9 shrubs every one hundred 100 linear feet Existing natural vegetation may be used if more intense than the buffer requirement 6 All feed lines shall be installed within the support structure and antenna ports shall be sealed in a manner to prevent access by birds and any other wildlife 7 The proposed structure shall not be lighted unless FAA requires 8 At the time of permitting , the Applicant shall provide a structural analysis signed by a North Carolina Professional Engineer to comply with ANSI EIA TIA - 222 - G as amended for Johnston County for the approved number of antenna arrays 9 The facility shall be constructed so that access is only attainable by qualified personnel RezoningCase 24 - 14 Special Use Request Petition to request a Special Use Permit Tax ID 11P02060D Owner Michael J Hocutt Applicant Network Towers II , LLC Location 13600 Block of NCHwy42 East in the O’Neals Township Special Use Request A 294 ’ wireless telecommunications tower Mr Marr introduced the case and referenced the information listed above Mr Marr stated that the request had been reviewed by the Countys technical consultant Mr Anthony Bologna , Attorney with Williams Mullen representing Network Towers II , LLC , 301 Fayetteville Street Suite 1700 , Raleigh , NC , stated the particulars of the 25Page6request and was present to answer any questions from the Board Mr Bologna stated that the request was for a 290 ft tower with a 4 ft lightning rod Ms Davis asked if the two tower requests were similar to requests heard at a previous Planning Board meeting Mr Bologna confirmed and stated that they were both self - supported lattice towers There wasno further discussion Rezoning Case 24 - 14 will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners at their September 3 , 2024 meeting Consistency Statement This request is consistent with the Comprehensive LandUse Plan in that the tower height is allowed in this land use area The request is reasonable and in the public interest in that , the use can be limited in scope using special conditions and the proposed development meets the standards found in the Johnston County Land Development Code The conditions will ensure that the request is compatible with the surrounding area and will not negatively affect the public Finding of Facts for the Special Use Permit 1 That the use or development is located , designed , and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health , safety , and general welfare ; Applicant The proposed wireless telecommunication facility has been sited and designed to maintain promote the public health , safety , and general welfare by improving voice and data usage in the surrounding area According to 911 gov over 81 of 911 calls are madeby wireless devices Cellular usage is the primary form of communication for most people today 2 That the use of the development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles II & IV of the Johnston County Land Development Code and the applicable specific standards in section 14 - 257 and with all applicable regulations ; Applicant The proposed wireless telecommunication facility will comply with all regulations and standards generally applicable with the zoning district AR - Agricultural Residential Additionally , the proposed use will meet the requirements and design standards governing wireless telecommunication facilities found in Section 14 - 257 3 That the use or development is located , designed , and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property , or that the use or development is a public necessity ; Applicant The proposed wireless telecommunication facility is a use that is a public necessity as cellular use is the primary form of communication for most people today The proposed use will allow students to have access to the latest 26Page7educational opportunities , allow employees the opportunity to work from home , allow local business and emergency workers to communicate effectively 4 That the use or development conforms with general plans for the physical development of the County’s Planning jurisdiction , the Design Manual , or other development policies as adopted by the Board of Commissioners Applicant The proposed wireless communication facility is a use that will be consistent with Johnston County general plans for development of the county In today’s society , reliable wireless service is a necessity for residents , students , business and emergency personnel The use will provide Verizon with the needed infrastructure to expand their wireless service footprint within the county Specific Land Uses APPLICANT Proposed installation of a 294 ’ telecommunications self - support lattice tower inside a 75 ’ x75 ’ fenced in compound The wireless telecommunications facility will be located within a 100 ’ x100 ’ lease area Special Use Conditions 1 Permitted Uses Proposed installation of a 294 ’ telecommunications self - support lattice tower inside a 75 ’ x75 ’ fenced in compound The wireless telecommunications facility will be located within a 100 ’ x100 ’ lease area 2 The Special Use Permit may be revoked with the violation of any Special Use Condition 3 Applicant shall submit a detailed site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Department Staff 4 All buildings and or structures must comply with rules enforced by Federal , State and Local agencies 5 Installation of a Class B landscape buffer along the outer perimeter of the chain - link security fence surrounding the base of the tower 2 large trees , 3 small trees , and 9 shrubs every one hundred 100 linear feet Existing natural vegetation may be used if more intense than the buffer requirement 6 All feed lines shall be installed within the support structure and antenna ports shall be sealed in a manner to prevent access by birds and any other wildlife 7 The proposed structure shall not be lighted unless FAA requires 8 At the time of permitting , the Applicant shall provide a structural analysis signed by a North Carolina Professional Engineer to comply with ANSI EIA TIA - 222 - G as amended for Johnston County for the approved number of antenna arrays 9 The facility shall be constructed so that access is only attainable by qualified personnel RezoningCase 24 - 15 Rezoning Petition Agricultural Residential AR to General Business GB Tax ID 11O01044C Owner Jose Fernando Hernandez Applicant Jose Fernando Hernandez 27Page8Location 508 acre tract located in the 7390NCHwy 231 in the O’Neals Township Mr Marr introduced the case and referenced the information listed above Mr Marr stated that the existing land use was zoned AR and is used for those purposes Chairman Letchworth asked Mr Marr to give a sample of the types of business permitted with a straight rezoning to General Business Mr Marr responded that it could be anything from stores to bars to car dealerships MsHolmes asked if the surrounding properties were zoned AR Mr Marr confirmed Mr Jose Hernandez , 3441 Wendell Rd , Wendell , NC , Owner Applicant , stated the particulars of the request and was present to answer any questions from the Board Mr Hernandez stated that along with his dad , he owns HC Auto Towing and Services Mr Hernandez stated the intent was to use the property for their towing services with possible future auto sales Mr Hernandez stated that they were located at 400 David Rd and then purchased the subject property Mr Hernandez included a site plan with his rezoning application Chairman Letchworth asked Mr Hernandez about the reason to request a rezoning to General Business instead of a Special Use District that would be limited to his specific uses Mr Hernandez responded that he originally planned to request the Special Use District but was told he could request General Business Mr Marr stated that there had been complaints and the Applicant was receiving violations from the County’s Zoning Enforcement Officer Mr Marr stated that the Applicant had a certain amount of time to turn in an application Mr Marr stated that with a conditional zoning application , there are many things that need to be done and they were not getting done Mr Marr stated that the Applicant came in to submit the application without the additional items and went with a straight General Business rezoning Mr Lovering asked Mr Hernandez about the hours of operation Mr Hernandez responded that they would have set hours of operation , possibly 8am to 5pm Mr Lovering asked about working with the police Mr Hernandez responded that it would be a 24 - hour call Chairman Letchworth noted that under General Business the Board does not have the ability to set conditions 28Page9Mr Hernandez stated that there are multiple car businesses onNC HWY 231 There was discussion among the Board concerning the location of the subject property Mr Chris Brackin , 2109 Whitley Rd , Middlesex , NC , adjacent property owner , stated that he had spoken with Mr Hernandez about his intentions to put a home on the subject property and discussed with him about the drop in elevation and flood plain Mr Brackin stated that he had asked Mr Hernandez about buying a portion of the subject property Mr Brackin stated that the area is all homes and agricultural Chairman Letchworth asked if it was inconsistent with the surrounding land use Mr Brackin confirmed Mr Matthew Haseley , 59 Thoroughbred Dr , Middlesex , NC , nearby property owner , expressed concerns on traffic impact and safety with a school bus stop and with the poor sight line due to a dip Mr Haseley also expressed concerns for the environmental impact and spoke about private wells , Moccasin Creek , and the nearby Flower Hill Nature Preserve Mr Haseley also expressed concerns with financial impact and property values Mr Haseley stated that the requested use was not a good fit for the area and that others from the neighborhood were present at the meeting Chairman Letchworth asked for a show of hands from the audience for those with the same concerns Mr Scott Ballard , 7406 NC HWY 231 , Middlesex , NC , adjacent property owner , expressed concerns about the environmental impact stating that asphalt had been dumped on the property and expressed concerns for possible gas and grease runoff into the creek Mr Ballard expressed concerns for increased noise and the impact on local wildlife Mr Ballard also expressed concerns for erosion A resident of The Preserve at Buckhorn and chairman of the HOA spoke on behalf of the residents and expressed opposition to the rezoning request He spoke of