These things are going to cost a month >> once they get you hooked up. >> Good afternoon. My name is Jason Grubs. I'm the chair of the city county planning board. Welcome to the March 12th, 2026 meeting of the planning board. At this time, would you please stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Today's meeting is being broadcast live by Winston Salem TV digital media and will be rebroadcast at 10:00 a.m. Friday morning and at 4:00 Sunday afternoon. Additionally, an on demand recording will be available on the city of Winston Salem's YouTube channel. Uh our first order of business today will be the consent agenda containing items for which the petitioner is requesting withdrawal or continuence or items for which the planning staff has recommended approval and no one has signed up to speak in opposition. for our public hearings today. Each side will have a total of 12 minutes. There is no rebuttal period. Once the public hearing is closed and the board goes into work session, no one is permitted to speak unless the planning board asks them a question. The items under section B of our agenda will will require final action by the elected body, either the Winston Salem City Council or the Force County Board of Commissioners. As such, votes taken today are recommendations which are considered by the elected body during their review of the requests. For general use reszoning requests, the planning board must consider the full range of uses allowed in the zoning district being requested. The petitioner may not refer to a specific intended use of the property. For special use zoning request, the petitioner must identify the intended use or uses of the site and give specific details on how the site will be developed. If you're addressing the board today, before you begin your comments, please give us your name, address, and zip code for the record. First item on the consent agenda is the approval of the minutes of the February 12th and February 26 meetings. Is there a motion? >> Move approval. >> Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Patinho. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Sign of I. I. >> Any opposed? That's unanimous. Now I'm going to call on Mr. Mark Ared to take us through the consent agenda, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First up is item E1. This is Camden Commons. They have requested an autom they requested a withdrawal more than eight days prior to the planning board. So, they're automatically withdrawn. All right. So, first one to consider is item B1. This is W3677. The petitioner is city of Winston Salem. So, this is a resulting from county uh MUS to city MUS. This is 0.20 20 acres at the northern terminus of Maple Chase Lane and northeastern terminus of Pins Meadow Lane. You can see it's surrounded by MUS on all sides and on the western part here is the beltway or the and you can see here from the aerial that this is adding to a previous annexation and basically they need this little small piece to add two homes. So that's what it's for. the planning uh the area plan for the West Suburban area plan does recommend single family reszoning, single family residential and staff does recommend resoning. Any questions? Questions for staff? All right. Is anyone here opposed to recommendation for this request? All right. All right. I move that the uh planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Motion >> by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr. Patinho. Any further discussion? >> All in favor signify. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Further move that the planning board recommend approval of W3677. >> Second. >> Motion by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr. Tino. Any discussion? All in favor sign of I. >> I. >> Any opposed. >> All right. >> All right. Next up is item B2. This is case W3678. The the petitioner is Winston Salem Business Adventures LLC. This is resoning from RS9 and Highway to Highway Business. Just the entire parcel that you see here. It's 3.03 acres on the east side of German road northeast of German Road and North Patterson Avenue intersection. So you can see to the north and east is RS9. To the south and west is Highway Business and Germaton Road is also to the west side. From the aerial you can see the uh parking lot that started off in Highway Business but um came over into the RS9 section. Um you can also see a telecommunications tower that sits here to the southwest. But you can also notice that the only way to access this property is through the highway business property here. So, um the area plan, the northeast suburban area plan recommends intermediate density residential. Um residential development is considered difficult here because the only viable access to this property is through the highway business own property as you saw on the previous slide. The request aligns with 42045 goals to support the continued development of older commercial area. So, staff does recommend approval. Any questions for staff? >> So on the um aerial you showed they're presently parking on the front end. Is that um because the front is the only HB? >> Correct. This this portion is HB. It's this isn't a straight line, but it's roughly 90 ft. If you notice, this line kind of curves. So it's a little more on one side as the other, but it's roughly about 90 ft of its highway business. >> Okay. There's currently parking both in the HB and the RS91. That's fair. Right. It looks like it. >> Yeah. >> Any additional questions? >> No one signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? >> I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. >> Second. Motion by Mr. Fabby. Second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor? Sign of I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Further move that the planning board recommend approval of W3678. >> Second. >> Motion by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr. Pino. Any discussion? >> All in favor sign of I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. Thank you. Well, what happened here? There we go. All right. So next is item B3. This is F1668. This is the petitioner's Pufftown Baptist Church. This is a resulting from RS20 to IP institutional and public. It's 5.82 acres at the west side of TransU road southwest of Bethnia Road and Ronaldo Road intersection. Uh you can see from the uh the location map to the west you you have the beltway uh similar to what you had on the first case that you looked at and to the north and south is RS20 and to the east is RS9. The aerial shows the property here. The central piece here already have an existing church and the portions that you have kind of here that the uh the petitioner also owns is wooded. So you can see from the area plan this the proposal is consistent with 44 where 2045 and west suburban area plan update goals to prioritize neighborhoods serving uses like churches near residential areas. And for those reasons, staff does recommend approval to institutional and public. >> Any questions for staff? >> All right. No one signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to the recommendation? >> Seeing no one will declare the public hearing closed. What's the pleasure of the board? >> I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. >> Second. >> Motion by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr. Patinho. Any discussion? All in favor sign I. >> I. >> Any opposed. >> I move that the planning board recommend approval of F168. >> Second. >> Motion by Mr. Fairby, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? >> All in favor sign of I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed. >> All right. >> All right. So, we're now moving to our elected body special use permit section of the agenda. So, first up is item C1 W3676, the Petitioners Concrete Supply Company LLC. This is expansion of an asphalt and concrete plant in General Industrial. It's 11.13 acres at the south side of Lowry Street between Steedman Street and Boulder Park Road. You can see from the location map that you've got GI on the um west, north, and east, but it's IP just to the south. Um this is the Salem Lake Greenway and the IP portion is owned by the city. Um this is an overview of the site plan. You can see that the part of the property we're going to be focused on the most is here. This south side in particular this rail spur that you see kind of coming here from the railroad line. What you see in blue is six silos that are being proposed which is going to be used for storage. And then you see um the green structures is this is an equipment building. This is a control room. This is scales. Um this will integrate with the rail line that you have here on at the southern portion of the property and prepare materials for distribution by train. There is a development limitation that's part of this project as this in infrastructure constitutes a one-time expansion of nonconforming use under UDO section 923. No further development or site expansion will be permitted. Site plan does meet UDO requirements. Any questions? >> All right. Any discussion? Is there a motion? >> I move that the site plan for W3676 does meet UDO requirements. >> Second. >> Motion by Mr. Fairb, second by Mr. No any discussion on that. All in favor sign of I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> All right. >> Next up is item C2. This is case F167. The applicant is Elizabeth and Tucker. The project is known as Union Cross Land Development LCD landfill. This is an establishment of a landfill land clearing inert debris greater than 2 acres in AG. The site is 69.50 50 acres between the Interstate 74 and Watkins Ford Road east of High Point Road. You can see here to the south you've got as I 74. You do have AG to the east and west to the north. But there is a subdivision. This is part of Kernersville here that you see that's in the um RS12SPD. You kind of see over here. Here's the area plan. So the larger LCD is is situated here to the north uh northwest. And then you do have another LCID to the southeast. The change in elevation here is about 120 ft. The site plan does include a specific buffering along Watkins Ford Road, as you can see through here, and a Tio overlay between this development and I74. There's a 100 foot setback around the entire property and a recycling area that you see over here to the northeast. There is also four erosion control devices, the three here and over here to protect against erosion control sediment and to the stream that splits the two LCIDs. There was an NO request refusal. The petitioner refused the M the Metropolitan Planning Organization's request to dedicate 15 ft of rightway along Watkins Ford Road as currently proposed in the comprehensive transportation plan. uh except for the rightway refusal staff has determined the site plan does meet all other UDO requirements. >> Any questions? >> It'd be typical for the owner to dedicate. >> He did reserve the space here. He just did not dedicate it and I Yeah, >> generally speaking, you know, whenever you have something that's going through an entitlement process and the you have something that's on the comprehensive Sorry, I guess my uh >> cut it off. >> My notepad was cutting it off. I need to know I need to remember that trick. Um the whenever something is going through an entitlement process uh under the uh site plan review process for the planning board even though this is an elected body special use permit there are you know there is the ability for the planning board to impose conditions of approval. And one of those conditions of approval is public rightaway dedication to meet projected needs for roads shown on the CTP or other roads as determined by the city of West Salem or NCDOT. In this context, I mean again, we think it's reasonable for the rideway to be dedicated because you're looking at a 60 almost 70 acre piece of property with over 37 acres of field area and coming out of the ground. a fairly substantial height. If you look at the history of the existing LCID, it's been open a number of years and this this is almost double the size of that. So, realistically, you probably will see traffic bringing LCID type materials to this landfill for the next 25 to 30 years, if not longer. So we feel like it's something that should be conditioned as approval as part of the approval process but ultimately that will be up to if the planning board would like to send it forward with that recommended condition of approval then ultimately they either decide yes or no and then at the for the uh county commissioners in this case since it goes to them the county commissioners could look at your recommendation for approval which is what they will see with that condition on there and then if the petitioner does not consent to that, i.e. doesn't sign the written consent to conditions with that condition on there, then that will be a discussion topic for the elected body and they can decide to do as they wish. I mean, they could either say, "Yeah, I mean, we understand we're not, you know, we hear you. We're not going to approve it. We hear you. We will approve it without the condition." Or again, they can consent and it can move forward. Um but again since this is a planning board review our recommendation would be based on the ordinance and state statute you can impose the condition of approval related to the rightway dedication >> and it's typical or atypical it's typical typical >> for LCIDs >> but there's there's no requirement in the UDO nor the statute that they have to dedicate the right of way correct and I mean obviously we condition. >> Correct. But there's not this site plan complies with the requirements of the UDO and the statute without the dedication of the rightway. >> It does. The site plan does requ does meet the requirements from the standpoint of you know looking at potential impacts. That's one of the things that you know you have 10 or 11 items that the planning board and ultimately the elected body can impose conditions related to given the fact that Watkins Ford Road is a heavily traveled east west connector. The fact that you have Caleb's Creek, Weldon, and lots of development happening on the north side of this and the fact that you might have truck traffic here for a long time, we think it's reasonable, but ultimately it's it's not our decision. It's it's the decision of the planning board and ultimately the county commissioners. >> I'm interested I apologize. Go ahead. >> I'm interested in uniformity of application of the dedication requirement. So, is it I know we've done LCIDs in here. So, are we requiring it generally or not? Generally speaking, when we go through this process and someone says, you know, this is so shown on the CTP as X, Y, and Z, most folks show the dedication. This is the first time that I'm aware of that someone has said, we'll reserve the space, but we're not going to dedicate. >> And there, but there are also probably instances where the the transportation plan doesn't specify correct anything. So we haven't I mean it's kind of a unusual combination I think >> and that's to to go to your question Clarence I'm trying to think of the last two LCIDs we've done we obviously did the one that's on the north side of the road which as Chris mentioned that was established decades prior. Then the one before that was the one on Piney Grove Road which that's to the north of the county in a less developed area. the CTP doesn't really see that facility being expanded or having the same traffic demands as Watkins Ford. So again, for most land uses, nine times out of 10, we've seen folks that have gone through and dedicated their right of way through the entitlement process, but I can't say definitively that we've done that for another LCID use. a question. Since the the space is reserved down the road, it's not they would to encroach on that, they would be out of compliance with their site plan. So essentially, it's whether we require them to do it or not, the land is still available for the intended use. >> Correct. And and that's the tarant that's the tack that the engineer and the property owner have taken. They have reserved the area, but they want to be compensated for it. So that's that's the again they have they have comp they have accounted for it in their design their design their buffer yard their setbacks everything starts 15 ft in so they have set it aside again ultimately if the planning board feels like it should be dedicated then you can make that a condition of approval if you don't think so then what comes out of this board is what will go to the elected body we at that point it will not become part of our recommendation because we present what the planning board recommends. >> Okay. I had a couple questions just for clarity for myself and anyone else. So, the dedication of the rightway is because of the potential growth of the road, right? It it's a recommendation in the CTP, which is again the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the regionwide uh transportation uh group responsible for that, which is staffed by DOT, but certainly has participation by county DOT and all the communities calls for this facility to be expanded to accommodate the population growth. >> Okay. And then, oh, >> I was going to say it's kind of a two-prong test. In other words, yes, it's shown on the CT uh the comprehensive transportation plan. So yes, that that's one prong. The other prong is what is being requested. Does it rise to the level of the the impact to the road, etc. You know, is there is there a rational nexus for the request? >> Okay. >> If someone was just building a house out here, you know, we're like doing a couple houses, we're not we wouldn't be asking for this. But again, they're asking for a special use permit for a 60ome plus acre landfill with 37 acres of active field. So given the fact there's going to be a longevity of trucks out here, etc., we think there's that rational nexus. It's a two-prong test. >> Okay, got it. And then the um the design takes into consideration just not dedicates the 15. >> Correct. >> Right. Yeah. >> And then um Mark, you mentioned there's a 100 foot set back around. >> That's correct. There's a 100 foot set back around. The road can be in 100 foot setback or you see this that's going to be used by trucks, but it's hard to see from here. And I can't zoom in on PowerPoint, but the line is like right on the edge here and then it comes down and can you see how it's crossing? You can definitely see it right there and it crosses back. >> The lot is so big. >> Yeah. >> That doesn't look like 100 ft. It's particularly more so on um Watkins Ford Road, you know, since there are houses across the street. So, just wanted to make sure >> about that. And then my last thing, just for clarification, what is LCID? >> Land land clearing and inert debris. So, it's not like a sanitary landfill. It's not a construction demolition landfill. This is rock, dirt, concrete, >> uh you know, other type of yard waste from clearing and those kind of things. So it it doesn't have any there are requirements I believe dealing with lining and legion again I'm not an expert in this and it has to go through state approval process etc but this is not something where they're taking sanitary you know trash >> something where they're taking >> sofas yeah >> yeah this I I'm sure if anybody from the neighborhood is here I want them to make sure they understood because when you say landfill I think of >> the dump >> and so I want them to understand the type of materials that would be here >> correct >> okay That's my question. >> Any further discussion? I think unless there's an objection, what I I I think the best way to handle this would be if there's a motion to impose the condition to condition the approval, let's deal with that first and then depending on how that goes, then we'll vote on on the other. So, >> okay. I move that the um site plan for F1667 does meet UDO requirements with the addition of the recommended conditions. Is that okay? >> Okay. So, so we've got a motion to approve with the condition that the rightway be dedicated. Any discussion on that? >> I say there needs to be a second. >> I guess there does need to be a second. >> Second. >> Okay. So, motion by Mr. F, second by Mr. Ino to approve with the condition added that the rightway be dedicated. All right. Discussion. I think >> I just I want to make sure what >> it's voting to not have the condition. >> So right now I think the motion is to approve with the condition. So if if you got a problem with the condition, >> vote no. >> Vote no. >> Vote no. I think is the >> correct >> thing there. Okay. >> Any other discussion on that? >> All right. All in favor of approving with the condition included to add the right of way sign of I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> All right. That's what 62 >> 62 >> correct. Right. So that's approved. >> Okay. Did we we skipped B4, didn't we? >> I'm getting ready. I'm eyeballing to the right, seeing that some people are still writing stuff down. So, I'm giving them a second. >> You can go ahead. >> Next is item D1. This is case number 2026014. And the um project is known as Bridalwood Estate Subdivision. This is a 13 lot major subdivision RS9 on 3.98 acres on north side of Gyro Drive west of Old Salsbury Road. You can see here it's RS9 all the way around. And you can see from the subdivision, that's a 13 normal 13 lot subdivision. You do have a storm water device on the left side and you have a stub street here to the east. Site plan meets all UDA requirements and staff recommends approval. >> Any questions for staff? I move that the uh planning board approve 2026 014. >> Second motion by Mr. Fabby, second by Mr. Tino. Any discussion? >> All in favor sign of I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Next is item number E2. This is planning board PBR 2026-02 and the project is Ashley Elementary School. This is a public school in RS7 limited use institutional and public limited use and uh pedestrian business. It's on 9.19 acres east of US 52 and west of North Cleveland Avenue between East 21st Street and U-Hob Lane. As you see from the site plan, uh to facilitate this new campus, there is a closing abandonment of rightway for Bethlehem Lane, um Wellbridge Court, Nofilia Lane right here. Uh this ensures a contiguous and secure school site. There is a storm water device up here to the northeast is underneath the parking lot. Um you will see the appropriate 10-ft street yard where needed. There is also um evergreen a six foot vinyl coated chain link fence and um what evergreen plantings that you see kind of coming through here. This is here to uh give a visual screen for the dumpster and the um mechanical utilities that you see over here. So the site plan itself does meet all UDA requirements and staff does recommend approval. Any questions? >> Questions for staff? All right. Is there a motion? >> I move that the planning board approve PBR 20262. >> Second. Motion by Mr. Fairby. Second by Mr. Tin. Any discussion? >> All in favor sign of I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Okay. >> And next up is case E2. This is PBR 2026-03. This is project loss at Motor Road. This is a 216 unit multif family and RM18 limited use zoning district. I think it's E3. >> E3. >> E3. What did I say? I apologize. >> That's okay. >> It's uh again, it's on 26.17 acres. This is the west side of Mount Pleasant Drive between Motor Road and Bristol Street. You see from the site plan, this is the loss at Motor Road is a multif family residential project featuring four primary buildings. Of course, I'd have something pop up. Um here you guys see your buildings. You got 100 building 100 on Mount Pleasant Drive. You've got the larger building 400 behind it and you got building 300 on the back side. Clubhouse and wreck areas over here. Beside the connection you got here to Mount Pleasant, you do have a connection coming off of Motor to Motor Road. And there is pedestrian connections from this parking lot to here and all the way down this connection to uh Motor Road. The structure you see before you will utilize masonry siding on the first floor, residential windows, and a slope roof to remain consistent with the local residential context. And the proposed site plan adheres to all technical standards of the UDO for multif family development within RM18, including multiple access points. Site plan meets UDO requirements, and staff recommends approval. >> Any questions for staff? >> I do have one question. Mhm. >> Did we see another design of this before or was it something else on Motor Road? >> I'm just curious. >> The the actual design of the multif family never made it. Um prior I think we had something that was submitted and got continued a couple times. >> Um >> it just seemed familiar. >> Yeah. Well, you you resoneed it to RM18L a couple years ago, but it was a a limited use request that covered the uses and may have had some conditions of approval, but it was not a sight specific plan. They had previously submitted a sight specific plan. Um, but it didn't go forward. There was some issues with grades and some retain extensive retaining walls. So, they went back to the drawing board and brought this iteration back which has substantially less retaining walls. I want to say they probably had close to a mile of linear feet of retaining walls before. It was a lot. >> Um, so and again, part of that, if you notice, you can't really see it here, but they're concentrating everything to the southeast corner of the site. There's other property that's part of this that's to the north, uh, that's not part of this request. And I think by concentrating the development in this area, they were able to minimize their costs with those retaining walls, etc. And it's actually a probably a better design. and it provides a greater buffer to the north um and you know just kind of fronts those buildings along that public street. So >> okay well excited to see some development in that area but um I move that the planning board approve PBR 202603 >> second motion by Mr. Fabby second by Mr. Patinho any discussion all in favor sign of I >> I >> any opposed >> Mr. Chairman, with that we will go back to item um B4, which is a public hearing on the uh UDO CC33, which is dealing with view corridors. And as we do that, I believe we have someone who needs might recuse themselves. >> Um Mr. Patino, I believe you need to recuse yourself. So, thank you for letting us know that. And >> can we get a motion to that effect? >> Oh, yeah. So, moved. >> Second. Second. Uh so motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Fabby. Any discussion on Mr. Patino recusing himself. All in favor sign I. >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. >> Thank you. >> Don't get too comfortable. >> All right. >> Come back. >> And now with that, we will hear from Steve Smotherman on this text amendment. >> Good afternoon, commission members. I'm going to talk to you about UDO CC33, which is a request proposed by staff to add view corridors to prohibit off-remise ground signs that are commonly known as billboards along segments of US 421 and US 158 within unincorporated foresight county. And it also includes an updated definition describing the national highway system. give you some history. The Highway Beautifification Act of 1965 gave the federal government the right to allow billboards on zoned or unzoneed property uh commercial industrial of unzone commercial industrial areas along any road within the national highway system. And you can imagine back in 1965 there were a lot of areas that were not inside cities that uh did not have zoning. So that's that's what that dealt with. >> Free internet. >> Yeah. Uh but it also gave the act also gave states and municipalities the ability to enact additional standards. Uh and the map that you're looking at now, exhibit A, shows what the national what roads within Foresight County are within the national highway system. Most of them are interstates, uh which are shown in red. There are uh two or three roads that are either US highways or uh state roads um that are shown in blue that are also on the system. In Winston Salem and unincorporated for South County, billboards are presently allowed along selected interstates and highways that are identified as designated roads in general use highway business or in any general use industrial zoning district. portions or all these interstate highways shown on the designated roads may also be shown as one of 14 view corridors where billboards are prohibited by the UDO. And this is the map of the designated roads. You can see it includes most of the u uh interstates within within uh Winston Salem. And this is a map of the view corridors which have identified by letters and are identified corridors are identified in different colors. Uh it does include uh most if not all the northern beltway. Uh it includes many sections of Interstate 40. The two primary uh major roads that allow it would be US52 north and south of downtown and US 421 uh in most places except for right around downtown. Again, it would require highway business zoning or industrial zoning to be able to get a permit. This particular amendment resulted from a resoning request to allow a billboard near the US 421 Shallerford Road interchange in western Fores County. I'm sure many of you commission members remember that it was ultimately denied by the county commissioners in 2024. staff reviewed the updated National Highway System map which you've seen that in and found that it includes US 421, US 158 and NC 109 in unincorporated Foresight County. Their inclusion on the map means that permits could be issued for these rogue segments if the zoning is appropriate unless they're designated as view quarters in the UDO. NC 109 was sub subsequently removed from consideration after discussion with Foresight County. So this map is the view quarters, but it shows the two proposed additions. There's corridor M on the western side of the county that uh continues the extension of US 421 u all the way to the county line. There's a small gap between Winston Salem and Louisisville. That would be included as well. And then the the other corridor, corridor P is uh US 158. There's a small area between U Winston Salem and Walkertown. And then it goes north from Walkertown all the way to the Gulf County line. May have to use the kead. My computer's trying to update. >> I think I'll get it now. I got it. >> Uh, we did a windshield survey and looked at aerials and there are no no billboards presently located on the proposed US 421 or the proposed US 158 view corridor. staff found the three properties however in the northeast corner of the US 421 Styrers Ferry Road interchange which is right where Clemens and Lewisville intersect. Uh it a good bit of the property is occupied by Lewisville Crossing a small shopping center uh that is zoned HB and a billboard could be allowed. So these there were three properties in all and all three were exempted from the amendment to meet uh the standards of the general statutes that prohibits the zoning a property without owner consent. So u those those three properties still have the right to u have a billboard put up >> and they're not grandfathered or anything like that. They just have the right. >> They have the right. >> Thank you. Um, we think staff believes that this UDO amendment will preserve the attractive rural character along the sections of 421 and 158 and we recommend approval of the code amendment. >> And I'll try to answer any questions if you have any. What was the thinking on the eastern portion of 421 and the northern portion of 52 not being included? I mean there there weren't any gray lines that you added pink lines too, I guess. Is that >> And can you go back to your map? >> Go back to the map there. >> Sure. And maybe I'm maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you're not. >> There's you've got basically we're adding corridors where there are gaps, but then there's a gap from the sort of coral colored eye east to the county line and from the pink sea north to the the beltway. I mean, I know there are billboards there now. Is that was that the thinking is that they're they're already there? Correct. Uh this this specifically came out of the resoning case for um that was in L, you know, west of Louisville. So, uh you know, we had that there was someone else, I think, who had been who had asked some questions and you know, there's been a lot of billboard activity in the last year within the city replacing bill uh static billboards with electronic message billboards, etc. So, in one of my updates to the county commissioners, I just asked the question, you know, you had this, you recommended denial. Would you be interested in updating the view corridors? And they said yes. So, it came through from the county. The section like C where it terminates and you go through 52 north, there wouldn't be really any way to do this under the down zoning provisions because you have so much HB >> and GI property through there. It would be it would essentially be rendered moot because you'd have to exempt so many properties. Plus, you already have so many existing bill billboards along that corridor. The same thing with I um well I extended I doesn't even exist. >> Um but you know where Reedsville Road takes off of Salem Parkway to you know through the city limit lines there are several billboards in that area. uh there's also some property in that area that's zoned commercial and industrial. So it would be the same thing. So in looking at it, we felt like in doing the analysis M P and then Q, which we actually dropped out, the commissioners decided they didn't want to do it on 109, looking at those three corridors, we could bring about the change and only impact three properties that had rights. There were no existing billboards there. So those three properties being exempted um that was the the county commissioners made the decision to bring through bring back uh 421 and uh 158 and not bring back 109. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. >> Any further discussion, questions? Well, I think I understand we're trying to be consistent and I may be odd here, but I like to know what I'm what's coming if I'm coming into an area. So, I'm thinking really like the 421 area with that. So, this would mean no billboards for anything in Lewisville or the communities you're coming into. You would have >> Correct. And there, you know, but there currently aren't any billboards there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But as an area grows, it would prevent anybody from >> it would it would it would prevent billboards, but it wouldn't prevent the you know, NC DOT has the identification program where you can pay to get on a sign for, you know, interchanges and those kind of things. Um, you know, obviously that's still allowed under the um state and federal program, but this, you know, if this were to be adopted, yes, this would prevent billboards along corridors M and P. Okay. So, no Bies billboards anywhere. >> I was kind of thinking the same thing, but I was thinking more so about the beltway. Yes, it's very rural now, but one day it may not be, but I know we're not talking about >> Yeah, >> it's already it's already an existing corridor. >> Yeah, >> that's something we brought to the planning board probably six to eight years ago at this point, but that was the last time we looked at the view corridors. and and and even though it was even though the corridors were mentioned in terms of protecting the rural character, I think they provide equal benefit to the urban character as well. >> Mr. Chairman, before we get too far along, uh we do need to make sure that there's not anyone here to speak on this. I don't think there is, but we need do need to have a public hearing. >> Yep. Thank you. So, we'll open the public hearing. Is anybody signed up to speak in support or they're not signed up to speak in support? Is anybody here to speak in support? All right. Anybody here to speak in opposition? >> Here's one question. >> If you'll come on up to the microphone, you sure can. Just give us your name, address, and zip code for the record, please. Ron Davis, 2590 Harper Road, Clemens. Just had a question. What three properties you were mentioning that are exempted? Because that's uh I'm working on one of those pieces of property. I did not know this was coming. >> Mr. Davis, those properties are if you go to the intersection of 421 and Lewisville Clemens Road, there's a shopping center, an older kind of 80s shopping center in the northeast corner of that intersection. >> Messics, >> and it's the three the three parcels that make up that shopping center. >> So you got Joe, Marian, Kaplan, most of that corridor. Correct. It's I mean I can give you the I mean it's basically it's 5090 Styers Fairy Road currently development with with Louisville Crossing Shopping Center and it gives the tax pin a 0.53 acre property located at 5076 Styrers Ferry Road currently developed with an out parcel building and that's got the tax pin listed and then a 61 acre currently undeveloped property which also has a tax pin number but they're literally all three adjacent to and part of the Louisville Crossing Shopping Center on the northeast corner of >> Okay. So, the property on 421 left and as you're heading out left or right, Reynolds Road, that area, which is Joe Marian has all that property along 421. That's not included in this view corridor or >> are you talking about Joe's nursery and that area? No, this wouldn't include that area. This would be north of the north of 421 going towards the Winston jurisdiction and country club that area. >> So the property on the other side >> Joe Marian's property is part of view corridor M. Yes. You would not be able to do a billboard there. >> Okay. Or the other side of the highway. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Okay. >> That's already there. >> The the the nursery is already in the M. Right. Right. >> The existing to add. >> Okay. It's already existing. It's it's not affected by what you're trying to accomplish. Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. Anyone else with opposition or questions? >> All right. See no one will declare the public hearing closed. >> Uh I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. >> Motion by Mr. Farbe. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Mr. Steelman. Any discussion? All right. All in favor sign of I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> I move that the planning board recommend approval of UDO CC33. >> Second. >> Motion by Mr. Farby, second by Mr. Steelman. Any further discussion? All in favor? Sign of I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> One. Two. >> Two. All right. All right. If somebody could grab Mr. Patinho, >> knock on the door. billboard. >> No, you can't do one at all. >> Good question. Mr. Mr. Chairman board, the next item we'll hear is uh case B5, which is uh UDO CC34, and we'll hear from Victoria on that. >> Veronica. >> Veronica. Gosh, Victoria. Where'd that come from? >> Okay. >> I mean, I sing that song all the time. How could I get that? >> There's another song by Veronica. You could learn it. Um good evening, chair and board members. Um I'm going to be presenting on UDO CC34. Um, and this is a text amendment brought by the planning and staff. Um, planning staff. Um, the request is to modify chapters 2, three, and four of the UDO. Um, and this is in response to NC House Bill 926. Uh, a little bit of background on the bill. Uh, it was passed in October of 2025 and, um, it's also known as the Regulatory Reform Act of 2025. It's a broadly crafted uh bill limiting government regulation on varied topics. There's only two uh sections of the bill. Mark, your computer's trying to restart. Do I just hit snooze? >> Okay. >> Um only two sections of the bill uh affect what we do here at local planning and development. Um and those are sections 11 and 29. Uh section 11 prohibits uh waiting periods for refiling development applications in the event of a withdrawal or denial. And section 29 clarifies vested rights for previously approved development and amends standards for development petitions with slip sleep sorry split jurisdiction. Gonna have to click this. Okay. Um, so after consulting with the city and county attorneys, uh, we found that there are three sections of the UDO that are affected by the new bill, uh, the first is UDO section 272C and it's amended in order to clarify provisions regarding vested rights and special use permits as outlined by the bill. Uh, the next one is section 3 to9A15. That section is deleted and marked as reserved in order to comply with the prohibition on waiting periods for resubmitts. And the last section is section 43 2D and it's changed to mirror the split jurisdiction provisions in the bill. Um, as I mentioned before, the changes are needed in order to ensure that the UDO complies with the current statutory language um, as outlined in the bill. And, um, staff recommends approval. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any questions for staff? >> All right. No one signed up to speak in support of this matter. We need to do that, right? Okay. >> Need to have a vote. >> Making sure. Um, is anyone here wanting to speak in support? All right, seeing no one, is anyone here to speak in opposition? >> All right, we'll declare the public hearing closed. >> I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. >> Second. Motion by Mr. Fairy, second by Mr. Patinho. Any discussion? >> All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? >> Thank you. Um, I move that the planning board recommend approval of UDO CC34. >> Second. >> All right. Motion by Mr. FBY, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion on that? >> All in favor sign of I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman and board. Uh, under uh staff report do have just a few items. First, under work session, we are going to cancel the March work session. We had some things in the works, but some other things uh have affected bringing those forward. So, we are not going to have a work session in two weeks from today. So, that should be your leadup to potentially, you know, it's 10 days before Easter. So, uh again, I know some schools are out now, other schools may be out later, but uh so that's going to be cancelled. And then with that, I'll turn to Brian who will give you a preview of your April zoning cases. >> Hey, Mr. Mr. Chairman and members of the board. So, uh, next month we'll have seven total items. It's five new resoning cases. Uh, one site plan amendment, one new planning board review. Um, one of those cases will be in the county. I'm sure you'll hear a fair amount about it come coming very soon. So, certainly give us a call if you have any questions about it. Uh, the last thing I have uh under um staff report is just to call your attention to the two items on the screen. first uh going chronologically, the first of which, you know, we had Russ Smith in a couple months ago to talk about the mapping prejudice product project. There is uh an item that he that they have coming up March 18th from 6:00 to 7:00 um at the central library third floor reading room. So again, just uh call attention to that if anyone's watching. It's a very interesting uh project and I know the planning board was intrigued by that. So, I figured that we would mention that and give that a give a plug for us and his uh crew doing the um mapping prejudice project and trying to um bring forth some understanding of past racial racial pre prejudices and deeds. And then the final thing is to call your attention to our second meeting for the north uh northeast suburban area plan. uh that will be on the 31st which is a Tuesday uh this time and that will be from 5:30 to 7:30 at the precise transportation technology center on North Patterson. So uh planning board call your attention to that and also if anyone's watching from home we would love to have you there to participate and uh with that I stand ready to answer any questions. Um, I would just like to say thanks for uh staff providing us uh with Steve's development dashboard and to ask the question since we're not going to have um a a meeting again this month if perhaps that could be put on next month's um uh work session for for question and answers or if you would prefer us to just phone Steve directly. Well, yes, we we can put that on there. I will tell you a change in assignment. Steve is still with us. Obviously, you just saw him. Steve is probably going to be transitioning towards retirement by the end of the year. Dan Roberts on our staff has taken over doing the development dashboard. >> But yes, we will we will have that on there as uh an information item and for discussion and questions. Well, with that, I'll just offer a huge congratulations to Steve on his upcoming retirement and say it's highly underrated. >> Don't give me any ideas. The other staff, they're ready to see me go. >> But thank you. >> Mhm. >> All right. Any other questions for staff? >> All right. Anything else for the good of the order? >> Have a motion to adjurnn. >> All right. It's the meeting's over. You can talk to staff.