Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – August 16, 2022

The Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission met at 6:00 PM in City Hall Council Chambers on August 16, 2022. Chair Kevin Faison called the meeting to order, followed by an invocation by Commissioner Chris West and roll call. All members were present, including new member Andrew Denton. The meeting considered three rezoning requests and routine minutes approval.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes (July 19, 2022): A motion to approve the minutes was made, seconded, and passed unanimously.

New Business

Rezoning – Front Porch Management LLC

Request: Rezone 1.4274 acres located between Red Banks Road and SE Greenville Boulevard (east of Evans Street) from CG (General Commercial) to CH (Heavy Commercial).

• Staff Report: The property is partially zoned CG and partially CH; rezoning would unify zoning with the surrounding CH area. Staff found the request consistent with the Horizons plan (future land use – commercial) and recommended approval. A traffic volume report was not generated as no increase in trips was anticipated. Stormwater rules (25-year detention) may apply.
• Public Comments:
  • Kim Alperson (Front Porch Management): Spoke in favor, noting the rezoning is a cleanup to match an approved site plan for five commercial buildings. No other speakers in favor or opposition.
• Board Discussion: None.
• Action: Motion to recommend approval, finding consistency with the comprehensive plan and adopting the staff report. Seconded and passed unanimously. (Commissioner Andrew Denton recused himself prior to this item due to personal interests.)

Rezoning – May Family LLC

Request: Rezone 75.8 acres south of Forlines Road and west of Frog Level Road from RR (Rural-Residential – Pitt County jurisdiction) to R6S (Residential-Single-family Medium Density). This is paired with an annexation request to be considered by City Council.

• Staff Report: Under county zoning the property would yield ~100 single-family units; under R6S it would yield ~300 units – a net increase of ~1,800 trips per day. Staff found the request consistent with the future land use plan (traditional neighborhood medium-high density) and recommended approval. Sewer is available. Stormwater rules (10-year detention) may apply.
• Public Comments:
  • Scott Anderson (applicant engineer): Spoke in favor, noting current traffic (ADT ~5,300) is below design capacity, and mitigation (turn lanes) would be addressed at platting. Sewer will be extended.
  • John May (adjacent property owner): Supported the project but requested assurance that drainage would not adversely affect his property. Staff directed him to the engineer.
  • Ron Binkley (Forlines Road resident): Expressed support but raised safety concerns about Forlines Road becoming a “drag strip” due to bypass traffic. He requested a three-lane road with turning lane and urged DOT involvement.
• Board Discussion: Commissioners discussed infrastructure capacity and the need for DOT coordination. A request was made to consider inviting DOT to a future meeting to discuss the broader area. Concerns about long-term traffic management were noted, but overall support for the project was voiced.
• Action: Motion to recommend approval with consistency finding and adoption of the staff report. Seconded and passed unanimously.

Rezoning – Ashley-Nicole Cannon

Request: Rezone 0.391 acres at the northeastern corner of Red Banks Road and Charles Boulevard from R15S (Residential-Single-family Low Density) to OR (Office-Residential High Density Multi-family).

• Staff Report: The future land use plan designates this corner as residential low-medium density. Staff found the request inconsistent with the plan and recommended denial. A traffic volume report was not generated due to minimal impact. Stormwater rules (25-year detention) may apply.
• Public Comments:
  • Scott Anderson (applicant engineer): Argued that the other three corners at the intersection are all zoned OR, making the request compatible. He noted that buffering required would be tight but feasible.
  • Ashley-Nicole Cannon (applicant, attorney): Spoke in favor, stating she plans to operate a small family law office in the existing renovated home. She emphasized that the property already has a buffer of pine trees, no neighbor opposition, and that the fire station across the street creates more noise. She argued the rezoning is a natural transition for the property.
  • Resident opposition (one speaker): Opposed, citing concerns about traffic, property values, and setting a precedent for spot rezoning that could erode the residential character of the neighborhood.
• Board Discussion: Commissioners debated precedent-setting. Some noted that the applicant’s use is appropriate but worried about opening the door for other commercial uses. Others mentioned that home offices are already permitted, but a rezoning would allow signage, parking lots, etc. The majority expressed concern about chipping away at a residential neighborhood.
• Action: A motion to recommend denial (inconsistent with comprehensive plan, adopting staff report) was made, seconded, and passed unanimously.

Adjournment

• A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and carried. The meeting adjourned.