Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Date: January 16, 2024, 6:00 PM
Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 200 West 5th Street
The Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission met to approve minutes from the previous meeting and to consider one rezoning request. The meeting was chaired by Vice Chair Kevin Faith in the absence of Chair Alan Thomas. After an invocation and roll call, the commission deliberated and took action on both agenda items.
Approval of Minutes (December 19, 2023)
- Commissioner noted a potential discrepancy: the motion to deny Item 3 (Sawyer Fun Park) stated inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, but staff had recommended consistency. The commission opted to approve the minutes conditional on verifying the correct motion wording. The motion to approve with that condition carried unanimously.
New Business – Rezoning Request
Request: William and Janet Holley seek to rezone 0.3673 acres at the southeastern corner of Pine Drive and Greaves Court from RR (Rural-Residential, Pitt County jurisdiction) to R15S (Residential-Single-Family).
Background: The property is experiencing septic tank failure (pumped every 9 months). To connect to city sewer, the property must be annexed; a voluntary annexation application will be presented to City Council on February 8, 2024.
Staff Presentation: The site is within Pitt County zoning, surrounded by city R15S zoning. The future land use map recommends residential low-to-medium density. Staff found the request consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval. No traffic study required due to no change in intensity.
Public Hearing
- William Keith Holley (property owner): Supported the rezoning. He explained sewer stubs already exist from a prior development, but his septic system fails frequently. He stated that most lots in Rosewood would not perk under current standards and that the drain field likely discharged into a ditch. Connecting to city sewer would improve safety and environmental conditions.
- No other speakers in favor or opposition.
Commission Discussion
- Commissioner asked about adjacent vacant lot (also RR, same owner) not included; the property owner chose not to include it. Commissioner inquired about broader annexation of the area; staff explained it must be property-by-property, voluntary.
Key Outcomes
- Minutes: Approved conditionally, subject to verifying the motion language on Item 3 of December 19, 2023. (Unanimous)
- Rezoning (Holley): Motion to recommend approval, finding it consistent with the comprehensive plan and adopting the staff report. Motion carried unanimously.
- Adjournment: Motion to adjourn carried without objection.
Meeting Transcript
The meeting will now come to order. Welcome to the January 16th, 2024 meeting of the city of Greenville playing as on commission. My name is Kevin Faith, and I'm the vice chair of this commission and we'll be acting as chair today. Oh, Alan is not here. Can I have a volunteer to say our invocation? Everybody bow your heads. Dear Lord, thank you for uh having us all here tonight. Thank you for those that couldn't be here. Lord be with us as we make decisions um for the betterment of our community and uh take the information that we are given and do the best that we can with it and uh in your son Jesus Christ's name. Amen. Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll? Alan Brock, Kevin Faithline. Present Billy Parker. Andrew Denson? Here. Chris West. Here. Alan Thomas. Hunter Payton. Here. Is that womency? Here. John Collins. Here. Kimber Thomas. Here. We have quorum. All right. Thank you. All right. You all have been presented in advance with the minutes from the December 19th, 2023 meeting and have had an opportunity to read and review the minutes. Are there any questions or corrections or is there a motion to approve? I actually have uh something. I wasn't at the meeting, but I noticed that uh for item three, the Sawyer Fun Park one, the motion was made to deny to say that it was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and if I remember right, staff's uh recommendation was that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan. So I don't know if that was if the if the motion should have been worded differently or if the ad minutes issue or what, but let me get let us go back and check. Um so if you want to, you can hold off on those. Okay. And we can just bring it back next month. How how how will that be? Okay, so we can all table the approval. I think it was staff was in favor in the previous month and then it got carried over. Right. Or we or we could have or we could approve with um with condition of following up. That's satisfactory to me. What about legal count? Legal counsel, we do that, okay? So whichever way, whichever direction uh you guys want to go. I move to approve uh conditional upon uh looking up whether it is what the motion wording of the motion uh should be. We have a recommendation of approval pinning correct language in the motion. Do we have a second?
openpublica.com