During a recent City Council meeting, the ongoing discussion regarding the King Oak Townhome Development was revisited, following its tabling from a previous meeting on September 3, 2024. Lisa Steinwinder, the director of planning and development, presented an update on the project, addressing concerns raised by council members and residents about compliance with state statutes and local regulations.

Steinwinder clarified that the development had adhered to North Carolina state statute 143-755b, which mandates that permit applications must respond to plan review comments within a six-month timeframe. She confirmed that the King Oak project had met this requirement, with no delays in responses from the applicant regarding erosion control and stormwater plans.

The council also discussed the rezoning of the property from R20 to residential medium density, which residents questioned for its consistency with the future land use plan. Steinwinder provided documentation showing that the rezoning was indeed consistent with the plan adopted in 2022, and emphasized that townhomes are a permissible use under the current zoning regulations.

Concerns were raised about the notification process for the rezoning, with residents expressing dissatisfaction over the lack of direct mail notifications. Steinwinder explained that state law does not require direct notifications for large-scale rezonings, but the city had opted to send out notifications to property owners on multiple occasions and had posted signs throughout the area.

The discussion also touched on whether the development should have been classified as a cluster development, which would require different standards and city council approval. Steinwinder noted that the project did not meet the criteria for cluster development as defined in the Unified Development Ordinance.

As the meeting progressed, council members expressed confusion over the compliance of the project with city regulations. Councilwoman Saluda Anthony proposed a motion to revoke the project, allowing the developers to resubmit their plans for review. This motion was met with a call for legal advice before proceeding, highlighting the contentious nature of the discussions surrounding the development.

The meeting concluded with a decision to enter a closed session for further deliberation on the legal implications of the proposed motion, as the council sought clarity on the development's compliance and the community's concerns.