Huntersville planning staff recommended conditional approval of a rezoning request for a 4.8-acre site on Second Street that would allow 15 apartment units and 61 townhomes, provided the applicant addresses stormwater and finalizes several site details.

The applicants, Jay Henson and Brian Hines, seek to rezone the property from neighborhood residential to neighborhood residential with a conditional district that would permit a mix of two- and three-story buildings, 128 parking spaces in a mix of garages, surface lots and on‑street parking, and a 12-foot side path along Church Street designed to connect to the town’s seam-trail plans.

Why it matters: The rezoning site lies in the town‑core and mixed‑use center character areas in Huntersville’s 2040 plan and in the downtown master plan. Staff said the project’s density and proposed pedestrian connections fit the master plan’s intent, but recommended conditions on stormwater compliance, clarification of elevations and preservation of public access to the project’s urban open spaces.

Key details and staff requests
Planning staff described a project of 15 apartment units plus 61 townhomes in a mix of two- and three-story buildings, with 128 parking spaces. The applicant has entered a purchase agreement with the town for a 1.68-acre parcel to enable future affordable housing; staff recommended adding a site-plan condition spelling out the affordable‑housing commitments.

Staff reported the preliminary stormwater submission did not meet town standards but said the applicant had revised plans and that stormwater compliance is expected upon formal resubmittal. Staff also recommended that the pedestrian-oriented shared streets (described in the presentation and transcript as ``woonerfs'') be placed in a public-access easement and that the project enhance those shared spaces with vertical plantings, benches, lighting and other amenities so they are distinguishable from service alleys.

Modifications requested and consistency with plans
The applicant requested several modifications from the zoning ordinance: yard-tree requirements (staff supports, citing urban context), 100% attached housing (supported by staff as consistent with downtown master plan), a 0-foot buffer (staff supports given downtown character), variable rear setbacks smaller than the typical suburban 35-foot standard (supported), a 3-foot height increase for townhomes (from 30 to 33 feet; staff supports as consistent with the downtown plan) and a modification regarding on‑street parking (staff supportive because the project provides excess off-street parking).

Affordable housing and management
Commissioners and staff asked for clarity about the affordable units. The applicants said the units on the 1.68-acre parcel would target households between roughly 80% and 120% of area median income (AMI) and that the developer intends to donate the improved parcel to a nonprofit that would manage leasing and tenancy, with deed restrictions and HOA/architectural standards protecting the town requirements. The applicants described a cooperative-style ownership mechanism for some units where a nonprofit would hold ownership and residents would have occupancy agreements; staff said the town attorney would work through deed restriction and management details.

Design and connectivity
Staff noted the project provides six urban open spaces, two pedestrian passageways and a park; two of the open spaces are intended as woonerfs (shared pedestrian-priority streets). Staff advised the applicant to choose a single apartment elevation (two were submitted) and to add additional amenities to the woonerfs so they read as public, pedestrian-friendly spaces and to place them within dedicated public access easements.

Next steps
Staff recommended approval once the outstanding stormwater items are resolved and recommended several minor plan adjustments be made a condition of approval, including formalizing the affordable‑housing details, clarifying final elevations and placing the woonerfs in public access easements. The board heard questions from commissioners and members of the public; no vote on the rezoning was recorded at the hearing.