Clayton council approves rezoning for 173-townhome Amelia Church Road development in 3–2 vote

The Clayton Town Council voted 3–2 May 5 to approve a rezoning that would allow 173 single‑family attached townhomes on a parcel along Amelia Church Road, south of Shore Johnson Road.

The approved rezoning would change the site’s zoning from OFI (Office/Institutional) to a conditional residential district, with a gross density of 8.72 units per acre. Council also directed staff to update the town’s future land‑use map to reflect the new designation if the rezoning is finalized.

Planning Director Conrad Olmedo told council the rezoning application had completed its public‑hearing phase and returned with a revised concept plan and updated conditions of approval. Olmedo said the revised concept shows alley‑loaded units in multiple blocks, added on‑street parking by adjusting curb lines, a private parking area to be maintained by the homeowners association (HOA), and architectural modulation commitments intended to reduce the appearance of continuous rooflines.

Neil Ghosh, attorney for the applicant, Tribute Companies, said the project upgrades the perimeter buffers compared with an earlier entitlement on the property. "Wehave upgraded them to type C buffers," Ghosh said, noting the change increases required plantings and adds an opaque privacy fence.

Among conditions summarized during deliberation were: a 20‑foot type C perimeter buffer (with a 10‑foot reduction tied to providing a fence), alley‑loaded dwelling units in specified blocks, a private parking area managed by the HOA, a commitment to certain architectural modulation standards, and a written commitment to amenities that include a sports court (the applicant added pickleball courts to the amenity list). Condition language also specifies that at least 70% of all residential units shall have a covered front porch or stoop and that 100% of rear‑loaded (alley) units will include a covered stoop.

Staff identified a set of recommendations following a technical review committee meeting, including additional alley‑loaded units, extra parallel parking where feasible and a clarified requirement for site‑specific vesting should the developer seek to vest under the town’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Olmedo described several wording refinements staff proposed to make conditions clear and enforceable.

Council members asked the applicant about grading, utility undergrounding and waste collection. Ghosh said the site will be cut and filled on‑site to balance earthwork and that the applicant had not committed to bringing in substantial external fill. On utilities he said the developer would "work with the utility in Duke" on potential undergrounding but could not unilaterally guarantee relocation because those are not the developer’s utilities. On waste, the developer said the plan relies on individual roll‑out carts under a private contract and one enclosed dumpster area; the applicant said the dumpster location could accommodate a compactor but left the long‑term decision to the HOA because compactors are a maintenance cost for ownership communities.

Several council members and the applicant negotiated specific condition language at the meeting. Councilwoman Andrea (surname not provided in the transcript) read back four agreed changes to include in the motion: (1) change a reference from "clubhouse" to the mail kiosk/veil kiosk for the bike rack location; (2) clarify modulation language so it reads, in effect, that "modulation shall include one of the following"; (3) require 100% of rear‑loaded units to have a covered stoop and retain the 70% requirement for all units; and (4) require construction of the private internal drives/parking to a standard able to carry trash‑collection vehicles (fire‑lane load standard) so private waste carriers can access the dumpster area. The applicant also agreed to double‑row silt fencing for erosion control along the property boundary during construction.

Opposition on council focused on site density, runoff/stormwater concerns for an adjacent legacy farm, and waste collection logistics. Councilman Casey told the applicant he remained concerned about grading and runoff near neighboring farmland and said he planned to vote no. During deliberation Councilman Casey and another council member explained those concerns were a principal reason for opposing the rezoning.

Following deliberation a motion to approve the rezoning "inconsistent with the 2045 Comprehensive Growth Plan" (with the conditions as stated) was made and seconded; the motion passed 3–2. The clerk later confirmed the result as a 3–2 vote.

The record shows the project had previously held entitlements via a special‑use permit (SUP); one adopted condition requires the applicant to file documentation to resolve prior approvals and notes the project will proceed through site planning after rezoning. Council and staff said finalized, signed conditions will be prepared after the meeting for signatures and to ensure enforceable language.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the agenda item for the Amelia Church Road rezoning and are listed in the speakers section below. Direct quotes are taken from the council meeting transcript and attributed only to those named speakers.

The council’s approval allows the developer to move forward with the conditional zoning and next steps include preparation of final site plans and compliance with the UDO and any applicable state laws.