Council continues hearing on Amelia Church townhomes rezoning to April 21

A public hearing on a request to rezone a roughly 19.85-acre parcel off Amelia Church Road for 173 single-family attached townhomes was continued to April 21, 2025, after council and neighbors pressed the applicant and staff for more detail on buffers, grading and parking.

Planning Director Conrad Almedo told the council the property (tax ID 05G03008B) is currently zoned office-institutional and that the applicant seeks conditional residential zoning. He said the proposal would yield a gross residential density of 8.72 units per acre and a maximum of 173 units and that revised conditions limit building rows to seven units each, prohibit detached garages, and require perimeter buffers and planting rates tied to the concept plan. "This project was noticed through the public noticing process," Almedo said, and he walked the council through the staff-recommended conditions, transportation and sewer study requirements and architecture standards included in the concept plan.

The applicant’s representative, Spencer Terry, senior project manager with Boulder Engineering, described the proposal as a reduction in density from an earlier special-use plan for rental apartments and said the rezoning is intended to produce a for-sale townhome product. "The purpose for the rezoning is to reduce the density from 196 down to 173, and that's a maximum," Terry said, and he described a mix of rear-loaded and front-loaded units, 44 additional guest parking spaces on site and staged construction techniques to avoid what the applicant called "mass grading" impacts.

Council members repeatedly pressed the applicant and staff about buffers and the town’s mass-grading standard. Councilmember Casey asked whether the site would be considered a mass-grading project under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO); Almedo said the UDO provides subjective direction and that the town would normally require a doubling of buffer widths and plantings if a project met mass-grading criteria. Councilmember Archer and others asked the applicant to show more evidence of rear-loaded units, detailed amenity locations and architectural variation so the council could assess neighborhood compatibility.

Several nearby residents spoke during public comment. John Scarpa (resident) warned against routinely approving projects that depart from the town’s comprehensive-growth plan: "If you have an ad hoc master plan exception every single time it comes up, you don't have a master plan anymore," he said. Lisa Ennis identified herself as an owner of the property under discussion and asked about runoff and sewer capacity; she said she appreciated staff addressing stormwater and pump-station issues.

The council and applicant agreed additional work was needed. The applicant indicated willingness to revisit buffer locations, architectural standards, potential additional parking stalls and construction sequencing to limit disturbed acreage. Staff said the concept plan and its conditions would remain tied to the land in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes chapter 160D and that a downstream sewer-capacity study and coordinated right-of-way improvements were among the required technical submittals.

Councilmember Archer moved to continue the public hearing to a date certain so staff and the applicant could return with revisions; the motion carried on a voice vote. The council set the next hearing date for April 21, 2025.

The continuation leaves unresolved several issues the council raised, including whether the site will be treated as subject to the UDO’s mass-grading buffer-doubling requirement, the final location and type of recreational amenities, how many visitor parking stalls will be distributed across the site, and specific façade/architectural controls the council can enforce while preserving builder flexibility. The applicant repeatedly said it was seeking a price point in the mid-$300,000 to $400,000 range and that some design choices respond to that market goal.