Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves voluntary annexation of 5.35-acre Springs Road parcel for townhome project
Summary
On March 18 the Hickory City Council voted unanimously to approve a voluntary, noncontiguous annexation of 5.35 acres at 3390 Springs Road NE. Planning staff said the annexation is sought to access public sanitary sewer and that the petition complies with state annexation statutes.
The Hickory City Council on March 18 unanimously approved a voluntary noncontiguous annexation of a 5.35-acre parcel at 3390 Springs Road Northeast to allow a townhome development by Legacy Home Builders LLC.
Planning Director Bridal Frazier told council the annexation "is being sought to gain access to public utilities," noting sanitary sewer would be available to the parcel and that water service already exists. Frazier said staff had determined the petition complies with state annexation statutes and recommended approval.
Frazier presented maps showing the property’s context: portions of nearby land are county-zoned, the area includes Neighborhood Commercial (NC), R-3 (medium-to-high density residential), and R-2 (low-to-medium density residential) designations, and the parcel would be noncontiguous to current city limits. Frazier told council that, based on staff review, annexing the property would not reduce public-service levels below acceptable standards.
A council member asked whether an intersection at Cool Park and Springs Road would be used as an entrance and exit to the development; Frazier said that had been discussed with NCDOT but that definitive plans had not been provided to city staff. Council members also asked about buffering requirements; Frazier said buffers between commercial and residential uses can be required (for example, a 10-foot buffer) while no city buffering requirement applied between the street and residential uses unless the developer provided it outside the right of way.
No members of the public spoke in favor of or in opposition to the annexation during the public hearing; the planning commission had also reviewed the petition. Councilmember motioned and seconded approval; the motion carried unanimously. Individual roll-call votes and the names of the motion maker and seconder were not specified in the meeting record.
Staff recommended approval and did not identify required changes to the annexation at the time of the public hearing. Any site-specific plans, access details and DOT encroachment agreements will be reviewed during subsequent permitting and development-review steps.
