Raleigh planning commission continues rezoning request for 112 West Lions Club Road amid neighbor concerns over access, utilities

The Raleigh Planning and Zoning Commission on June 10 continued consideration of a request to rezone 112 West Lions Club Road from R‑1 suburban residence to C‑2 general commercial, voting to continue the matter to the commission’s next meeting on July 15.

The request, filed by property owner Greg Flint, would allow the owner to develop roughly 1.9 acres behind the Lions Club Road frontage with small commercial/storage buildings. Planning staff told the commission that the site is shown as neighborhood commercial in the city’s comprehensive plan but that engineering and access issues must be resolved before development could occur.

Tom, city planning staff, said the parcel sits behind the frontage along Lions Club Road and is currently served by a gravel driveway. “There needs to be worked out access to water, utilities — there is sewer access and easy electric access — but there are going to be some issues when it comes to actually developing the property,” Tom said. He also said fire access and paving would be required if commercial buildings are developed.

Applicant Greg Flint, who identified his address as 11620 Forest Lake Drive, Rolla, told the commission he wants the entire area highlighted on the submitted site map rezoned to commercial so he can rent out small metal buildings for storage or light business uses. “We’ve got quite a few things to work out with the city, but the first thing we’ve got to do to do anything with it is switch it to commercial,” Flint said.

Neighbors raised concerns about vehicle access across deeded easements and potential public use of a driveway that has served adjacent residences. Michael Webber, who said the family originally owned the larger parcel, told the commission that the rear parcels “are all residential” and that increased commercial traffic could change the drive’s use. “The consent of an easement is to an individual. I don't believe it is to the general public,” Webber said, asking whether vacating or expanding access could create public traffic through the residential area.

Tom said the easement shown on the survey is recorded as an existing roadway easement and that the underlying property owner retains the land while the easement benefits another property. He said the applicant would likely be responsible for paving the access the developer uses for their operations and for any water line or hydrant extensions required for fire protection. Tom also advised that whether an easement allows public access is a civil question that hinges on the wording of the recorded document.

Commissioners discussed whether C‑2 zoning is appropriate where the parcel lacks direct Lions Club Road frontage and is surrounded on the north and east by R‑1 residences. Tom noted the comprehensive plan designates the block for neighborhood commercial uses and that C‑1 neighborhood commercial zoning — which staff said allows buildings up to 12,000 square feet and limits some outdoor commercial uses and late-night operations — might permit the applicant’s proposed uses without opening the site to the broader range of uses allowed in C‑2.

Neighbor Gail Bodenhamer of 1409 Timberlane Court, representing a nearby subdivision, said the area is used heavily for walking and biking and urged careful consideration of hours and uses that would preserve the neighborhood feel. “It is a residential area with a lot of people walking and biking and … having their kids up and down and around,” Bodenhamer said.

Commissioners also sought clarifications about acreage and existing structures. The applicant stated the land within the redline is about 1.97 acres; staff explained an older map showed 2.76 acres for the larger original parcel and the current subject area is about 1.89 acres after a prior lot split. Flint described two existing nonresidential buildings on the parcel: a 40‑by‑50 metal garage with two bays used to service equipment and an older three‑car garage.

Other clarifying details noted during the hearing: electric service to the site comes from Intercounty; the property currently has no public water service to the storage building; the survey shows both east–west and north–south deeded access easements; and one referenced easement width used in discussion was 35 feet. Commissioners and staff also discussed a staff remark that a 32‑foot roadway dimension may be needed for street improvements, a point the applicant said he would verify with city staff and his attorney.

After extended discussion about residential impacts, easement rights, paving responsibility and appropriate zoning, Commissioner (name not specified in the record) moved to continue the matter to the commission’s next meeting to allow the applicant time to gather documentation on easement instruments, frontage/roadway dimensions, and more detailed plans. The motion was seconded; the roll call vote recorded yes votes from Commissioners Sherman, Kreider, Jordan and Shields. The motion to continue carried.

The commission did not take a final position on whether to recommend C‑1 or C‑2; Tom told members the commission could forward a recommendation of C‑1 if the commission preferred that lower‑intensity designation and the applicant would not need to refile.

Next steps: the applicant may provide deeded easement documents, a clearer survey showing current parcel lines, and more detailed utility and access plans before the commission meets again on July 15. If the commission forwards a recommendation, the final decision will be made by the Raleigh City Council.