Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Clemmons council approves rezoning for Old Glory townhome project, 4-1

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Village of Clemmons Council voted 4-1 to rezone roughly 13.86 acres on Old Glory Road from RS-15 single-family to RM-8-S multifamily special, approving zoning docket SZMA-25-2 and Ordinance 2025-03 after staff presentations saying the townhome plan would reduce impervious surface compared with single-family development.

On July 14, 2025, the Village of Clemmons Council voted 4-1 to rezone about 13.86 acres on Old Glory Road from RS-15 (residential single-family) to RM-8-S (residential multifamily special) for a proposed townhome development.

The rezoning, listed as zoning docket SZMA-25-2, covers property identified by several PIN numbers and described in the meeting as located about 1,000 feet west of the intersection of Old Glory Road and Lewisville–Clemmons Road. The council adopted a consistency-and-reasonableness statement and approved Ordinance 2025-03 related to the rezoning.

Planner/consultant Thomas presented materials comparing stormwater and impervious-surface outcomes between the proposed townhome project and development of the site at the current RS-15 density. Thomas said the analysis showed the single-family build-out would produce “about 168,000 square feet more impervious surface” at the high end, with a smallest possible difference of about 71,000 square feet. He told council those figures were available for review and recommended approval, saying objective data and correlation studies indicate townhomes generally generate less runoff than RS-15 individual-home development.

Council discussion was brief. After a motion to approve the rezoning and adoption of the ordinance, the council voted; the motion carried 4-1. Councilman Larson recorded a negative vote; the transcript records Larson as the sole dissenting vote.

The council did not record a detailed roll-call of all individual yes votes in the transcript. No amendments to the ordinance were recorded during the meeting, and the public hearing on the rezoning had been closed previously at the June 9 meeting.

Planning materials and the applicant’s stormwater comparisons were referenced in the presentation but not read into the record in full; council members were offered the underlying calculations for review.

What happens next: the ordinance was adopted at the July 14 meeting. The transcript does not specify subsequent procedural steps, conditions or required permitting beyond the ordinance adoption.