Forsyth County planning staff brief commissioners on rezoning request for Kernersville Little League site

Planning staff briefed the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners on a rezoning petition from Kernersville Little League Baseball Inc. that would change the property’s zoning from HBS (highway/bi‑state commercial / recreation services) to RS‑40 (single‑family residential). The briefing occurred June 16 ahead of a scheduled public hearing on June 19.

Chris Murphy, Forsyth County planning director, told commissioners the site has been used for ball fields since the 1970s and was rezoned in 1987 for recreation services. Planning staff found the request consistent with the county’s Legacy 2030 policy guidance and the Northeast Rural area study and said the proposed RS‑40 zoning matches the prevailing pattern of AG, RS‑30 and RS‑40 in the immediate vicinity. The county planning board voted unanimously in May to recommend approval of the downzoning.

The briefing emphasized limits and uncertainties that accompany a general‑use rezoning. Murphy said a rezoning to RS‑40 would allow any uses permitted in that district and is not a site‑specific or special‑use approval; petitioners’ statements about future uses would not be legally binding. Earlier conditions attached to the 1987 special‑use approval (for example, a posted 15 mph speed limit on Stuntstall Road, limits on loudspeakers and specified hours of operation) remain part of the historical record but would not automatically govern a general‑use RS‑40 zoning.

Commissioners and staff discussed infrastructure constraints raised by nearby residents. Staff said the site is served by wells rather than public water, Sahibi Road is state‑maintained while Stuntstall Road is privately maintained and dedicated but not accepted by the state because it does not meet public‑street standards. Staff said a privately maintained street can limit the number of new lots allowed without bringing the road up to public standards; under the most dense RS‑40 calculation Murphy estimated a theoretical maximum of about six dwellings but said the private‑street constraint would likely limit subdivisions to three lots unless the street were upgraded.

Commissioners also described neighborhood concerns voiced at the Planning Board and June 5 hearing: inadequate information about likely future uses, legal status of access, storm‑water and mud on local roads, and traffic from potential new residential development or commercial uses. One commissioner suggested staff and petitioners could consider an RS‑40(L) limited rezoning or remanding the petition to the Planning Board if the petitioner wishes to offer binding conditions that would narrow permitted uses.

The petitioner and their realtor are expected to attend the June 19 public hearing. Staff cautioned that any commitments made by the petitioner at the hearing would not be binding unless translated into an RS‑40(L) (limited) designation or attached conditions approved by the board.

If the board acts June 19 it will do so on the record at that public hearing; the June 16 briefing provided context and recommended discussion points for commissioners.