Council deadlocks on Oak Grove rezoning after residents raise traffic and tree concerns; item postponed to April 1

A proposed rezoning and preliminary plan for about 10 acres north of U.S. 380 on Oak Grove drew sustained public comment and a split council before the council voted to postpone a final decision to April 1.

Staff described the application as a planned development with roughly 50 residential lots on about 10 acres. The applicant proposed perimeter treatments intended to respond to neighbors’ concerns: an offer to construct an 8-foot masonry wall along the northern property line (the developer later revised the proposal to provide a masonry wall that meets town standards and to accept maintenance responsibility for existing wooden fences adjacent to the site), one-story homes on the eastern property line, and two-story homes on the southern edge with no rear-facing second-floor windows. The plan also includes 1.17 acres of open space and a wet detention pond; staff said the requirement for park/open space for the site is 0.63 acres.

At the February Planning & Zoning Commission hearing, the commission recommended denial by vote (5–1), and that recommendation was noted during the council hearing. Staff said the applicant requested modifications to lot standards (interior 40-foot lots and perimeter 50-foot lots that match neighboring subdivisions) and proposed a tree-mitigation payment request; staff reported the full mitigation estimate would be $537,000 but that the applicant offered $150,000 toward mitigation.

Residents urged denial or revision at the council hearing. David Proffer, who lives near the site, warned that traffic along Oak Grove is already heavy and said the town should not add hundreds of vehicles before road improvements are completed. “I’m opposed to the project as it is now until the roads are done or let’s build a park,” Proffer said. Neighbors raised similar concerns about traffic congestion during peak times and about preserving mature trees and privacy. Phil Hemmer, representing nearby Hillstone Pointe residents, asked the council to require one-story homes adjacent to existing lots and to preserve trees; he noted that removing trees and allowing 40-foot lots would increase density and reduce property values for some neighbors.

Developer and consultant representatives said they were willing to modify the proposal to address concerns. Rishi of Triangle Engineering said the developer would propose two-story perimeter homes without second-floor rear windows (matching some existing nearby two-story homes) and had offered to meet masonry and architectural requirements and to assume maintenance responsibilities for existing fences.

Council action: A motion to approve Ordinance No. 1802 failed on a 3–3 tie, leaving the rezoning unapproved. After further discussion the council voted to postpone final action to the April 1 council meeting so the applicant and staff could refine documents and language; the postponement motion passed. No rezoning ordinance was adopted at the March 18 meeting.

What’s next: Staff will work with the applicant to reflect the revised proposals in the development agreement and ordinance language for the continued public hearing on April 1. The council indicated a desire for clearer tree-mitigation terms and for additional clarity about timing and road improvements before taking a final vote.