Lexington planning board recommends conditional rezoning for Magna Gray subdivision 5–3 after lengthy hearing

The Lexington Planning Board voted 5–3 to recommend City Council approve a conditional rezoning that would allow a Magna Gray subdivision on 30.58 acres, capped at 375 single‑family detached homes, after a public hearing that ran more than two hours.

The board’s recommendation, which follows staff‑proposed conditions, asks that the developer meet a set of design and infrastructure rules: a maximum unit cap of 375, a minimum of six house plans (including at least one single‑story), front porches on at least 50% of single‑family homes, primary siding of fiber‑cement, wood, brick or stone (vinyl permitted only for soffits/accents), off‑street parking minimums (three spaces for single‑family, two for cottages), roughly 30 acres of undisturbed natural open space plus 3 acres of improved recreation, and visually impervious impact buffers adjacent to existing residential properties.

Tom Terrell, the applicant’s attorney, said the developer has redesigned the site and made substantial concessions to neighbors and staff. “There has never been a subdivision developer in the history of the city who has gone through as much scrutiny as Magna Gray has,” Terrell said during his presentation, arguing the plan reflects topographic constraints and the cost of grading the site.

Neighborhood attorney Lisa Valdez told the board she represents the Lexington Neighborhood Association and repeated long‑standing concerns about buffer widths, lot sizes, and whether the plan’s 'open space' will remain undisturbed. “I represent and organize a group of neighbors known as the Lexington Neighborhood Association,” Valdez said, adding the association speaks for “300 plus families” in the surrounding area.

Neighbors raised safety, traffic and trust issues during the public‑comment period. Chuck Fry, a directly adjacent homeowner, read an email he said described an offer from the developer to remove six lots behind his property if he would publicly support the project; Fry said he declined the offer. “I really would like to have those six lots gone behind me,” Fry said, reading the exchange into the public record.

Engineers for the applicant showed grading and buffer exhibits intended to demonstrate preserved vegetation and distances between proposed building envelopes and existing homes. Tim Shaw of Hagan Engineering said the plan’s limits of disturbance aim to preserve existing trees and that, in one illustrated cross‑section, the measurement from a house to edge of grading was 208.6 feet and from property line to edge of grading 84 feet.

Staff and the applicant discussed a utility easement adjacent to Kensington: the draft conditions include a maximum 45‑foot utility easement there, with the developer saying it would accept a narrower width if utilities agree. Terrell offered to reduce that easement to 35 feet if staff and the utility providers find it acceptable.

Board members split on the proposal’s consistency with the land‑use plan. Supporters said the conditional‑zoning process allows site‑specific regulation and that the applicant accepted many of the city’s requested conditions; opponents said lot sizes and transitions to adjacent low‑density neighborhoods remain insufficient. After discussion, the board voted 5–3 that the proposal is “consistent” with the land‑use plan with the stated conditions and then voted 5–3 to recommend City Council approve the conditional rezoning with conditions.

The recommendation goes next to City Council; staff will send notices to adjoining property owners ahead of that public hearing. If Council approves the ordinance, the approved plan and conditions will govern future civil plan review and building permits; any substantive change would require an amendment to the conditional zoning.

The Planning Board hearing record includes the applicant’s slides, engineering exhibits, lawyers’ correspondence (which was read into the record), public comments and the two separate 5–3 votes by the board.