Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Deferrals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission unanimously defers Brock Built Homes’ annexation, rezoning and variance requests
Summary
At the meeting, the Holly Springs Planning Commission voted unanimously to defer three applications from Brock Built Homes LLC — an annexation, a rezoning to TND, and multiple variance requests tied to buffer and stream‑buffer standards. The applicant’s written deferral request was included in the commission packet.
The Holly Springs Planning Commission voted unanimously to defer three related land‑use applications from Brock Built Homes LLC concerning about 19.9 acres off Sixes Road in Cherokee County. The applications — an annexation request, a rezoning petition and a set of variances — were all deferred at the applicant’s request.
The commission first discussed the annexation application (A 04/2025), which the agenda identified as affecting tax parcels 063 and 064 of Tax Plat 15 and 09. Unidentified Speaker 2 told the commission, “The applicant did request a deferral on this particular case and the, letter request is in your packet.” Following a motion and second, the commission carried a voice vote to defer the item.
The second item was the rezoning application (B / MA092025 / B04 2025) by Brock Built Homes LLC to rezone the same parcels from R‑40 (county single‑family residential estate) to TND (traditional neighborhood development) in the city. Unidentified Speaker 2 again noted the written deferral request was on file; the commission voted to defer the rezoning.
Item C (CV 04/2025) requested variances from several parts of the Holly Springs regulatory code: Article 9 (buffer requirements and minimum buffer widths between abutting districts), Article 7 (planned development district dimensional standards, Table 7.01), and the Holly Springs stream buffer ordinance (Section 5 land development requirements). The applicant asked that this variance request be deferred as well, and the commission approved that deferral by voice vote.
All three deferrals were requested by the applicant and recorded as motions that received a second and were carried by voice vote; no roll‑call tallies or dissenting votes were stated on the record. The commission packet was noted as containing the applicant’s written deferral requests; no new hearing dates were announced during the discussion.
