Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kernersville board denies small‑lot rezoning, citing spot‑zoning concerns
Summary
The Town of Kernersville denied a land‑use plan amendment and conditional rezoning for 409 Nelson St., overruling the applicant's argument that a duplex would add modest, affordable housing. The motion to deny passed 4-1 after staff and legal counsel advised the request met spot‑zoning criteria.
KERNERSVILLE, N.C. — The Town of Kernersville Board of Aldermen voted 4-1 on Feb. 3 to deny a proposed amendment to the town's land‑use plan and a related conditional rezoning for a 0.16‑acre parcel at 409 Nelson Street.
The applications, filed as KDP 79 and rezoning case K829 and presented by Bill Grieco of Land Solutions on behalf of Southern Custom Homes LLC, would have changed the land‑use designation from medium‑density residential to mixed residential density and allowed a residential single‑family quadruplex conditional district so the owner could build a duplex on the lot. Bill Grieco said the design met the Unified Development Ordinance standards and urged the board to consider the need for modest, moderately priced housing.
Town planning staff, represented by Community Development Director Catherine Garner, recommended denial. Garner told aldermen the request was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and said, after consultation with town counsel, staff concluded the combined land‑use amendment and rezoning constituted an illegal spot zoning under the local test and relevant precedent cited in Blades v. City of Raleigh.
Mayor Pro Tem Gorham moved to recommend denial of the land‑use plan amendment and later moved to deny the rezoning itself; both measures carried 4-1, with Alderman Thompson opposed. The board's votes followed the planning board, which had voted against the amendment and the rezoning at its prior meeting.
Supporters led by Grieco argued the immediate vicinity contains a mix of districts and visible multifamily development and that approval would add housing choice. Grieco said staff and counsel had "predetermined" the spot‑zoning finding and that any final judgment about illegality is for a court to decide.
The board's action denies the requested change to the land‑use plan and the rezoning; no appeal or litigation was announced at the meeting. The board moved immediately to the next agenda item after voting.
