Stallings continues hearing on Lawyers Road rezoning after residents press for binding buffers and limits

The Stallings Town Council continued the public hearing on a conditional rezoning for 14721 Lawyers Road (CZ 26-02-02) on June 22 after several nearby residents urged binding protections for the adjacent Courtyards at Emerald Lake community.

Planner Bridge explained the request would rezone the 1.23-acre parcel from single-family residential to conditional mixed-use to allow non-residential commercial and office uses. Staff told the council the applicant had revised the site plan to add a 5-foot sidewalk along Lawyers Road, increase buffering adjacent to the Courtyards, and move the building placement to reduce direct impacts. Bridge said staff recommends approval despite a planning board recommendation to deny the proposal based on concerns about buffering, sidewalks and parking layout.

Yuri Vorobets, the applicant, described plans for a roughly 6,000-square-foot brick building with a potential 2,500-square-foot coffee shop and other small tenants, saying he and his team had met neighbors and aimed to fit the town’s character. "We don't want anything but peace," Vorobets said, describing his intent to maintain trees and use a brick exterior.

Several residents urged stricter, written conditions. Ann Curtis, who said her house is the closest to the parcel, asked the council to require a substantial undisturbed buffer along the full residential boundary, year-round evergreen screening or a masonry wall, clear limitations on lighting and late-night operations, and that parking, dumpsters and loading not be placed behind the building. "I respectfully ask that the rezoning not be approved unless the neighborhood protections are included in binding conditions of approval," Curtis said.

Other neighbors, including Lawrence Crank and Larry Finocchi, showed photographs and argued existing buffers had already been compromised by prior utility work and tree removal, and questioned whether a 6-foot fence would be effective given sightlines and elevation changes. A resident also asked whether a sidewalk added by the applicant would tie into existing sidewalks; speakers said it currently would not, reducing pedestrian benefit.

Town counsel and staff advised the council that with only four voting members present a passage would require all four affirmative votes; if the council failed to reach the threshold the application would remain pending. After discussion, a motion to continue the public hearing to the council’s July 13 meeting carried 4–0. The council did not vote on the rezoning itself.

The hearing will resume on July 13, when council members expect additional options for conditions and when a fuller council may be present to vote.