Planning Board/Board of Adjustment — Cornelius, NC
Date: 2025-09-09

Minutes

 TOWN OF CORNELIUS PLANNING BOARD MEETING
 Assembly Room
 May 7, 2025
 6:00 p.m.

Members Present Members Absent Staﬀ Present
Mamie Lee Michael Buttner David Cole, Assistant Planning Director
Colin Furcht Aaron Tucker, Senior Planner
Phil Bechtold Rechelle Ward, Administrative Assistant
Fred Westaway
Bill Sykes
Travis Jullian
Ava Callender
Rachel Bernard

VISITORS

DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Chair Bechtold called the Planning Board meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and noted a quorum was present. All
members will be voting. Chair Bechtold identiﬁed the members voting tonight: Colin Furcht, Mamie Lee, Travis
Jullian, Bill Sykes, Phil Bechtold, Rachel Bernard, Ava Callender, and Fred Westaway.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE


APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to approve the April 14, 2025, meeting minutes. Mr. Westaway made a
motion to approve, and Mr. Furcht seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Mr. Jullian Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL
REZ 01-25 Cornelius Business Park
Chair Bechtold read what is a Rezoning:

In Cornelius, every property is assigned a zoning district, which controls the permitted uses, densities, and
development standards based on the Town’s Land Development Code. A “Rezoning” is the process of changing
the zoning designation of the property, typically to accommodate a proposed development project or similar
alteration to the property. The case before the board this evening is a “Conditional Rezoning,” which proposes a
property-speciﬁc district that restricts future development to a concept plan, list of conditions, and associated
development standards. As part of the rezoning process, the Planning Board hears staﬀ, applicant, and public
comments, and is then responsible for making a recommendation on the case, which is then conveyed to the
Town Board for a ﬁnal decision.
I will entertain a motion to open a Public Hearing for REZ 01-25 Cornelius Business Park. Mr. Westaway made a
motion to approve, and Mr. Furcht seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Mr. Jullian Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard

Chair Bechtold recognized Mr. Tucker and asked if he was ready to present REZ 01-25, Cornelius Business Park?

Mr. Tucker presented the 36-acre parcel in our ETJ, about a quarter mile from the 115 and Bailey Road
intersection. The request is for rezoning of rural preservation to conditional zoning for the development of a ﬂex
space warehouse center. The general location is directly across the street from Bailey Road Park. Rural
preservation allows residential uses up to one volume per 3 acres. Also, agricultural uses are allowed, and
recreational uses are permitted. There were questions in regards why the Zoning does not match the Land Use
Plan. Rural preservation is sometimes used as a placeholder for more intense development in the future, and the
property was already zoned for business campus. Within the business campus category, you look at corporate
oﬃces, research and development, light industrial warehousing, and ﬂex space are primary land uses. Secondary
land uses include banks, copy and print services, retail, restaurants, recreational uses, and the typical building
development standards for height are 3 stories or 45 feet.

The Land Use Plan was updated in 2023 the property in question was listed as business campus in 2014.
We reviewed this proposal in conjunction with the Parks & Greenway Master plan. There is a greenway
alignment adjacent to the street and also there was an idea to have a park on the north east quadrant of Bailey
Road.

Mr. Tucker displayed Business Campus examples. LakePointe Oﬃce Park, Charlotte, and NC Research Campus,
Kannapolis.

This rezoning request is for 198,000 sq ft ﬂex space oﬃce warehousing. Two buildings on Bailey Road and two
internally located on the master site. Total of 4 buildings, 10,000 sf ft minimum space on average.

An internal road will go through the site with a roundabout at the section of Bailey and Bailey Road Park.

$51,930 estimated Town Tax revenue (based on $30M assessed value)

The project was signiﬁcant enough to trigger a traﬃc study review prepared by Kimley Horn.

Mr. Tucker asked if there were any questions regarding the site plan?

Ms. Bernard asked what the diﬀerence was between this plan proposal and the previous plan proposal shared?



 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 2 of 19
Mr. Tucker stated that the previous plan proposal was 198,000 sq ft. with a total of 5 buildings. This lightly
reduced it to 180,000 sq ft with 4 buildings and the intersection in front, we were looking at a tun lane but based
on the recent traﬃc study we need something more signiﬁcant.

Ms. Callender asked what the timetable or schedule is for the Greenway?

Mr. Tucker stated that they are unfunded projects. That area was listed on the park bond as a potential way to
use those funds, but as of right now, we don’t have a timeline for construction. The bond packet was passed by
voters, but at this point, it has not been settled upon.

Mr. Tucker turned to Mr. Brady Finklea with Kimley Horn in regards to the traﬃc study.

Mr. Finklea provided a high-level overview of the traﬃc study. Trip generations, ﬁndings, and recommendations of
the study.

Bailey Road has schools on it and collected AM, School PM, and PM counts to identify the highest one-hour peak
within each of those windows.

NC 115 and Bailey Road
 • Recommended Mitigation: Construct a westbound left-turn lane.
 • Alternative: Restripe the existing northbound right-turn lane to become a northbound through-right
 lane.
 • Construct an auxiliary through lane north of the intersection.

Bailey Road and Bailey Road Park Access/Access
 • Recommended Mitigation: Construct a single-lane roundabout.

Mr. Furcht asked if most of the ﬁndings show that the majority of the peak traﬃc was the school's parents and
students?

The data does not show who is in that traﬃc.

Mr. Furcht asked if this is the same as every other school in Charlotte, or do we have a diﬀerent problem in
Cornelius?

Mr. Finklea stated that he does not have that information

Mr. Westaway asked Where do school buses ﬁt in? Are they considered trucks or passenger cars?

Mr. Finklea school buses are included as trucks


 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 3 of 19
Mr. Westaway asked if there would be enough room for a full-size tractor-trailer to go around the roundabout and
what potential traﬃc issues on that street both directions.

Mr. Finklea stated it will be designed to ﬁt and slow traﬃc down

Mr. Westaway stated his concerns with the roundabout, the traﬃc, backup with parents having to queue up in
the center lane.

Mr. Westaway asked if there were any other projects in the pipeline to take place on the stretch of Old Statesville
and Huﬀ High School that could potentially impact traﬃc as well.

Mr. Tucker stated there were none.

Ms. Callender asked if the Circle K project would be done at the same time as the left lane project.

Mr. Tucker stated he assumed it would be done and completed before.

Chair Bechthold asked how the land is in LP 2?

Mr. Tucker was not sure, possibly about 500 acres.

Community meetings were held on February 27th and April 9th, and there were 175+/- Attendees between the
two meetings

Staﬀ recommends denial of REZ 01-25:
 • Inconsistent with Future Land Use Plan
 • Inconsistent with Parks and Greenways Master Plan

The applicant has been provided a copy of the rezoning conditions.

Mr. Furcht stated he thought initially that the Town was on board with this, but this is new, and is confused about
approval under certain conditions.

Mr. Tucker stated that if the Planning Board is to consider approval with conditions, we have outlined what those
conditions are. The town would have to agree to the conditions equally.

Ms. Bernard asked if Mr. Tucker could provide consistent land use plans in that area?

Mr. Tucker stated that research and development parks, oﬃce parks, and things that are more consistent with
what we want are adjacent to the park areas. Campus style setting. No homes will be built.


 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 4 of 19
Chair Bechtold asked what changed your recommendation of the Greenway, as it was accepted by the Planning
Department?

Mr. Tucker stated that the Parks and Greenway Master Plan was reevaluated in 2024. It’s a much diﬀerent feel
and setting to have the greenway oﬀ the road and separated from vehicular facility, and that is why the greenway
is recommended down on the creek.

Ms. Lee asked if we were to approve with the conditions, is that what it will be?

Mr. Tucker laid out all the recommendations: Denial, Approve the project as it is, Approve project with certain
changes, and may modify some of the conditions that are recommended. There are diﬀerent options.

Mr. Westaway asked if the road construction could be built to current standards to handle truck traﬃc, versus
what it was originally built for, mainly vehicular.

Mr. Tucker stated that it will be up to commercial standards.

Chair Bechtold asked if the applicant could come forward to REZ 01-25, the Cornelius Business Park zoning
request.

Mr. Drew Thigpin introduced himself, his team, and the people behind this project. Commercial Real Estate
Development company founded in 2021. This will be a job creating employment center they are trying to bring to
Cornelius.

$39 million is the amount directly invested directly into Cornelius.

Our project will be solely on 36 acres. We will eliminate an existing safety hazard on Bailey Road. They will be
delivering direct and immediate improvements to the traﬃc situation on Bailey Road.

The town staﬀ acknowledged that our proposed use is consistent with the Business Campus land designation, but
they don’t support it because it is not big enough.

If the project is not approved, a larger, denser project will be built here as a real estate expert. He has tried to
convey this to all the residents.

Changes were made by removing a building, reducing the total sq footage. Adding two major Bailey Road
improvements by taking out sight distance hazards and adding a turn lane.

Studies have shown that 91% of people who live in Cornelius go somewhere else to work, taking their dollars and
spending them somewhere else. This business park is about keeping those dollars in Cornelius. Which is an
important step towards the restructuring of Cornelius’s task space into a more sustainable mix in creating local
jobs here, and will keep the town's economic opportunities consistent with the residential.
 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 5 of 19
They are not okay with the sight distance hazard, so they have worked with their civil engineer to work within the
budget to include recreating and resurfacing all of Bailey Road so that all drivers along Bailey Road are able to
drive along with safely and will do that with no cost to the town or the citizens.

We are the solution to the traﬃc situation along Bailey Road. Bailey Road and 115 get extremely congested for
west-bound traﬃc, and this is the result of the fact that it is a two-lane intersection. As a key condition of our
zoning, we are obligated to have agreed to install a new third lane at no cost to the town or its citizens. If
approved, within a year of starting construction, they will deliver a new dedicated left-hand turn lane. This will be
immediate and tangible improvements to this area’s transportation infrastructure as a direct result of this project
and this project alone. This town has no plans to improve this intersection, nor does DOT or CMS. This is a result
of a private development, just like the Atrium hospital, with the exact type of two or three-lane intersection
improvement at Westmoreland and Hwy 21 as part of their private development.

In summary, he urges to consider the Cornelius Business Park and its incredible merits, that is consistent with the
Business Campus Plan use designation, which has been in place at this site for 20-plus years. We are only
developing 36 acres and not 200 acres. We consider this an incredible strength for us and everyone in this room.
This is a $39 million dollar investment in Cornelius that will generate an estimated $300,000 annual and property
tax revenue, Our project will ﬁx an existing safety hazard and deliver direct infrastructure improvements at Baily
Road via a new turn lane at the 115 intersection.

Ms. Callender asked for clariﬁcation on whether the left turn lane was voluntary or required?

Mr. Thigpin stated it was an improvement that was identiﬁed as part of the TIA we did not volunteer it, but as a
result of us agreeing to it, we are paying for it.

Ms. Callender asked why at one of the community meetings, was the terminology used, for an aﬀordable housing
project instead of using research, development of some other kind of facility, or some other example.

Mr. Thigpin stated that it was used to add context. There is a lot of discussion on how to ﬁx aﬀordable housing,
and there is a legislator that has been proposed that would allow developers to build aﬀordable housing
complexes. Not saying that will happen but a lot of towns in the entire state have not ﬁgured out how to deliver
aﬀordable housing and there are discussions on potential measures that are being considered that absolutely
could result in aﬀordable housing being here or somewhere else.

Ms. Callender asked, “How many employees do you imagine you would have”?

Mr. Thigpin stated that they are called a speculative developer and build them without knowing who is going to
come into those spaces. It’s hard to identify.

Ms. Callender asked, “What is your company’s policy on diversity, equity, and inclusion”?


 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 6 of 19
Mr. Thigpin stated, nothing so far. They are a 12-person company. We have been making potential eﬀort to ensure
that we have as much as possible.

Ms. Callender asked in regards to a neighbor who voiced her concerns about not being able to get out of her
driveway during the peak time and it was mentioned that a discussion will be had with the police department.
Have those conversations taken place, and what was the outcome?

Mr. Thigpin stated he met with the Police Chief and Operations personnel from CMS. Still in the process of
seeking a resolution for residence along Bailey Road. CMS stated they don’t have money to contribute to any
improvements along Bailey Road. They will cooperate with any ideas presented to them but will have zero dollars
to contribute.

Mr. Westaway stated that Mr. Tucker stated the potential tax beneﬁt would be around $56,000, and yours shows
about $300,000. Could you explain the diﬀerence?

Mr. Thigpin stated that the Town may be factoring in looking at just the direct Cornelius property taxes. We have
included in the $300,00 that portion that goes to Mecklenburg County.

Mr. Westaway asked what type of tenants you will have. “What’s the average space on those tenants”?

Mr. Thigpin stated that 10,000-12,000 sq ft is our average tenant size.

Mr. Westaway asked about the roundabout at the entrance of your project. “How will you manage the entrance
of tractor trailer”?

Mr. Thigpin stated that they will have a 100-foot roundabout to support their operations.

Mr. Westaway asked, “What will your timeline be”?

Mr. Thigpin stated they are estimating around 11 months.

Mr. Sykes directed a question to Mr. Tucker. It was mentioned that 200 acres in the area was developable and
mention the research campus. Do you have any suitors?

Mr. Tucker stated No, not at this time.

Chair Bechtold read the Courtesy Statement for “Public Comments.”

Tom Rider- Support the Project
Jack Higgins- Opposed
Bill Russell- Support the Project

 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 7 of 19
Bob Menzel- Support the Project
Janet Spain- Opposed
West Hunter (Land Owner’s Son)-Support the Project
Annie Lebouton- Support the Project
Dave Coppa-Opposed
Suzanne Fulton-Opposed
Earnesto Donardeo-Opposed
Eric Cullibougly-Support the Project
James Basch-Opposed

Chair Bechtold asked Mr. Thigpin to come forward to make additional comments.

Mr. Thigpin stated that he heard all the comments and concerns and agrees that Bailey Road’s traﬃc is a mess
and that is why they are proposing immediate improvements to Bailey Road and the 115 intersections.

Mr. Bechtold instructed the Board to ask any questions for Mr. Thigpin and Mr. Tucker.

Ms. Bernard asked if the roundabout was the only solution for handling traﬃc, what the plans were for the
property around the site, and if they would have the opportunity to develop it. Additionally, Parks have been
mentioned, and would they have the potential to build on the remaining property.

Mr. Tucker stated, Yes, the roundabout is the most feasible option. The applicant has no plans, but this developer
or any other developer could come in and develop, but it will remain Business Campus. Parks could also
potentially be used for recreational use.

Ms. Callender asked if there was any talk or the possibility of the Town purchasing the land from the Hunters:

Mr. Tucker stated, No there has not been any discussion.

Mr. Westaway asked if the Town had funding to purchase the land, and does it makes sense to put a park across
the street from a park. Does NCDOT have any plans to do anything with the Bailey Road corridor?

Mr. Tucker stated there was a Park bond passed and could be potentially used, but they are not there yet with
settling those bonds and developing further recommendations. According to our Parks and Greenway Master
Plan, that is what is recommended. Plans have been solicited to NCDOT, but no plans at this time.

Mr. Jullian stated that he feels that the residents in the area that will be aﬀected by this project, their thoughts
should be put into consideration. Will there be a condition for everyone that may develop that they are going to
have to mitigate? He struggles with the board voting against the homeowners that would be impacted the most.



 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 8 of 19
Ms. Bernerd stated that there is the landowners are in support of the project. People are concerned about the
traﬃc and the safety of children in this area. We do need a solution in this area, and the Town does not have a
solution. At some point, something is going to get developed.

Ms. Lee feels that pushing it in the right direction will be a good move for our town.

Mr. Sykes feels like the solution for the traﬃc with the project will be a step in the right direction.

Ms. Callender feels that the larger-scale projects would be diﬃcult at this point, nor have the money. Unfair to
the owners who have not been able to sell the property. In favor of the plan, and would like to see the conditions
of the plan.

Mr. Furcht stated that we need to understand the conditions and support the project.

Mr. Westaway stated that he asked the developer to bring the roads up to a harder spec to hold the truck traﬃc.
There are no plans to ﬁx Bailey Road. Wants to marry the Land Use and Zoning plan.

Chair Bechtold feels like this is a good alternative to get the road together and is in favor of the project.

Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to close the Public Hearing of REZ 01-25 Cornelius Business Park. Mr.
Westaway motioned to approve, and Ms. Bernard seconded. All were in favor, and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Mr. Jullian Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard

Chair Bechtold made a motion to approve REZ 01-25 Cornelius Business Park. Mr. Furcht motioned to approve,
and Mr. Westaway seconded. All were in favor, and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: Mr. Jullian
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard

Chair Bechtold made a motion to approve the conditions REZ 01-25 Cornelius Business Park. Mr. Furcht motioned
to approve, and Mr. Westaway seconded. All were in favor, and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: Mr. Jullian
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard




 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 9 of 19
Chair Bechtold asked Mr. Furcht to read the Consistency statement.

Chair Bechtold made a motion to approve the Consistency Statement. Ms. Bernard motioned to approve and Mr.
Furcht seconded. All were in favor, and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL

VAR 01-25 18104 Pompano Place
Chair Bechtold made a motion to suspend the Planning Board and open it as the Board of Adjustment. Mr.
Westaway motioned, and Ms. Lee seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.


In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


Chair Bechtold made a motion to open the Public Hearing for VAR 01-25 18104 Pompano Place. Mr. Westaway
motioned, and Ms. Bernard. All were in favor, and the motion was approved.


In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


Chair Bechtold called forward those wishing to testify. The oath was administered to David Cole and Mia Ha.

Chair Bechtold asked if any Board members had visited the property or had a conﬂict of interest in this case?

There were none.
Chair Bechtold recognized Mr. Cole and asked if he was ready to present VAR-01-25 18104 Pompano Place.


Mr. Cole presented VAR 01-25 18104 Pompano Place.

Exhibit 2- Provides an aerial view at an intersection with Nantz running above the home, and the home is pointed
toward Pompano Place. It is a single-family dwelling, and the property is surrounded by other single-family
dwellings.

Exhibit 3- Vicinity map shows it's located on the Nantz Road peninsula. Across the street, there are larger lots and
homes. Ramsey Creek and smaller cul-de-sacs in this vicinity.

Exhibit 4- Zoning Map. The whole peninsula is General Residential


 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 10 of 19
Exhibit 5- Application- The applicant is requesting a variance in the front yard setback. This is the existing footprint
of the property. The current home is oriented towards Pompano Place. A ranch dwelling is pretty typical. Because
it has a long footprint, it is about 16 feet from Nantz Road side and just under 50 feet from Pompano Place.

Exhibit 6- Photos of the property. The right photo is taken from Nantz Road, and the photo on the left is taken
from Pompano Place.

Exhibit 7- The Plat was recorded in 1970s, prior to our current zoning subdivision ordinance. This case does not
list anything about setbacks.

Exhibit 8 & 9- Our Code deﬁnes front yard setbacks and Inﬁll lot standards. Which means we don’t set a standard
setback. We take the average setbacks of the houses on the same side of the street within 300 feet. Average out
and that’s how you get your minimum front yard setback for each front.

Exhibit 10- Setback calculations using Polaris, which gives us a 43 ft minimum setback along Nantz Road, should
the property ever be developed. The current home is considered non-conforming because it was constructed
prior to this current setback standard being put into place. However, the applicant would like to redevelop the
existing single-family home into a new dwelling.

Exhibit 11- The footprint is 43 feet wide. It narrows considerably compared to what we have currently for Nantz
Road. The applicant would like a 13 ft variance. They are requesting, instead of a 43 ft setback along Nantz Road,
they are requesting a 30 ft setback to slightly widen the building path to widen it for a wider structure. Notably,
that would still be a larger setback than what is currently available.

Mr. Cole asked if there were any questions.

Chair Bechtold read “What is a Variance?”

A variance is a request to deviate from current zoning requirements. If granted, it permits the owner to use his
land in a way that is ordinarily not permitted by the zoning ordinance. It is not a change in the zoning law, but a
waiver from the requirements of the zoning ordinance.

This hearing is a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing. That means it is like a court hearing. State law sets speciﬁc
procedures and rules concerning how this board must make its decision. These rules are diﬀerent from other
types of land use decisions like rezoning cases.

The board’s discretion is limited. The board must base its decision upon competent, relevant, and substantial
evidence in the record. A quasi-judicial decision is not a popularity contest. It is a decision constrained by the
standards in the ordinance and based on the facts presented. If you will be speaking as a witness, please focus on
the facts and standards, not personal preference or opinion.

Participation is limited. This meeting is open to the public. Everyone is welcome to watch. Parties with standing
have right to participate fully. Parties may present evidence, call witnesses, and make legal arguments. Parties are
limited to the applicant, the local government, and individuals who can show they will suﬀer special damages.
Other individuals may serve as witnesses when called by the board. General witness testimony is limited to facts,
not opinions. For certain topics, this board needs to hear opinion testimony from expert witnesses. These topics
include projections about impacts on property values and projections about impacts of increased traﬃc.

 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 11 of 19
Individuals providing expert opinions must be qualiﬁed as experts and provide the factual evidence upon which
they base their expert opinion.

Mr. Westaway asked, “What is the address of this property”?

Mr. Cole stated it is 18104 Pompano Place

Mr. Westaway asked, “Why didn’t not do the front yard setback evaluation based upon Pompano Place and not
Nantz Road”?

Mr. Cole stated they did it for both.

Mr. Westaway asked “If it was within the limit for Pompano Place?”

Mr. Cole stated Yes, that was established at 45, and the applicant is willing to go with that one.

Mr. Westaway asked if, legality-wise, is not the address of the domicile is not the technical front aspect of the
house?

Mr. Cole stated from an addressing standpoint, the Land Development code works; the address of the home does
not necessarily dictate what a true front is. We have to treat both as fronts. Functionally and visually, the way the
home is oriented, one will appear as one true front.

Mr. Furcht asked to be clear, the front of the house is Nantz Road now.

Mr. Cole stated that the home fronts onto Pompano, but will defer to the applicant

Chair Bechtold stated we will now hear from the applicant.

Ms. Ha stated that she spoke with the neighbors, and all are in favor.

Any questions for the applicant.

Ms. Callender asked, ”Is she rebuilding her home?”

The applicant stated yes.




 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 12 of 19
Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to close the Public Hearing for VAR 01-25 18104 Pompano Place. Mr.
Westaway motioned to approve, and Ms. Lee seconded. All were in favor, and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


Chair Bechtold stated that we will now read the ﬁndings of facts. I will entertain a motion to approve or deny each
ﬁnding of fact.

Mr. Furcht read Finding of Fact #1

Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to
demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.

Mr. Furcht moved that ﬁnding #1 has been met because, based on the evidence submitted a hardship does exist.
Mr. Westaway seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.


In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


Mr. Jullian read Finding of Fact #2

The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography.
Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common
to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.

Mr. Jullian moved that ﬁnding #2 has been met because of the two frontages of the property. Mr. Westaway
seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


Ms. Callender read Finding of Fact #3

The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing
property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded
as a self-created hardship.

Ms. Callender moved that ﬁnding #3 has been met because the hardship was not created by the applicant. Mr.
Furcht seconded. All were in favor, and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard



 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 13 of 19
Ms. Bernard- Read Finding of Fact #4

The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety
is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.

Ms. Bernard moved that ﬁnding #4 has been met and that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit,
purpose, and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Westaway seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


Mr. Westaway stated based on the testimonial and hearing record before us. I move the pending application for
variance VAR 01-25 seeking a variance to allow an reduction of the front yard setback from 43 ft to 30 ft is
therefore approved. Mr. Furcht seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL

VAR 03-25 19577 Meta Road
Chair Bechtold made a motion to open the Public Hearing for VAR 03-25 19577 Meta Road. Mr. Westaway
motioned, and Ms. Bernard seconded. All were in favor, and the motion was approved.


In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard

Chair Bechtold called forward those wishing to testify. The oath was administered to David Cole and Tracey Stehle

Chair Bechtold asked if any Board members had visited the property or had a conﬂict of interest in this case?

There were none.

Chair Bechtold recognized Mr. Cole and asked if he was ready to present VAR 03-25 19577 Meta Road.

Exhibit 2- Aerial view of the double frontage lot. One public right-of-way, Bustle Road. One public right of way on
Meta Road. Its functional in the rear. Which is the property address is on Meta Road. The structure in front of the
house is Bustle Road.

Exhibit 3- Vicinity Map. It is located on the Peninsula at Jetton Road for reference.

Exhibit 4- General residential is the zoning throughout this neighborhood.

Exhibit 5- General Application for the variance. They do have to double frontage lot situation and the Land
Development Code does deﬁne this as two frontages. Technically no rear yard as deﬁned by the owner of the
property. The applicant is seeking to construct a swimming pool behind the primary dwelling which is deﬁned as
the front yard and code only allows only swimming pools and accessory structures in the rear yard.

 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 14 of 19
Exhibit 6- Plot Plan. We are requesting a variance to construct a 16x32 pool spa in the front yard of the home. It
will be located in between the main house and the existing accessory structure, which was constructed prior to
these codes standards coming into eﬀect.

Exhibit 7- Photographs of the property. On the left is the front entrance taken from Bustle Road, and the two
photographs on the right are taken from Meta Road. There is a driveway that runs through connecting the two
streets, and the swimming pool will be located in between. There is mature screening vegetation that exists
currently that screens the existing home and accessory dwelling from Meta Road.

Chair Bechtold asked, “If that was a public road or a private road”?

Mr. Cole stated that it is their private driveway in both directions.

Ms. Bernard asked, “If the large trees are remaining”?

Mr. Cole stated that yes, they will be remaining.

Mr. Cole stated, just for reference, the Board can place reasonable conditions on here about retaining a vegetation
screen of some kind in a double frontage situation.

Mr. Julian asked, “Will they fence it as per code”?

Mr. Cole stated that the code would require fencing, but will leave it up to the applicant of what the speciﬁc plans
will be.

Exhibit 8- 5.5.2C Deﬁnition of Double Frontage Lots

Mr. Cole asked if there were any questions.

Chair Bechtold stated that we will now hear from the applicant.

Ms. Stehle stated that it was important to know that we do not have a backyard. It is consistent with the
neighborhood. We have several homes that have a main house and a guest house with a pool in between. We
have our neighbor's approval.

Mr. Furcht asked, What type of fence will you have”?

Ms. Stehle stated it will be the standard per what our insurance company requires.

Ms. Bernard asked, ”How long have you been living there?

Ms. Stehle stated that since 2008.



 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 15 of 19
Chair Bechtold asked if there were any more questions?

There were none.

Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to close the Public Hearing for VAR 03-25 19577 Meta Road. Ms. Bernard
motioned to approve, and Mr. Westaway seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


Mr. Westaway read Finding of Fact #1

Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to
demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.

Mr. Furcht moved that ﬁnding #1 has been met because based on the evidence submitted a hardship does exist.
Chair Bechtold seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.


In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


Ms. Lee Finding of Fact #2

The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography.
Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common
to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.

Ms. Lee moved that ﬁnding #2 has been met because they don’t have a backyard. Mr. Westaway seconded. All
were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


Ms. Callender read Finding of Fact #3

The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing
property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded
as a self-created hardship.

Ms. Callender moved that ﬁnding #3 has been met because the hardship was not created by the applicant. Mr.
Furcht seconded All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard

 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 16 of 19
Mr. Furcht- Read Finding of Fact #4

The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety
is secured, and substantial justice is achieved.

Mr. Furcht moved that ﬁnding #4 has been met and that the requested variance is consistent with the spirit,
purpose, and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Westaway seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


Chair Bechtold stated based on the testimonial and hearing record before us. I move the pending application for
variance VAR 03-25 seeking a variance to allow a swimming pool in the front yard is therefore approved. Mr.
Westaway seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard


Mr. Westaway stated that this is the 3rd application for double frontages in the last two meetings. Could we
address these in the code somewhere so that we don’t see these, and that we do have unique properties that
don’t really need to have a variance.

Mr. Cole stated that, based on the applications we have been getting. One of the earliest text amendments that
the staﬀ is interested in initiating and executing.

Chair Bechtold made a motion to close the Board of Adjustments and move to the Planning Board. Ms. Bernard
made the motion. Mr. Westaway seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL


TA 01-25 Vape/CBD/Tobacco Shops & Electronic Gaming
Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to open the Public Hearing for T01-25 Vape/CDB/Tobacco Shops & Electronic
Gaming. Ms. Lee motioned to approve, and Mr. Westaway seconded. All were in favor, and the motion was
approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard

Chair Bechtold recognized Mr. Cole and asked if he was ready to present TA 01-25 Vape/CBD/Tobacco Shops &
Electronic Gaming.

This amendment was requested by the Town Board to draft and be initiated very quickly.
 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 17 of 19
We are looking to create and deﬁne two new uses that are generally lumped into the general retail commercial.

It has grown over the past 10 years.

Currently, there are 9 existing vape stores, and we are looking to provide regulations around neighborhoods,
parks, and schools.

We are looking to deﬁne them as their own use CBD/Vape and Tobacco Shop add that to the use table.
Conditional zoning and only restricted to Highway Commercial. They would have to petition for a rezone, and
additionally, they would have to meet certain use standards, which would be a 1,000 ft separation for all
CBD/Vape/Tobacco Shops from residences, schools, daycares/preschools, churches, park, hospital, or each other
All existing shops would be “vested” and could remain in operation but limited on expansion or re-establishment.

Mr. Cole stated that this will not impact incidental sales of cigarettes or CBD oils at a grocery store or gas station.
This is only aimed at those businesses that are specialty shops that sell those products.

Electronic Gaming is illegal, businesses such as “Sweepstakes,” chance games, electronic gaming, etc exist in many
communities.

Currently classiﬁed as “Commercial” with no deﬁnition or restrictions. Recommend restrictions on potential
establishments. Exempts NC Education Lottery and Arcades.

Proposed use standards allowed only in “Highway Commercial” require Conditional Rezoning.

We are seeking a recommendation for approval or denial of modiﬁcations from the Board.

Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to close the Public Hearing for T01-25 Vape/CDB/Tobacco Shops & Electronic
Gaming. Mr. Westaway made a motion to approve. Ms. Bernard seconded. All were in favor and the motion was
approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard

Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to approve for T01-25 Vape/CDB/Tobacco Shops & Electronic Gaming. Mr.
Westaway made a motion to approve. Mr. Furcht seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard




 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 18 of 19
Chair Bechthold read the “Consistency Statement”

Chair Bechtold entertained a motion to approve the Consistency Statement. Mr. Westaway made a motion to
approve and Ms. Lee seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bechtold made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Mr. Westaway seconded the motion. Mr.
Furcht seconded. All were in favor and the motion was approved.

In Favor: Mr. Bechtold, Mr. Westaway, Mr. Furcht, Opposed: None
 Mr. Sykes, Ms. Lee, Ms. Callender, and Ms. Bernard



Respectfully submitted:


___________________________ __________ _________________________ _________
Phil Bechtold Date Rechelle Ward Date
Chairman Administrative Assistant




Enc: Town Staﬀ PowerPoint Presentation




 Planning Board Meeting
 May 7, 2025
 Page 19 of 19
 Planning Board
 5.7.2025
 Agenda

1. CALL TO ORDER
2. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
 A. April 14, 2025

5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL
 A. REZ 01-25 Cornelius Business Park

6. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL
 A. VAR 01-25: 18104 Pompano Pl
 B. VAR 03-25: 19577 Meta Rd
 C. TA 01-25: Vape/CBD/Tobacco Shops and Electronic Gaming (Consideration of
 Approval Only)

7. NEW BUSINESS
8. NEXT MEETING – June 9, 2025
9. ADJOURNMENT
  REZ 01-25
Conditional Rezoning Request
  Cornelius Business Park
Aaron Tucker, Senior Planner
 Overview
Project Location
 36-acre parcel in unincorporated Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
 1/4 mile east of Bailey Road/NC-115 intersection
 o Directly across from Bailey Road Park
Proposal
 Rezoning from Rural Preservation (RP) to
Conditional Zoning District (CZ)
 Development of a flex space/office center

Applicant
 Greenberg Gibbons, Charlotte, NC
 Location Overview

 Across from Bailey Road Park


 ¼-Mi. to Bailey Rd/NC-115 Int.


 ¼ -Mi. to Bailey Road Middle
  School


 ½ -Mi. to Bailey Glen Boulevard


 ¾ -Mi. to Hough High School
 Zoning Summary
Existing Zoning: Rural Preservation




 Permitted Uses Why does zoning not match the
  Residential (1 du/ 3-acres) future Land use Plan?
  Agriculture  Placeholder for more intense
  Recreation and related development
 uses  If property was already zoned
 BC, no public input would be
 required.
  CZ allows for a more detailed
 review.
 Land Use Plan Summary

Future Land Use Plan
 Long Range Planning

GMTF Recommendation
• Property was designated
  Business Campus in 2014
• Business Campus category was
  expanded east in 2023




 Parks and Greenways Master Plan Recommendations
 • Greenway adjacent to stream recommended (GW7)
 • Future park recommended in area LP2 (100 acres envisioned)
 • Reviewed in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan
 • Adopted 2024
 Business Campus Examples
 • Internally Focused
 • Campus Oriented


 NC Research Campus, Kannapolis




LakePointe Office Park, Charlotte
 Project Overview

Site Elements
 188K Sq. Ft. Flex Space Office Ctr.
 o Cater to small business and
 office/warehouse users
 4-Buildings
 o 10k sq. ft. min. space
 o Served by public water and private septic
 system (temp.)
 New interior public road
 o Portion of Zion Connector in NC-115
 Corridor Study
 Planned MUP from Bailey Road Park
  located on Zion Avenue Extension
 $51,930 estimated Town tax revenue
  (Based on $30M assessed value)
Building Elevations
Building Elevations
72-FT Cross Section
 Street Buffer


 40-Ft Type F Buffer
 Located along Bailey
Road frontage
 Across from park
 TIA Overview

 Prepared February 2025 by Kimley Horn
 907 Total Trips (24-hr period)
 o Entry and exit count as separate trips
 o 79-Truck trips

 Peak Hour Trips
 o 125 Trips A.M. Peak (7:00-9:00 a.m.)
 o 108 Trips P.M. School Peak (2:00-4:45 p.m.)
 o 115 Trips P.M. Peak (4:30-6:30 p.m.)

 Studied Intersections
 o Bailey Site Access/Bailey Road Park Drive
 o Bailey/NC-115
 o Washam Potts/NC-115

 Committed Development Considered
 o Mayes Meadow, Bailey’s Glen Condos, Caldwell Depot Commercial,
 North commerce Center, and Mt. Zion Senior Center
 o All other new development factored in by applying a 2% traffic volume
 growth rate
Cornelius Business Park TIA
 May 7, 2025
Agenda
• Study Area
• Count Collection
• Trip Generation
• Mitigation Recommendations
 Study Area
 2




 SITE

 3
 1


Legend
 - Study Area Intersections

 - Site
 Count
 Collection


Turning Movement Counts collected on Thursday,
December 12, 2024 at the following locations indicated
with a red dot:
• AM (7:00 – 9:00)
• School PM (2:00 – 4:45)
• PM (4:30 – 6:30)

Turning Movement Counts collected on Tuesday, October
24, 2023 were used to determine peak park usage at the
following locations indicated with a blue dot.
Trip Generation




 Daily: AM Peak: School PM Peak: PM Peak:
 907 125 108 115
 Mitigation
Recommendations
NC 115 and Bailey Road

• Recommended Mitigation: Construct a westbound left-
  turn lane.

• Alternative: Restripe existing northbound right-turn lane
  to become a northbound through-right lane.
  • Construct an auxiliary through lane north of the intersection.
Recommendation
 150' 550'
 400'

 400'
 Bailey Road

 Remove split
 Extend to 225' phasing

 250'
 250'


 Extend to 250'
 Legend
 Existing Laneage
XX’ Storage Length
 Traffic Signal
 Background Improvement
 Identified Improvement
Recommendation
 Alternative
 150' 550'

 400'
 500'
 Bailey Road

 Extend to 225'
 500' auxiliary through
 250' lane north of
 600'


 Extend to 250'
 intersection

 Legend
 Existing Laneage
XX’ Storage Length
 Traffic Signal
 Background Improvement
 Identified Improvement
Bailey Road and Bailey Road Park
Access/Access

• Recommended Mitigation: Construct a single-lane
  roundabout.
Recommendation
 Access



 Bailey Road




 Bailey Road Park Access
 Legend
 Existing Laneage
XX’ Storage Length
 Roundabout
 Identified Improvement
Questions?
 Community Meeting
February 27th and April 9th Other Feedback
  Many calls/emails from
175+/- Attendees between two meetings nearby residents and school
 Majority Bailey’s Glen residents parents opposed
  Support letters received
 Parents of school children including Chamber of
 Some Hough High School students Commerce and nearby
 residents
Topics Discussed
 Existing Bailey Road and NC 115 Intersection traffic
 Overall concern over Business Campus land uses north of Bailey Road
 Accessibility/circulation relative to BRP, schools, and Bailey’s Glen
 Concerns about any additional traffic on Bailey Road
 Staff Comments
Comment letter included in packet


Transportation
 Inclusion of sidewalk in ROW to limit public easements
 Include a greenway trail along the western boundary adjacent to the
 stream, consistent with Town’s adopted Parks and Greenways
 master plan.
 Curb/Gutter along entire Bailey Road frontage
 Further review occurring on proposed roundabout design
Landscape Buffers
 A clear understanding of significant vegetation that exists currently.
 Need for supplemental plantings if existing vegitation is not present
  or removed.
 Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of REZ 01-25

Inconsistent with Future Land Use Plan
 Corporate office or Research and Development uses in a
 larger campus setting more appropriate adjacent to parks
 and greenways.


Inconsistent with Parks and Greenways Master Plan
 Substitution of an 10’ MUP in lieu of a greenway trail adjacent
  to the western stream is not recommended and inconsistent
  with adopted plan.
 Subject property is identified within area LP2, which
  identifies a future park north of Bailey Road. Proposed use
  not compatible immediately adjacent to parks and
  greenways.
 Rezoning Conditions


Applicant has been
provided a copy, but
consensus has not
been achieved
Rezoning Conditions Cont.
 VAR 01-25
 Variance Request
 18104 Pompano Place
David Cole, Assistant Planning Director
 VAR 2-25
Exhibit 2 – Property Map
 VAR 2-25
Exhibit 3 – Vicinity Map
 VAR 2-25
Exhibit 4 – Zoning Map
 VAR 01-25
Exhibit 1 – Application & Plot Plans
VAR 01-25
Existing Home
 VAR 01-25
Exhibit 7 – Property Photos
VAR 01-25
Exhibit 2 – Plat
 VAR 01-25
Exhibit 6 & 7 – Infill Setbacks
 VAR 01-25
 Exhibit 8 - Infill Setback Calculations




Average Minimum Nantz Rd Setback for 18104 Pompano Pl: 43 Feet
 VAR 01-25
Allowable Footprint (43’ Setback)
 VAR 01-25
Requested Variance (30’ Setback)
 VAR 01-25




Questions for Staff?
 VAR 01-25




Hear From the Applicant
 VAR 03-25
 Variance Request
 19577 Meta Rd
David Cole, Assistant Planning Director
 VAR 03-25
Exhibit 2 – Property Map
 VAR 03-25
Exhibit 3 – Vicinity Map
 VAR 03-25
Exhibit 4 – Zoning Map
 VAR 03-25
Exhibit 1 – Application
 VAR 03-25
Exhibit 1 - Plot Plan
  VAR 03-25
Exhibit 7 - Photos
 VAR 03-25
Exhibit 5 & 6 – Double Frontage Lots
 VAR 03-25




Questions for Staff?
 VAR 03-25




Hear From the Applicant
 TA 01-25
 Text Amendment Request
Vape/CBD/Tobacco Shops & Electronic Gaming
 David Cole, Assistant Planning Director
 Vape/CBD/Tobacco Shops

• Common retail establishment in most US commercial areas
• Sells CBD, tobacco/vape products, and accessory communal/gathering
• Grew over past 5-10 years due to loosened hemp regulations, new e-
  cigarette/vapor technology; highly addictive
• Low start-up cost, small product size, high profit margin allows smaller
  store footprint when other retail is struggling
• Many rely on bright/inappropriate signage
 Existing Vape/CBD/Tobacco Shops

1. Puffz Smoke & Vape – Downtown
2. Twiggs - Downtown
3. Maui Boyz – N Main St
4. Humidor/Tobacco/Vape – One Norman Blvd
5. Apotheca – W Catawba
6. High Life – W Catawba
7. Smokes Unlimited – Magnolia Estates
8. Kure CBD & Vape – W Catawba
9. McCranies* – Torrence Chapel Rd
 Vape/CBD/Tobacco Shops

Currently classified as “Retail” with no definition or restrictions. Limit
future shops by amending the Code as follows:
  Chapter 2: Create definition for “CBD/Vape/Tobacco Shops” use
  Chapter 5: Add use to table, conditional zoning only, restricted to Highway
 Commercial (HC) district
  Chapter 6: 1,000 ft separation for all CBD/Vape/Tobacco Shops from
 residences, schools, daycares/preschools, churches, park, hospital, or
 each other
 All existing shops would be “vested” and could remain in operation, but limited
 on expansion or re-establishment
 Proposed - Definition

Vape/CBD and/or Tobacco Shop
A use that primarily engages in the sale, display and/or storage of tobacco,
tobacco products, vaping products, or CBD oils and other consumable
hemp derived commodities that are permitted under state law. These
products may include, but are not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco,
smokeless tobacco, electronic vaping/smoking devices, Kratom, CBD, hemp
derived Delta-8, e-liquid, and vaping accessories. An area may also be
included whereby patrons share the tobacco or non-tobacco products, or
products from a communal hookah, water pipe, or similar device. This
definition does not include commercial, retail, and service uses that sell the
above-listed products on a clearly incidental basis, such as gas stations,
convenience stores, grocery stores, and medical spa type businesses.
 Proposed - Use Table


Allow only in “Highway Commercial,” require Conditional Zoning:


 Use Category RP GR NR NMX WMX TC VC HC BC CO IC

Vape/CBD and/or
 CZ
Tobacco Shop
 Proposed - Use Standards

6.2.45: VAPE/CBD AND/OR TOBACCO SHOP
A. No lot, parcel, or tract of real property upon which a Vape/CBD/and/or
Tobacco Shop is situated shall be located less than one thousand (1,000)
linear feet from any Civic use, Child Care/Preschool, Public Park or
Recreation Facility, Public or Private School, Hospital, lot in residential use,
lot with residential districting, or another CBD, Vape and/or Tobacco Shop,
measured from property line to property line.
 Separation Distance

 1,000 ft is the most-used separation distance for NC communities

 Cornelius Wake Elizabeth
Metric: Proposed
 Mooresville Greenville
 County
 Whiteville Apex
 City
 Fayetteville

From
Residences
(ft) 1000 1000 500 1000 400 0 0 1000

From
Sensitive 1000 1000 500 1000 1500 1000 1000 1000
Uses (ft)
From Each
Other (ft) 1000 1000 2640 1000 2000 0 1000 1000
 Electronic Gaming


• While gambling is illegal, businesses such as “Sweepstakes,” chance
  games, electronic gaming, etc exist in many communities
• Businesses try to circumvent “gambling” classifications by
  incorporating “skill” inside a game of “chance” to win monetary prizes
• Often, the “skill” component is still peripheral to the “chance”
  component (i.e. play a memory game or nudge a token to stay in
  another round)
• Latest ruling in January by NC appeals court considered many of these
  establishments illegal
• One known establishment in Cornelius (Statesville Rd)
 Electronic Gaming

Currently classified as “Commercial” with no definition or
restrictions. Recommend restriction on potential establishments
   Chapter 2: Create definition for “Electronic Gaming” use
   Chapter 5: Add use to table, conditional zoning only, restricted to
 Highway Commercial (HC) district
   Chapter 6: 1,000 ft separation for all Electronic Gaming establishments
 from residences, schools, daycares/preschools, hospitals, parks,
 churches, or each other
Exempts NC Education Lottery and Arcades
 Proposed - Definition

Electronic Gaming Establishment
A business where persons utilize electronic machines (including but not limited to
computers and gaming terminals) to conduct games of chance or sweepstakes, and where
cash, merchandise or anything else of value is redeemed or otherwise distributed or
placed on an account or other record, whether or not the value of such distribution is
determined by electronic games played or by predetermined odds. Electronic gaming
operations may include, but are not limited to, internet cafes, internet sweepstakes,
electronic gaming machines/operations, cybercafés, business centers, or by whatever
other terminology such establishment might be known. Electronic gaming operation does
not include any lottery-related activity approved by the State of North Carolina.
 Proposed – Use Table


Allow only in “Highway Commercial,” require Conditional Zoning:


 Use Category RP GR NR NMX WMX TC VC HC BC CO IC

Electronic Gaming
 CZ
Establishment
 Proposed – Use Standards

6.2.21: ELECTRONIC GAMING ESTABLISHMENT
A. An Electronic Gaming Establishment may operate from 9:00 am until 9:00 pm
B. The maximum collective number of machines, terminals, and/or computers for customer
use at any Electronic Gaming Business is five (5).
C. All applicable State and local permits must be issued to the applicant prior to issuance of
a zoning permit for an Electronic Gaming Business.
D. The establishment must be a minimum of one thousand (1,000) linear feet from any Civic
use, Child Care/Preschool, Public Park or Recreation Facility, Public or Private School,
Hospital, lot in residential use, lot with residential districting, or another Electronic Gaming
Business, measured from property line to property line.
E. Maximum square footage for electronic gaming establishments shall not exceed 2,000
square feet.
F. No alcohol sales, consumption or possession shall be allowed on premises.
 TA 01-25




Questions for Staff?