Planning Board/Board of Adjustment

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?