Planning and Zoning Commission

MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 The regular meeting of the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission was held in person and electronically through a Zoom meeting and broadcast simultaneously on the City of Greensboro’s website on Monday, May 18, 2026 beginning at 5:35 p.m. Commission members present were Chair Mary Skenes, Vice Chair Warché Downing, Catherine Magid, Erica Glass, Betty Turner, Paul Gilmer Sr., Stu Nichols, Keith Peterson and Ted M. Oliver. Present for City staff were Mike Kirkman, Andrew Nelson and Carla Harrison (Planning); Brent Ducharme (City Attorney’s Office); Nolan Tipton and Marjorie Manzanares (GDOT). Chair Skenes welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted the meeting was being conducted both in-person and online. Chair Skenes advised of the policies, procedures and instructions in place for the Planning and Zoning Commission. She noted that not all concerns expressed by residents could be considered by the Commission. She stated that the Commission reviews all original zoning and rezoning requests for the City of Greensboro. Chair Skenes said the Commission could only consider a case based on the recommendations of the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and whether a request is otherwise reasonable. Chair Skenes briefly explained how the Commission members normally prepare for the meeting by reviewing materials and visiting the subject properties. She advised that any participants attending virtually would be called upon to speak when the request they are interested in is presented. Chair Skenes requested residents to direct all questions and comments to the Commission only. If needed, the members would seek staff or the city attorney’s advice. Chair Skenes noted the online meeting was being recorded and televised and was close- captioned for the hearing impaired. She further explained the expedited agenda for items without any speakers in opposition and that staff would give a shortened presentation. Applicants would have up to 2 minutes to speak if they had additional information they wanted Commissioners to know. Chair Skenes noted that for non-zoning requests the applicant would have up to 3 minutes to speak on the item. Brent Ducharme, Assistant City Attorney, then advised that, when considering rezoning applications, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes determinations based on the land uses allowed under the proposed zoning district put forth in the rezoning application and, where applicable, any proposed conditions included with the application. Land use concerns can be wide reaching and, by way of example, impacts on public infrastructure such as traffic concerns may be relevant when new land uses  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 would be allowed by a rezoning. However, concerns not related to land use and the conditions of a rezoning application, including general concerns about school impacts and crime rates, are not germane to the determinations made by this body. Such issues may be referred to the Planning Department or the Technical Review Committee (TRC) as appropriate. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ABSENCES: Chair Skenes acknowledged the full attendance of commissioners. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: (APPROVED) Chair Skenes requested approval of the April 20, 2026 meeting minutes. Motion Mr. Peterson made a motion to approve the April 20, 2026 meeting minutes, seconded by Mr. Nichols. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). WITHDRAWALS OR CONTINUANCE: Chair Skenes inquired if there were any items withdrawn or to be continued. Mr. Kirkman advised that the applicant for item Z-26-05-008 and PL(P) 26-17 for the properties identified as 3663 Lewiston Road and 4931 ZZ and 4937 ZZ Hackamore Road requested to continue the item to the June 15, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Chairs Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak on the request for continuation. In Support Mr. Brad Deaton, 1400 Battleground Avenue, stated he represented Cross Point Homes. He noted they held the first neighborhood meeting via Zoom and three subsequent meetings in person. He said his team and the residents were having productive dialogue. Therefore, they needed the additional time to address concerns raised by the residents and to revise the request accordingly.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Chair Skenes asked for questions from the commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition to continuation of the request. Hearing none, Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion Mr. Peterson made a motion to grant the continuance for the annexation and original zoning requests, Z-26-05-008 and PL(P) 26-17, for the properties identified as 3663 Lewiston Road and 4931 ZZ and 4937 ZZ Hackamore Road, to the June 15, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Vice Chair Downing seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). PUBLIC HEARINGS: EXPEDITED AGENDA: Chair Skenes noted there were items on the agenda that did not have any opposition signed up to speak and were eligible for the expedited agenda. These items were: Z-26- 05-001 and PL(P) 26-13 for the property identified as A portion of 1202 A Rankin Mill Road; Z-26-05-003 and PL(P) 26-14 for the property identified as 3704 Liberty Road; Z- 26-05-004 for the properties identified as 2321 and 2323 Lawndale Drive; Z-26-05-005 and PL(P) 26-15 for the property identified as 4701 Hickory Valley Road; Z-26-05-006 for the properties identified as 3208, 3210, and 3212 North O.Henry Boulevard; and Z-26- 05-010 and PL(P) 26-18 for the property identified as 4800 West Gate City Boulevard. Chair Skenes then asked if anyone in person or online wished to speak in opposition to any of these items. Hearing none, she noted the Commission would address these items through expedited review and reordered the agenda accordingly. PL(P) 26-13 & Z-26-05-001: An annexation and original zoning request from County RS-30 (Residential Single-family) to City R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) for the property identified as a portion of 1202-A Rankin Mill Road, generally described as east of Rankin Mill Road and north of Huffine Mill Road (0.14 acres). (RECOMMENDED APPROVAL) Mr. Kirkman reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Mr. Kirkman stated that the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map currently designates the property as Urban General and as Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed original zoning request supports both the Comprehensive Plan’s Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro’s citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices and the Building Community Connections goal to maintain stable, attractive, and healthy places to live and raise families. The proposed R-3 zoning district is primarily intended to accommodate single-family dwellings. The proposed original zoning request allows uses that are similar to existing uses in the surrounding area. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak on the request. She noted two (2) minutes was available to elaborate on the request. The applicant was present but declined speaking on the request. Hearing no comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Annexation Ms. Magid made a motion to annex item PL(P) 26-13 for the property identified as a portion of 1202 A Rankin Mill Road. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Original Zoning Ms. Magid then stated regarding item Z-26-05-001, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the property at a portion of 1202 A Rankin Mill Road from County RS-30 (Residential Single-family) to City R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed City R-3 zoning district permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Nichols seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting. PL(P) 26-14 & Z-26-05-003: An annexation and original zoning request from County RS-40 (Residential Single-family) to City R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) for the property identified as 3704 Liberty Road, generally described as west of Liberty Road and north of Wiley-Lewis Road (0.47 acres). (RECOMMENDED APPROVAL) Ms. Harrison reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties. Ms. Harrison stated that the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Urban General on the Future Built Form Map and as Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed original zoning request supports both the Comprehensive Plan’s Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro’s citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices and the Filling in Our Framework Big Idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro. The proposed R-3 zoning district is primarily intended to accommodate low-density single-family detached residential development of up to 3 dwelling units per acre. The proposed original zoning request allows uses that are similar to existing uses in the surrounding area. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak on the request. She noted two (2) minutes was available to elaborate on the request. Hearing no comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Annexation Mr. Peterson made a motion to annex item PL(P) 26-14 for the property identified as 3704 Liberty Road. Ms. Magid seconded the motion.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Original Zoning Mr. Peterson then stated regarding item Z-26-05-003, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the property at 3704 Liberty Road from County RS-40 (Residential Single- family) to City R-3 to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed City R-3 zoning district permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Vice Chair Downing seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting. Z-26-05-004: A rezoning request from R-5 (Residential Single-family – 5) to CD-O (Conditional District - Office) for the properties identified as 2321 and 2323 Lawndale Drive, generally described as west of Lawndale Drive and south of Fernwood Drive (0.34 acres). (APPROVED) Mr. Kirkman reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties. Mr. Kirkman advised the applicant proposed changes to the condition # 6 highlighted and underlined as follows: 1. Permitted Uses shall be limited to Single-Family Detached Dwellings, Office Uses including Residential Office Conversion, and Accessory Structures. 2. The existing structure must remain. 3. Building height shall be limited to 40 feet. 4. A minimum 6 foot tall opaque privacy fence shall be installed where allowed along the southern property line of the property currently addressed as 2321 Lawndale Avenue, adjacent to the property known as Parcel No. 0015146, currently addressed as 2319 Lawndale Drive.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 5. No attached signs requiring a sign permit shall be permitted on the principal structure. 6. The property shall have only 1 freestanding monument sign located along the frontage of Lawndale Drive and such monument sign shall not exceed 30 square feet in size and shall not exceed 4 feet in height. Commission Motion: Mr. Nichols made a motion to accept the changes in condition proposed by the applicant. Ms. Turner seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Mr. Kirkman then stated that the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map designates the subject property as Urban Central with an Urban (Mixed-Use) Corridor and a Reinvestment Corridor. The subject properties are designated as Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed rezoning request supports the Comprehensive Plan’s Growing Economic Competitiveness Big Idea to build a prosperous, resilient economy that creates equitable opportunities to succeed. The request also supports the Comprehensive Plan’s Filling in Our Framework goal to attract world-class development to transform underutilized sites and buildings into valued assets that complement their surroundings. The proposed CD-O zoning district, as conditioned, allows uses that are compatible with existing uses present in the surrounding area. The subject properties are located adjacent to more intense office and commercial uses, and at the periphery of a residential neighborhood. The proposed zoning for this property is also appropriate for the small scale non-residential uses permitted in the conditions given its proximity to a major thoroughfare. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak on the request. She noted two (2) minutes was available to elaborate on the request. The applicant’s attorney was present but did not speak on the request. Hearing no comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Commission Motion: Rezoning Ms. Turner then stated regarding item Z-26-05-004, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the properties at 2321 and 2323 Lawndale Drive from R-5 (Residential Single-family – 5) to CD-O (Conditional District - Office) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed CD-O zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Vice Chair Downing seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the vote constituted a final action, unless appealed in writing and the appeal fee paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal. All such appeals would be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting. All adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. PL(P) 26-15 & Z-26-05-005: An annexation and original zoning request from County RS-40 (Residential Single-family) to City R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) for the property identified as 4701 Hickory Valley Road, generally described as north of Hickory Valley Road and west of Youngs Mill Road (0.79 acres) (RECOMMENDED APPROVAL) Ms. Harrison reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties. Ms. Harrison stated that the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map designates the subject property as Exurban. If this original zoning request is approved, the Future Built Form designation for the subject site is considered to be amended to Urban General. The subject property is designated as Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed original zoning request supports both the Comprehensive Plan’s Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro’s citywide  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices and the Filling in Our Framework Big Idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro. The proposed R-3 zoning district is primarily intended to accommodate low-density single-family detached residential development of up to 3 dwelling units per acre. The proposed original zoning request allows uses that are similar to existing uses in the surrounding area. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the commissioners. Ms. Magid asked staff if TRC (Technical Review Committee) recommended approval for the annexation. Ms. Harrison advised the annexation was approved by TRC. Ms. Magid asked if the annexation was to allow for the connection to city water and sewer. Ms. Harrison confirmed the annexation was to allow for connection to city water and sewer. Chair Skenes asked for further questions from the commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak on the request. She noted two (2) minutes was available to elaborate on the request. Hearing no comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Annexation Vice Chair Downing made a motion to annex item PL (P) 26-15 for the property identified as 4701 Hickory Valley Road. Ms. Magid seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Original Zoning Vice Chair Downing then stated regarding item Z-26-05-005, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 zoning request for the property at 4701 Hickory Valley Road from County RS-40 (Residential Single-family) to City R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed City R-3 zoning district permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Nichols seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting. Z-26-05-006: A rezoning request from C-M (Commercial – Medium) to CD-LI (Conditional District - Light Industrial) for the properties identified as 3208, 3210, and 3212 North O.Henry Boulevard, generally described as east of North O.Henry Boulevard and north of McKnight Mill Road (3.75 acres). (APPROVED) Mr. Kirkman reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties. Mr. Kirkman advised that the applicant proposed the following condition: 1. Uses shall be limited to: All Animal Shelters, Veterinary Services, Pet Grooming, Kennels, and Office uses. Mr. Kirkman stated that the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map currently designates the subject properties as Urban General and within a Reinvestment Corridor. The Future Land Use Map designates these properties as Residential. Staff determined the proposed rezoning request supports the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Prioritizing Sustainability goal to give Greensboro a strong leadership role in environmental stewardship, social equity, and a resilient economy, and the Growing Economic Competitiveness goal to build a prosperous, resilient economy that creates equitable opportunities to succeed. The proposed CD-LI zoning district, as conditioned, limits available uses to those that are generally consistent with the character of nearby properties. In general, uses permitted in the proposed LI zoning district have little or no adverse effect upon adjoining properties while allowing for adaptive reuse of an underutilized property. Care should be taken with respect to building orientation, building  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 materials, building height, and visual buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the lower density residential uses on adjacent properties. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak on the request. She noted two (2) minutes was available to elaborate on the request. The applicant was present to address any questions the commissioners might have. Hearing no comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Rezoning Mr. Oliver then stated regarding item Z-26-05-006, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for properties at 3208, 3210, and 3212 North O. Henry Boulevard from C-M (Commercial – Medium) to CD-LI (Conditional District - Light Industrial) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed CD-LI zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the vote constituted a final action, unless appealed in writing and the appeal fee paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal. All such appeals would be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting. All adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. PL(P) 26-18 & Z-26-05-010: An annexation and original zoning request from County HB (Highway Business) to City CD-C-M (Conditional District - Commercial – Medium) for the property identified as 4800 West Gate City Boulevard, generally described as north of West Gate City Boulevard and south of Kitty Hawk Road (0.83 acres) (RECOMMENDED APPROVAL)  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Ms. Harrison reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties. Ms. Harrison advised that the applicant proposed the following condition: 1. Permitted uses shall include all allowed uses in the C-M zoning district, except any of the following: a. Eating and Drinking Establishments with Drive-through Facilities b. Bars, Nightclubs, and Brewpubs c. Convenience Stores with Fuel Pumps Ms. Harrison stated that the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map currently designates the property as Planned Industrial District within the South Greensboro Area Plan and within a Reinvestment Area. The subject property is designated as Industrial on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed rezoning request supports the Comprehensive Plan’s Growing Economic Competitiveness goal to increase and preserve the inventory of developable sites compatible with corporate and industrial uses. The request also supports the Comprehensive Plan’s Filling in Our Framework strategy to maintain inventory, and market key underutilized sites and structures to private industry and developers. The proposed CD-LI zoning district, as conditioned, allows uses that are compatible with the existing manufacturing uses adjacent to the subject property. The request is also compatible with the South Greensboro Area Plan by expanding land use options for future development in this industrial area. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Ms. Magid stated that when she visited the site the notice sign was down. She asked for confirmation on the location. She noted the subject property was at the corner of West Gate City to Kitty Hawk Road. Ms. Harrison confirmed the property was located at the corner of West Gate City and Forbes Drive to Kitty Hawk Road. Ms. Magid asked staff if TRC (Technical Review Committee) recommended approval for the annexation. Ms. Harrison advised the annexation was approved by TRC. Chair Skenes asked for further questions from the commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak on the request. She noted two (2) minutes  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 was available to elaborate on the request. Hearing no comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Annexation Ms. Magid made a motion to annex item PL (P) 26-18 for the property identified as 4800 West Gate City Boulevard. Vice Chair Downing seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Original Zoning Ms. Magid then stated regarding item Z-26-05-010, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the property at 4800 West Gate City Boulevard from County HB (Highway Business) to City CD-C-M (Conditional District - Commercial – Medium) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed City CD-C-M zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting. REGULAR AGENDA Z-26-05-002: A rezoning request from CD-LI (Conditional District - Light Industrial) to CD-LI (Conditional District - Light Industrial) for the property identified as 2614 Greengate Drive, generally described as west of Greengate Drive and north of Corliss Street (0.92 acres). (APPROVED)  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Mr. Kirkman reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties. Mr. Kirkman advised the applicant proposed changes to the conditions highlighted and underlined as follows: 1. Permitted uses shall include all uses in the LI (Light Industrial) zoning district except: Bus and Rail Terminals, Water Treatment Facilities, Hotels and Motels, Funeral Homes and Crematoriums, Manufactured and Modular Home Sales, Truck Stops, and Microbreweries, Eating and Drink Establishments and Convenience Store with Fuel Pumps. 2. All exterior walls of any building shall be constructed of at least 80% brick. 3. All truck doors, docks or similar loading areas shall not be located between the building and Greengate Drive. Commission Motion: Mr. Peterson made a motion to accept the conditions change proposed by the applicant. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Mr. Kirkman then stated that the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map currently designates the property as Planned Industrial District within the South Greensboro Area Plan and within a Reinvestment Area. The subject property is designated as Industrial on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed rezoning request supports the Comprehensive Plan’s Growing Economic Competitiveness goal to increase and preserve the inventory of developable sites compatible with corporate and industrial uses. The request also supports the Comprehensive Plan’s Filling in Our Framework strategy to maintain inventory, and market key underutilized sites and structures to private industry and developers. The proposed CD-R-5, as conditioned, would permit a maximum of two (2) single-family dwellings. The proposed CD-LI zoning district, as conditioned, allows uses that are compatible with the existing manufacturing uses adjacent to the subject property. The request is also compatible with the South Greensboro Area Plan by expanding land use options for future development in this industrial area. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes called the applicant to the podium to speak on the request. She reminded the applicant had ten minutes available to talk on the request.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 In Support of: Mr. Wayne Troxler, 7467 Doggett Road, Browns Summit, stated he represented the owner of the subject property, Avalon Potts. He said the request was due to a 1984 written statue which stated no club was allowed in the building. Mr. Troxler mentioned they wanted a cheerleading club to use the building. He said the club would not be open on the weekend and there was no traffic impact. He stated the request was not a complicated matter. Mr. Peterson asked staff if the reason for the request was because of the word “club”. Mr. Troxler agreed with Mr. Peterson. Mr. Kirkman explained that the current zoning for the property was granted in 1992 and did not allow for recreational uses. Mr. Kirkman said the intention of the applicant was to have indoor recreation use. He noted that proposed use was for a cheerleading club. However, this use falls under recreational use. Chair Skenes noted there were a list of conditions associated with the current zoning district. She mentioned the current zoning would not allow markets and gas stations to name a few uses. Chair Skenes said these uses would be allowed if the request was approved. As all the conditions from the current zoning conditions were not incorporated in the request. She looked to Mr. Troxler to comment on excluding these conditions. Mr. Troxler stated he would gladly revise the conditions to include those of the current zoning. Mr. Peterson agreed that the conditions for the request should be revised to incorporate the current zoning conditions. Chair Skenes announced a recess at 6:30pm for the applicant and staff to discuss revised conditions associated with the request. The meeting reconvened at 6:45pm. The conditions were revised and Mr. Troxler agreed to the revised conditions. Chair Skenes asked for questions or comments from the commissioners. Hearing none, she asked for persons wishing to speak in opposition to the request to come to the podium.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 In Opposition of: Cheryl McIvor, 404 West Montcastle Drive, said she lived in the Woodlea Community. She thanked Mr. Troxler and the commissioners for working together to revise and finalize the conditions for the request. Ms. McIvor stated the main concerns for the community was having a gas station and light industrial trucks in the area. Especially since residential dwellings are located within 50 feet or 100 feet from the request. Ms. McIvor asked how the cheerleading club could be allowed under the proposed light industrial zoning district. She pointed out the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) stipulated all indoor recreation except as listed in clubs was permitted. She noted she supported having the cheerleading club. Nonetheless, she did not understand how the use would be allowed in the proposed light industrial district. Mr. Kirkman explained that the LDO looked at a broader category of uses that fall under this category. This broader category include a lot of different activities and then there are other uses that are specifically called out for separate regulations. Therefore, the reason it is noted “except as listed below” meant there were other uses that are called out separately because there were different regulations for these expected uses. Mr. Kirkman stated club in the LDO referred to membership clubs such as Clubs or Lodges. He said this request would be an indoor recreation use for athletes training or similar use. Ms. McIvor indicated she understood. Again, she thanked the commission, staff and Mr. Troxler for working together to revise the conditions for the request. Chair Skenes inquired if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked Mr. Troxler if he wished to speak further on the request. Hearing no further comments she closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Rezoning Mr. Peterson then stated regarding item Z-26-05-002 including the revised condition, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the property at 2614 Greengate Drive from CD-LI (Conditional District - Light Industrial) to CD-LI (Conditional District - Light Industrial) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed CD-LI zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the vote constituted a final action, unless appealed in writing and the appeal fee paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal. All such appeals would be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting. All adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. PL(P) 26-16 & Z-26-05-007: An annexation and original zoning request from County AG (Agricultural) to City CD-RM-18 (Conditional District – Residential Multi-family – 18) for the properties identified as 1818, 1820, and 1830 Andrews Farm Road, generally described as west of Andrews Farm Road and north of McConnell Road (83.22 acres) (RECOMMENDED APPROVAL) Mr. Kirkman reviewed the summary information for the subject properties and surrounding properties. Mr. Kirkman advised the applicant was requesting a fourth condition, highlighted and underlined as follows: 1. Permitted uses shall be limited to: Single-family Detached Dwellings; Single-family Detached Dwellings, Zero Lot Line; Duplexes; Traditional Houses; Townhouses; and Twin Home. 2. No more than 210 dwelling units shall be permitted. 3. No final plat indicating more than 100 lots shall be recorded until such time that a secondary access point is provided. 4. A minimum 6 foot high opaque fence (where permitted) shall be installed adjacent to the northern property line of 1824 Andrews Farm Road (parcel 120670). Commission Motion: Mr. Peterson made a motion to accept the fourth condition proposed by the applicant. Ms. Turner seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None).  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Mr. Kirkman stated that the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map designates the subject property as Exurban. If this original zoning request is approved, the Future Built Form designation for the subject site is considered to be amended to Urban General. The subject property is designated as Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed original zoning request supports both the Comprehensive Plan’s Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro’s citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices and the Filling in Our Framework Big Idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro. The proposed CD-RM-18 (Conditional District - Residential Multi-family – 18), as conditioned, would offer a range of residential uses at a maximum overall density of 18 dwellings per acre. This original rezoning request allows uses that are similar to surrounding uses. Care should be taken with respect to building orientation, building materials, building height, and visual buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the low density residential on adjacent properties. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes called the applicant to the podium to speak on the request. She reminded the applicant had ten minutes available to talk on the request. In Support of: Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road, represented the applicant, KZT Acquisition, LLC. He introduced his colleagues Sydney Larson, the civil engineer, who could assist with answering technical questions. Mr. Blackwood gave a brief overview of the site and surrounding developments. He stated the subject properties were in proximity to two interchanges, Interstate 85 and 40. Mr. Blackwood stated this was the driving force for this project and other residential development along the McConnell Road stretch. He noted that the project was a quick 15 to 20 minutes commute to the Toyota facility. And that facility was driving a lot of growth in the area. Mr. Blackwood highlighted the subject properties were bordered along three sides by a solar farm. Having the solar farm north, west and south of the subject properties, he stated, the request would not have tremendous impact on the surrounding development to the east. He acknowledged that there were single-family residential neighbors fronting Andrews Farm Road. And some of the residents were present at the meeting.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Mr. Blackwood described existing uses and approved projects coming to the area. He said a project was recently approved, in 2021, at the tail end of Andrews Farm Road. This approved development included up to 1,400 dwellings (single-family and town homes). He noted the project had not commenced yet but was coming. Mr. Blackwood stated the character and nature of the area was changing and has already changed. He said having higher density residential development in the area was not unique to the request. He noted that while the request was an RM-18 zoning district, development density was capped at 210 lots. In reality spreading the development across the 83 acres, the density would be about two and half dwellings per acre. Mr. Blackwood displayed an illustrative plan showing site layout, which went before the Technical Review Committee (TRC). He pointed out that the extensive streams and wetland features along the western and northern sections somewhat pushed the development south of the subject properties. This led to the capped density of 210 dwellings. And it would not be feasible to have a higher density due to the land features. He said the site constraints worked in favor of the residents along Andrews Farm Road. Mr. Blackwood described the project as a good middle ground proposal that allowed for higher density without being completely out of character to the area. Mr. Blackwood spoke about the neighborhood outreach and said that they held a neighborhood meeting. He said the developer and home builder wanted a unique housing product similar to Charleston-style row house development. Mr. Blackwood stated this type of development called for smaller lots. And the proposed RM-18 zoning district allowed 45 feet lot width rather than 50ft from the initial proposal of CD-R-7 (Residential Single-family-7). He emphasized they planned not to maximize the RM-18 density. Hence the condition limiting the density. Mr. Blackwood noted the project was low density but opened up options with respect to development standards. He said follow up letters were mailed to residents regarding the change in the zoning district. Mr. Blackwood highlighted that condition 4 was added based on residents’ concerns. He said adding the fence along the northern section where the access was proposed would minimize traffic impacts. Mr. Blackwood said the developers were completely committed and willing to implement additional buffer as needed. He noted the request would be presented to city council the following month and additional landscaping could be added after meeting with the residents. Chair Skenes asked for questions or comments from the commissioners. Mr. Oliver asked Mr. Blackwood to talk about access to water connection being 8,000 feet away from the site.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Mr. Blackwood noted they received a water connection feasibility letter from the city. They had the possibility of getting extension from the approved PUD at the end of Andrews Farm Road. He noted this access was under review. Also, there was an alternative path, however, having water access via the PUD would be shorter extension to tap into. Mr. Oliver stated that 8,000 feet was about mile and half and was not too close. He wanted to know what the alternative would be, the other connection. Syndney Larson, 1070 South Main Street, Holly Springs, stated the alternative was connecting all the way down Andrews Farm Road into the 16 inch waterline in the McConnell Road.. Mr. Larson noted they have the feasibility letter for this proposal. Mr. Oliver inquired if the PUD project at the end of Andrews Farm Road was already annexed into the city. Mr. Blackwood confirmed the PUD was already annexed into the city. Mr. Oliver asked if connecting to the PUD waterline allowed for filling in the space. Mr. Blackwood concurred with Mr. Nichols and stated that any extension of utilities would be the developer’s expense and not city’s cost. Mr. Oliver then asked who would be responsible for road development for the project. Mr. Blackwood noted the development would also bear road development cost. He mentioned that a Traffic Impact Study was prepared and reviewed in connection with the traffic study for the PUD project. Mr. Blackwood stated there was some synergy with respect to anticipated improvements. Chair Skenes asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the request. Hearing none, she asked for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to request to come to the podium. Chair Skenes noted they had ten minutes total to speak on the request. In Opposition of: Janice Grafton, 1824 Andrew Farms Road, pointed out there were single-family dwellings surrounding the subject properties. She said she lived at her home for fifteen (15) years, moving from the city. She described her dwelling as “dream home” and was just perfect. She asked why not place development such as the request in a location she  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 noted along Interstate 40 and 85. Instead of placing such multi-family development in quiet neighborhoods. She emphasized the residents appreciated the peace and quiet and beautiful neighborhood. Ms. Grafton said having the development meant removal of trees. And traffic in the area would be horrendous. She said the roads in the area were two lanes and currently another project was constructing up to five hundred (500) dwellings along McConnell Road, less than a mile from her home. She mentioned there was warehouse development in the area. Ms. Grafton said she understood the need for more housing but they should place such type of residential development in industrial areas or in areas already developed. Chair Skenes asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to the request. Hearing none, she called on the applicant for five minutes rebuttal. Rebuttal: In Support Nick Blackwood, stated Ms. Grafton attended the neighborhood meeting and he was willing to continue meeting with her before the scheduled city council meeting the following month. Mr. Blackwood said they added conditions to address immediate concerns. However, they needed time to decide on the type of landscape buffer to be implemented. He emphasized that the proposed density of 2.5 dwellings per acre was not much deviation from surrounding development. Mr. Blackwood noted the entire property was 83 acres with proposed maximum 210 dwellings. Mr. Blackwood pointed out the recently approved Duke Energy substation at the southern end of Andrews Farm Road. He stated the substation indicated the utility providers recognized the residential growth in the area. Mr. Blackwood mentioned the convenient access to the highway infrastructure, and short commute to Toyota was attractive for residential development. Hence they felt that the request was appropriate for the area. Ms. Magid asked Mr. Blackwood to explain condition 3 “No final plat indicating more than 100 lots shall be recorded until such time that a secondary access point is provided”. Mr. Blackwood explained the project was limited to a single access, intersection of Andrews Farm Road and McConnell Road. Therefore, the emergency services were limited to a single access point. Having the single access point, they could only build one (100) hundred dwellings. When the second access was provided then the additional 150 dwellings could be built. The second access for emergency services would be provided  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 via the PUD development northeast of the request. He stated this was the meaning behind condition 3. Ms. Magid stated the city needed the development. However, expressed concerns about the main and secondary access to the site. She stated the secondary access should be the main entrance to the development. She pointed out that both access points surrounded a single-family property (1824 Andrews Farm Road) on both sides. Ms. Magid then asked Mr. Blackwood if they would reconsider the access points. Mr. Blackwood stated they were happy to consider changing the accesses subject to GDOT review. He noted there was sufficient road frontage along the northern portion of the subject properties. However, on the southern portion the streams and wetlands were constraints they would need to consider. Mr. Blackwood said since they were required to have more than one access, they had to make best use of the road frontage. Therefore, the best use for the northern portion (finger) would be an access point. He said they would work through the technical details with GDOT at the site plan review process. Chair Skenes asked for questions from the commissioners. Chair Skenes then noted that based on her calculations the request proposed 2.5 dwellings per acre. And most of the subdivisions in the city were 3 units per acre. Therefore, the request proposed less density than the typical subdivision classification. Mr. Blackwood agreed with Chair Skenes and stated the proposed net density calculation was lower than the lowest permitted development density in the city. Chair Skenes asked Ms. Grafton if she wished to speak further on the request. Ms. Grafton indicated she did not want to speak further. Hearing no further comments Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Chair Skenes asked for comments or motion from the Commissioners. Commission Motion: Annexation Ms. Magid made a motion to annex item PL (P) 26-16 for the properties identified as 1818, 1820, and 1830 Andrews Farm Road. Vice Chair Downing seconded the motion.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Original Zoning Ms. Turner then stated regarding item Z-26-05-007, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the properties at 1818, 1820, and 1830 Andrews Farm Road from County AG (Agricultural) to City CD-RM-18 (Conditional District - Residential Multi-family – 18) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed City CD-RM-18 zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting. Z-26-05-009: A rezoning request from R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) to CD-C-M (Conditional District - Commercial – Medium) for the properties identified as 1701 New Garden Road and 2702 Will Doskey Drive, generally described as north of New Garden Road and east of Will Doskey Drive (1.08 acres) (APPROVED) Mr. Kirkman reviewed the summary information for the subject properties and surrounding properties. Mr. Kirkman advised the applicant proposed changes to the conditions highlighted and underlined as follows: 1. All uses permitted in the CM District shall be allowed EXCEPT: Agriculture Use Category Uses, Group Living Use Category Uses, Animal Shelters, Cemeteries, Auditoriums, Coliseums and Stadiums, Educational Facilities, Special Hospital, Bus and Rail Terminal, Religious Assembly Uses, Social Service Facilities Uses, Movie and Other Theater, Shooting Range, Outdoor Recreation Uses, Hotels/Motels, Tourist Home, Parking (Commercial) Uses, Bars, Nightclubs, Brewpubs, Funeral Homes, Crematoriums, Taxi Dispatch  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Terminal, Taxidermist, Veterinary Services, Pet Grooming, Kennels, Pawnshop, Sexually Oriented Businesses, Vehicle Sales and Service Uses, Light Industrial Uses, Heavy Industrial Uses, Wholesale Trade Uses, Warehousing, Storage and Freight Handling Uses, Junked Motor Vehicles, and Inert Debris Landfills. Commission Motion: Mr. Peterson made a motion to accept the amended condition proposed (to prohibit uses) by the applicant. Vice Chair Downing seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Mr. Kirkman stated that the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map currently designates this property as Urban General and as Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed original zoning and rezoning request supports the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Filling In Our Framework Big Idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop and enjoy our free time can create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro and the Creating Great Places Goal to create a citywide network of unique neighborhoods offer residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices. The CD-C-M (Conditional District - Commercial – Medium) zoning district, as conditioned, limits proposed commercial uses to those similar to existing uses in the surrounding area, and the change in zoning for this property is also appropriate given its location in proximity to a major thoroughfare. Staff noted that the property borders a District-scale Activity Center, which the New Garden Road Strategic Plan notes present the best opportunities for commercial activities that support walkable environments. Care should be taken with respect to building orientation, building materials, building height, and visual buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the low density residential on adjacent properties. Staff recommended approval of the request. Mr. Kirkman noted the request triggered an amendment to the New Garden Road Strategic Plan. The subject properties were designated low residential on the plan. And the request was to amend the zoning to mixed use commercial designation. As such the commission would make a recommendation and the plan then presented before the city council. Chair Skenes asked for any questions from the Commissioners.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Ms. Turner asked why the request would not be permitted in the New Garden Strategic Plan. Mr. Kirkman explained that when the New Gardens Plan was adopted it referenced future land use classification from Connection 2025. He explained the existing Comprehensive plan was different from the adopted plan. However, the current zoning designation for the subject properties was Low Residential, with a range of three (3) to five (5) dwellings per acre. Mr. Kirkman pointed out Mixed Use Commercial was adjacent to the site. And the request included amending these properties to that mixed use commercial designation. Chair Skenes asked for further questions from the commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes called the applicant to the podium to speak on the request. She reminded the applicant had ten minutes available to talk on the request. In Support of: Amanda Hodierne, 804 Green Valley Road, represented the property owner and applicant CBMGP, LLC. She introduced Mr. Eddie Krusch, the principal of the LLC. Ms. Hodierne said Mr. Krusch owned one of the properties for over thirty (30) years, and the other over a decade. She said she would allow Mr. Krusch to talk about his intention for the subject properties and the history of ownership. Ms. Hodierne reiterated the request comprised of two properties, with combined acreage of 1.08 acres. She highlighted the current zoning district was R-3 (Residential Single- family 3) and the proposed zoning district was CD-C-M (Conditional District – Commercial-Medium). The condition contained litany of prohibited uses). Ms. Hodierne noted the condition was intended to create an appropriate scaled and scoped commercial that would fit into the locality. She noted across the street was a large activity center, and the site was located along a major commercial corridor and major thoroughfare. However, the site was also adjacent to single-family residential properties. So, they wanted to manage the transition appropriately. Ms. Hodierne stated the proposed development should not resemble the large activity center across the street. It should be scaled back and that was what the condition tried to achieve. She noted the addition made to the condition was to accommodate resident’s concerns. Ms. Hodierne displayed an aerial photograph of the subject properties and surrounding properties. She highlighted a major travel corridor, Bryan Boulevard, for travelers moving within and outside of the city. And a major thoroughfare, New Garden Road, which is a connecting corridor for surrounding residential areas to Battleground Avenue or Bryan  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Boulevard and leading to downtown. She summarized that there was a hub of activities in the area capturing a lot of users, and trips generations in and out of the area. She noted whether doing errands, going to birthday parties, having fun, shopping and all such activities done over the weekend and leisure time. She highlighted the commercial centers in the area noting the Harris Teeter supermarket built over twenty-seven (27) years ago. She continued talking about the land use activities in the area. Then Ms. Hodierne narrowed down to the request. She said all the commercial activities she talked about earlier; the request wanted to capitalize on the development in the area. She noted the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan “filling in the framework and creating great places” goals supported this approach. Ms. Hodierne further explained that “capitalizing” on the fact that when people were already coming to a destination, they can get as much as possible done in that place while they are there. Notwithstanding, there should be a nice transition. She said they wanted to be careful and scaled the development. She highlighted that the request was part of the strategic corridor plan. She noted that placing non-residential to residential development required an average width of 25 feet landscape buffer type B planting rate. She said this was dense buffer. Ms. Hodierne stated the strategic corridor plan stipulates that there should be developable lots, big enough to handle the required buffer and maintain nice transitions. And the subject properties could do this. Ms. Hodierne showed an illustrative sketch plan, which she also showed at the neighborhood meeting. She said the sketch plan was reviewed by the TRC. She restated the applicant owned the properties for over thirty (30) years, so why now. She noted the right match came along. It was intentional to have the right use that would take advantage of the intersection without overdoing it and not push too far. Ms. Hodierne mentioned the match was a bank user that signed a fifteen (15) year lease. She explained that all access would be via Will Doskey Drive. Therefore, there would be no curb cuts along the heavily traveled New Garden Road corridor. Nor along Red Coat Lane where there were single- family residences. She noted having the access along Will Doskey Drive was consistent with the New Garden Road strategic corridor plan. She pointed out that when the strategic corridor plan was adopted the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan was no in place. Nonetheless the Comprehensive Plan designated this section of New Garden Road as an urban mixed-use corridor. Ms. Hodierne spoke about the community outreach. She said letters were mailed two times, with the second mail including the neighborhood meeting dates which was not included in the first set. Letters were mailed to forty-six (46) residents, explaining the project, providing contact information and inviting to an open house meeting on May 7 th  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 at Price Park. Ms. Hodierne noted about eleven (11) persons attended the meeting. They had good dialogue about traffic patterns and trip generation. And the site development. She said during the meeting she discovered that the residential neighborhood in the area was on well and septic, a holdover from the county. She noted this development would not be on well and septic. And would be on city water and sewer. Ms. Hodierne pointed out that there would not be any through traffic via Will Doskey Drive to Horse Pen Creek Road. Since Will Doskey Drive ended at Plantation Drive. Thus, making the site ideal for limited scaled commercial use with no cut through traffic. Again, this is an important factor of the New Garden Road Strategic Corridor Plan. They were very careful incorporating the objectives of the corridor plan into their site designs. She then called on her colleague Mr. Krusch to speak. Eddie Krusch, 3031 Pleasant Ridge Road, confirmed he owned the subject properties. He noted he also owned Garden Creek Center, adjacent to the site. He said he was a member of the 1995 New Garden Road focus group along with Mr. Gilmer, Sr. He mentioned the focus group worked with the neighbors and property owners as part of the strategic corridor plan process. He stated he entered into a twenty (20) year moratorium on the subject properties. He said the moratorium expired in 2017, and now after 30 years the right opportunity came together. Mr. Krusch stated the bank would be a good fit for the area. It would not be open at night and closes at 5:00pm and on the weekends. Also, it would not generate a lot of trips. He noted GDOT did not require a traffic study due to low intensity and did not make high demand on the resources in the area. Mr. Krusch noted the bank was a regional bank from Ohio, and it would provide jobs with benefits. He said the jobs were needed and the use was associated with low impact type structure. The building would be a one-story structure, which was a good transition. He asked the commission to approve the request. Chair Skenes asked for questions from the commissioners. Chair Skenes asked the applicant if the restrictive covenant was applied to both properties or only the property on the corner (1701 New Garden Road). Mr. Krusch said the restrictive covenant was applied only to the property at the corner (1701 New Garden Road). He noted he owned the other property for fifteen (15) years. Chair Skenes asked for any questions from the commissioners. Hearing none, she asked for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to request to come to the podium. Chair Skenes noted they had ten minutes total to speak on the request.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 In Opposition of: Crystal Earley, 3800 Plantation Drive, represented the High Acres neighborhood. She stated she tried approaching the request logically, thoughtfully and respectfully. However, it was difficult to not speak from the heart, when talking about a space where neighbors became friends and families looking out for each other. She said her family lived in the neighborhood for five (5) generations. She asked the commissioners to deny the request. Ms. Earley stated the request was inconsistent with the adopted New Garden corridor plan, which was designated low residential and not mixed use commercial. Ms. Earley pointed out that the request would amend the new Garden Road strategic plan. She said amending the plan matters. As residents trusted the plan to be meaningful when they chose to build their lives and families there. She noted that once commercial development was allowed on this side of the neighborhood, the next request would become easier. She continued to say that the next parcel would become vulnerable and the residential character of the area would begin to unravel on approval at a time. Ms. Earley stated that once a rezoning decision was made, the commercial use could change as well as conditions and the community would be left with something different than what was originally intended. She said the request would remove two (2) homes from the city’s housing inventory. When the city was vehemently stressing the need for more housing. Ms. Earley mentioned that at the neighborhood meeting, residents got an understanding of what could be a bank. The residents asked about the intentions for the site and Mr. Krusch noted the banks typically sign fifteen (15) year lease. However, it was not clearly stated whether a bank was committed to the project. She highlighted that Ms. Hodierne stated the proposed bank was in keeping with the amenities expected for growth in the area. While the loss of two (2) homes was not an issue regarding the city’s goal for housing, almost that the loss was insignificant. Hence she asked the question, “how does another bank meet the community need?” She did not think having another bank met the needs of the community. Ms. Earley noted that within a two and half mile radius there were already twenty-one (21) banks in the area. Ms. Earley noted a traffic impact study would not be required. She found it interesting that a TIS was not required when currently on site there were four signs asking traffic to slow down. She said there were 21 reported crashes in less than five (5) years, however, not every incident would be officially reported. Ms. Earley stated the staff report repeatedly referred to the request as compatible with surrounding areas. Yet the properties immediately north and east were established single-family homes. She said the request was not a redevelopment within an existing commercial center. It was a  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 commercial expansion into the edge of a residential neighborhood. And this mattered. Ms. Earley mentioned the applicant owned and controlled many parcels in and surrounding High Acres. And this request was not an isolated rezoning. Therefore, the residents were cautious. Ms. Earley stated when the adjacent Garden Greek Shopping Center was being developed the residents were given three major assurances by Mr. Krusch. One of which no fast food restaurants would be in the center, and that landscape had shifted. Secondly, the Shopping Center would not open onto Will Doskey Drive, and today that the major entrance was located there. And thirdly, promised a park to be implemented in the year 2000. She said land was designated for a park at 2724 Horse Pen Creek Road. This designated space was a 40 feet tall dirt berm not suitable for the intended purpose. And the residents recently discovered through county records the land dedication was withdrawn without their knowledge. Thus, this discovery deepened the residents’ concerns and distrust for the current request. Ms. Earley also noted that city and county mapping records appeared inconsistent with the ownership and zoning designation for the subject properties. Which also raised serious questions for the residents. And importantly, since the applicant owned properties already zoned commercial, why was it necessary to amend the city’s adopted plan and convert High Acres area. Ms. Earley said that perhaps the most consequential issue before the commission was the damages to groundwater and well systems, which could not be reversed. She noted there were no city water and sewer system throughout the neighborhood. And there were no plans for the city to implement these services. Ms. Earley noted that many of the neighbors relied entirely on groundwater and natural recharge through the soil for drinking water. She said despite staff report the property at 2702 Will Doskey had a well. Also, when the trees are removed, and the land is cleared and graded with more impervious surfaces this would have an impact on groundwater recharge and nearby wells. Ms. Earley noted at the neighborhood meeting the applicant assured the residents his project would not affect neighboring wells. She expressed how anyone could make such assurance unless a detailed hydrology and groundwater study conducted and shared with the residents. Ms. Earley mentioned that in the end the residents would pay the price for the rezoning decision, not Mr. Krusch. She said the environmental impacts of the request would extend beyond the boundaries of just these two properties. She noted the staff report described the southern adjacent property as stormwater infrastructure, but in reality was a retention pond adjacent to New Garden Road and not directly adjacent. Mr. Earley said while some stormwater would reach the pond, runoff from the site would continue through Red Coat  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Lane. And through the ravine and ultimately into the stream feeding into Horse Pen Creek carrying oils, fuel residue, and other pollutants directly into the watershed system in the area. She said the staff acknowledged significant water control measures would be required for the site. She said this demonstrated the seriousness of the runoff and watershed concerns. Ms. Earley said the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan repeatedly emphasized protecting neighborhoods, preserving communities, safeguarding natural resources, and evaluation the long-term impacts of development. She said the request conflicted with the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Earley stated the Plan specifically asked whether rezoning create direct adverse impacts on adjacent neighborhood. She felt the request did and it mattered. Ms. Earley concluded the request did not strengthen housing availability. It did not protect the neighborhood’s stability. It did not preserve the residential character nor did it meet an unmet community need. She asked any commissioner who had personal, professional or financial relationship with the applicant, his family or any of his companies or his legal representatives to disclose the relationship. As well as any prior involvement or knowledge related to the park designation and reversal of the designation. She stated transparency matters and as stated by Mayor Abuzuaiter stated at the swearing in of the city’s police chief, public trust matters. She said when Mr. Krusch was asked to provide legal assurance, restrictive covenant, guaranteeing a bank would remain on the subject properties for 15 years he refused. Ms. Earley stated that the applicant refusing to give the residents this assurance was not about approving a bank or commercial zoning inside of an established residential neighborhood. But was about what occupying the land without demonstrated unmet need at the expense of existing homes, stable neighborhoods, groundwater systems, and community trust. She said every commercial corridor had to end somewhere. Ms. Earley stated if every residential edge property became compatible for commercial expansion simply because commercial existed nearby. Then no neighborhood boundary is ever, truly protected. She said the New Garden corridor plan specifically envisioned the area as low residential. And this mattered because adopted plans were supposed to guide growth intentionally, not incrementally erode established neighborhoods through repeated exceptions. Ms. Earley stated the GSO 2040 plan was about creating a Greensboro where people could thrive across generations. A bank would not allow that to happen, but a neighborhood would. She said to the commissioners the residents were not asking to protect a few homes. They were asking to protect the integrity of adopted city plans and the residents’ trust. Ms. Earley noted a community built over generation simply should not be undone because of map changing color. The residents asked the commission not to support the rezoning request.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Chair Skenes thanked Ms. Earley and inquired if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to the request. Juna May, 3801 Plantation Drive, raised concerns about water table and stormwater draining to her property. She noted that stormwater draining from Red Coat Lane and Will Doskey Drive would be drained to her property. Ms. May noted there was a stream behind her property and was concerned about the additional impervious surface from the request. She noted her well was 40 feet from the stream. She said this was her primary concern along with what Ms. Earley said earlier that the area was family neighborhood. Chair Skenes then called on the applicant for rebuttal. Chair Skenes noted five (5) minutes was available for the rebuttal. Ms. Hodierne thanked Ms. May and Ms. Earley for the comments, and for also attending the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Hodierne addressed the concerns raised about the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the New Garden Strategic Corridor Plan: 1) The plan was adopted in 2019. The plan stated under future land uses, there were few remaining “high pressure development sites.” Also, while the plan was being prepared the Comprehensive Plan update started. Therefore, the 2025 land use plan would be in effect until completion of the GSO 2040 Plan. The updated policies, objectives and considerations would be adopted. She noted the strategic plan did not have a future land use map. It referenced the 2025 land use plan which was updated to the GSO 2040 Plan. She explained that for future land use factors such as the physical site features, environmental constraints, size, topographic layout. Also, can the sites considered for development accommodate the proposal in a reasonable fashion. Which, she spoke about earlier in her presentation. Ms. Hodierne said other factor such as can the site be accessed in a safe and reasonable manner that would not impede the New Garden Road corridor. And would not create conflicts and disadvantageous situations on side streets. She said she talked about the connectivity and isolation from adjacent uses. Getting to things that we want to go to and keeping trips limited off the major streets. In summary the offsite impact and transition to adjacent properties; corridor character and scale was how the future land use was addressed under the New Garden strategic corridor plan. She explained low residential was not intentional specific decided land use. 2) The fact that the request would make other rezonings more likely or more vulnerable. Ms. Hodierne reminded the commissioners, the request was a standalone matter. She said while the commissioners would apply a thoughtful  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 analysis, they could not make assumptions or speculations about future cases that were not before them. She acknowledged that removing two (2) houses was not insignificant. However, they were older homes. 3) A TIS was not required as stated by GDOT because the proposed use was low trip generator and highly improved intersection already existing in the area. 4) The existing residential community was built in the county with no stormwater requirement when built. She noted the community had ditch and swale. Ms. Hodierne stated the stormwater regulations where not what they currently are. She noted that while stormwater concerns were not about land use, she addressed the concerns. Ms. Hodierne noted that the site would be developed with stormwater regulations. The stormwater would be drained and treated and released under current standards. She noted the existing detention pond was to drain the surrounding development. She said the stormwater system would be reviewed by TRC. Therefore, the impervious surfaces from the request would have no impact on the surrounding community as it would be contained on the site. Chair Skenes asked for questions from the commissioners. Ms. Magid asked if there was community outreach regarding the New Garden Road strategic plan. Ms. Hodierne acknowledged there was community outreach regarding the New Garden Road strategic plan. She said she worked with city staff from the planning department and received contact information for the committees that worked on the strategic plan. Ms. Hodierne stated she invited the contacts to the neighborhood meeting. And one of the contacts asked for the addition to the condition, prohibiting uses, which was updated. Ms. Hodierne mentioned she has a letter of support from one of the committee members. Ms. Magid asked if there would be a text amendment to the New Garden strategic plan. Mr. Kirkman confirmed there would be an amendment to the Strategic Plan. He explained the amendment triggered the need for the request to go before the city council for approval. Mr. Kirkman stated it also triggered additional requirements such as additional neighborhood outreach beyond what other rezoning cases would have required. Therefore, the commission motion would be a recommendation, and the request would move on to the city council. Chair Skenes asked for further questions from the commissioners. Hearing none, she asked persons speaking in opposition to come forward to the podium for the rebuttal.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Ms. Earley noted that the first letter received from the applicant did not have a neighborhood meeting date. However, the second letter had the meeting information. So, the residents had eleven (11) day to read the Comprehensive Plan and learn things. She said staff helped and guided them to information. Ms. Earley said because no sign was placed on the 2702 Will Doskey Drive the residents believed the rezoning request was for 1701 New Garden Road. She said there was a lot of confusion on what was happening about the request. She said the residents did not have much information but they were very concerned and did not want the neighborhood character to change. Chair Skenes asked for questions from the commissioners. Hearing none, she inquired if there was anyone else wishing to speak further in opposition to the request. Hearing none, Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Ms. Magid stated she lived in the area and as she passed the subject properties with signs saying slow down, go slow, and such. She said she was prepared not to support the request. But after the presentation at the meeting, she supported the request. Ms. Magid said even having residence on the subject properties the traffic would not slow down. Also, having the Garden Creek Center adjacent to the site, it would be a location that could not become a housing where someone could live without being worried about children going out to be run over. So, with this, she supported the request. Ms. Magid mentioned she was not happy it was another bank since there was a bank already in in the strip mall close by. She acknowledged the residents and the fact some have been living in the neighborhood for up to twenty (20) years. And she hoped that the commercial development would not progress into the residential community. Chair Skenes asked for further questions from the commissioners. Mr. Gilmer, Sr stated he did not have a conflict of interest from being on the committee for the strategic plan 25 years ago. He said the development would have low impact and supported the request. Vice Chair Downing thanked both residents for their presentation, and said their material was very thought provoking. He supported the request. He said the request had low impact. And he found it precarious having the house at the corner. He acknowledged the need to maintain the integrity and vitality of the neighborhood. However, it was incumbent for the commissioners to evolve as they made things a lot more streamlined. Chair Skenes asked for further questions or comments from the commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes closed the public hearing.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Commission Motion: Rezoning Ms. Turner then stated regarding item Z-26-05-009, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the properties at 1701 New Garden Road and 2702 Will Doskey Drive from R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) to CD-C-M (Conditional District - Commercial – Medium) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed CD-C-M zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the vote constituted a final action, unless appealed in writing and the appeal fee paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal. All such appeals would be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting. All adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. Chair Skenes announced recessed at 8:08 pm. The meeting reconvene at 8:26pm. PL(P) 26-19: Text Amendment. Zoning, Planning and Development Text Amendments: Amending the Greensboro Land Development Ordinance, Section 30-4-5.9, Successive Applications, Section 30-4-10.12, Successive Applications, Section 30-5-4, Remedies, Section 30-7-5.2.E.3, Good Repair Regulations, 30-8- 1.1.A.3, Special Use Permit Required, Section 30-8-13, Entertainment Facility Use Standards, 30-8-11.9, Swimming Pools and Interactive Water Features, and Section 30-12-8.2, Minimum Open Space Requirements Christopher Andrews, Deputy Director, Planning Department briefly spoke on the text amendment as follows:  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Background The Planning Department is requesting amendments to various sections of the Land Development Ordinance. Several of the proposed amendments are needed due to changes in State law and other City Ordinances over the last couple of years. Other amendments are based on recurring approvals for variances by the Board of Adjustment showing the need to make ordinance changes that are consistent with the larger intent of the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and do not create any undue harm to the public or nearby property owners and residents. Summary of Proposed Amendments The full list of proposed ordinance changes is attached for reference. A summary of each change is outlined below. Section 1 – This proposed amendment removes a reference to Special Use Permits being approved or modified by City Council. Special Use Permits are addressed through quasi-judicial proceedings with limitations on discussions outside of the hearings and what information can be considered in making decisions. Quasi-judicial decisions may be appealed to the courts. Consistent with State law the Board of Adjustment is the body that is most appropriate to conduct these quasi-judicial hearings. City Council hearings are conducted as legislative hearings with less restrictions on conversations outside of the public hearing and what information can be considered in making decisions. Sections 2 and 3 - These proposed amendments reflect changes in State law (Session Law 2025-94 – HB 926) that prohibit jurisdictions from requiring a waiting period before successive applications for the same or similar requests can be filed if the previous application is denied or withdrawn. Currently the LDO requires a waiting period of one year from either the action of Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council or date of hearing for application when withdrawn by applicant. Section 4 – This change exempts new residential development on properties that are zoned CB (Central Business) from requirements to provide open space on site. This exemption is consistent with other site exemptions for individual properties zoned CB such as landscaping and parking and recognizes the desire to maximum development on CB zoned properties in conjunction with common and publicly accessible green spaces and recreational amenities in the larger downtown area. Section 5 – This change removes the option in the LDO for the City to pursue criminal penalties for zoning and development violations. This change brings the LDO in line with current State law (as reflected in NCGS 160A-175) that prohibits jurisdictions from pursuing criminal penalties for zoning issues.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Section 6 – This proposed change removes provisions in the LDO related to the length of time doors and windows for properties zoned CB (Central Business) can be covered or boarded up. The City Council’s recent adoption of changes to the Commercial Building Codes means this language is now duplicative and unnecessary. Section 7 – This proposed change eliminates provisions tied to separately defined and regulated Entertainment Facilities. The original purpose of these provisions was to trigger enhanced security plans and measures for late bars, nightclubs, special event facilities and the like if those facilities incurred serious public safety events within a specified period of time. The mechanism to trigger the enhanced security measures, revocation of a business privilege license, is no longer available due to changes in State law. Additionally, the City has since implemented a separate Safety Plan group under the Manager’s office to address concerns with these types of facilities. So, these provisions are unnecessary and ultimately unenforceable. Section 8 – This proposed change addresses a recurring issue requiring the approval of variances before the Board of Adjustment. Specifically, the current provisions related to swimming pools and interactive water feature requires them to be located behind the principal structures when viewed from a road or street) for lots with single family or two family dwellings. This has become problematic for corner lots with two street frontages. Noting the Board of Adjustment has granted multiple variances from this provision over the last two years it is clear an adjustment to this provision is warranted. Section 9 – This proposed change addresses an issue whereby multifamily residential buildings in Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning districts are currently not allowed any attached wall signage. Given the scale of multifamily buildings, particularly apartment or condominium buildings, and the mixed development encouraged through PUD zoning, a change is warranted to allow some limited attached signage for multifamily uses. The proposed change is the least amount of attached signage allowed in the LDO based on other uses. Before the City Council can consider any proposed text amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission must provide a recommendation. The draft amendment is attached for your review and consideration. At your May 18, 2026 meeting, staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission hold a public hearing, receive public input and consider making a recommendation to City Council. The public hearing before City Council has tentatively been scheduled for June 16, 2026. Commission Motion Ms. Magid then stated regarding item PL(P) 26-19, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the Spring 2026 General  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 Text Amendment to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with allowing development that supports the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The text amendment better supports the Greensboro City Council strategic goal of being an easy place to do business, and also supports the goals of GSO2040, the City’s Comprehensive Plan in Creating Great Places and Filling In Our Framework; (3) The request is reasonable due to the fact that the proposed amendments provide administrative clarity for both staff ordinance readers. Vice Chair Downing seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting. PL (P) 26-20: Type 3 Modification. Unified Development Plan Revision for 3911, 4007, 4007 ZZ, 4009, 4011, 4013, 4015, 4017 & 4101 S Elm-Eugene Street, and 4209, 4300, 4315, 4318, 4324 & 4332 Cahill Drive. Mr. Kirkman explained the modification was basically a technical matter and minor change. And the engineer who worked on the original UDP was present to answer any questions the commissioners might have. He advised the modification was not a public hearing. The modification had to be presented to the commission for an official action for the UDP could be updated and recorded for the development to proceed. Chair Skenes asked if the votes would be final. Mr. Kirkman confirmed the votes would be final. And the next step would be to update the UDP and have it recorded at the County Register of Deeds. Chair Skenes noted the modification was very simple and a landscaping change. The LDO required a 25 feet type B vegetated buffer between the proposed commercial use and the existing residential use. And the applicant was proposing a change that would reduce the 25 feet landscape buffer to 5 feet wide with a 6 foot tall opaque fence. Commission Motion Vice Chair Downing made a motion to accept the revision to the Unified Development Plan for the properties identified as 3911, 4007, 4007 ZZ, 4009, 4011, 4013, 4015, 4017  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 18, 2026 & 4101 S Elm-Eugene Street, and 4209, 4300, 4315, 4318, 4324 & 4332 Cahill Drive. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. seconded the motion. The Commission voted 9 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Glass, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Peterson and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a final action. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Mr. Kirkman advised there were no items from the department. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS: Chair Skenes advised there were no items from the commissioners. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Skenes adjourned the meeting. There being no further business for the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.