TIME STAMP 1:08:05
(See attached Item J3, which is included as a reference in these minutes.)
Mayor Pollino opened the public hearing.
Hunter Nestor, Planning Director, deferred to the applicant to present. Bridget Grant of Moore & Van Allen presented the proposal. She spoke on the reasoning for annexing, citing liquor by the drink. She reviewed the three development areas, single-family homes, townhomes, and commercial space. She noted that two conceptual plans were provided and included in the development agreement, with the primary difference being the inclusion of a grocery anchor. She noted that greenspace replaces a previously planned road connection to Tintinhull Lane. Mrs. Grant noted that the developer has increased the buffer from 20 to 25 feet with average of 30 feet based on feedback received. She recapped other changes from community feedback, including increased buffers, narrowed uses, limited hours of operation, full brick townhomes, increased rear yard setbacks from 10 to 25 feet for the single-family homes, and the removal of any service station (gas station) from the proposal.
Mayor Pro Tempore Vandenberg briefly left the room and returned at approximately 7:21pm.
The Council discussed the proposal in depth with the developer and their representatives, including regarding buffers and tree preservation. Mrs. Grant and Mark Kime of CEC noted that under this proposal the buffers would be replanted thicker, nearing 100 percent opacity.
Mr. Nestor read aloud additional prohibited uses agreed upon by the developer, noting that the uses are listed in the staff report and development agreement.
The Council asked regarding the sale price of the townhomes. Rob Kreisher of Jones Homes estimated the homes to sell for more than $1 million each.
The Council asked the developer to address the concern that the townhomes would be towering over the Somerset subdivision. Mr. Kime noted that the property will be graded and that retaining walls will be constructed. He further noted that the base floor of the townhomes would be between 3-10 feet lower than the base floor of the homes in Somerset.
The Council asked the developer to discuss their traffic study. Thomas Shirley of Kimley Horn discussed trip generation used in the calculations for the traffic impact analysis. He then noted that the traffic impact analysis provides initial recommendations, but that NCDOT makes the ultimate decision regarding required intersection improvements.
The Council asked the developers to estimate the timeline for residential and commercial construction. Mr. Kreisher noted that homebuilding will begin in spring 2026 with the first residents moving in in fall of 2026. David Miller of Raley Miller properties noted that the commercial site work/grading will be performed concurrently with the residential development with the commercial construction to begin by the end of 2026 with a total development time of 1-3 years, depending on phasing.
Mr. Nestor then finished presenting his staff report, discussing architecture, tree preservation, buffers, open space, parking, sidewalks, and water and sewer. He noted that all application requirements have been met and that the required neighborhood meeting was held. He stated that staff recommended approval. He noted that the Planning Board moved to recommend approval with conditions, but that the motion failed with a tied vote of 3-3.
The Council asked when the developer would know if the development would contain a grocery anchor. Mr. Miller stated that he would likely know within six months if a Harris Teeter or another grocery anchor would be located on the property.
Please see the attached staff report regarding "Public Hearing for CZ-2025-2 (Marvin Commons)" from Hunter Nestor, dated July 8, 2025, for more information.
Public Comments:
Mayor Pollino thanked everyone for attending and participating. He acknowledged the wide range of feedback received regarding the development proposal, including from non-Marvin residents. He stated that the Village Council's primary responsibility is to Marvin residents and taxpayers. He stated that the property will eventually be developed and that it is in the Village's best interest to have a seat at the table. He emphasized that by expanding the Village's commercial base, the Village can diversify its revenue streams, helping to maintain low residential tax rates. He also noted that the development would promote local shopping, keeping sales tax revenue in Union County, rather than Mecklenburg County. He stated that the Council welcomes respectful input, but that the voices of Marvin residents must carry the most weight.
Kelly Rubottom (8912 Whittingham Drive, Somerset): Mr. Rubottom spoke against the proposed conditional rezoning, noting that his property abuts the proposal. He stated he did not believe the developer to be honest. He stated he purchased his home with a 60-foot buffer in mind, which was required by the previously approved proposal by Union County. He asked the Council to deny the conditional rezoning request.
Akiner Tuzuner (8910 Whittingham Drive, Somerset): Mr. Tuzuner spoke against the proposed conditional rezoning, noting concerns with building height and traffic. He stated that the development would be densest in all western Union County. He then spoke on why he loves his property and the surrounding area.
Forrest Kelley (9024 Tintinhull Lane, Somerset): Mr. Kelley spoke against the proposed conditional rezoning. He noted that he understood that the property would eventually be developed. He stated that the proposal different significantly from previous proposals. He noted that his wife started a petition that received 763 signatures. He estimated that at least 684 signatures could be considered legitimate and that the majority reside in Marvin, the surrounding area, or the 28173 zip code. He noted that he prefers the County's regulations over the Village of Marvin's.
Andrew Katz (225 Tyndale Court, Somerset): Mr. Katz spoke against the proposed conditional rezoning, noting that much of Somerset's feedback was not included in the proposal. He argued that the development proposal is ambiguous, citing possible undesirable uses, density, and building height. He noted he was not anti-development. He asked the Council to be considerate of Somerset residents, and to ask for a more detailed plan from the developer.
Mayor Pollino closed the public hearing.
The Council deliberated the proposal, thanking Marvin and Somerset residents for providing feedback.
Councilman Marcolese asked Mr. Nestor if approving this development would set a precedent for future proposals. Mr. Nestor noted that all proposals would have to proceed through the conditional rezoning process and that the final decision would be with the elected governing board.
Mayor Pro Tempore Vandenberg asked Mr. Nestor if the proposal was the densest in all of Marvin and western Union County at 2.67 units per acre, as was stated during the public comments. Mr. Nestor stated that this was incorrect, as the Courtyards at Marvin is the densest development in Marvin. He noted that the development, which was rezoned in the mid-2010s as an individual conditional district (ICD) had a density of 2.9 units per acre. He noted that he was not familiar with the density of non-Marvin residential developments.
Mayor Pro Tempore Vandenberg asked Mr. Miller if it was abnormal for commercial tenants to not commit to a development plan before approval. Mr. Miller stated that commercial tenants will not commit unless a development plan is approved.
Councilman Lein noted that a "No" vote means that the Village yields its ability to have a say in the future development of the property. He thanked the public for the feedback received via email and thanked one gentleman for sending a very detailed and unique email that was not copied and pasted, in contrast to most other emails received.
Councilman Marcolese spoke against density, noting the number of homes built in Marvin since he entered office in 2019. He stated he was done with development and wanted to focus on addressing traffic concerns.
Mayor Pollino spoke on "losing a seat at the table," referencing a previous de-annexation along Rea Road. He then spoke on the importance of annexation and his previous opposition to a proposal for the subject property that featured a large movie theater.