The Mooresville Town Planning Commission on Nov. 13 continued consideration of a secondary plat for the planned‑unit development at Bridge Street and Hopkins Trail and directed the applicant to meet with town staff for a technical review before returning to the commission.

Developer Ross Holloway, representing the project, told commissioners the PUD ordinance under which the site was rezoned is more detailed in an older ordinance than the town’s current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and that the PUD exhibit presented to council when the zoning was approved lacks specifics on parking, setbacks and stormwater. “Specifically, the proposed development would have 105 to 145 residential sale units,” Holloway said, adding the team is currently proposing about 122 sales units, roughly 60 market‑rate rental units and “20,000 square feet of commercial space.”

Commissioners and staff raised several concerns about discrepancies between the PUD parameters and the developer’s current submittal. One commissioner noted current tabulations showed about 32,000 square feet of commercial area — well above the 20,000 square feet cited in the adopted PUD. Holloway and the applicant’s team said the change was driven in part by an enlarged retention pond required to serve the larger build‑out; Holloway said the revised pond footprint is “almost twice as large” in the current drawing and that the site was “condensed” to accommodate stormwater needs.

Town staff explained that PUDs operate outside the regular UDO and that where a PUD or the UDO is silent different rules may apply: “If this development came through as a PUD, the terms of its PUD ordinance would control unless it’s silent,” a staff member said. Staff and commissioners agreed the practical next step was a staff‑led technical review to reconcile parking calculations, setbacks, stormwater sizing and whether the current preliminary/secondary plat remains within the parameters of the adopted PUD.

Commissioner JD moved to continue the item and schedule a technical review in December; the motion was seconded and carried. The commission asked staff to review all sequencing of PUD and zoning documents before re‑presentation so the parties can identify which ordinance text controls and whether the developer should pursue an amended PUD or variances. Tammy (town staff) will be notified once staff schedules the tech‑review meeting and will place the item on the following planning‑commission agenda after that review.

Next steps: the applicant will meet with staff and technical reviewers to address parking, setbacks and retention‑pond impacts; the commission will receive the technical‑review outcome and the developer’s revised plat at a future meeting.