Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. So that committee basically said, "Yeah, let's get rid of that. Let's double check. We need to get we need to get equity in what we're losing. If you're losing a mature tree, we need to 100% get that tree back, right, to be planted somewhere else. We're on the site." So yeah, that was a big one. Yeah, that time

Oh, absolutely. Sir, I Okay, we'll call the uh July 24th. 24th, right? 22nd already screwed up. Um planning board meeting to order. First order of business. Well, first of all, I'd like to welcome um Prince and Marshall. Welcome, guys. And uh you know, glad you're joining us tonight for your first meeting. Um first order of business, approval of the minutes from the previous meeting.

Make a motion to approve the minutes from the June 24th, 2025 planning board meeting. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Okay. Public comments. I do not have any. So, we'll move on to the next item in the action agenda. First up is consider recommendation on petition R2506 12300 Cord Road. Um, it's a spate. Good evening everyone. Like to enter the staff report into the record. So R2506 um is a general reszoning request by Robert and Heather Dubil to reszone the property located at 12300 McCord Road from general residential or GR to transitional residential or TR. Uh the subject property is surrounded by single family residential properties to the south, east, and west that are all zone general residential. And the properties to the north are single family residential that are all zoned or directly across the street are zoned transitional residential. Um what you'll see before you are the permitted uses in the TR zoning district. Um, overwhelmingly residential single family de developments are constructed within the TR zoning district. I can answer any questions about site plan requirements or permitted density. Um, if any, as this is a general reasonzoning request, those um items are not required. Staff finds that the proposed application is consistent with policies

LU1.1 and 2.1 in that the proposed resoning is predominantly within the town core character area and it is within 2 miles of the I77 and NC115 corridor identified by the 2040 plan to support moderate density that is comparable to surrounding developments. staff also find that the request is consistent with the criteria for a reasonzoning application. And um as this is a general resoning request, again um site plan requirements and other data will be required when a specific development plan comes in and that'll have to be compliant with um the the base zoning district and um any requirements for the specific type of site that's proposed. So this is obviously um the planning board meeting for this uh this application. Town board final action is proposed for August 19th and staff recommend um approval of this um this resoning application and I can take any questions that you have at this time.

Thank you. Questions for staff. Go ahead, Lauren. Thank you. Um, what does this accomplish for the applicants? Like, you know, traditionally we see a reasonzoning come in and there's a site plan associated with it. Um, and I get there's a difference between TR and GR, but like can you just give us some guidance and you know difference between the two and what's the ultimate goal here?

Sure. So, um, currently the property owners the they they owned a couple properties and the property that's um proposed to be reszoned is is large and they've been cutting that grass and so quite simply um it's a lot of grass to cut. So, they're trying to um optimize that property for development in the future. GR has larger individual lot size requirements than TR does. Um, and the TR would allow a greater density. But let me go back and I can show you. Um, so with the with a TR zoning, the applicants could um either themselves or sell to a developer for a farmhouse cluster, which is currently the idea. Um obviously with the general resoning they could do any of the uses that are permitted there but that's the current idea is that it would be developed as a farmhouse cluster. Um it's it meets the minimum size requirements for a farmhouse cluster. The minimum road frontage for that and could achieve that density which the maximum number of lots in a farmhouse cluster is six is six lots. It would be comparable in density to the surrounding development there. Um, so that would be obviously comparable to the TR across the street, but it will be also comparable to um the density um next door in Northstone as well.

These questions aren't because I'm in opposition. I'm just trying to understand it. So um would a farmhouse cluster still be permitted and allowed in the GR? No. Okay. So this basically allows them to pursue that if that's what they want to do. That's correct. Other questions?

Microphone. Sorry about that. The other uses in uh in TR, you know, how would we stop them from like putting a, you know, uh a bed and breakfast there or something like that? Like I like the idea of the cluster home there, the six homes. It makes sense. It's in the middle of residential neighborhood, but I obviously they have to come back for another reasoning if they want to put in bed and breakfast in there or something like that. No, they would not.

Nope. So, if they wanted to do um if they sold to someone who wanted to develop a bed and breakfast in um if this resoning were approved, then they that developer would have to just submit site plans that were compliant with the minimum standards for the building and lot type for a bed and breakfast in. Mhm. And then relatedly, um, if they were to propose any use that would require like a TIA, that would have to also be done as a part of that, too. All right. So,

but a bed and breakfast probably wouldn't need a a traffic analysis if you're only going to have, you know, eight bedrooms or something like that. Well, perhaps they would have to submit the determination of need form and then once engineering the engineering department reviewed it, then they would determine if you needed an analysis or not. And what is a family care home?

So, the family care home is defined by state statutes. So, I'm going to just kind of uh paraphrase essentially, but it's a home for individuals that have disabilities or they're elderly and they need care. Um they're required in I believe any zoning district that allows residential uses um in the state of North Carolina if I'm recalling correctly.

I'm just trying to think if I was a neighbor near there, right? You know, I'm fine with the six homes, but what else am I opening myself up to that could be my neighbor, right? And I don't know. Yeah, we've had issues with a hotel. And I know a bed and breakfast isn't necessarily a hotel. I wasn't sure what a family care home was or boarding room for houses up to two rumors. I don't even I don't know what that means either, but I mean I'm fine with the project. It just seems like there's a lot of other options that could go in. So that's it.

I got a few. Yeah, thanks. Um along that same theme, so what what could they do with uh transition residential that they can't do with GR? Of course, I looked it up. So it is bed and breakfast for the permitted by rights and the other thing is uh uh boarding and rooming houses up to two rumors. So that's it's really not a big deal. And under the permitted stuff it's uh the only difference is they could do a riding academy and or commercial stables where you can't do that in GR. And then of course the special use stuff. And uh housing types are just building housing types are just about identical. Of course you can do civic and GR not here. Um oh yeah you can. Okay. They're pretty much comparable. So same question. I mean why are we doing this now when they're if if the rumored farmhouse cluster is on the table? Um why not wait and do it all at once? I guess I mean the the the grass is still going to mean need to be cut if this gets approved in two weeks.

So and and and I'm trying to work through that. I actually looked at the application and they actually applied um for um conditional. They applied for TR conditional and they applied for farmhouse cluster. So what happened between the application and now that that steered the applicant down the general resoning? Yep. Sure. So that was not a intended um selection. There was not So in in other words, it was a typo for other purposes. Um that was not it was not an intention of the applicant to originally submit a conditional resoning plan with a site plan. So it was just a they just ticked the wrong box. Okay. Yeah.

Did they understand they didn't have to submit a site plan with the conditional with the conditional zoning? I mean, they could have just excluded a lot of these things on the list like we've seen before and still avoided the cost of the site plan and narrowed it down to farmhouse cluster and we it would be a one and done. Sure. Um but then they would also just be limited to the farmhouse cluster use. Okay. So, we we've got our options open still, right? Okay. All right. Okay. That's it for now. are the questions. Go ahead.

I think I know the answer to this, but um again, because what's presented to us is a reasonzoning, not a conditional resoning, we can't put any additional conditions on it. Correct.

That's correct. And also to be clear, they they couldn't submit an application for conditional reasonzoning and say only for a farmhouse cluster. They would have to follow all the requirements of the resoning checklist, so to speak. Like they wouldn't be able to I'm saying they can't avoid a site plan if they went conditional route. Is that correct? They would have to request a modification to not submit a site plan and that would have to be Yeah. Okay.

So, they could not submit it, but they would have have to ask for that as a modification. This is a modification. Yep. And the idea here is that the property owner currently does not have the intention to be the developer or builder. So, that's that's kind of another part of it. So, for example, if they were to submit this as a conditional district reszoning plan for a farmhouse cluster only, um, and

while this is not their current intention, someone comes back and they say, "Well, we want to, um, have a park here, they would have to go back through the CD reszoning process to undo that. Any additional questions? And and is the property owner here? Would they? Yes. Okay. If there's no other questions for staff, we can hear the uh from the property owner. They do not have a um presentation prepared, but any questions?

Sure. Okay. It's right there. If you could uh come to the podium, just give your name and address, please. And thank you.

I'm Robert Dubiel, property owner. Thank you. Um questions if y'all would like to ask. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't I don't know how deep we can pry, but I'm just wondering, you know, what are your intentions with the property? What's your timeline? You know, obviously, you've said you want to cluster home, six homes. Is that is that the plan? And what's the timeline? So, all this started like we had two developers, builders approach us. We said, uh, sorry, nervous. Um, so they approached us and I'm like, I have no idea what to do. So, it's 11 acres. We spend 5 hours a weekend cutting grass.

Yeah. And so then I went to the town and I said, "What can I do here?" And then they said, "Well, there's an option to do a farmhouse cluster." I knew none of this other stuff, the permitted stuff. And the idea is even with the restrictions of farmhouse cluster, we're learning some of these guys already walked away because open space can't build all they want to build. The lots are too small. So the idea is two guys already walked away. But for us, we just want to be able to have option to like sell it, make money, get out. We're getting older now. kids are out of the house. So, for us, the best use of the property is to to be able to sell it to someone that's going to put a nice little neighborhood in there and then the our house would stay. But the idea is like for us, like we don't want someone going in that's going to be build a terrible house. So, every wants like the two guys coming in, they're $2 million homes. And so, I don't think at that price like a cemetery is going to work. I don't think

right

these a family care home is going to work. So, I think the only thing in this environment is selling to someone who's going to put a high-end home in there. So, that's our intention, but if we sell it to somebody, I can't guarantee anything, right? So, but that was our thought. And again, these guys have been great to work with, but I do none of this stuff. Like, I just want to sell it and move on. Thank you. And I think there in lies some of our because you know part of our responsibility is like not necessarily exactly what you're doing but you know somebody come along tomorrow and offer you some amount of money you move on and now we as a town are necessarily stuck but we now have this as a permitted right bed and breakfast ends etc. So some of that and again I know that that was not your intention at all. This is just our process. Well, and the cool thing is if if this does get approved, somebody buys it, say it's a legacy property, they're already set to maybe I'm going to give it a lot to my kid or another kid. So, for us, we're thinking that's a marketing thing for us. We could sell it and say, "Hey, this is set. Buy the whole thing and then you can put your kids there." And honestly, we thought about that, too. But our kids are lazy as heck now. They don't help with the cut the grass. They're COVID kids. And so, for for us, we're just done doing all the work on it. We just are. And so talking to these guys, this seemed like the best use for all of it. But I get where you guys are at saying, "Shoot, man, somebody come in and put a bed and breakfast." And I've already thought that would be a cool idea, but I'm not running it. But the idea is Huntersville could use a bed and breakfast. But I'm sure Northstone doesn't want to see that next to them. So for us, we just thought, let's get it permitted. Let's get it approved and sell it. Now timeline, I don't know, honestly. I mean, I don't want to list my house and then we got to do all that. I would think timeline within a year, but then I'm pretty sure any builder that comes in is going to make us stick around to go through all of it to make sure everything gets smoothed out. So, it could be five years for all I know. But for us, we just thought, let's go ahead and start this process. Kids in college, they're not coming home. I got

to the house is massive to take care of and my wife hates cutting grass. So, sorry. Any additional questions? And you said that you had two buyers that have already walked away.

So, let's just not they they're not happy because they didn't know the the the process for townhouse uh farmhouse clusters and how restrictive they are. So, a lot of open space has to be preserved 50%. And these guys would be better to explain this than me, but the idea is with certain parts of the land not being able to have any buildings on it, you're limited there as well. So you include the open space and this that and the other. The lots went down from an acre each to a half acre and then next thing you know they can't make it work. And so again they can all make it work somehow because they're all wealthy but they're complaining to me that it just doesn't work at what we want for it and nobody wants to buy the house right now because it's just a big house. So they don't want to knock it down um because it's too cost costly. So but yeah. So they I would say they walked away. They just it went cold quick. Yeah.

And this is probably a question more for the town, Brian or uh um Lauren, a developer could come back, right? Let's say they buy the property. They can come back and say, "I don't want to do a farmhouse cluster. I want to do more of a a one acre type neighborhood and reszone it." And it would just be another step for them. Um Okay. But it would be I assume more difficult for them to do that once this is already into the cluster or Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. It would be more difficult than this, but it would just be another step from them if they wanted to put 10 homes on there or whatever.

Right. Well, and so when I went to the town, I asked them, "What do I do?" like how do I find a way to monetize this, get out of the property and not hurt the surrounding areas? And for us, this seemed like the most logical way to move forward with this. And again, I mean, I seriously doubt at the price we're going to ask for this, someone's going to put a boarding room up, somebody's going to put a family care home up and whatever, a breakfast in. They're just not gonna be a it's just not going to be cost effective for them to do that. So, but to to point it out, the duplexes could be put in there. You need a permit.

So, to do duplexes in the TR zoning district, they're only up to 20% of the dwelling units in a development. So, you have to do a major subdivision to really do that. You couldn't just go in and do duplexes. Yep. real quick. Um, did you have any correspondence with the uh neighbors in response to the postcards that you sent out or anything like that? Did anybody reach out to you or discuss this proposal?

Uh, direct neighbors are fine with all of it. A lot of them are aging, right? They've got bigger lots. They're looking probably what we're doing, but um, but no one seemed like they were worried about five homes going in, especially at the million-doll range, right? So, you think about it, a lot of old ranch homes on Accord, you throw in a $ 1.5 million high-end home, I don't think it's going to hurt that that rancher's value. So, they I think they looked at it like this could be a really cool thing knowing that these homes are going in and most of these high-end builders that have reached out all really reputable builders, right? So, to answer, nobody's really concerned at all. Thank you. Yep.

Mr. Chairman, I've got a motion to get us into discussion if you'd like. Sure. To entertain a motion.

I haven't even done anything wrong yet. You already got mut.

You have done nothing wrong. I just wanted because we don't have general resonings that often just give a quick couple bullet points. uh because so the fact that they chose to submit a general resoning and as opposed to a conditional resoning cannot be a reason to deny it. Not having a site plan cannot be a reason to deny it because that's not required with the general resoning. Um so I just wanted to point those two things out. And if there if there was going to be a denial, you would have to specify the plans that they did not follow. just like any other resoning, it needs to deal with the 2040 community plan and whatnot. Uh not the fact that it's not a conditional resoning. So, just wanted to point that out real quick. Thank you.

Thank you. In considering the proposed reszoning application R25-06123000 McCord Road, the planning board recommends approval as it is consistent with policies LU1.1 and LU 2.1 of the 2040 Huntersville community plan. It is reasonable and in the public interest to amend the zoning ordinance because the proposed reasonzoning is consistent with the envisioned uses and development patterns set forth in the 2040 community plan. Second. have a motion in a second. Discussion, Scott,

since I made the motion. Um, again, I think several of us up here a little bit more concerned about just opening up this that it's now permitted, right, for a bed and breakfast in these other things. If that wasn't the case, I think any of us would probably quickly say, "Let's move forward." I guess I'm to I'm comfortable enough with the idea that yes, I don't I think we'd all want to spend more time if it was a bed and breakfast potentially, but at the end of the day, I don't think that's the worst thing that could go there if it was on, you know, however many acres it is. So, I guess I've come to the realization or conclusion that um I'm comfortable with what they're trying to accomplish and I understand why they're trying to accomplish it to kind of at least take one step forward to make it easier for the developer to come along and go for a farmhouse cluster. So, for that reason, I support it.

All that. Yeah.

Any other discussion? Um, here we are with general resoning again. Um, actually I had a motion written that complied by the way that uh to deny uh based on the 2040 community plan the uh chapter 5 implementation and it reads again properties should not be preemptively upzzoned based on the future land use plan. And I I get what you're trying to do and no fault to to the applicant, but I think you were you were steered down the wrong road. I believe that the applications submitted the suggestion should have been to go back and and apply for not for not submitting a plan and and and narrow it down for us to farmhouse cluster, small subdivision, something because it's it's not just a family care home or bed and breakfast. It could be anything. We're just, if you look back at the map, we're going across McChord Road to to the, you know, into the middle of GR and yeah, the density might match a little bit in Northstone, but there's only five lots there that touch it. Mostly it's Hagers Road properties that are an acre or big bigger. I think I think we just should have had this narrowed down better and that we're we're using general reasonzoning improperly. It would have been much better if it would have been a little more defined and a little easier to support. Chris.

Yeah, I mean I'm kind of with Lee, but yeah, at the same time, the Hagers Fairy properties are in that, you know, two acres. I mean, eventually if if the farmhouse clusters do go in, they're going to be in that same neighborhood. So, I feel like it's a similar characteristic uh other than the five properties in Northstone. Um, and like Scott said, I mean, the worst thing a bed and breakfast goes in there, it's probably not the end of the world. it's, you know, it probably end up being pretty nice, you know, for the amount of money that somebody's going to pay for this land, uh, and the location it's going to be in. So, I mean, I'm leaning more towards doing it. I don't know if it's necessarily the right thing, but I'm leaning more towards doing it just, you know, so this person can market their property a little bit better and we can, you know, get a farmhouse cluster in there.

Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm I'm with you, uh, Scott, what you said. I mean, I'm I agree with with the potential uses there and and what that land value is and the open space requirements that will be required in that district that that I'm comfortable I'm comfortable with the reasonzoning.

Anything else? Ready for a vote?

Give one more tribe on the preemptive upzoning. it. I think we're headed down a wrong wrong the wrong path here. I mean, it is it's the 2040 plan. It's our land use plan, right? It it says not to get ahead of it. It's a 2040 plan, the year 2040. We're a long way off. Under this logic, we would just say, "Okay, let's go ahead and reszone to the entire land use plan and get it over with." and that way we can make streamline this process and get rid of half our planning staff and hire a bunch more compliance officers as we get on with it. It's not it's not the intent of why the these plans were written up and and so carefully detailed. So that's all I'll say for now. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? I'll go philosophical. Um I believe in private property rights. We already have a zoning ordinance that controls what we can and cannot do. I've said this before is I think what we're doing here is it's still going to be controlled by the ordinance. It's just a different ordinance. And if we can somehow or another help another Huntersville resident to do what they're trying to do without I think it being any real detriment to the community, I'm in support of it. I think it's compatible with the adjacent land uses with with those things.

I I think It's both those things for me that I understand what you're saying. You can't like just preemptively change the zoning. I I I get that because we would just like you said go in and reszone a whole bunch of places, but we have one couple coming in with the intent to sell it for a very specific purpose. you know, their their intent is to sell it for this farmhouse cluster, which would be compliant with this. So, I that's where it deviates for me that the intent that they have is not to just um reszone it preemptively and they're they're reszoning it to develop it into a farmhouse cluster. And this makes it a little more attractive to a developer.

I get that. We just can't use the word farmhouse cluster because then you're talking about a plan. We're this the intent's there. I just want to codify the intent by putting it in in in the motion to in the application to say it's going to be a farmhouse cluster because other than that all intent aside, you can't guarantee it. And yes, property rights that we got each each one of these things comes with its own set of property rights for each zone. And those rights change as you go from zone to zone to zone. So, we're granting more property rights here. That's what we're doing. I mean, okay, I'll go. I'm going to explore the mineral rights in my backyard tomorrow. Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay. Uh, ready for a vote? Okay. All those in favor of the motion? Those opposed? Okay. The motion carries. 71. Right. Okay. Thank you. Next up is uh consideration recommendation on petition TA2501 requested by the Huntersville Planning Department to amend article 34912 of the Huntersville zoning ordinance. Lauren.

Yes. like to enter the staff report into the record. Um so some background on this uh part of the purpose of this text amendment. Uh staff had a property owner approach um a few years ago about an infield development in town center. They wanted to build a quadplex and they inquired with staff about the um corresponding building type and lot type requirements. And as staff were doing our evaluation of requirements that they would need to meet in order to submit an application for that type of building and use and lot um there were some overlap between the definitions of certain building types and certain uses all related to the residential uses in the zoning ordinance. Um, and so this text amendment touches a lot of different sections of the ordinance with regard to residential uses and I'm happy to explain them. I'll kind of go through the different elements of this text amendment. So, um, ultimately that person did not want to proceed. Um, this was during the pandemic. Um, but to remedy some of the overlap, we're proposing this. And this also, um, let me mention a couple more things. Um this application I would like to note um does not propose any down zoning um in compliance with general statutes 160d 601 subsection D. So any density that's allowed today would still be allowed as a function of this text amendment. So some of the overlap that um was noted was noted is that per the definition of our multif family home use triplexes and greater u would be considered a multif family home use

per the definition of an apartment house building type. Duplexes in greater would be cons could be considered an apartment house building type and then duplexes and greater could also be considered an attached house building type per the definition of an attached house. The challenge with this is that attached houses and apartment houses are two different building types and have different requirements for article 4 currently. So, if you wanted to come in and build a duplex, there's no perception that that's an apartment house. Um, obviously, you have two dwelling units compared to one with a single family detached home, but the intent is not that you would need to follow the regulations for an apartment house with a duplex. Um, so there are a lot of kind of interconnected pieces with trying to disentangle this. And the first revision that staff proposed are removing the uh building types that we've included as a permitted use and changing that for all zoning districts to residential uses um with a corresponding definition proposed. Um the second is more specifically um delineating the permitted building type. So currently and this is most specific with regard to our attached house building type because currently the attached house building type includes town homes, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, row homes, um etc. And there's an inherent issue with that that I'll um get to in a little bit um in one of the later revisions. But essentially for each building, for each zoning district, we've now separated out the specific building types that are allowed. So you can go to that zoning district and see what type of attached house is permitted in that zoning district.

Um and so related to the density um allowance, we've also specified um the type of what are currently known as attached house type. What type of um units are allowed to um you're allowed to achieve with like attached dwellings. So, we've specified for each zoning district um as allowed whether or not you're allowed to reach whatever corresponding percentage of duplex, triplex, quadplex, or town home or apartment units. So, uh, for example, in your rural and transitional residential zoning districts, can't have apartment buildings, but you can have duplexes up to 20 up to 20% in TR and I believe 10% in um, R, but you can't have the other attached house types in those zoning districts. So, we've specified there for each zoning district what you can achieve with that percentage and that's if you do a major subdivision. Um so here um related to um separating out the attached house types. Another thing that we've proposed are new building types. One for the duplex, triplex, quadplex type and then another for your town homes. Um, one of the current issues in the zoning ordinance is that the attached house building type includes a property line, a property line down the center. Um, duplexes are duplexes, triplexes, and quadlexes are multiple residential units on one shared lot. Um, that's the application from the county and the state. You don't have multiple dwelling units that are separated by property lines for a duplex, triplex, or quadplex.

Um and so there are a couple things that are achieved here. One, um these have different lot type requirements currently under the ordinance. So what we've proposed here is consistent with what the current ordinance requires. Um but it then it also clarifies that the duplex is just a unit that's separated, not a lot. Um you're not creating new lots. And this has also been a concern by the register of deeds office where they will see for example um units that get approved um with their building permitting as a duplex and then come back and try to separate into two different um lots and that's not the intent um with that building type for uh fire separation purposes and building code requirements. So it meets it ticks a lot of boxes to separate these out. Um and so the following is the proposed town home building type and this is also consistent with the current um standards for a town home. Um so you have the property line down the center. The idea is that you have dwelling units that are attached but they're on their own individual properties. Um revision 7 through 10 um are items that staff has just been noting that are related to residential uses but not specifically the original challenge. So one is that we noted that detached homes do not have the requirement currently in the ordinance to be generally parallel to whatever their frontage condition is. Um every other building type has that requirement. So, you front on a public street, you front on a greenway. Um, if you're in a duplex right now, you would have to have that duplex generally parallel with the public street. And the idea here is that if you are in an exempt subdivision, you would still be

exempt from this requirement. So, um, what we see with exempts, someone is um, gifting a lot to a family member, friend, etc., they would still be exempt from this requirement. And these are the lots that are greater than an acre or the idea someone wants to be back in the woods and kind of have their home turn for the sun to hit a certain direction, that type of thing. Um, the next is the requirement uh about the ownership of ADUs. So, one of the requirements for ADUs is that the primary dwelling and the ADU have the same owner of the actual structures right now. Um and staff are proposing that we just we remove that requirement. Um this does not change the requirement about property ownership or the number of ADUs you could get on a on a lot. Um it would just be removing the regulation about who owns the structures. So someone this essentially it may allow someone to condo out an ADU, but while we don't see that as likely as with most of the ADUs, um, and we don't see that as an impossibility, we just don't have any examples of anyone ever doing that or trying to do that. Um, the next is the proposed removal that ADUs be registered with the planning director. Um there's never been a process for ADUs to register with the planning director. Um and just removing a requirement that's frankly not being used. This would not remove the requirement that zoning be reviewed for ADUs. So we would still be reviewing them as we are currently doing. Um and then we're also adding the requirement that most specifically says that ADUs are only permitted for single

family detached homes or town homes. This is the current rule. The only issue with it is that you have to go through about three or four sections of the ordinance to figure this out right now. So, we're proposing just to plainly state it rather than someone having to go through several sections of the ordinance to figure this out. Um, the last revisions that are proposed, um, in a few places in the ordinance, the term storefront is used. There is no storefront building type. So, we're proposing to change that to shopfront, which is the intended building type there. And then lastly, um the different uses and um building types that we're proposing, their corresponding definitions to go with those. Staff finds the proposed revisions consistent with the 2040 plan for the policies listed and included. And the I the plan is for this to go to final board action August 19th. Staff recommends approval um of this current text amendment. Happy to take any questions at this time.

A quick question and I think I know you said it. Sure. I'm sorry. I just want to make sure I heard it the right way. Yeah. Okay. On um let me start with like duplexes. Sure. If that were a hypothetic a major subdivision that's still considered an attached like and it would be subject to the percentage allowed in each zoning district. That's correct. Okay. Just want to make sure I understood that right. Um yeah, that was that was that was my big question. Questions for staff.

Lauri, can you go back a couple slides talking about the ownership? So is potential example I own a house and somebody comes in and maybe qualifies as a ADU through a tiny home that they still physically own that structure. Is that the concept here to allow that? Yes.

Okay. And I know you kind of started down that path of what I'm just trying to think of what could that open up. Are there any unintended consequences of us allowing a different ownership for structures on one piece of property that's owned by one individual? So, as I ask questions, I'm just trying to think through that. I guess there's a part of me that thinks, is that necessary or what's the advantage of allowing different ownership versus requiring the ownership to be the same?

Well, currently it would be an additional requirement for us to to check. That's that's one thing. And it's something that, and Brian can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure there's been a process to check this because the idea is that the property owner is responsible ultimately for compliance. Um, so the property owner would still be responsible for the compliance of the structures on their property. You are currently allowed to have one ADU. That would still be the case. Um there's no proposed changes to the size, location, um or allowance of it based on your building type. Nothing. It's just the ownership.

I'll be nicer on this one. No. Um I think I the intent is to not really change anything within our ordinance just further defined it and make it simpler to understand. So it was it was a lot until I got to the actual revised ordinance says okay we're just take we're striking single family detached and every residential uses are permitted and we're going down to building type and then addressing duplex triplex quadlex all that makes perfect sense. So, the one thing I did notice is I forget who it was. It was a GR one of them. Duplexes were only allowed on corner lots. Yes. And and that appears to be changing where a subdivision now come in and put 10% or what's a GR for instance, 10% in.

It will still be the same. Um, so let me find it so I can make sure that I'm So that's a it's it's interesting that you found that. Um, but essentially in any zoning district that allows um duplexes, you would still be allowed to have duplexes, but they have to be on corner lots that are 1.5 times the minimum size. So this would still be allowed but that does

it's not an impossibility but it does not happen. Um so for example in the rural zoning district you would have to be on a corner lot. The lot would have to be 1.5 times the minimum size of a lot in the rural zoning district. You would have to have the units um would have to have doors on different corners um and meet all those other requirements. I am not aware that we've had one come in ever. Right. And you still be have to be under 10% 10% or under that. You could do that without being under the 10. You could do that as a standalone, but you do that now. Every corner lot in your subdivision, you could put a duplex on

potentially. But that does not Okay. If it's a major subdivision, no. But if you were just just you as an individual wanted to put one on a corner that was not a part of a major subdivision. Yes, you could. Okay. Yep. Okay. So, infill projects, things like that. Yes, that's correct. Okay. I think I got the rest of it. I think I'm good. Thanks. Yeah. Just a quick question here. So, this idea that we're striking the requirement that the ads be registered with the planning director. So that's we're not that was never implemented or ever been implemented at all. Right. First question. Correct.

Okay. And there was never any intent to do something with that previously like we're not giving up some this is just something that was put in place based on a form document or something like that. And there was never any intent to implement anything like this. Correct. I'm not aware that there ever was. Brian, are you No. Okay. That's all. Any other questions? Okay, we have a motion prepared.

Yep, I've got one. In considering the proposed amendment TA25-01, the planning board recommends approval based on the amendment being consistent with policies LU2, LU3, LU5.3, LU 7.1, LU10.1, and LU 10.3 of the Huntersville 2040 plan. It is reasonable and in the public interest to amend the zoning ordinance because it clarifies the overlap of residential use and structure definitions, provides specific and objective parameters to new building type categories, and encourages an appropriate mixture of housing types. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second.

Second. Second discussion. We'll start with you, Chris. No, I mean I I didn't ask any questions because, you know, it seemed like we were doing it to, you know, kind of clarify a few clerical things that are already being done in the uh in the office there. So, I just felt like it was the right thing to do and uh helps us comply with the 2040 plan.

Prince, any followup? Yeah, my concern was about the the use, but as Marshall asked the questions, what was the purpose, you know, for being, you know, scrap out, but now that I understand that it hasn't been used and so you just trying to get it out to make sure that everything is right. So that clarify my concerns.

Okay. Anybody else? Okay, we'll take a vote. All those in favor? Those opposed? And it passes unanimously. Okay, moving on. Consider recommendation on petition TA2506, request by the Huntersville Planning Department to amend articles 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 2 7.5 and 9.64 of the Huntersville zoning ordinance and speed still up. So I'd like to enter a staff report into the record. Um so this text amendment um has a few different goals here. Um the first came from feedback from residents and um builder developers. So, we understand from residents the importance of buffers to transition uses and structures. Um, want to make sure that we're getting plantings in those spaces that are going to actually meet the intent of what those buffers are supposed to do, the way they're supposed to function. Um, and I'll talk about that a bit. And then also um as our developments are planning for anticipated costs, one of the bits of feedback that we got early this year um was with regard to the plantings that are required. So um I'll show here in a bit, but there was a buffer um that was required in the TR zoning district, an 80 foot opaque buffer, and the builder simply just did not budget for the amount of plantings that they needed in that space. And our ordinance currently does not have a planting standard for an 80 foot buffer. So what we've been doing um as practice is multiplying the 20 foot buffer standard which does not necessarily guarantee an opaque

standard. So we worked with the arborists to make sure that what we're proposing here would would achieve um an an opaque buffer with the um plantings that are proposed. Um and then as a part of making sure that the buffers are meeting their intent, we've proposed um criteria that all the buffers are either opaque or semiopaque with corresponding definitions for that. Um and the definitions that we're proposing are consistent with our current definitions for opaque and semi-opaque screening. Um and then the last two items um and I'll explain a bit about this is to relocate article 9.64 which currently includes the buffer requirements for um multif family or apartment building uses from article 9.64 to article 7. So then all of our buffer standards would be in article 7. And then there is a proposal for a town center boundary buffer. So this is the buffer that I was referencing. Um this is along the a thoroughfare um for a major subdivision that's zone TR. So when staff visited at the beginning of the year, these were the plantings that were included and the 80 ft um extends from approximately approximately where the shrubs are to where the mechanical equipment is located. Um and then what you'll see on the left is the supplemental plings that were added by the builder for um that same side of the street. And then the opposite side which extends several hundred feet. Um they also added a number of large maturing evergreens and

shrubs to um achieve the opaque um requirement at maturity. Um so I won't go through all this but essentially what we we took pretty exactly the screening um definitions for opaque and semiopaque and use that to develop the definitions for opaque and semiopaque buffers. And then what you'll see here is in the description column for all the buffers, we've proposed which um intend should be intended to be opaque or semiopaque. Um another uh a corresponding element with that is that with whatever the intention of that buffer is, whether it's supposed to be opaque or semiopaque, um planting requirements have been amended. um not significantly. They've been amended to best achieve those goals. So, what you'll see most significantly are changes with the percentages um of your evergreen trees. Um in some cases, some changes with shrubs or the number of trees, but they're not um significant with the number of plantings that have been modified. Um here where is where we've added the u planting category for the 80oot buffers along major subdivisions. Um that's this is a buffer requirement that's existing and we're just codifying the planting requirements for it. Um here is a modification of an existing buffer. So just wanted to call attention to a couple of the other significant changes with this text amendment. Currently the major subdivision buffer

is 40 ft when the density is two times um greater than the existing development. Um in all other cases you have a 20ft buffer. Staff are proposing to reduce that to 30 feet but increase the number of plantings. So the number of trees and the percentage of large maturing evergreen trees and um we're also reducing the number of shrubs. And the idea here that the current planting standards produce this type of buffer. This is what the current code would require for a 20ft buffer. And so we're proposing to increase the number of trees that you would have to plant in that section and increase the percentage of the large maturing evergreen to essentially provide more of an of a semiopaque separation um between a development and whatever it's adjoining for major subdivisions. Here is the relocated um apartment buffer requirement. So in the current standards for an apartment in article 9.64 the maximum buffer is I believe 40 or 45 ft and that's when you have the greatest um density adjoining a lower density development. staff are proposing a 30foot buffer um as a standard for any apartment that's adjoining um that's on one it's one building one lot and when it's a multi-building site development and it's with the corresponding plantings that are listed there and then lastly um this is the um this is a new buffer that's being proposed and this would be for town center edge

conditions So, this would be a buffer that's required on a lot that is zoned town center um but adjoins a different zoning district where you have an apartment um a mixeduse building or non-residential development. You would have to um include a 20 foot buffer um and that would be an opaque buffer. And you'll see there there is a footnote. Um that footnote corresponds to the existing allowed um reduction in buffer width um in the ordinance, but you would still have to produce an opaque um buffer there. Staff finds a proposed text amendment consistent with the 2040 plan. Um, this application is also proposed to go to town board final action August 19th and staff recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. Happy to take any questions at this time.

Thank you. Questions for staff?

Yeah, just one real quick. uh the semiopaque major subdivision buffer. You went from 40 feet down to 30 feet. You increased the the plantings, which I agree with, but I'm wondering why did we reduce the buffer by 10 ft in that one. Seems like that's the only one we kind of reduced the footage. Everything else stayed the same. Was there like a Yes. Sorry, I had to think. A lot of changes with these text amendments. Um, so currently it's because the the other buffers that we currently have are 30 feet outside of the 80 foot buffers that we have

and the 50 foot Yeah. So the non-residential uses not otherwise listed is 30 feet. Um, and then the semi-opaque buffer for civic uses is 30 feet. And so we propose it consistent with those two because it's not intended to be an opaque buffer. Um, our opaque buffers are the only ones that we're proposing for to be opaque are the town center buffer, but otherwise for opaque buffers, you're intending for a wider section. So 50 ft, 80 ft, etc. Um, that's that's that's it. Have a question about the farmhouse cluster buffer. Yes.

Is that part of this? because it's typically 80 ft, but there's exceptions. We had a text amendment recently where we could keep the rural character of fences or walls. Yes. Is that included in here? Yes, that is also included. Um, so we're proposing that the So, make sure I get both parts. Um, there are two options with the farmhouse cluster. You can either do the vegetated 80 ft or you can do one of the other alternatives in keeping with the real character. We're not proposing to change um a farmhouse cluster from having those two options.

We're just proposing that if you choose the 80 ft, these would be this would be the minimum plantings that you would have to include in the 80 ft. Okay. Thanks. That helps. There was another reduction in buffer buffer width. So we're on this page. Was it Whoops. We were that one.

No, that one we just addressed. Chris addressed that one. And the opaque buffer down here, the 30 ft. Was that it or um Okay, I know this one's reduced the opaque buffer on the end, the 20 ft. So that that right now is um 40. No. So the the one that's outlined with red is being that one is being reduced. That one's being reduced. It's it was 40 and that's it's coming down to 30. Yes. Okay. And this new this is really a new buffer down here at the town center edge conditions. That's correct. And can you repeat to me again footnote four? I didn't quite understand that.

Yes. Yes. So footnote four is except where non-residential uses in the highway commercial and vehicle sales district but residential uses buffer yard widths may be reduced to 10 ft if evergreen shrubs are used that will reach a minimum height of 8t at maturity. Shrubs shall be planted to create a complete visual buffer. So essentially you can reduce the 20 ft to 10 ft um if you have an a line essentially of evergreen shrubs

and that is if town center edge ever meets highway commercial any any other zoning district. Yep. Any other Okay. You you mentioned highway commercial. Yep. That's okay. Yes. It's currently for that for the highway commercial. Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Um, Town Center Edge. So, I'm sorry. Sorry. I'm sorry. Let me correct that. It is for all except highway commercial. That reduction allowance.

Okay. Now, it makes sense. Okay. I was trying to envision when this was going to happen. Could be tomorrow. Um, we don't have a uh I don't have a clear definition in my head of what edge is on town center. though is we're talking town the town center zoning and not what we call town center to be quarter mile half mile from the center of town. That is correct. Okay. So we're talking about the zoning and the edge would be at any point where TC zoning meets anything that's not TC zoning. That's correct.

Okay. Okay. How about if it's non-ontiguous and you got TC and then some other zone then it jumps back to TC as it would as you go north here. You would have to include the buffer for each.

Yes. Okay. Okay. All right. We're good on that one. Um and then previous one there was I think there was another question back one more. All right. just just we're just bumping up percentages and so it's it's it's more um the buffers are becoming more robust with these changes. Yes, pretty much. Yeah.

I mean the 54 trees per thousand square feet. That's great. Oh, no. Five. Yeah, that's what I thought when I saw it. No, five. It's a five five. So, and and I'll also add I'll add here as well. Um the arborist recommendations like this the idea is that this is in a section where there it's vacant. Um there are no trees at all. Um and the idea is that if you have existing vegetation that there is to be um some intentionality about how many additional you're adding to fill in those spaces to meet the requirement. Okay. Okay.

Yep. So you can semi-disturb it and still use the trees that are existing and li very very limited disturbance. Yes. Enough to just to plant. We don't we no great the undisturbed buffers. We'll get into that later. Okay. All right. Thank you. Sure. Any other questions? There we go. I have a question for Jay. Oh, as as our resident engineer, um do you feel like these increase in tree plantings and etc. is not an overreach like that's still within reason that from a cost perspective for development? Yeah,

I have a motion so we can move into discussion. Okay. Um, in considering the proposed amendment TA25-06, the planning board recommends approval based on the amendment being consistent with LU9.1, LU 111.1, LU 12.3, and EOS 6.1. It is reasonable and in the public interest to amend the zoning ordinance because it is consistent with the 2040 plan and it class clarifies the intent of existing buffer yards and updates the planting standards based on intent and application. Thank you. Have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second. Second discussion. I I appreciate moving standardizing um this kind of um wording and it helps when you guys are coming before us I think in in that respect as well. Um keeping it all standard is is nice. Jody,

I I think the photo was extremely helpful showing how sparse the um plantings were on that picture and um just that staff does go back and check um that plantings were not done. I think that was very informative. Um so I think it's great that we're adding more um shrubs and trees into the into the buffer. I'll just add on to say that I appreciate that the um planning department brought in the arborist and consulted with them on this. I think that's always a good idea to have an expert who knows more about the subject than than we do. So um I think that shows that we're doing our due diligence.

Anyone else? Uh this is more of a question slash you know like Scott was doing just bouncing this off of you Jay. The large maturing. Has that always been large maturing? You're just increasing the percentage or are we making these evergreens bigger than they were before? Requesting that they be bigger than they were before or is it always kind of read like that? So, um I just want to make sure I was allowed to respond. Yeah. Um so the current requirement is that for example like the the red out outlined area is that 75% of the required trees are large maturing right

and then out of that 75% of the large maturing trees 50% have to be evergreen. So that would mean that 25% of the large maturing trees that are required could be deciduous. You can always go above your percentages. Um, but you can't go below them. It's a little bit difficult. Yes. Like until you're kind of like doing the math when you see the plan, it's a little bit hard to follow. Um, but essentially and and the fact that we're saying five doesn't always help. But under the current standards, if you have four trees that are required in a thousand square feet, three of those four trees have to be large maturing. one would have to be small maturing and then 50% of the trees have to be evergreen. So you can have small or large maturing evergreen trees. And the idea is that if you want an opaque buffer, you want more large maturing evergreen trees because during the winter time,

the deciduous trees lose their leaves and then you just have a lot of neighborhoods get it's a little bit noisier. um doesn't look as nice. That's not the way I read that, but okay. Are you clear? Is that it?

I'm I'm sure it's done for reason and they understand it, but I read it as like five deciduous trees per thousand square foot and then of the area 75% needed to be large maturing evergreens. Right? you remove that semicolon and that 50%. You got, you know, a semicolon stop, not a not a open parenthesis. You got a semicolon stop and then 75% of that space needs to be a large maturing area. That's the way I read it. I agree, Chris. I I read it the same way.

I'm sure you guys know it. Do you not agree? You think

so? Yes. So, no. So, now the it's so the standard is changing. So, it would have Yes. It would read like that today where we have this deciduous requirement, but now the idea is that you would no longer essentially have to have large maturing deciduous trees. You would have five trees per thousand square feet and of those five trees se 7 75% will be large maturing evergreen with the strikeout and then 25% will be small maturing. So the small maturing could be evergreen or they could be deciduous. The idea is that you would want them to be deciduous so that you have like a height difference to cover. Um, but essentially you would no longer need to plant large maturing deciduous trees.

Thousand square foot, right? We're talking about a 80 foot buffer or whatever. So that's like 120 long and you're only putting five trees in there. That doesn't seem like enough. No. Per thousand square feet. So, if it were if it were 80 foot wide, right, that's going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 120 foot long. And then you're only going to put five trees in there. That ain't right. Sure.

Be every 12.5 12t. If you're 80 ft deep, every 12 feet gets you thousand. Yeah.

Yeah.

If it's only 80 ft, it's five. Yeah. 100 by 10. Okay. Uh, further discussion. Are we ready for a motion? We did have a motion. I'm sorry. We had discussion. We ready for a vote? Yes. Thanks, Trina.

All right. All those in favor? Those opposed? Senate unanimous. Thank you. All right. One more. Right. Next item is uh recommendation on petition TA2508 request by Huntersville Planning Department to amend the zoning and subdivision ordinance.

So I'd like to enter the staff report into the record for um this item. So we have a lot of um kind of unrelated changes in one large text amendment. And um one uh piece of background for the changes is SB 166 um which was an act to amend various development regulations. So the changes included are regarding land development regulations to be consistent with state statutes. Um, and as most of you all are probably well aware, the town took responsibility for land development review and inspection several years ago. And as our town inspectors are seeking to ensure compliance, a revision is proposed to better achieve compliance with storm water facilities. Um, a previous text amendment was initiated by staff regarding BERM approval requirements and community meeting dates. um that's being incorporated into this text amendment. Um urban open space did not originally include an allowance for the inclusion of um what were previously BMPPS, but now our storm water control manuals measures, excuse me. So your sand filters, wet ponds, rain gardens, etc. And staff are proposing um a slight modification with that allowance um as it is currently written. Um and then as a part of the previously referenced text amendment um for farmhouse custers and minor subdivisions um the previous text amendment TA23-03 set a limit that minor subdivisions are limited to five home lots. Farmhouse clusters are allowed six and have very different standards than minor subdivisions do. Um so for that purpose staff are proposing that farmhouse clusters be categorized um separately from minor subdivisions.

And then um lastly staff are proposing a change with the existing features plan sheets um that are required by the subdivision ordinance to show um the limits of disturbance to better protect the areas that are sensitive and that need to be preserved. Go through changes. So from um SB 166, the term has now been officially codified by the state as a stormwater control measure. And so throughout the subdivision and zoning ordinances, staff are proposing um this change to be consistent with state statutes. We're proposing to change the definition um of BMP to the state's definition of an SEM. And then as well as a part of this require as a part of SB 166, we're proposing to change the definition of builtupon area to be consistent with the state's definition. And then lastly, um occupancy restrictions, which is probably the most quite honestly the most significant change. Um the state has indicated that um local government shall not withhold a building permit or certificate of occupancy that would otherwise be eligible to be issued um unless the um requirement was related to a public safety issue um for that for that development. So throughout our sub subdivision and zoning ordinances, most of the requirements that we have linked to occupancy that are land development requirements are remaining. So those are the requirements that have to do with anything to do with essentially your SCMs, your erosion control, um grading, your public streets, those are all same. Um so as an example uh we have a requirement that when a

site has um lighting that is subject to the lighting requirements, you have to submit um a lighting certification before occupancy and that has been determined not to be a um public safety issue to submit that. So that's one of an example of something that's being proposed to be removed in consistency with the with SB 166. Um, another that was spec very very specifically called out um was with regard to landscaping requirements on properties. So, if a site had landscaping requirements um and they were not installed at the time that a certificate of occupancy is requested for a property, then per SP 166, the local government could require a signed affidavit detailing the reasons why the required site improvements are not complete, the expected date of completion and compliance, and a statement promising to complete the required site improvements. Um so pretty much if it's not installed, it turns into a code enforcement issue. Um the definitions of builtupon area and SCM do not vary greatly from the current definitions of BMP um or the current definition of builtupon area that we have. The next um revision is a proposed um sunset date on the conversion of storm water control measures and submission of asbuilts. So currently there are approximately 82 sites that are actually I think it's changed since last week but um at the time 82 sites under construction and of

those 30% are ready for conversion. So the conversion of the temporary um measure facility to the permanent facility um based on inspections. Um some of these sites have been under construction for a very long time. Um some as early as the early 2000s. And so essentially when the um when the facilities are not converted to permanent facilities, the storm water is not being treated before it goes into our um water systems. So this section is proposing that there is a a sunset date um so from the time that the SCM is ready for conversion that you have six months to convert the facility and submit your asbuilts um based upon the inspections that are completed. The next um I won't read the entirety of this. Um I'm not sure if any of anyone was on the planning board when I brought this, but there's there are current requirements for BERM standards. Um and they're very specific. So essentially, if you meet the Burm standards that are in the ordinance, um staff recommend approval of them. However, there's an additional requirement that it still comes to planning board. Um so staff are proposing to remove the requirement to additionally get approval from planning board when a um an application is proposing a burm that's compliant with the ordinance standards. So essentially if you're want to propose a b a burm that's not consistent you would have to go through the resoning process to ask that and then it would come before planning board anyway and town board. Um the next is the community meeting

requirement. So staff the board members at community meetings and the current reading of the ordinance indicates that um community meetings are not to be held on regularly scheduled um board planning board and town board of commissioners meetings nights. But there was in the past I believe year and a half um an instance where meetings had to get rescheduled. Um I believe it was due to holidays. Um but essentially because of that we had community meetings set on the same night as board meetings. So board members had conflicts where they weren't able to attend. So we're proposing to change that so that it is just on any scheduled town um board meeting night or planning board meeting night. can't schedule also community meetings. Um the next revision that's proposed with regards to the allowance for um SCMs in urban open space and to be completely transparent this is not a picture of urban open space. This is a picture of common open space, but the um the idea that's being presented here is that the current ordinance indicates that no more than 25% um of each SEM within urban open space area can be used. Um and so the the allowance right now is that to exceed the 25% um an application can go before a planning board. So with striking this language, essentially an application would be confined to the 25% unless a resoning application was submitted. The idea here is that urban open space is intended to be improved, accessible, and usable. Um it's not intended to just be kind of a a grass area where we take our dogs um necessarily. And we want to make

sure that the urban open space is being improved for residents to use it. Um, so if you want to do something else, you can go through that resoning application process and it would still come before planning board and town board. Um, so here's just an an illustration of um a minor subdivision. You may or may not be familiar with this one. Um, but essentially this shows like this was before there was a limit on the number of units you could achieve in a minor subdivision. Um, and staff are proposing to remove the farmhouse clusters from being considered a minor subdivision. They're very different. As you can see here, minor subdivisions have to have frontage along an existing public street. Farmhouse clusters do not have to have a lots along an existing public street. And there are litany of other requirements that farmhouse clusters have. You do not have for minor subdivisions. Um, and so for th for that purpose, we're proposing to separate those. We're not proposing any additional requirements for farmhouse clusters or for minor subdivisions. Um and lastly, as mentioned, um when you have a site that has, as this one, lots of existing vegetation, um swim buffer, post construction buffer, um and I don't think this one has it, but if you have wetlands, we want to understand where those currently exist on the property and where the limits of disturbance are proposed to um proposed to extend to. And so for that purpose, we're proposing that the limits of disturbance be shown on the existing features um sheet so that we can further ensure that um the areas that are intended to be preserved are preserved. Staff ask for this now, but it's not a requirement. Staff find the proposed text amendment

consistent with the 2040 plan. Um, this is also this application is also proposed to go to town board final action August 19th. Staff recommend approval of this text amendment. Happy to take any questions at this time. Okay, it's a lot rolled into one. Need a breath. Um, who wants to start questions? Marshall. Yeah, I'll ask a question. Um, so the conversion of temporary to permanent SCM, I think you said was six months. That was a time period, correct?

That's correct. Um, how was that time period arrived at? I mean, it sounds reasonable to me, but I'm just not sure what kind of um decision-m went into that figure. Sure. So, um, last year staff consulted with the county stormwater administrator about a reasonable time frame to convert those facilities and that is what between town staff and the advice of um, county stormwater services that's what was proposed. Thank you.

First a comment. Lauren, excellent job tonight. This is a lot of heavy lifting. You've done a wonderful job. So my first motion a lot of people have I'm sure I'm sure the staff did but you've done a wonderful job. My first motion is that Lauren gets a day of paid vacation Brian or debt. Um a couple questions actually the occupancy. So I get it that this is driven by SB6

166. Um, and then our only our only hammer is through code enforcement. Do we feel like we have sufficient code enforcement penalties that I could just see a developer taking advantage of this and deciding not to put landscaping in for two years? I'm exaggerating, but we were also conveniently restricted as to what we can do for that from our friends in Raleigh. So, all right, that leads me. So, how are we going to now this goes to the SCM making them 6 months. How are we able to put a deadline of six months on compliance on that?

Yeah, because we can say that's public safety. Again, that's environmental issues, life safety issues. You don't want kids falling into a construction pond, those types of things. So, that can fall into that. And I'm in support of it. I'm just trying I know I'm I'm sure you guys have thought through all this. I'm just trying to figure out like so really from that occupancy you just don't really have other than don't have a dog in the fight anymore

which is why we've asked for an additional code enforcement officer and we know that it's going to ratchet up. Thankfully we've got good developers in this community and they're looking to do with the right thing. So I don't foresee a a large number of issues. Could it pop up from time to time? Sure. Planning season rolls around there. Anything that's what I consider normal. Um, I don't anticipate this being a challenge, but it could be. And this is just my own kind of question going back to the storm water management. Um, how does something go for a decade without having to be finalized? It's the current law. It is flat out allowed today. And we said we got this is the reason for us doing this text amendment. There are some that are 20 years old right now.

So, so it's out there and it's not doing its purpose. its purpose is to clean the water before it gets released into the into the public system. That's not occurring. It is on a some level, but not it's what it's intended to be. So, we got to tighten that up. So, we say, "Okay, you got six months." Six months goes by. What can you penalize them? We can start finding. Okay. Thank you. So, it's operating, but it's out of compliance. It hadn't been approved yet. Correct. It still operates as a as a as a construction bond. So the the project itself could be finished and fully occupied and okay. So that's got to be a safety water quality issue there, right?

So what's the most egregious thing a developer could could avoid by not by not doing something that's not a safety issue? I mean are we just talking about buffers and plantings or there's pretty much it's it's Yep. Okay. They don't put the street trees in. They don't put in the buffer plantings. Now of course we bond all these things. Yeah. So push comes to shove. We could go pull someone's bond, right? Which is not great for their credit rating and stuff still gets put in. So there's no there's no real need for us to do that. They have incentive to do that to get out of their bonds and those types of things. So this should be kind of a one-off thing. It wouldn't be a real Okay.

Again, like I said, I don't think this is going to be a common occurrence, but you got a smaller developer who's getting into the game for the first time and really didn't think through the game plan. Yeah. I mean, it it's just changes how we Yeah. Okay. Okay, I got um a couple I'm assuming like like we said that there is a bond and you'll have penalty calls too on top of that, right? Correct. For these. So, feel good about that. Um a question about um the SEMs and urban open space.

Sure. Would this be a reasonzoning if you have a permeable PA plaza that's used as open space active, but it's 100% of the BMP? Would you have to go through reszoning for that? Only if the if the SCM occupied more than 25% of the urban open space. Well, it would be 100% of it. Yeah. Like I mean it would be the the plaza with all this, you know, that be contained in that. It's a combination, right? Let's just say the the plaza is 10,000 square feet. Yeah. But only 25% of the

underworkings. to 2500 square feet. I'm not worried about the the pvious papers over on the outside of it, but where the actual underground detention that stuff occurs. Um if that was more than 25% of the the plaza area, then yeah, you would would need to request a modification. Be kind of cool to have that as 100%. Yeah, let's we can explore that and if we need to to come back and amend, we can amend. Yeah, let's uh move on. Yeah, we're here. Other questions? You ready for motion now?

Okay, back up there.

Lord, I guess you're not voting on my motion. I tried.

Yeah, I know. Here we go. In considering the proposed motion TA25-08, planning board recommends approval based on consistency with policies EOS1.1, EOS-3, EOS4, EOS-5 of the Huntersville 2040 community plan. It is reasonable in the public interest to approve the application because it provides consistent consistency with SB 166. Reduces scheduling conflicts for board members to attend community meetings. Reduces duplicative BM reviews and quantitative design standards. Better aligns the urban open space with the intent. Distinguishes farmhouse clusters as a unique plan type. Allows open space in the home lots of minor subdivisions. and supports the protecting and of sensitive areas by requiring the proposed limits of disturbance to be shown on existing features plan sheet.

Thank you, Lee. We have a motion to second. Second, Chris. Okay, discussion. Lee, if you want to I'll kick it off again. Thank you. That's a lot of work and and well presented as well. Understandable even though it's thick as it can be. I'm going to so miss talking about BMS, but I support the motion, of course. Anybody else? Good. We can vote. All those in favor of the motion.

Did you have a question, Lauren? Yes.

I'm sorry. I When you read the motion, I wanted to make sure that I mentioned this, too. I'm so sorry. Um the open space allowed in the home lots of minor subdivisions. I do want to call that out because that's another that goes with the changes with the like um as well. Currently, you're not allowed to have open space in the home lots in minor subdivisions. So, this would add flexibility when someone is proposing a minor subdivision. Um, so there's no it's really not a lot of reasons why a minor subdivision needs an HOA, but if they have open space outside of the home lots, they have to have a management um agreement or an HOA to manage that. So, that's also included. I'm sorry that I didn't include that as well, but that's another change.

Okay. Any further questions on that? Okay, we'll take the vote again. All those in favor? Those opposed? and it's unanimous. Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask Lauren to come up and present this. I could might as well should. All right. Next item is out, you know. Petition 254, request by the town of Huntersville Planning Department to amend article 7.4 4 of the Huntersville zoning ordinance. Brad,

very good. Thank you very much. Good evening, everybody. Um, so, um, this was talked about a little bit at length at the, um, the the public hearing, so I just want to condense it just a little bit. Uh, but I'll at the end I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. So, uh, tree mitigation, um, why are we looking at it? the u the 2040 plan kind of asked staff to regularly in the town to regularly look and revise tree mitigation options. Uh so staff went and took this to the environmental sustainability committee. The committee uh made a recommendation to the town board and the town board asked staff to draft a recommendation. So uh that's why we're here talking about tree mitigation tonight. Um just a brief what is tree mitigation? Well, the the town does have tree save requirements, and this box in a nutshell is pretty much the tree requirements, and there's there's two parts. On the far left, you see there's canopy, meaning if you're in rural on the top left there, um, and you have a wooded site, 50% of the the existing trees or the wooded area, the acreage is required to be saved. Then you go to the far right. Uh the second part of the tree save requirements is individual specimen trees. So these are either large trees 24 in in caliber and above like an oak or a maple or small maturing trees like a dogwood or a red bud or a cherry tree that's over 12 in in caliber and above. So there's two different types of tree save in our ordinance. And these are the requirements based on the zoning district. And you see um the less intense use has the more tree save requirements. For instance, a rural residential uh requirement uh you're expected to save more trees because you're going to be less dense. You're

going to have open space. You're going to have streams and so you're going to have more opportunity to save trees in that environment. the further you go down, the more intense, the more density that is allowed, um, the less tree requirement there is. And so that is pretty much in our ordinance and pretty much in everybody's ordinance who has tree requirements. It's that's the kind of principle that kind of exists. So these numbers are not proposed to change. They haven't changed since 2003. Um what we're looking to change is the tree mitigation. So what is trees mitigation? Um point out it's the little footnotes. The footnotes always get you. So we got to we got to talk about the footnotes. So the footnotes is basically a paragraph underneath that graph uh and that table that says well here's your tree save requirements but you can mitigate or you can replace the trees on the site or you can contribute funds to have the the a certain amount of trees planted in a different location. So and essentially says you don't have to save those trees. You can replace them if you need to. So that's what mitigation is. It's flexibility from the tree safe ordinance. So going back in the history um again pre205 I'll just go through these and you can ask me questions at the end. Um pre205 2015 2020 uh there was an effort uh to really increase the amount of tree mitigation for specimen trees through um various committees. the the planning board would uh appoint committees to take a look at the mitigation to up the requirements to say what's the problem. Um they they looked at it and said well canopy tree safe canopy is not our problem. Specimen trees is what we run into. Mostly

commercial properties mostly mixeduse development and saving specimen trees is more difficult and more of a challenge than residential. Um so what's happened through the last decade um there's been a lot of careful effort to try to balance um property rights and development rights development feasibility with the effort and the plans to save more mature trees. For the last decade it's been a balance and it's kind of been a progressive increase of mitigation requirements to try to encourage developments to save trees. Right? So where are we now is well we we've changed the ordinance requirements where if someone does mitigate staff believes we're getting equal value of what's being removed in regard to the amount of trees but we're not saving uh mature trees like we would like to and I think that the ordinance is looking to do. And the the illustration I used with the town board for the public hearing is, you know, when when we get an application in um for a development, whatever it is, commercial, residential, and we review it for the first time and we say, well, you know, the the tree save requirements are not being met. Here are your options. Let's redesign to save more trees or here's the calculation for mitigation. every single time is mitigation. There's no redesign to to try to save more more trees, right? So, that's basically saying we're getting more mitigation, but we're not getting the mature trees that we'd like to get. And that's been the discussion. Um, so staff drafted some language that essentially puts a cap on the mitigation. That's the next step because

we went through the last decade encourage, encourage, encourage. So the next step is well you got to keep some and that's essentially what this this um um recommended tax amendment is going to do. So for residential uh again keeping with that principle of the residential you're kind of expected to save more. So it says that there's a 30% cap on the tree safe meaning 70% of required trees should remain. Then for commercial uh it's a 50-50 split. 50 um uh uh for mitigation and then 50 physically has to stay. Couple other items, heritage trees. These are the champion trees um that you know go 50 60 in in width. They could qualify to be on the champion North Carolina tree list or very close to qualifying. Um so you really want to save those trees if you possibly can. So, but at the same time, you know, again, that balance of of understanding the need for flexibility because there are some lots around town where you have huge, beautiful trees right in the middle of the lot. So, if you only have one, you know, you should be able to or two, then you should be able to mitigate to be able to have a little bit of flexibility to make use of the property. So, we recommend going up to 200% of the caliper. Um, and then number four, just clarifying kind of like we did on on other sections of the ordinance that Lauren just described, clarifying what's expected on the plan so we can actually review the tree safe um um plan accurately and then also what's to be mitigated if that tree safe area that was approved is physically disturbed. So, but even with these caps, even with the requirement that some trees physically remain, the option for the

developer is still to be able to ask for a conditional district reszoning where they can go to the town board to ask for flexibility from the tree ordinance uh to say, "Well, you know what? Here's the situation. I'm doing a a big industrial site. Got to flatten the thing. It causes a lot of grading. going to have to mitigate more then the town board can get into that discussion about okay um so here's the flexibility the modification however can we ask for some u uh excellence in design what can we get back environmentally that's going to help us in this situation so that becomes a discussion and just some numbers that were shown at the public hearing again on the lefth hand side just some sample projects X. Um, and then on the the the second column you have what their required tree save was. And the next column to the right is what was actually saved on the site. And then on the far right what these developments would be required to save if this um ordinance would have been effect at that time. So you see in in the second from the right we are getting tree save. It's not like we're getting zero. We're getting some. But with this requirement, you would bump that up and we would meet our mature tree save goals a lot faster and effectively than we do now. So, um 50 and 30 again is not set in stone. Uh however, those are the recommendations based on um the uh some similarity with other towns, but also that uh that principle of just asking for more tree save when there's more opportunity for residential. And again, just a little bit of backup numbers to to essentially say that, you know, we we

are getting a lot of mitigation and not as much mature tree save. Back in 2022, we had about $125,000 in the tree fund bank and as of today, in three years, it increased 228%. So, we're getting a lot of contribution, but again, the mature tree save isn't matching up there. So, uh staff feels that um it's really keeping in with the the several policies of the 2040 plan. And again, we started out with the policy is the reason why we went to the environmental sustainability committee to have that discussion, revise the mitigation on occasion. So that's what we're here to do and and discuss. So uh staff recommends approval and uh tenatively scheduled for town board consideration on the 19th. Be happy to answer any questions.

Brad start with questions, discussion. Okay. Um my questions is um have the mitigation or maybe tree safe mechanism prevented any developer from coming to the town? Would it de would it stop any developer from coming to the town?

Um my guess would be no. Um the so far we have tree save requirements and you know there's no shortage of applications and a lot of times with with still having that flexibility of a conditional district resoning. Our guess is perhaps conditional resonings might tick up a little bit to ask for modifications. Um but then that would be something that the town board could approve. And so it's not a hard no, but it's it makes it more viable for again going back to when an applicant comes in and says, "Well, here's our site plan." We say, "Well, you're not meeting the tree save right now. Let's redisuss." In our mind, it makes it more likely that there would be a redesign to save trees in that scenario. Um because the reasonzoning and it does take some time to reszone. So when it's really needed, our thought is they're going to reszone. But if if they can redesign, they would redesign. That's what we think the difference is going to be in the text amendment.

So and that does take into consideration like the buffer and all the kinds of things that were previously said by um Lauren. Correct. So that gets into the the details of if they're saving the buffer, they get credit for that buffer. if they're saving mature trees. Um, but again, what happens sometimes is they have a buffer and we encourage mature trees, but they they encroach into that buffer, so they don't get credit for it. Thank you.

I just wanted to do a quick clarification on the 200% of the caliper. So, go back to that slide. If you have like 40inch used 40 inch for example, um that's 80 inches of caliper is what you would have to replace. So like 42 inch trees. That's correct. Takes a lot of room to plant that many trees. Um and then the other question is back to the um the surplus kind of in the bank. What's the long-term plan for that? You know, $400,000. Are we planting trees in parks? I mean, what are we doing with that additional funds?

Yeah. So, that that's the current plan, working with park and recreation to to plant them in parks, uh planning on uh road projects, uh street rideway, um where we're putting in street trees and public facilities. Public facilities where there's a need. Um there's some facilities that uh there are some trees dying that we can replace. And so having those trees and and using for public facilities and public rights away is is the current plan.

This is just another one off of that. Is it I mean is there like a plan for certain size tree depends on the area. Are we planting back you know 6 inch trees, 2 inch trees and just playing the long game or what?

Generally it's the two inches. I mean the the applicant can choose the inches that they want. Um, however, when you get into the larger amount of trees in regard to planting as far as caliper, it's it's harder to keep them. And I don't know if you you remember, but we we planted when we did the town center building in our plaza, we planted 4-in caliber trees that were larger, and they they had immediately a bigger canopy, but they died. They the health was poor. So when you have a a lower inch tree, and this is what arborists recommend as well, they're easier to transplant. They're easier to to grow in harsher conditions, and they're going to thrive better if you start young. So the 2 in is generally what we get for mitigation.

Okay,

I kind of feel like this is a solution looking for a problem. And I get it that we got the 2040 plan that says we need to, you know, review tree mitigation and firm supported tree mitigate or tree um save, but I just worried that this direction is it going to like Prince said, is this going to really make it much more difficult for developers, which I'm not trying to say defend developers, but also is it going to hurt our potential for density when density is what we're looking for? If you go back, Brad, go to that slide that had the different projects. Oops. The one I was looking at. So, let's take Ever Keith Industrial for instance. You know, again, that's big industrial. It needs to basically clear cut most of the trees. And they were able to only save seven specimen trees. If this was passed, they would now be required to save 11 heritage trees and 11 specimen trees. And I don't know the site well enough, but let's say if there if that site today by saving seven specimen trees yielded 300,000 square feet. Now we require them to save 11 heritage trees and 11 specimen. Are we down to 150,000 square feet? I don't think that's our intended purpose in doing this. And that's what and I and I know what you're going to say is well we still have the conditional zoning that we can go through. I've seen too many times where somebody comes in with a conditional zoning, all of a sudden it was about trees and before they're done, they've given 15 other concessions, which granted sometimes it's to the benefit of the town, but they give a pound of flesh. And um those are my concerns. I just I I and I get it that you know, and here's another example. Let's take your example downtown. There's two large um trees which would be considered her heritage trees.

If there let's say it's a small lot, it's a halfacre, you got two large heritage trees, you would have to save one of those. Your your example was if there's only one, you could mitigate it. Well, if there's two, you'd have to save one or come in for a reasonzoning, right? So, again, I just I feel like we're going to we're going to have too many projects that are going to get caught up in this and have to come in for a conditional zoning. And again, my I'd rather see people be able to develop it under the ordinance and not always have to come in and ask for conditional zoning. So, for that, I'm not in support of it. I I I don't see where there's enough of a problem today for us to search for a solution. Um, go ahead, Marshall.

Yeah, I was going to ask, um, it sounds like you did some comps to other municipalities that have similar restrictions. I think that's kind of where you got your 30 50% from. Can you talk a little bit about where you looked and kind of how you arrived at those comps?

So, the tree saveave ordinances or the lack of tree ordinances just varies very much throughout the town. The the the ones that are that would be closest to ours would probably be Belmont, North Carolina and Gaston County and then also um Matthews in Mechmber County. So, Matthews has a requirement that um you have to have 30%. No, you have to have the tree save and you can mitigate up to 30%. But if you want to go over that 30%, you can only have that mitigation through the town board action. So that's probably the the the closest applesto apples comparison that we're trying to say as well where you can have mitigation but it's capped and when you pass the cap you have to go up the ladder and it's it's not a buy action. Jody,

could we have something for Town Center with with the example for downtown like because that's I mean can there be changes is what I'm asking. Sure, you could you could recommend any changes that you want if if like again the 30 and 50 number is you know I mean that's we're not married to that but at the same time it's the principle that the committee wanted and it sounded like the town board wanted was keep more mature and that that that was staff is wrestling with because again we've gone through this for 10 years to try to encourage more right and the encouragement only has gotten so far where we've gotten still the same amount of mitigation but yet not as much mature tree safe. So solving that problem I would say is a problem because again we're from a staff perspective we're we're not able to work to get that. It's just an automatic where here's the calculation, here's the mitigation, let's move on.

Okay. Um, oh, um, I do have a question or two or a few real quick. Um, I'm kind of agree with what Scott said about maybe studying this a little bit more. Um, I looked at some smaller sites and I took actually my office for example. I was like, okay, we got four trees. We had to resone that site just to just to get a you know office looks like a house with a few parking spaces and and on small sites I don't like I think it's real restrictive especially if you have a tree or two that's kind of in the way or a small subdivision where you have you know a couple trees and you're trying to work around that. Um I think it I think it needs to be looked at a little bit more. You know, another thing on this chart that we don't see is how many trees that were actually planted because um you can't count the trees like that you plant along the perimeter, parking lot, buffer as any mitigation. So, we we have a great tree ordinance from a replacement. You know, we we plant a lot of trees and and that's great. And you know, you look at subdivisions that have been here like say Macaulay or over Brookdale Village even where you got nice trees that were never there originally. And I think it it's still I think it's restricted, but I think we need to look at some other sites as well. Um, and as far as the tree fund, have we did I hear have we spent any money on that yet or is it

not yet, but we have a project in mind where a good chunk of it will probably go.

I think, you know, I think as a town we need to, you know, I think we'd be very responsible to try to get that moving forward. And I I appreciate you saying that there's a plan already in place. Um um other thing is like if you have a lot of 16inch trees or 23 inch trees or 8 inch dog woods, they'll count for canopy, but they don't count as specimen trees. So it would be nice if you could get points and credit for nice 20-inch tree uh as as a specimen tree. So I think there's some pieces in here that I would prefer to see tighten up a little bit. just thoughts.

Question. I'm just I'm sorry. I probably went a little too No, no, you're fine. I'm just thinking that if there's more questions or do we want You're right. We need questions. I'll keep going.

So, let's let's look at the lodges of Huntersville then if we're doing examples. And I I think we do have a problem. That's how this was given to the environmental sustainability committee. I think and and the tree safe fund is obvious because that's what they're using. We're not getting the desired result. We're getting cash. Okay. So, we we do need to make some adjustments. This is a good start at it, I think. But if you if you look at the lodges of Huntersville, if you're not familiar with this ontown and Highway 21 by apartment build pretty much apartments, was it 300 and something? And this would have doubled their canopy. And that place is is huge and it would and and the apartments are right on the corner where where pastures were. So, they didn't disturb any trees there at all. And yet, they couldn't save they couldn't save more than an acre up to an acre. And I think that part of the problem is is trying to maximize these lots where we're fighting back against uh buffer incursions and things like that given given feed up there because that that incremental extra unit drives so much more revenue that who cares how much I got to pay into pay into the tree buffer. I'm maximizing this property. And that you know you've got two competing forces here. And I hear you on the uh development side of things, but I don't I don't think our goal is maximizing density. I think it's it's doing the right thing. So, I'm 100% in support of this and I do think we need to tweak it some more. I understand the 2 in versus trying to put a 4inch tree and get it to live, but maybe there's some middle ground there. And then the diameter of deciduous trees. If it's, you know, if it's 24 is probably too much, maybe start at 18 and consider those two so you get some credit there. So there's this is good. We might need to tweak it a little bit, but uh I think the sooner we do something to uh to start

addressing the problem, then then the better. I'll support it. Motion. Okay.

Okay. In considering the proposed amendment TA25-04, the planning board recommends approval based on the amendment being consistent with EOS-3, EOS-3.1, EOS-4, and the big idea tree canopy outlined in page 84 of the Huntersville 2040 plan. It is reasonable and in the public interest to amend the zoning ordinance because it supports the preservation and growth of mature tree canopy which will provide significant environmental, storm water management, air quality, economic and community benefits for the town of Huntersville without restricting developers. Uh, I want to add um by allowing the conditional reasonzoning

allowing that allowing flexibility with a conditional resoning. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I'll second. We have a second.

So, what I really love about this is that it gives our planning department another bargaining chip. And that's that's for me, you know, we have given up a lot to developers. Um, I really appreciate that this is something you guys can use to say, you know what, we need better design. What if we move this a little bit instead of it always just being the bottom line? So, while I appreciate that developers need to make money, I I completely understand. I also think that the town um and the residents, the residents want to save trees. Um I I think that that's a better balance and it's a start. It may not be the end. It may not be where we end up, but I do think this is a start and implementing it now creates change now.

Okay. Thank you. Second. You have any further Sure. Yeah.

I don't know if it's better you hear me or not. Okay. So, um, page 84 that was referenced in the motion, uh, deals with, uh, future plans for tree save and such, and one of them is conserve an additional five square miles of land by the year 20 2045. So, maybe that's something we could focus our resources on to try to start doing some land preservation, which reminded me of a a policy where we were on vacation a few weeks ago. Um, every time real estate sells, 2% of the sale price goes into land reserves. And everywhere you went up there, you'd go in the next block, big land reserve. I know that's not for us, but it's a great idea just just to try to get a handle on on on rapid expansion development. We've got to do something. I mean, this is this is this is something. Uh, does it need to be tweaked? Yeah. Have you been working on this for the last five years? Yes. And we've had special committees that spend a year on this. So I I don't think we can dismiss it just by saying it's going to drive away development because it's not. Development's coming, but here's a way to try to shape it to something we can all live with. I just want to add that this benefits the current residents and that's something that we really need to consider carefully because we are in such a rush to invite new people in and and we're so worried about making it easy for developers to to bring new people in. This benefits us. So, I don't know. Just adding that Just my thoughts. I think sometimes we get so focused on preserving what is here and now and don't always look at what is this going to look like? This community is going to look like in 10, 15, 20 years. And I get you like said, let's protect the people that are here now. But I look at just simple example, you know, it's a heritage tree today that is big and beautiful. Those things

will eventually die. And is it going to die in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? Would you rather sacrifice that one tree today and get 20 trees planted in lie of that tree spread out that hopefully all 20 of those are now a future canopy. So that's where sometimes you know this mitigation I think is a good thing. I don't think that you know saving each and every tree is always the best thing. I'm not trying to say we take them all down, but I think we got to look at the long game, too, and not just look at how do we preserve each and every individual one and look at how can we make this truly better in 10, 15, 20 years.

Yeah, just to a little bit follow up on what Scott is saying. So I'm thinking about it like uh so the problem here might be maybe we have like you said the fund have gone up like 228%. Are we not just maybe making use of maybe planting trees maybe since their mitigation maybe we need to start doing work of planting the trees instead of maybe just like stopping developer or other people from coming in. So the problem might be if we can just start working doing those things that we've been mitigating let's just plant the trees and that will you know in return you know support I think the goal of trees being available

but along that same line okay if it increases another 228% next year where are you going to plant those and and I think that again That's like what the staff is saying is that the leap that they've seen. So it the plan worked really well and now it's stopped working because property in Huntersville is so valuable that developers are ready to just pay to be here. Like let just cut the trees down. Who cares? So what again what this does is it gives them a bargaining chip. Okay, you want to cut both those heritage trees down from this site? Okay, let's see what else we can do. And they're not saying I I have not seen staff come in being completely unreasonable. Um, in fact, I remember um recently, maybe 3 4 months ago, we had a development where there was a stream that ran through the the community and we made a lot of sessions, the concessions. There was a lot of back and forth on that. And that's what I've seen our staff do. They're not like, you know what, doesn't fit. You're out. It just this gives them again one more bargaining chip to say, we need we need something better from you. Let's what if we turn this building this way? What? And that's what I've seen them do consistently since I've been here.

Anyone else? But we are looking into the future. we are trying to implement the 2040 plan that is 10 and 15 years down the road. So this all supports that. So I when you say it's you know supporting the people that are already here but we're trying to do the plan. That's what we're charged with. So that's where I'll leave that one.

I guess I I go back to the small sites. Uh I didn't really think about it that way. You know, if you have a halfacre site or acre site, specifically around here where we're trying to develop and develop for the people that are here, you know, if you come in and you say, "Hey, I got to take these two heritage trees." I feel like it's going to be real easy to say, "No, no thanks. We don't want to lose the heritage trees." And there might not be a way to work around it. So, I don't I don't know. I uh I was all for it and now I'm like I'm seeing some holes in it and I don't know where the in between is.

I mean and that's what I was saying is I think I mean you have a 7000 acre subdivision. I'd have no issue at all with with with this. I think it works. It's the smaller sites because you have flexibility there. You don't have flexibility on smaller sites. So maybe there's an acreage thing that could work work it out. you know, I mean, it you get a 36 inch tree, that's, you know, 82 feet across because you got drip line and then five extra feet on each side. It that takes up a huge area that's totally, you know, and on a small site, it makes a big difference. So, that's why I was saying a little bit more study, especially with smaller sites, would be beneficial. Have you seen this issue come up much with um small sites?

Um where there's a need for 100% mitigation, I'd say no. So I mean the the mit like I when you look I think the the the graph that we showed is indicative of kind of what we get. There is trees that are saved usually. Um, but I mean Jay's point is is fair in regard to the smaller the site, the harder it is depending upon where the trees are because remember the the specimen tree save is the commercial. There's no canopy for commercial. So it's just do you have specimen trees and where are they? Does it make it hard? And and I I think that's where staff thought that the flexibility is needed. The reasonings are needed from time to time. Um, and they might increase based on location. Um, but and and then if that comes to the the pass where it's like, you know, we got one tree, it's in the middle of the lot, we understand that we're going to support that because there's there's no other option in that regard. Um, so maybe I guess is the answer to the question. it just we I don't see where someone comes in and has to take away everything um based on a small usually there's room for one or two trees to be saved. So and then again in the language it's it's written to have that flexibility based on commercial you know the cap is is 30 for residential it's 50 for commercial. So, you know, it's built in where you understand that you need more flexibility for the smaller lots, more intense lots. Maybe there's more intensity. If this the board wants to recommend more flexibility in that regard, then that's fine as well. Staff understands that. I think where we're coming from and I think where the town

board and the committee was coming from is we got to take a step to to draw a line in the sand to say we you can have some mitigation but the mature trees there's value in that even though we're getting trees back we're getting inch for inch there's value in taking the mature trees down that we're missing in environmental protection and storm water protection air quality aesthetics We hear that, right? And so we want to save more trees. How do we do that? There's a line in the sand. That's that's kind of where we are.

Can we talk about Hullbrook's phase two as a perfect example of this? So what it is now, sorry, Brian. So you've got you got heritage trees right in the middle of the site pretty much and those are gone on this point. Specimen trees. Specimen trees. Yeah. Yeah. Well, they could be heritage. two of them could be anyway anyway. And under this, I mean, they would probably have to save a couple more, but the center of the site would still be I mean, those those trees would still come down. I don't know if anybody's walked back there. Yeah, it's a beautiful piece of property, and it provides the shade when you're sitting at 760. That's why everybody gets up against the the property line over there, but uh you'll have an apartment building shading you.

Yeah. And I'm I'm not 100% familiar with the numbers, but to to your point, it's a lot of development in a small area. It's a really big building. Um, with the save trees that they were saving plus maybe some ones in the back right corner adjacent to 760, they might have been okay. So, it's just where are they and what what is the exact numbers, right? So, but on small site, it's usually redevelopment. there was something there already and now there's going to be something different there, right? Chances are it's going to have a much larger footprint than the thing that was there, right? So, chances are all your trees, existing trees that that get saved are going to be in the buffers

because they're maxing out the footprint. Is there your big concern is the small lots. Is there a size recommendation? That's what I was getting at. I mean, because we can amend it and I have no idea because I but but yes, I mean um I mean I don't know. I'm throwing out three acres. I don't know. I think it makes sense to do that. I think it's a great idea. Um what would you recommend if we were talking about excluding small sites and what is a small site? So,

I mean it's it it's difficult because if like to your point depends upon what's built. If it's a small site um and it's it's transferring I mean you can have a small building and they want to put a huge parking lot and they decide that they want to take down you know most of the trees for the parking lot. Well, rather than doing that, I mean, work with them to do pvious pavers or root bridge technology or something else to to do it. I mean, I I can see it going both ways. Mhm.

I I I can see it where it's a small site and well, we're going to we're going to take it down where it might not necessarily be necessary. Um, but it can be the other end of the spectrum. So, I don't I don't know. I mean they having that conditional reszoning capability um that that's something that the town board can you can elevate it to the town board level and they can make that decision about was it good is it would did they do enough to save it or not? You know I think that's where staff is.

I'm not I'm not opposed to having something done. I'll go back to Jay's comment. you know, is this a case where a deferral is the best scenario now that staff I know staff is trying to probably move this through, but you know, now that you've had some feedback, you know, we put you on the spot like is it three acres like you don't we don't want to just come up with a number today because we're because it's 9:00. You know, I would rather us, you know,

I would too. I think this is healthy that you're hearing from us and that you know is it do you think more time given what we said that you're like hey maybe given that we can tweak this some or you're like no this is probably what we're going to I feel it gets down into the weeds a little bit more than is necessary if I'm being honest if I'm being honest you look at other towns they don't have well if you have this size then you have to save x amount of trees and again our tree save requirements have been the same for 20 plus years, right? We're we're not even talking about making anybody save more trees. This this is a mitigation thing. So, the mitigation things that we've seen is you get to a point residential saves X, commercials, they save less. And I think we're staying consistent with that. I don't know where we would go and what we would research to find out what would be appropriate for a lot size of who should save trees and who shouldn't. I don't I wouldn't know where to go. I guess it's

right. I have another question about that too. We talked about an arborist. Do we have is it a contract? Do we do we have an arbit on contract right now? Oh, okay. Right. But yeah, but we're one is going to permanently be on staff.

Right. And and what I was getting at is like okay, maybe there's also flexibility in the definition of tree. like um for example, you know, having an arborist to come out and, you know, do you like like Brad was saying, you know, the deep root uh feeding uh you know, suspended slab concrete and stuff like that, you could save a tree that doesn't meet the definition of what's in the ordinance with, you know, given that that drip line plus 5T and then because I think you could save more trees that way. I think people would be we we could count more trees to be saved than they would be saved because it's easier to save them than than to take them out in areas like that.

That would be a nice I would agree with that from a staff perspective to have more flexibility in u the true save definition based on arborist approved techniques. Yeah. Right. that I mean that's something that I mean when we get the arborist on board we we've got plans for those type of discussions to be had related maybe not related do we know if our tree canopy in this community has decreased or increased over the last decade

so in the 2040 plan I believe it does lay out and we've got numbers where it has decreased but not significantly is that right Brian It's decreased but not significantly. Um, and in relation to our neighbors, we've done quite well and that has been because of the replanting because the replantings are counted and and seen in that in that aerial photography study that was was done. So, um, yes, to answer your question, we're we're doing okay in regard. We've decreased, but not as bad as our surrounding neighbors.

Was that decrease 1% 10%? Like how big of a decrease was? I'd have to do some more research on that. Look it up.

I one more time, I guess. Am I on? Yeah. I think I think we need to let this go through and let the the variability and all that stuff lie with the town board and if they want to say, "Okay, I need to need to call the arborist in and see if we're causing the the the applicant to save a tree that's not healthy or whatever. They can do that. But there's so many variables here to write it into code is going to be near impossible because as soon as you do another one-off will come up. I think it's got to be taken case by case and and if that that should be the town board doing that.

Any other comments, questions?

Yeah, just real quick. I like the concept like the idea. Um I think that the uh percentages proposed are a little aggressive. I think that there's room to dial those back. So that was something that we might consider. I' I'd be in favor of if maybe those percentages were adjusted a little bit. Any other discussion? We have a motion in a second. Um, all those in favor of the motion, two, those opposed. 26. Yeah. So, I mean, if if that one failed, if there's not another motion, right?

I may want to make a motion to

Yeah, I can make a motion to defer it. Okay. I'd like to make a motion. Um, in considering the proposed amendment 258, the planning board recommends deferral for additional study um to to address some of the planning board concerns.

So, we need a time stamp on this, I guess, like 258. Did I get the wrong one? 254 until the next meeting, August 26th, at 6:30 p.m. here at the town center. Tracy, is that clean enough for me to second it? Okay. one. Yeah,

I'll second it. Have a motion and a second discussion. I have none. I think it would be Again, I'm not opposed to having some tweaks done to it. I just think that Sam has done a great job. This is not a request from you guys. I just think that, you know, Marshall, I think you made a good point. Is it 30? Is it 50? Is it I don't I'd be more comfortable if we Anybody else? Those in favor of the motion on the table? Those opposed? Unanimous deferral. All right.

Thank you. Thank you, Brad. A lot of work went into that. I know there's more. All right. Other business. We need to appoint a chair and a vice chair for the upcoming year. So, we'll take nominations for chair. I I'd like to nominate Jay Henson for the chair. Second. Have a motion, a second.

Those in favor discuss. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We have other motions. Other motions. Other motions. Is it Do we do we nominate first and then and then vote like the order before we do a motion? Yeah. So, we make the nominations first. We have one other nomination, please.

I'd like to nominate Lee Halman.

What else? Okay. So, I assume we vote on these one at a time or Okay. Those in favor of Jay, do we do discussion at all?

Yes. Can y'all leave? Yeah. No, I mean even though I didn't need a second, I just want I mean I think Jay has you know a ton of knowledge obviously lead does too but I think you know Jay being a part of the process uh you know has seen a lot of different things and you know kind of lead us you know uh appropriately and you know obviously got put on the spot tonight to see if he knew Robert's rules and it's going it's going better than I would have done. I have the book but the book's more confusing. Um, so, so that's that's why I seconded it even though I didn't really

and since I nominated exactly what Chris said and also it's it's it's certainly not a given, but this board has typically been designed that um, you know, the vice chair is there and oftent times does move into the chair position. By no means is that an absolute. It's just been um, oftentimes that's what happens. Does uh J presid over his own elections? I'm sorry. Does the chair presides over elections? Do I accept? No.

Does does the chair presides over elections is what I'm saying? Like yeah. Okay. I'm sorry.

I'll chirp in here. I started a discussion with a lot of y'all last week about this position and I've talked to Jay about it too, so might as well throw it out there. My concern was that that Jay has a lot of projects going on and he's probably, you know, he's had to recuse a lot in the past and I was just worried about how disruptive that would be and talked to each one of you for the most part the the the prior members and then talked to Jay and said no, he's got his his project lineup is uh is dwindling down where um requests have died down to a point or they they've come to fruition to a point where he's working on actual site plans now and and the the the request process is through. So, he won't be hindered with that. I think you said you had one more on Church Street to go and so the vice chair needs to be aware of that that there there may be times um and my only other concern was it's a you know it's a developer on this side of the DIS when half the time more than half the time there'll be a developer on that side of the DIS and I didn't know if that was the best look for the town but Jay is a he's a great choice he's he brings a lot of detail that none of us are aware of he works with this stuff every day he knows it inside and out just like on tree save he comes up with points that uh we didn't even think about. So he's definitely the right man for the job and I'll support him.

I will say only developed one project so yeah amateur.

I'll call the vote. Okay. Do we just call the names and raise your hand? Okay. Those those that vote for Jay for chair, raise your hand. That's unanimous, right? Congratulations, Jay. Congratulations, whether you want it or not. Wow. Okay. Next order of business is to nominate a vice chair.

I want to nominate uh Scott Henson. I mean secondly the nominations those Can we have a discussion? Yeah, discussion too late now. It doesn't sound like you may be nominated. I appreciate you guys nominating me support. Um, and I've always been reluctant to do chair, vice chair, not that I would be reluctant to either one of them, but um, I do feel like I've got time now to commit to being vice chair. So, I would not take this and even let you guys vote on if I didn't feel confident that I could I've got the time to do it. So, thank you for your confidence. Thank you.

Anything else? Any good words for Scott? I mean, he I think he's been up here longer than any of us, so I think there's something to be said for that. He knows the drill. He can fill in and uh work the timer also. No, that means I don't have to. We need to nominate a timer. Yes. All right. Um, those in favor of Scott as vice chair. Okay, that's unanimous. I abstain for the record. I do too. Oh man. Okay, that is it. We have a motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn. And a second. We get a second. Good job. Second, Marshall. All those in favor? Those opposed? Unanimous. Well done, J.