City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'd like to call to order the Tuesday, June 9th City of Concord Work Session. Welcome, everyone. First up on our agenda for today is a presentation, which I will come down and do and ask Julianne to join me. Good, and this gives me especially great pleasure to present this proclamation on National Pollinator Week as a former beekeeper and an appreciator of pollinators, and I will read that now. Whereas the city of Concord is home to many native wildlife and pollinator species, such as birds, bees, and insects, which keep our environment healthy and biodiverse, And whereas the City of Concord recognizes that human health ultimately depends on well-functioning ecosystems, and that biodiverse regions can better support food production, healthy soil and air quality, and can foster healthy connections between people and wildlife, And whereas the city of Concord is working to build a healthy, sustainable and wildlife friendly community that brings the many benefits of nature to all corners of our community, And whereas in urban communities, pollinators play a crucial role in maintaining sustainable urban agriculture and local community gardens. And whereas pollinator species are in decline due to habitat loss and the use of pesticides, causing species like the monarch butterfly to decline significantly in the past 25 years, and whereas National Pollinator Week is a national initiative that offers opportunities for individuals and communities to help restore native habitat, support local pollinator species, and whereas the City of Concord will continue to support local, state, and national efforts that protect, restore, and conserve habitat for pollinators, as well as foster a greater connection between residents and wildlife. Now therefore, I, Stephen M. Morris, Mayor, and on behalf of the City Council of the City of Concord, do hereby proclaim June 22nd through 28th, 2026 as National Pollinator Week in the City of Concord and encourage all residents to participate in community activities that support and celebrate pollinator protection. And we very much appreciate your efforts in that regard and anxious to hear what you have to say.

So I love this month. I call it Pollinator Month, but it is a national week. Here in the city of Concord, we're a mayor's monarch city. And as of that, we do a lot of different things throughout the city that help protect monarchs and other pollinator species. They say that one of every three bites of food is thanks to a pollinator. And here in North Carolina, we have over 500 species of native bees. So I think it's really important to celebrate Pollinator Week and then to also do a lot here in the city to help protect pollinators and their habitats.

Great. Thank you. All right, next I think we have Fred Womble to talk with us about a public hearing on a street closing.

Fred Womble, Fred Womble, Fred Womble, Fred Womble, Fred Womble, Fred Womble, Fred Womble, Fred Womble, The right-of-way in question is an unopened and unimproved 30-foot wide area located generally between Travis Lane and Chadbury Lane, as highlighted on this slide here. The area of closure has an overall area of approximately 10,541 square feet. Luke and Megan Roffers are the actual applicants for this petition, and they're the owners of the portions of land adjacent to the area of closure. They will both receive portions of the right-of-way being abandoned. Just to summarize the application and to provide some additional details, the petitioners for this right-of-way closure request are the adjacent property owners as mentioned previously. The area of closure is an unimproved and wooded and consists of approximately 10,541 square feet. There are no utilities present within the area of closure. Planning staff received no objections from reviewing departments. And as an adjacent property owner, excuse me, adjacent property owners, the petitioner has been briefed on the ownership requirements of the North Carolina general statutes and the impact of the closure. In regards to council's next steps is to conduct a public hearing. and to either adopt or deny the resolution closing the unopened and unimproved right of way. I'll gladly take any questions council may have at this time. Any questions on this item?

All right, I think you've got the next one as well.

Yes, sir. Good afternoon once again, Mayor Morris, members of council, Mr. Payne, Ms. Golczynski, Ms. Jenkins. The item before you is a voluntary annexation petition for two parcels. Again, it's a voluntary annexation petition for two parcels totaling approximately 14.1 acres of land located at 3030 Zion Church Road and 534 Good Hope Road. The properties are owned by Washburn 3100 LLC, excuse me, Incorporated, and this application is submitted by Kate Underwood on behalf of the owner. The proposed annexation would be for an additional, excuse me, for a proposed industrial subdivision and cottage slash tiny home development. The zoning map here shows the two properties as they are highlighted in the red cross-hatched area. They are currently zoned Cabarrus County Office Institutional. And if this annexation is approved, the request for zoning would be to City of Concord I-1 Light Industrial and NRD Neighborhood Infill Residential District. Regarding the 2030 land use plan, the proposed I-1 zoning is consistent with the industrial employment land use category, and industrial uses are compatible with the surrounding zoning. However, the land use plan amendment would be required because the proposed NRD zoning is not consistent with the current industrial employment land use category, and toward that end, Council should be aware that this case would be coming back to you I'm at a later date for consideration of a formal land use plan amendment request. As the NRD district designation can only be applied for land uses within the urban neighborhood category. This next map is of the council district map. If council approves the annexation petition, the properties will become a part of district two. As with all annexations, both internal and external entities were notified and given of the opportunity to provide comments and or feedback on this proposal and no comments were received. Additionally, the adjacent property owners, neighborhood recognized neighborhoods and homeowners associations were notified via mail of the proposed annexation by planning staff with a letter dated May 26th of this year, as well as with an advertisement run in the Independent Tribune dated May 30th. In regards to Council's next steps, so to consider the annexation request, to either adopt or deny the annexation. If adopted, consideration before the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation on the rezoning would be heard at their July 21st meeting. And if Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation for approval at that meeting, the zoning application will return to Council for a land use plan amendment in August. That concludes my presentation and, oh, actually no, I'm sorry.

Next steps.

We're done, I'm sorry. I'll take any questions that council may have at this time.

Would you mind going back and showing me that map that shows where this annexation is? Yes, ma'am. I just need to look at that a little closer. I'm trying to determine where those tiny house, where that part of it is.

Yes, ma'am. I think we're having some technical difficulties here. I think the guys are, you got that there? Can we go back some slides? To the annexation.

Well, while he's working on that, I was curious if you have any idea of the history. It looks like that is totally surrounded by City of Concord. It is, it is.

I don't have any history on the why, as to why that was left out, but it is an unusual pocket there. And we have several of those throughout the city. Can you go back one more, please? Sorry. All right. Councilman Clay, as you see there, the proposed NRD would be that portion that's delineated with the orange line in the cross-etched area on the left side of the annexation area as it backs up to Southern Chase. That would be the portion that would be used for the tiny home or the cottage development. Yes, ma'am, from that yellow line over to the left. That's correct. Yes, ma'am.

Fred, I have a question. You're welcome. I have a question.

Yes, ma'am.

Is this on the sewer application? Do you know?

It is. It's the Amherst, correct? Amherst, that's correct.

Okay. So, on here, there are cottage homes and tiny homes. And is that proposed to be, and I just, I don't have the full sewer packet. If you don't know the answer to this, that's fine. I can go look at it. Is that proposed? Because I guess what's given me a little bit of heartburn is you've got residential right up to a proposed I-1 zoning, right? Is that a normal, I'm asking two completely different questions, I'm sorry. What is the normal transition between a residential and an I-1?

You would typically have some buffers within those two in terms of zoning classifications that would kind of soften between industrial use and residential use. It's not typical.

Right, that's what I was thinking. And I can't remember, and I'll go back and pull that sewer packet. I almost felt like the, Maybe the tiny homes in that cottage was tucked in there, but now I'm going, what's the access point? So I think I just need to go back and look at that. Right.

I think, if I'm not mistaken, good hope would be the access point for the tiny homes.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay. Any additional questions? All right. Thank you. Okay. Next up, item three, and I'm going to turn it over to the city manager for that one.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. So as required by state law, it is my responsibility to ensure you have a proposed balanced budget to you by June 1st of each year. And you did receive that budget to you on May the 29th on Thursday at the public hearing. I'll have more formal comments to provide to council about the budget. But if there are any questions that I can answer for council or not, I'd be happy to do so.

Any questions for Manager Payne? I will mention that Mayor Pro Tem John Sweat is obviously absent tonight, but he is joining us by phone. I don't know if he has the ability to talk to us or not or whether he wants to, but he nodded and said yes, so yeah, he is participating in the meeting. Okay, next up is presentations of petitions and requests, and Rick Blatt has item one. Welcome.

Mayor Morris, members of council, Mr. Dane, Ms. Golshinsky, Ms. Jenkins, before you is, for your consideration, is the renovations of the all fleet building for the use of the communication department radio shop. In the screen, you can see the existing conditions. See here, this is the area that is going to be renovated of the building. If I can zoom in here. As you can see, there is an existing, this is the existing conditions. The reception area is very large, and there is the office of the director. Let me point. That's one pointer. Oops. If you will tune into that area, please. Yeah, if you can see there, the bathrooms, the existing bathrooms are going to be renovated. There are two bathrooms here in the front of the building, and there is also a bathroom to the lower left that will be renovated. This area, and if I can show the next slide, please. Go to the lower portion. The area, if you can enlarge the area. The large reception area is going to now become three new offices in addition to the existing office of the director. The two bathrooms that were here on the right is now going to become the women's bathroom and the bathrooms in the left lower corner, those will be the men's bathroom. So the break area will also be renovated and we will be creating a new space where it says open office space where we will have cubicles. So all this project was bid on the formal bidding process and it was very competitive. We had seven bids respond to our request for bids and the lowest bid was Phoenix Construction in the amount of $439,450. So a recommendation from staff is consideration to a motion to approve. Any questions for us now?

So they will continue to use those service bays where they can? Correct.

The service bays are pretty much going to be the same as they are. There's an area that is going to be fenced in to store equipment. But for the most part, all the base will be open, yes.

Right. And that's a big part of what they do is installing equipment.

Correct. Installing vehicles. Every time a police car comes in, that's when they install the radios and the lights and all that. So all that takes place in the radio shop. Any other questions?

Just one. Right now, is the radio shop still operating off of International? Yes. So I think this will be a good fit.

Yeah, it's a very tight space for them.

Just a quick question for clarification. The amount here in Pennix, I believe is their name, they're going to do the demolition as well as the renovation?

That's correct. Yeah, that's the turnkey project. Okay, any other questions?

All right, I think you've got the next item, number two as well.

Yes, this is for the, for a contract to provide on-call engineering services. The engineering department published a request for qualifications for engineering firms to provide on-call engineering services to support the engineering department for all the future projects that we're having to handle. So we receive applications and following the competitive qualification selected process, we selected CGC Engineering to be the most qualified firm. They also made a proposal to provide services for $200,000, not to exceed $200,000. And that will support transportation department, will support the water resources department, and parks and recreation.

So any questions on that? Any questions on that item?

I have a question. Lloyd, this might be more directed to you. Is this just because we're seeing an uptick? So instead of hiring additional staff, it's let's handle, can you kind of elaborate on that?

Yeah, I think it is due to the volume that we're asking our engineering department to do in-house. Some of it, to be quite honest, is more than they can handle it at any given time. And we know through our CIP process, we have planned projects, but there's always something that comes up that we weren't planning for. And so this allows us the ability to call on them to say, hey, can you come in and do this project for us, can you engineer it for us, and then get it to our engineering staff. So it's really just to have some additional help from an engineering company, and this is the most qualified company.

OK, any other questions? All right, thank you, sir. Thank you. OK, next item, I'm going to call the city manager to talk about this one.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So as many on council that has been on council for quite some time know, the Brookwood project has been in our CIP and something of discussion for quite some time. It is a transportation project. However, it does intersect with our Parks and Recreation department as a connector to Greenway and actually serving as Greenway for some links of that project itself. And so what I ask Philip to do tonight, just to kind of cue this up before Ryan comes up and talks through the image domain actions, just give a little history of the project, kind of where this came from and kind of why it's taken us this long to get to where we are now, where we're ready to, you know, pull the trigger, so to speak, and move this project along. So, Philip, if you would. Sure.

Good evening, Mayor, Members of Council, Mr. Payne, Ms. Kuljinski, Ms. Jenkins. As Mr. Payne said, this is a project on Brookwood that has been going on for quite some time. This project started back in the early 2000s as a three-lane project, so two main travel lanes and a center turn lane throughout the entire project with a sidewalk. As the project progressed through time, we had other project goals and council had different funding goals. This project was paused a few times, picked back up. We had an engineering firm engaged in it early on. Engineering department actually in the second half of the life of this project picked it up to perform these services internal to save funds on it since it had been paused and picked up so many times. And in that process, because the project includes both sidewalk for us, greenways for Parks and Rec, and a culvert replacement for water, we agreed that we needed to simplify the design in order to make it more cost-effective because, of course, the inflation from early 2000s to now, it had doubled and tripled in cost. So to bring it back to its estimate, to bring it back to its affordable level, we took out that center turn lane, And the original goal was pedestrian. So it's a pedestrian project. It's sidewalk from Church Street, which is on the left side of your screen, through NC3 Branch View, tying into the backside of Concord High School, its natural transition point there. So that ending point where the leader kind of goes north, I believe that's Spider Drive going into the backside of the high school. So, again, we're bringing it back to its main goal. The easements that you'll see tonight from Ryan, a lot of that will be due to utility easements, moving utilities. We're not taking the whole orange sections that you're seeing here. These are just noting the parcels. Instructability for the sidewalk, grading as we're on the side of the hill. There's some small retaining walls in some areas. Trying to protect property all the way on the Church Street corner there. There's a car wash. Trying to protect that business. So there's no business or building taking in this. Very much leaving things in place. The signal will be upgraded at Branchview and Burridge, or Brookwood, sorry. A lot of B. any roads out here, Brookwood and Branchview will be an upgraded signal as well as the signal at the condominiums in the center there. We'll also be converting the leftmost intersection here. That will be a four-way stop intersection as well. So there's safety improvements in there that we wanted to make sure we incorporated as well. Any questions about the history of the project or the design?

I do have one question. That four-way stop, where is that at? I'm just trying to imagine that on Brookwood. So you come down the hill. Is it right where that road comes in on the left?

It's Hillandale. I was trying to, there we go.

Where everything comes in the valley there? Okay.

Yep, so that's the, on the north side there. So it's got that, it looks like a five-legged intersection because of the named driveway that's kind of coming into it. But when we went to, for public comments on right-of-way, that was, The main safety thing I think that we heard from the residents was how are you going to address that intersection? And it doesn't meet, it's not robust enough to need a full-blown signal there. And the residents seem to agree like a signal would be an overkill in that area. So a four-way stop was the most logical choice for that one.

Second comment is this project was Jim Ramsour's project. Like he shepherded this project for years and he would sit on this council and say those kids are walking down brookwood to concord high school we know how treacherous those hills are we know so i know he is sitting in heaven right now smiling down to see that this project is actually going because it is very much a pedestrian needed project for sure and and on that note uh in that signal design there at branch view um does have a

does have a pedestrian crossing to get across it, so it'll have the pedestrian phase in the signal, so they will have their dedicated time to get across the roadway, because that is, that's the heaviest pedestrian movement out there is the high schoolers, yep.

And so the previous map that you had that showed the orange parcels that we're going to be discussing, the other parcels along the street, have those property owners donated right-of-ways or are they not impacted?

Those have already been secured voluntarily, so they've been purchased by the city to get the necessary easements. Okay. These ones outstanding, we've not been able to secure them voluntarily yet, which is why we're going to talk about pursuing M&A domain. Right. Great. Thank you. All right, then I'll jump in. The orange are nine parcels on the section by Church Street. That's actually three right next to each other, but they're lumped together as one big orange blob. And then the magenta colored section, I just threw that on there, that is the Arby Lee Estate property that was on last month's agenda for eminent domain because it's needed for more than just this project. So that's kind of separate. I just wanted to let you know that that's there and that's part of this a little bit. So the first part, the first parcels we're going to talk about are these ones right here. We're going to start, move from Church up towards Burrage. So the first property right at the corner is owned by BVLY Partners 7 LLC. The taking would be a temporary construction easement only with an estimated value of $6,181.83. We have had contact with the owner. The owner requested some changes to the proposed easement areas. Those changes were made, presented to the owner in April, and we just haven't received the executed documents yet. And the agenda item, this is agenda item four, incorporates the changes that were requested. Next door to that is a property owned by Jansky 7 LLC. This is item number seven on the agenda. Again, another temporary construction easement only. You can't really tell from this map, but it's only about five to six feet wide. So it's a small strip along the road front there. The estimated value of that one is $815.22. We have not had any contact with that owner to try to voluntarily get it. We've gotten no response. The LLC appears to be registered in New York, and that is their tax address as well. So they're out-of-state owners as far as we can tell. Next door to that is the Humane Society of Concord and Greater Cabarrus County. This is item number six on the agenda. Another temporary construction easement only valued at $2,281.51. We've received no response to our efforts to get this one voluntarily approved. And then below that, further down Branch View, we've got a property owned by Petros Property Management LLC. This is number 11 on the agenda. This is both a permanent as well as a temporary easement. You can see kind of the delineation between the two. The red dashes show where the permanent easement is going to be between the road and that red dash. And then above that is going to be the temporary construction easement. The combined value for both is 5,090.39. Similar to the car wash, we've had contact with the owner. They have no opposition to the project. They requested some changes. Changes were made, sent to them in April, and we've just not received the documents back yet. Moving on, we're going to talk about these two properties here. The trapezoid shape that you see on the top half there, that is a property owned by Robert and Mary Ellen Loveridge. This is number nine on the agenda. This is a permanent utility easement valued at $3,798.54. We received no response from any of the efforts to try to get it voluntarily. They also appear to be out of state owners. The address on the deed as well as their text show that they want their mail sent to a Utah address and we've just not received any response from them. And then the section north of Branch View there, it kind of continues on to that bottom half, is Journey Investment Group, LLC. This is again both a permanent and a temporary easement, total value of $3,440.32. We've had lots of contact with the owner They were wanting to grant it voluntarily, but their lien holder has kind of thrown a wrench into things. They were wanting big fees to give consent. I will let you all know that the city's policy does not require lien holder consent for sidewalk easements or easements under a certain threshold, which all of these are. And so the lien hold, we just can't guarantee for the owner that the lien holder won't necessarily do anything. They may, if they choose to view it as a due on sale and accelerate the entire note. And so we're just going to probably have to proceed with eminent domain on this one to avoid him having to pay huge fees to his lender. Getting close here. The top section there is owned by Oakleaf Homeowners Association. This is number 10 on the agenda. This again is just a permanent utility easement valued at $368. This is part of the association's common property. We've had contact with the association, tried to get it voluntarily, but there's been issues with either securing the necessary votes to act or to get it executed properly. with the proper resolutions. They then asked, had issues with wanting to reach out to have their attorney review everything, but with the value being only $368, they're quickly gonna eat all of that up with attorney's fees for review. And so they've not been able to get us back the documents. Below is, oh, so then below, the very bottom one is Aquila Chesney Holdings LLC. This is going to be number three on the agenda. This is both a permanent and a temporary. You can see the little half box that's going to be the permanent utility easement. The total value is $772.12. Similarly to the journey investment, there's been problems with the lien holder giving consent and wanting to have to give their consent. And so this may have to go to eminent domain for them to avoid the big lien holder fees. The one you see all the way on the far right at the bottom, that's gonna be that Arby Lee estate that was on the agenda for last month, but that's the one that is used because it's part of the tie-in for the future Greenway connection. And then the last item is Hartsell Funeral Home. This is only a temporary construction easement valued at $2,924.15. We've been in communication with them. They said that they wanted to have their lawyers look at the documents, which they have every right to do, and it's a good idea to do when you get legal documents that a lawyer look at them. But as far as I'm aware, the legal department nor the engineering department have received any communications from their attorney about requests to changes or to sign as drafted. And so those are the nine items that we have before you. This is also, I'd wanna note that authorizing or adopting the resolution to authorize the M&A domain doesn't mean that we're necessarily ultimately gonna file the lawsuit. Some of them, we do send a notice at least 30 days before we file the case. So some of them may be prompted to reach out and we may be able to get some of these nine voluntarily. But if not, we don't wanna hold up the project by not having the necessary easements. So happy to answer any questions.

I don't really have a question, but can you just remind us temporary construction easement is just that. It is temporary. We will put things back the way we found it.

Yes.

Okay. Permanent easements, whether it be utility or the sidewalk or whatever it might be, same thing. It will be permanent from a standpoint of whatever it is, whatever type of easement and it will be put back the way that it was found or in better condition.

Right, so if it's a storm drain, right, there's going to be the existing storm drain, but if we've disturbed all of the stuff to dig, we're going to put it back and presumably seed straw or whatever the case may be to put it generally back in the condition that we had it beforehand.

Correct. For example, if we had to put a sidewalk in a permanent, it's not going to be put back the same way. There will be a sidewalk. But we will put back the portion of the project that has been disturbed. That has been exactly.

Okay. Very good. Just a reminder. Thank you.

Just to continue on that one, that means things will never be left off worse than they were before, correct? on the sidewalk from the utility lines or anything that's been touched?

If you mean by condition wise, I mean the property owner may think that it's worse off because now they may have something that is there, right? But yes, the condition is going to be put back and that's in the easement document that we're going to be responsible for replacing it to the way that we found it.

Okay, any other questions? All right, thank you. Okay, we move now to item 12, and I think Jackie's gonna talk with us about that one. That one and a couple of others.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council, Mr. Payne, Ms. Kolchinski, Ms. Jenkins. The next five items on your agenda are requests for preliminary applications The first one, number 12, is from Tony and Wendy McDonald at 5019 Flow Store Road. This is a 10.7-acre parcel. It is zoned LDR within Area B. The owners wish to build one single-family home, and this request is for sewer. So voluntary annexation is not required. Here's a map. of the parcel, it's that long skinny parcel adjacent to the Wasak line, which is shown in green. This is a zoomed out view of the property within area B. The next item is number 13. This is a preliminary application for water service from Capricia Reed. at 861 Zion Church Road. This is a one acre parcel, again in area B. The owners wish to serve one single family home and annexation is not required. Here's a map of the parcel. The yellow is the city limits. And this is a little hard to see, but that's where it is within area B. Okay, the next item is Mr. Ramirez and Ms. Del Carmen at 127 Softwind Lane. This is a .63 acre parcel zoned LDR, again within Area B. This is a request for water service. Annexation is not required. This is a map of the parcel. This shows the location within Area B. Okay, this request is for water service from David Carter. This is 2975 Old Airport Road. This is a one acre parcel zoned LDR, and the owners wish to build one single family home. Annexation is not required. This is the site, again, the yellow is the city limits. And this is within Area B. The last item, that I have for you today is an application for water from WeBuild at 10825 Poplar Tent Road in Huntersville. This is a .43 acre parcel within Cabarrus County jurisdiction, zoned LDR. The owners wish to build one single family home and annexation is not required. And this is a map of the site. The yellow is the city limits, and that kind of orange line is the county line. And I'm happy to take any questions.

Quick question. With this one, how do they do sewer? Are they going to put it in accepting?

We did not talk to Jesse Sykes, is the gentleman who put this application in. Presumably that's what they'll do if they're able to get it to work out. There's no sewer in this area, yeah.

Okay, any additional questions?

I have a question or concern. So this doesn't seem typical within WeBuild going outside of the city of Concord to build. It has a Huntersville, it's over there.

It's in the city? Yeah, it's actually in the city, but it's one of those that nobody knows where they live because they're in Huntersville and you're like, look at your trash can. It's one of those, right? Is that right, Lloyd? Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Okay, all right, thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

All right, thank you. Okay, next up is item 17, consider making appointments, reappointments to various City of Concord boards and commissions. We met last week, myself, Betty, John Sweat, along with city manager, planning director, to talk about these vacancies. One of the things that I'll mention before we talk about the specific appointments, we had several on the Board of Adjustment that were coming up and talking with Kevin there I think that was the board, and please feel free to come to the microphone and speak, had not met in two years. And we talked about the possibility of merging the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board together.

I believe it was actually two years ago when we met, and that was just for training. But for a formal meeting, it's been four years. Four years. Since the Board of Adjustment has met. Yes, sir.

Yeah. Yeah. So we were proposing, I think Kevin said that was a viable thing to do, to merge those two boards, and the cases that come before them are so rare that they would be able to handle it. Is that correct, accurate?

Yes, sir. Back pre-2000, the boards were actually together, and the general statutes allow the two boards to function as one. sitting as Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment, and the Planning Commission does do some quasi-judicial hearings, special use permits, which is, quasi-judicial hearings are a function of the Board of Adjustment, so they would be fairly well trained on doing that, and again, These have been rare over the past few years, any Board of Adjustment cases.

Yeah. Does anybody have any objections or concerns?

I have a question. Why did we – I'm just curious. Why did we pull them apart?

Well, back in the day, pre-UDO, we had massive planning commission, Board of Adjustment meetings. We had ten variances sometimes, and a lot of them were – were trivial and really weren't justified. They were granting so many, it was like a snowball.

Okay.

You know, anybody that wanted anything could essentially get a variance. And, you know, the UDO was adopted in 2000, tightened up a lot of that. And we really haven't had a lot of Board of Adjustment cases except for the sweepstakes appeals back in, like, 2009 or 10.

Okay, good. Thank you.

Okay, so I guess a big question would be what are next steps for us in order to accomplish the merger of those two groups?

If you want us to do that, it would require an amendment to the CDO, which we could draft. We would essentially merge those two, clean up some things like, for example, a special use permit can be appealed from the Planning Commission to the Board of Adjustment, the Clearly couldn't appeal it to themselves, so we would have to clean up some language like that, change some rules of procedure and things of that nature. And we do have some cleanup amendments to the CDO based on general statute actions and some tiny home tweaks that we're planning to bring anyway, which we're talking July 1st. P&Z, probably August Council. So we could roll that in. If you so desire.

Well, I am sensing that we have consensus to proceed ahead. I see head nods. And go in that direction. all right thank you thank you okay and so on the others we had one vacancy on the ABC board there was consensus to recommend reappointing Scott pageant to that position with the term expiring in June of 29 on Planning and Zoning Commission Eric Williamson was moved up from alternate to fill a position, also expires in June of 29, and then alternates would be David Niekamp, and then who was already in that position, and we just moved him up to number one alternate, and then put in Betsy Cunningham as a new alternate with a expert term expiring June of 29. Then the next in your agenda shows the Board of Adjustment. Those would be skipped over with the change that we just discussed. Then on the Historic Preservation Commission, Kristen Adamchuk was moved from alternate into a position that expires in June of 28. Steve Bradley was reappointed. We recommend reappointment for a second term expiring June of 29. Same with Randy Hopkins reappointed for a second term. June of 29, and then that leaves us with two alternate vacancies that are open on that board, which we will advertise for and try to recruit some folks to fill those spots. And then on the WASAC board, Jennifer Hubbard, we recommend reappointment there with an expiration of June of 29. Any questions, anyone? Got some on the back side of the page as well. Yeah, Stormwater Management Advisory Committee. One new appointment there in group one, David Holland, with an expiration of June of 29. CDDC Board of Directors, our downtown development group. Josh Smith has been representing us there, and we recommend that he continue in that role. Public Art Commission, Doyle Busse reappointed from District 3. At-Large representative Jonathan Ewart reappointed. as well, and we have one vacancy on that board that we will advertise for as well. Any questions, comments? Very good. We had a very, discussion about that and of course as always you know we try to encourage as many citizens to get involved as possible so hopefully we get the word out and we'll have some some more applications on file we have a rather long consent agenda which I assume you have all looked at no one has expressed any concern about that And there are so many of them, and it's hard for me to get to the last page. But a lot of year-end cleanup budget items, which make up the majority of those. We do have need of a closed session tonight. And so at this time, I would entertain a motion that we go into closed session pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11 , in order to consult with an attorney to protect the attorney-client privilege and to discuss the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by this public body. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. We are now in closed session. Thank you.