Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[snorts] All right, we'll call to order this Town of Weddingington regular planning meeting Monday, November the 17th, 2025, uh 700 p.m. We have a determination of quorum as I see everyone is present and I'm going to read our conflict of interest statement. accordance with the State Government Ethics Act, it is the duty of every board member to avoid conflicts of interest. Does any board member have any known conflict of interest with respect to any matters on the agenda? If so, please identify the conflict and refrain from any participation in the matter involved. Good, Bill? Nope. Good. Good. Good. Good.

Good. Good. All is good. All right. Moving on. Do we get a motion for approval of minutes for October the 27th regular planning board meeting? Motion to move approve minutes of October 27th regular planning board. Get a second. All in favor?

I. Great. That was done. Moving to public comments. Individuals are allowed three minutes to speak and must only comment on current agenda items. A maximum of 30 minutes is allocated to the public comment period. The time limit may be extended at the discretion of the chairman. I see we have no speakers. So we'll move move through that one. Uh, number six, old business discussion and possible recommendation of D917 text changes as proposed from workshop. Uh, Greg, you want to give a little touch up on that? Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning board. Uh, as a light refresher, the section D917 is our requirements basically for new developments in the town of Weddington. D917A being applicable to everyone. D917B applicable only to conservation development, so on and so forth. We've created a D917E which is additional requirements for major subdivisions or kind of conventional subdivisions. Very broadly speaking, our intention in tweaking this code section is to discuss how to [clears throat] better differentiate and [snorts] preserve buildable versus unbuildable lands. Uh we discussed this at our regular meeting on October 27th and we actually had a workshop on this earlier this month uh to discuss this D917 section. We mainly talked about D97E but it broadly applies um to this entire section of code. So we have it listed on

the agenda. It's just D917. Uh when we met that Thursday, um we agreed to amend these uh kind of text changes. Uh I basically left immediately after that. And so um members of our board graciously kind of took up that topic and took the ball from where we were with our planning workshop. Uh special thanks to Bill for providing attachments and uh additional exhibits for our context. Um I would also like to note that our new permit technician and planning assistant Jasine, she also took up this topic uh in that at that time period between the workshop and today and provided some examples as well which we have on the slides. Um, but with that, I would just introduce the topic to the board at large and to the public who's attending our regular meeting who may have missed our workshop on where we are with the status of this. Um, I have some slides just for reference that we can go back and forth on. You know, this will be hard to read if if you're not referencing your packet, but this is what uh Bill has has provided to you all as far as some text amendments. This is what we had talked about prior to the workshop. So, it's very similar, but there are some important tweaks here. And then uh we have some visual exhibits as well as actual appendix changes that uh Jasine has proposed. And uh when the time comes, we'll have her speak on those uh items. Um but uh just introducing that topic of our buildable versus unbuildable land discussion as a text amendment to section D9170.

Awesome. With that, yeah, I'll leave it to Bill and [snorts] Jasine. I think we'll have Bill go first. Um, and but then I do specifically want to give Jelline an opportunity to not only introduce herself to the public and this board, but to [clears throat] provide her proposed changes as well because I think they're great. Great. Great. Great. All right, Bill, you want to start with your

I don't have a whole lot. When we talked about it last week, we were trying to, at least when I first presented, I was trying to make them run parallel and and very similar. And then after a lot of a lot of discussion, we thought, well, Greg, what do you think? Greg says, well, normally a builder comes in, he's either going to do this one or this one. And so trying to make them run parallel wasn't he felt and I tend to agree with him now from what he said was not that that critical. So, um, basically what you see here is when we're talking about conservation residential, um, we're using instead of net acorage, and I think at the workshop we were pretty much on board using adjusted tracked acreage. That's basically taking out the the non-buildable. And um and then we talked about secondary conservation which would be the other land. Make it simple. You cut it in half. You you can build on [clears throat] that half. The other stays where it is. We had some discussion on um uh the the priority of secondary and um we talked about well we should we have a priority for primary and we basically said well primary doesn't have a priority. It's not buildable. So we went to secondary. Um, I did send a note out and I don't know whe the whole board or whether it just went to staff where if you go into the definitions for steep slopes, it says 15%. Every place else in the UDO it says 25%. So, I'm making the assumption that 15% was a typo and it should be 25

everywhere. And if that's the case in the agreement, I think that's just an administrative change. Um uh and that was pretty much it. We uh we talked about conservation lands. I think Steve was saying, well, we need a definition of primary and secondary. So that's in there. There is some discussion Steve may want to bring up about viewshed where it belongs and and what it is and uh that that was pretty much it was it kind of a summary of where we were and because we didn't want to really take any real action till we had the full planning board here that's where we were.

Yeah. If I may, you know, some of the changes that um our packet has versus our initial discussion [snorts] is, you know, this is the original text. It talks about prioritizing conservation lands. We noted that, you know, if we're denoting primary conservation lands, there's no priority. That's area we don't want to build on. So, this section doesn't really apply. And so, it's more correctly labeled here as the priority of the secondary conservation lands. Um [snorts] we have you know again our definition of primary conservation lands rather than talking about their traits. Um and then just some uh additional information about definitions and specifically defining primary open space. So that's kind of our key takeaway of this discussion is we're saying there's something called primary open space. It's like conservation lands, but it applies in subdivisions regardless. This is area that we don't want to build on. This is area that we want developers to specifically label and set aside um to show that this is area that's not suitable for development. Um so if you take let's say an 100 acre tract and like some wetlands, this is this is are length that they were never going to build on anyway. So, we're not necessarily going to give them credit for it, but we want them to denote those areas that as being sensitive and give them credit basically for preserving that land. Um, and does that denoting them as primary uh conservation lands or primary open space in this case um and then uh discussing these open space areas. I think this is a good transition for uh Jasine to speak um because she's provided some exhibits here. They're not in your packet. Um, but they were

provided um while I was away and so I I got those today um that show kind of some visual. You got enough for exhibits. Are they all the same? Each one is a set, I think.

So, hi, my name is Jasine. I'm the permit technician. And currently in the UDO there is not a checklist for the uh sketch plan for conservation residential developments. There's the schematic plan for conventional residential development but not for conservation. So, I thought to go alongside the potential text amendment changes to D917 that we could also include maybe another appendix like an appendix 2D that has a checklist for everything that you need um for the requirements for open space that go alongside the sketch plan that's required for RCD developments. And it has clear definitions of what is required for primary open space and adjusted tract acreage yield with the calculations of how to calculate adjusted track acreage yield and then also how it should be displayed as a part of the sketch plan and potentially having a visual aid to how it should be displayed for all of the different requirements because right now it's kind of like all the requirements are scattered across the UDO. So having it in a consolidated place. Yes.

J if we have questions should we wait till the end or [snorts] ask them as you're going. You can ask now but I just have one question that is we we talk about sketch plan and in the past with uh exhibit 2B. We moved away from sketch plan and went to the term schematic plan because it had more specific definition and requirements for a developer. So I'm not sure how that plays in here. So it's just a question. I think sketch plan meaning the plan required for conservation RCD

basically your your pre-application site plan. So, what we're looking at, oh, pre-application,

you know, before we have the public vote. So, we had talked about before that kind of during the shenan sitewalk, you know, at the application phase, we'd like these areas designated more clearly. Um, so that, you know, even when we're out doing the sitewalk of the property, we know that the primary lands are designated over here. Um, so this is kind of a earlier checklist for them that when they get the project started, hey, you know, here's the raw land. We're setting aside this area versus this area and here's the visuals. And so, um, she's provided this kind of sketch plan, open space requirement example. So basically at the kind of the yield plan stage uh of showing these areas being designated and then uh there is a a uh reference to the schematic plan the document that you guys would vote on here in this uh appendix 2B. We would supplement uh appended 2B item B25 by saying the percentage of open space required and provided and then further defines yeah the expectations of what that open space plan shows. And then the visual example also has some numbers that further show the calculations that adjusted track acreage yield is the gross acreage minus the primary open space or primary conservation lands. However you guys want to uh name it. But

I think the visuals are great. Um the only thing I would say is uh just just looking at this tonight for the first time probably would like to have some time to really look at it. Absolutely. [clears throat] One thing just want to make sure that I thought from the other meeting that uh and it's not even really this I think it's in both parts of this and what Bill had done. I thought in RCD we wanted to be the term primary conservation and then primary open space to be utilized in our regular subdivision.

Yeah. So whereas like 2D has the primary open space that would be conservation in this situation for this little checklist and the same in uh I believe in 917B to bills. I think we want uh did I not see open space somewhere in there? We talk about No, it's good there. I guess I saw it somewhere. Primary open basically a lot of iterations floating around. Yes. Yeah. If you're doing if you're doing a conservation subdivision, we refer to

primary conservation, secondary conservation. If you're doing a conventional subdivision, that's where we started using primary open space, which to me is the equivalent of primary conservation. And then um I don't know whether we said secondary open space or we just said open space. No, in RCD it would be conservation, correct? For RCD area. Yeah. So in this just in this little checklist which she's on it checklist for them to find somewhere to go but primary open space secondary open space would be conservation in this situation of a yeah I see what you're saying rest of this is all supportive so now they know

basically here's the here's the the guide for them to start and they're going to get something then they're going to show Greg easily their exhibit shows we're going to have to denote it to where it's not you know we're not sitting here going where is this where is that And the same for when they show up at the first kind of conceptual meeting for for everybody. Correct. Yes. Kind of the guidelines for

our two objectives here are clear definitions and deliverables to you guys. So clear definition of what um these primary lands are. Uh the issue that we're coming to before is that we're kind of using conservation lands very broadly when to truly be conservation property is something that you're deeding over and protecting in perpetuity. So we don't want to use that too loosely. Um so that's why we came up that primary open space designation as well. And you know secondly we want it deliverable. So, we need exhibits or visuals like this to say this is what we're looking for. And if you don't have this kind of exhibit when you get to the the sitewalk and specifically the planning board, then you're not really clearly showing the area that we want set aside and we're going to have a lot of questions. We might have to table your project because you're not showing it clear enough.

Yes. So, great job. I'm all for this. Just want to make sure we're using those terms. Yeah. I can be changed to primary and secondary conservation [clears throat] lands. Yeah. Got it. Good job. Having said that, however, because we do have a bit of a parallel path, do we want to have this also laid out for conventional so that they have the checklist and understand, you know, open space? And

well, my idea was that there is kind of already a checklist for the schematic plan so that we could just beef up the schematic p plan a little more for conventional. So on the the second part over here, um it would just have an an amendment adding um more information about primary open space or primary conservation land.

I think what I what I liked and it at least it clarified me for me, Greg, when you you called it a pre-application. Um, so I I think there's been a lot of I'll say confusion and uncertainty around the term sketch. So I don't know whether we call it pre-application plan or or something. And maybe it's just me that we wrestled so much with sketch [clears throat] plan and and schematic plan several months back. Yeah. I don't think this is replacing it. I think this is just a step before. Yeah. and and almost using sketch in the appropriate place.

Correct. [cough and clears throat] That's what I was going to say. I don't know that I don't know that you I don't know if using schematic plan as our pen means we can't use sketch plan, although we're trying to not have similar work. And again, this is for conservation, not the regular conventional. Correct. The exhibit and then the checklist is for conservation. The schematic plan amendment would be for conventional. And if you would like an exhibit for conventional, I could also make an exhibit that shows the overlap between primary open space and the open space requirement percentage as well. If that would be also helpful.

Yeah, I mean, we're we're going less than two weeks from the last time we talked about this to to now. There's no rush to try to get this as a button-up text amendment. I think we're also trying to be very deliberate about Yeah, we moved to the term schematic, but we still have to reference sketch sometimes. Yes, we're referencing open space, but it applies to two different types of RCD subdivisions that you could do. It's all very complex and we're trying to simplify it. I think uh I think this is great as long as we're use making sure terminology. Other than that, I I think this is yeah, I just like to look at it as give us some time to look at it. You know,

one question one question I do have with regard to the delineation between conservation land and open space when we look at conservation land and RCD development that is deed conservation land in perpetuity. Correct. Boom. How's open space delineated in perpetuity? or does it delineate that as being it's lands owned by the HOA but they don't necessarily have to preserve it or they don't necessarily have to keep the trees up or they don't have to leave it in a natural state. So if it was just HOA open space we can turn a picnic shelter on it. They'd have they could amenitize it more so than conservation land is set aside.

Yeah, conservation is is conservation land. So RCD everything that is designated all that all that additional space is designated as conservation land. In uh R40 according to this with the open space you have conservation land that would be anything delineated as wetlands by the core of engineers in that in that space that would always be primary open space that would be that would be but it would still be conserved because the core is not going to let you build on that.

Yeah but it wouldn't be deeded as coned it would just be bylaws of HOA as as open space. So my question is are we defeat are we defeating the purpose by not requiring that to be held in perpetuity as unavailable land? There is there is in the UDO whether it's referring to conservation land or open space that um it's in [clears throat] perpetuity because a question came up someone wanted to know if they could buy the open space by their house whatever and it says it can only be done with 100% approval of all of the HOA members and 100% approval approval of the mayor and town council.

I'll give an another example of like a actual wedding example. We have numerous subdivisions that are trying to um close out their bonds. The developers trying to the builder trying to leave and transfer management over to the HOA basically the residents of the subdivision. And these ideas of kind of their neighborhood green or these open spaces that they can use versus the areas that are trees that they can't use has been kind of a sticking point in terms of their their uh their funds, how much money they have set aside for each year for maintenance. And so we're trying to clarify that as well is that, you know, just because a flood plane is in open space and it's not deed in perpetuity to some, you know, conservation organization doesn't mean you can build on it doesn't mean you can build a house on it. Doesn't mean it's it's not your maintenance responsibility. And so those are some of the things we're trying to clear up, too. So for your point Rusty, you know, we're trying to use this primary open space label to show these pime these ecologically sensitive or important lands um regardless of a subdivision type. So it may not be a conservation land that's shown on a deed or shown on the final plan, but these are areas that the developer is clearly shown up front that not only should they not build on, but they can't build on. And so we're trying to get a kind of deliverable map that says this back area is flood planes. We're not trying to get credit for that. We're not saying that's anybody's backyard. We're saying we have to put this in at at the bare minimum HOA common open space so nobody builds on it and nobody disturbs it.

Yeah. I think that the primary open space definition that we have here is is really not really not adequate. uh it primary open space in a conventional subdivision is going to be the same as the you know the definition wise or the technical part of it is going to be the same as primary conservation land in an RCD uh subdivision. So definition that's in here means a portion of the track set aside convention for in conventional developments for permanent and perpetual protection as required by the UDO. It doesn't really tell me what it is thiswhere. If you go to this section

above that on the UDO which is uh section DO4 C and D it's page 33 on my hard copy but you know the difference between this hard copy and electronic that's what I was was referencing because it's it's the same it's really the same land it's dead land and it's got it can't be built on.

So in the kind of the open space definition above the primary kind of spells out all the open space then it goes one step further with primary open space means basically the portion set aside at conventional development. The top more is perpet permanent and perpetual and conservation. The top is what it can be used as, right? The open space. The open space means the land area, water features, answers, creates,

that's just open space, right? But the primary open space is what we're going to say you can't build on. And we're going to we're going to minus that from your yield. So it really has the same definition as uh [snorts] the primary conservation lands which is it's going to be submerged land flood plane steeps slopes greater than 25%. But primary conservation no no I get what you're saying basically copy and paste basically the same definition to a degree just calling primary open space and conventional right but so now you know what you have to pull out. I follow what you're saying now.

Yeah, you could even have the existing uh definition that's provided here by Bill, but just say uh similar in reference to 917B primary conservation lands or something to that effect. Yeah, I

because I think I think what you said last time was what you said and then add that one sentence saying it can never be built on which is what Bill did without without doing the first part. So yeah, if we if we take the definition of primary conservation land, move it to primary open space and then add the sentence, that also means that the portion of the track set aside for in conventional development for permanent and perpetual protection as required by the UDO. I think that's what we're after,

right? But now we just got to be careful. This what we're saying is that it can be built on. But are we going to say that we can't do anything else on it? Well, I'm sitting here looking at I don't even know if you look at the definition right now. It says mailboxes, you know, playfields on conservation land. So, correct. I don't want to say in conventional that it we would use the word it can't be built on because somebody could probably put a shelter. Right. Right. That's what I'm talking about. Yeah. they want if there was flat enough land you might want to put some picnic tables or something like that over there. So conservation land that would be a no, right? But in in a

a conservation land you could put um secondary conservation land you could put a picnic table right secondary but we're really talking about primary right now on the open picnic table not necessarily like a picnic shelter shelter. Yeah. So to remain in its natural state as clear so no I think you're right. I think it's just uh I don't even want to say I would put anything to build on. I almost think it's just a copy and paste of the we're just calling it open space as far as conventional. Yes.

So they know exactly what they have to pull out of the yield when they when they do their yield plan. [clears throat] But okay, when we talked last time, conservation land, it comes out as you're doing the yield pan yield plan calculation. That's it. Open space. If if you've got 20% primary open space, that will count towards the 20% open space you need in total. Correct. Yes. So, and if you

where you got where we we've xed out in D17B on conservation that uh not more than 50 well it says zero but I think it was not more than 50% of the minimum required area of conservation shall be comprised of uh wetlands. I thought that was secondary. Yeah, for secondary land we pulled that out of conventional so that there is no whatever we pull in primary open space is also credited to their correct it's not but but not for conservation correct and wasn't meant to be for conservation

so if I've got a situation where I've got 25% primary open space unbuildable. I'm required to have a minimum of 20. Well, that other 5% that's just you lose that. That's right. Yeah. But I but so so primary open space is the is the non-buildable portion for what it's in. And if it's only 10% of the 20% that they need then the other 10% is open space. That's where you get into the open space which can have the cluster mailbox is

entrance monet. [snorts] I mean to me primary open space for conventional is the same thing as primary conservation for RCD. I'd almost read as primary open space is extreme limitation streams valley swells sub submerged land flood planes steep slopes greater than 25% and other lowline lowland areas. Uh I don't know we need to say unbuildable or not buildable but no we don't I don't think we need to say that. We'll copy the same definition as the I've been I've been trying to avoid that unbuildable designation for the I it'll be consistent. They'll they'll see the same thing on both.

So you're still going to have you're still going have you still have primary open space in an RCD. You can still have other open space if they give more than what was required to be in conservation. that just becomes because you know with this being entrances and that sort of thing in a in an RCD you'll still have that same open space designation. You got to have a minimum of 20. If you've got 25 as primary, you've met your 20. If you've got 10 as primary, you got to come up with another 10.

Yeah. And I think that taking a bunch of steps back, that's really what we're trying to portray here is like if you want to build a wedding thing, you either have to have 20% or 50% of this land set aside as not a building pad. That's significant challenge. Private property. Yeah, that's not private property. So that's a significant challenge, right? Your proform has to make that make sense and you have to do the work up front for that to be shown as a worthwhile endeavor for us as well. So, and that's 50% of the adjusted track acreage because you're taking out the Okay.

So, we're setting the expectation up front like guys, this is going to be tough for you to build this in Weddingington, but here's the rules. They're clear. We all have an understanding what they are, and these are the deliverables we're trying to get to you. You know, we've got uh Jasine's uh kind of exhibit here, which I think I heard from folks that we kind of want to primary open space example of that as well. So, it applies to any type of subdivision. And then, especially that little sketch right there, it' be perfect. And then we've got uh Bill's exhibit here that was in your packet uh that shows that as well um to how that could potentially be set aside with the clustering of of homes and lots. And Bill, you did this the little

I did. I didn't trust my grandson cuz you guys thought [laughter] his drawing was But we know what it is. And I would even further take a step to let maybe her get super clear to me. Oh yeah. No, I like I like Jasine's a lot better. Yeah, I think Yeah, we I mean we met with on this six business days ago. I think we've already made another big step towards the comprehension of it. I think we need another meeting to actually vote on it and have tax. So in the back to Bill's little little one on the where you did 917B. Yes.

At minimum 50% of the adjusted track yield. [clears throat and cough] Did we mean to get rid of that next paragraph with the minimum required area of conservation land shall not be comprised more than 0% of the I don't know why it says zero. I thought there was something about it that we couldn't use x amount in conservation. The zero was changed in a previous text amendment. I don't want to get into that, but if [snorts] we want to change. So you're good with us removing that and adjusted yield track the way kind of he has it going is is the way we need to move forward.

Yeah. Whatever. Yeah, I think we can amend that however we need to make it clear to all of us. But as you work with a an applicant when he comes in, does that be pretty clear? If I'm coming in, I say, "Hey, I'm doing conservation." You say, "All right, fine." you you take away your primary conservation which we call adjust the gross yield. You then take half of what's left and you can build your homes on one half the other stays conservation. I mean

yeah I I think we're more clearly defining what our expectations they're looking for and I yeah I think they'll look at this and be like what does this mean? What does this mean? We could say well our board just talked about it. This means this primary open space is defined as this. It's shown in this section. And as far as a deliverable, here's your checklist. You have to have this to go to the planning board. So, yeah, I think I think we're on the right track.

Cool. One other thing I just like to bring up [clears throat] about uh secondary conservation land which we have the tiering in here for which I think is is uh a good thing to have for for the builder to reference uh what he's going to what he's going to select as a secondary conservation land. Um the other thing would be and and this might be in the form of question. Um all the secondary conservation land does not have to be in the same or a continual piece.

It could be you could have some farmland over here that you might designate as secondary conservation. some some fields over here, you know, not not all in the same connected like like this shows. And I'm not I'm not taking your thing, but this shows uh all together. I just want to make sure they understand that [clears throat] tearing might not allow that to be all together, you know. So the houses might be spattered a little bit, you know. I think that's what we're really looking for in the conservation, not to have 50% clear and 50% houses jammed on the other side. You know that

Yeah, that's exactly right, Steve. you know, we um and even on on some of the conservation lands discussions we've had previous years ago, you know, we're trying to build off of what's surrounding the development. So, if there's there's some open space in another development, we want to connect those two things together, kind of create like a migration p path for deer if necessary or go might have to all be together. It just they might have to all be together. Well, you can that you can give access where nobody's crossing private property. You can you can pocket park it all around. Right. Right.

But we want folks to be creative. You know, we have we've had instances where, you know, people see a development, they're like, why are all these houses clustered together? They just look so dense. They don't necessarily see the woods in the back and understand that's part of the same property. it's to their marketable benefit to spread some of that land out because we we do say yeah here's our priority. However, in certain portions of town priorities defined may be altered by the town in order to maximize the achievement of the goals of of RCD which addresses your point. Yeah. and Greg that you might want to have something but in other neighborhoods to [snorts] to make it useful for I mean I think a lot of time a developer would rather have it all in one big clump. Oh yeah.

So they get their roads and infrastructure there versus you may have a set over here and a set over here. That's going to require a little bit more roads and infrastructure. But that's that's why we have the planning.

Yeah. My medium-term goals is for I mean you guys have been asked to do above and beyond what 99% of planning boards need to do. I'll just be honest. You guys have a a heavy burden on your guyselves and your volunteers. And so what I would like to achieve out of this is that when we're having a sitewalk and shred on a development like this and they're pushing all that open space to the side, you guys can have an honest conversation with them. Say, "Hey, we're the advisory board. We think you could design this differently. Here's my opinion on it. You you can maybe move it around over here or our rules say you can disperse it this way. Here's our our taring of what you set aside. You know, [snorts] just reconsider before you go down this rabbit hole and spend tens of thousands of dollars on engineering. You know, we've tried to clearly define these terms for you for your benefit. Here's what they are.

Yeah. I think that I think I don't know how clear it was before. you know, it it had room for improvement and I I certainly I mean, you know, with everything being online and it not being really papered anymore, you know, I think having multiple, you know, graphics is, you know, the way to go. You can have, you know, you can have this one, you can have one where it's spattered about, you can have one where it, you know, shows the adjacent properties. So you're trying to keep things continuous

and a lot of it when when we when we do the shar and Karen you mentioned this that you know you're supposed to start with your clean sheet of paper. here's my here's my primary conservation land and then um then you're looking at where I could put conservation and then I could lay in some houses and then I would lay in roads or the applicant comes it's all laid out here's what I've got and it's all right here so I think that comes upon the people attending the sharet to more fully understand how it's supposed to work.

I think hold their they have to speak to the fire to have them perform it like that.

Yeah. And I I will uh do a plug for the UNCC school of government. They had a great session last week that talked about kind of the stages of development that they go through. They have gone through so many meetings with attorneys and the banks and their proform and all these things to try to make this work out before they even talk to me. Um, you know, I don't want to discredit the amount of leg work they have to do to even get to the entitlement stage. So, it's not like they come with a blank sheet of paper and they said, "Hey guys, design the subdivision for me." They worked on this for months and months and months before they even get to the town. Um, and I'd be happy to share that with you guys. But, um, per that point, yeah, we're also not going to take any more that, hey, we designed it, take it or leave it. Well, then we're going to leave it. Um, we want to show our rules, our design for the benefit of everyone.

Question for you, Greg. Uh, and to Steve's point, is there any benefit in adding verbiage about conservation conservation land may be contiguous or non-ontiguous in there? because uh you know from a builder's perspective I get a soils report back and that says that I got some really bad livial soils over here still in a buildable area but I've got you know I may want to designate this area and surround it with houses and let that be part of the conservation area. It kind of it works it can work in the developers to the developers advantage as well as preserving the preserving it. We do have some existing language on there that talked about, you know, connecting ecological corridors or connecting repairarian corridors regardless of private ownership tracks. So, we have some language in there already as well as some of the language from the Randall Art, you know, books and and concepts that we have. Um, I'm not sure if we need to restate it, but I I do think as a policy we need to let people know that that's important to us, that, you know, for everyone's point, like we don't want this over here and this over here. That's not the creativity we're looking for. That's not necessarily what's best with the land. That's not what's going to work with the topography.

Yeah. I think if as long as this body does what we're supposed to do, I think we've got pretty much the tools that we we need. We just have to be willing to to do to do our job right the way that you know it's meant to be done. I think we've got good marching orders for Jasine on some more visuals. So I why why write it out if we can show it? Can I clarify with open space, it does not have to be like we've mentioned before like a field or like usable like it could be the woods. Correct.

Yes. Yeah. So, a common example of that in a conventional subdivision is everybody's got their big acre lots, but we still set aside open space as kind of a perimeter buffer. So, it's not conservation lanes in perpetuity, but it's lanes that we just never cut the trees down on because they create a visual barrier between the neighborhoods and it's good for everybody. Um, that's that's a common approach.

So, I guess we send this back for them for a little bit more tweaking of some visuals for us to look at. And then, uh, I think we the only text thing we see is is primary open space to basically copy and paste. Uh, and I'd mention do you had wanted to, I might be off topic here. Did you not want to do with something with taking view sheds out of primary? Oh, well, it looks like we did. I don't see it in the primary. Secondary. It's in secondary. Yeah, which is fine. In the definitions. Yeah. Um, is that a definition that's in there now?

That's just the definitions that Bill has got as proposed definitions. Yeah, I I thought viewshed is going to be secondary, but we can move it out of that primary part. It doesn't get pulled out immediately as their primary part. Um because you still got new shades regardless, but it's could be one of the secondary. Just expand on that. I don't want some of these priorities of conservation lands that that shouldn't be a deal breaker for a development. You don't want them to say, "Okay, I'm gonna turn down your development because I don't think you're preserving viewed enough." Yeah,

I think that's too subjective. Um, that's too a little too arbitrary. You if we're going to deny projects, it should based on our our land use goals and our, you know, our future land use map or comprehensive plan. These are just priorities for when you start drawing it. Yeah. Yep. And that's viewheds from thoroughares. And I always like to point out, well, it just says viewsheds in the definition. Uh, on the last page, the definition, you've got adjusted track yield adjusted conservation land, open space, primary open space. Okay. I was looking at the view shed priorities and yeah, no, that's everything stays there on that. Secondary. Yeah, secondary stays there.

Okay. All right. Just a typo on the definition you had on that back page, I think. Okay. we had discussed about pulling that out of primary. Yeah. Yeah. Um and so really the only text amendments here looks like uh some illustrations and then that primary open space a copy and paste of uh conservation the primary conservation but just agreed to renamed and then she works on uh illustrations. Yep. Similar to that that that is for Yeah. Is there any more recommendations from you for staff to up on that and then maybe we see it again?

Just just to be clear though, I would hold on to Bill's definition of primary open space in conjunction with cutting and pasting the conservation. You mean to leave that sentence at the end of it? Yeah. All right. And noted we can do that, y'all. Yeah. makes much of a difference. No, I think the bigger thing was making sure that we align with the streams the right gotcha got that information that's [laughter] because I'm not taking any notes. We'll have it recorded and I do think um this was good discussion and giving staff direction. So, this we're not okay,

I'm not going to hold you the fire on the exact wording of any of these of these sentences, but I think this gives staff adequate direction to give you another draft, a more complete draft next month. And I think your checklist is spot on for sketch plans. Uh, I think to Steve's point, time to review, but I think from initial looks good. If you're getting house in order, that's perfect for the sketch plan part. All right. So, we're good to move. Move to new business.

Yeah. Well, let let me make sure I got the process right. I sent I sent a note in. You You got it, too. On um exhibit 2B where we talk about We've got the applicant here today. Oh, yeah. When we're talking about the signs who is, you know, going to seek approval for his gate entrance. Well, we now have that on in exhibit 2 2B line 23. So, does that mean it has to be that early?

That I think would be again an unintended consequence that we're kind of seeing now. So, I don't know that that we would force them into a gate design that early. Yeah.

Let me restate that for everybody. So, you know, Bill said something today that said, you know, our new checklist says we want these kind of signed details up front at the schematic plan stage. Uh whereas previously in and in in the case of today, we basically said, "Okay, tell us what your subdivision looks like. We'll approve it. We'll take it through planning board to get your entitlements, but you might not necessarily have all the design details down. We technically require you to come back to the planning board and show us what your signage for your development looks like. It's kind of redundant. It's not really anything we're going to deny. Uh but it does have the basis of providing the public an update on the subdivision and letting them know exactly what they should anticipate when this development gets uh brought forward. We do have an applicant here today that can speak on that. I really don't think it's going to have any concern or any objections. Uh, in fact, we've looked at the gate design almost identically just without the B.

I think he Yeah. showed it in his It's pretty similar to what his whole subdivision was based on, but I don't know what uh and that's what I was saying if it's in Well, actually, Jazelle's handout has B23. It's in that section, which I think we we've seen. And um if you go into UDO, it simply says before the final plat. And I'm thinking, you know, are we can we simplify that a little bit and take out the line before the the where it says before the final plat and

because that way the de he's not going to have to come back here again unless there's some gigantic change. If it's some I'll say limited changes, Greg takes care of that. Yeah. Yeah, I mean this is about as administrative as you can get in terms of sending it. You know, it does this kind of overkill to send it to you guys what the science looks like, but so we can tweak that, but I just got Bill's email today. It's not part of your packet. It's just some food for thought, you know, that maybe [snorts] we won't have to go through this every time for every subdivision or we have a separate meeting for signage. I would agree. If we see the concept of what they're doing at the beginning and then leave it to administrative at the back end of this, right,

then I don't want to be in the sign business.

The uh so with that said, I guess we are going to move to new business now. Discussion possible consideration of an entry sign for Beckingham subdivision per section D918J D. [clears throat] Subdivision entry and perimeter walls and entry monuments are not required to be of any specific height or style, but are subject to review and approval planning board prior to the start of construction. So, do you want to say a few things before we let Tom or do we want how do we want to proceed because I know Tom came with a slideshow which Tom likes to do very well.

I think it's self-explanatory. I will let um Mr. Waters introduce his items. I think it is too. Yeah. Pretty self plan.

Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the planning board and Weddington town staff and community. I'm Tom Waters with Prominent Land and we're very excited to be developing the Beckingham community in Weddington. So tonight we have brought forth. It's really the same gated entry stone column monumentation that we presented initially. Then again when we came before you for the uh cobblestone pavers approval um it's really the same thing. So if you could show the picture. Y'all know the site. Okay there we go. So, uh, basically you gave approval for the cobblestone pavers that are represented in this picture. This is made up of stone columns all the way around the entrance. It's going to have uh decorative lanterns on it. It'll have uh two gates uh electronic automatic gates. And then I think there's another picture that shows the actual Beckingham sign. There it is in the middle there. So that's going to be paying attention to any height and size restrictions where it says the word Beckingham. So I will say that uh conceptually the stone and the columns, the uh cobblestone pavers, the curbing, the landscaped areas, those are pretty accurate on this uh rendering. The actual gates are going to be a little more ornate than what's presented. It's going to have some spikes on it. It has a little more decoration down at the bottom. It's not finished yet. The actual uh iron gates, if you will, but they're uh conceptually will look just like that. And then the logo has changed slightly. The uh I guess the graphic of Beckingham is just a little bit different than that. The marketing folks

used a different font. So, that'll be coming forth. And then everything will be heavily landscaped. It'll be irrigated, lighting. Uh, that's basically it. And I'm here to answer any and all questions. Thank you, Mr. Waters. Planning board. Have any questions for Mr. Waters? I have no questions. When your I I initially did, but then your presentation there, my question was where's the call box? And that was in your presentation. So, it shows where the call box is, and so you get cars backed up behind it. So, I have no questions. I think it's a beautiful gate, beautiful entrance.

All right, no questions for Mr. Waters. We got a want a discussion or a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve. If there's no other comments, do we do we need to do anything as far as lighting goes with it just to make sure that it conforms to our our lighting specifications. Yeah, just yeah, for clarification, you they can't be internally lit. They need to be externally lit. So, basically, they ne need to have a light shine on the signage, not have it glowing with LEDs or or neon or anything behind it. So, I'm I'm assuming I'm assuming we're accepting the design,

not the lighting, that the lighting has to meet the town's lighting ordinance. Is that Yeah, I would say that it needs to meet the town's ordinance regardless. So it's we're not granting a waiver to have it not meet rules. It's it's got to be externally lit regardless. Okay. I'll make a second. Got a second. All in favor? Unanimous. Thank you very much. All right. That concludes our new business. Moving to update from town planner.

Thanks for your patience. Uh members of the board. Uh so at the November meeting uh we did have one subdivision that was up for a vote. That applicant uh actually contacted staff and withdrew their application. [clears throat] So if you guys know that that was the project on forest lawn uh that application for 12 homes was withdrawn. So the town council did not take any action on that. Was not uh discussed. Did they say why? Uh they declined to discuss why. Um staff is working on finding that out. Oh, what?

But they they withdrew and they do not intend to reconsider the item at this time. That was that was stated in their email. Um so basically no planning items were discussed at that meeting. um coming up the end of this month or next month um would be the Arya subdivision would go to town council uh in December just to say that they're allowed to be on wells rather than public water which you guys have already discussed and recommended. And then uh the next item that would go before you guys probably this December will be the Toll Brothers Morris Farm development which is located on Weddington Matthews Road. Uh that has not been formally applied for. That should be applied for uh by requirement by the end of this week. Uh but I do anticipate that coming before this board in December, which we meet prior to Christmas. I know it's still a busy time for everyone with the holidays. Uh but we will have a scheduled meeting in December, particularly if that item is on the agenda.

All right. Thank you, Greg. We'll open it up to uh board member comments. Uh we'll start at Bill's. Happy Thanksgiving, everybody. I hope you enjoy the holidays time with your family. We all have so much to be thankful for. And uh that's [snorts] it. Of course, the annual thank you staff for all you do. I mean, that's kind of a given. Oh [laughter] yeah. I echo that. Enjoy Thanksgiving. So, thank you everyone for attending tonight and uh happy Thanksgiving.

Yeah. Same. Happy Thanksgiving. Thanks everybody for coming. Um reminder that our tree lighting is Friday. That's right. 5:30 and uh hope everybody will come and um I don't know what font you chose for the new sign, but I think it was probably a good idea.

Uh I appreciate the staff. Um you make everything easier for us. I appreciate the work that uh everybody did around the table. Um, thank you to everyone who came out, applicants and um, you know, town uh, alike and uh, happy Thanksgiving to everyone and yeah, let's come to uh, come to treelighting and make it a festive event. Well, I agree with everyone. Share the same sentiments. Thanks staff as always. Y'all do a great job. Pleasure to have you on board. Looking forward to more work. So, uh, happy Thanksgiving and treelighting Friday. See y'all there. Motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? Thank you.