Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll call to order Town of Weddingington regular planning board meeting Monday, February the 23rd of 2026 at 7. Excuse me, I've been under the weather, so my voice is going to be a little shaky. All right, moving through. Determination of a quorum. We have it, correct? We're good. Uh, conflict of interest statement in 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. Nope. Nope. No conflict.

Nope. No. All right. We are moving to the approval of minutes from December the 15th of 2025. That should be an easy approval. We get a motion. Motion to approve the minutes as presented. Second. I'll second. All in favor? I. Moving on.

All right. Do we have public comments? All right. We do have public comment. So, individuals are going to be 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. All right, Mr. Emiran, you're our only presenter. Um, good evening, Chadine, Eagle Road. I have a couple questions on the Morris Farm applications and a couple of comments. Um, my questions are, what are the details on the septic plans? At the community meeting, it was mentioned maybe three to five would be engineered systems requiring an operator. In the packet, I see a majority of the systems are described as wastewater systems with a single pump or and it's blank after that. So, I wasn't really sure what that meant. Are there any of these systems requiring an operator and/or inspections? If so, how is Toll Brothers going to manage this? Also on page 27 and 28 I see some of the drain fields are out located outside of the gray area marked for soil suitability. Um and then my second question was in the new plan the pond on the property is gone and there are lots in the place. How is that being managed? And then my comments are um I see some of the things missing is required per UDO and one seems incorrect. First, the storm water analysis at the end of the packet shows the original sketch map, not the updated map with the shift in lots and storm water ponds. Based on that, has that analysis been updated to reflect the new map and storm water loc locations? Um, second, I don't see items like the Union

County school email and that we see the impact on school capacity and I don't see the required entrance plan. I see a map labeled landscape plan showing where the trees on the street would be and the buffers marked. And our UDO requires a detailed entrance design for all proposed access points. This includes sign locations, any landscape islands, lighting, and hardscape associated with the entrance. Lastly, I see two stub roads. At the previous town council meeting, it was discussed in a bond release that DOT may not take over those stub roads that serve one or two houses. Are we setting this neighborhood up for potential HOA issues if the DOT will not take over those little sections of road? Is this just a workaround to get by the culde-sac ordinance? Based on that, I would recommend tableabling this until it's updated until every item on appendix 2B is turned in for review. Toll Brothers has had issues in three neighborhoods in Weddington, including Brmley, Enclave, and now Luna. We want to make sure everything is validated to the nth degree. If we're going to approve another Toll Brothers neighborhood, we can't have future residents holding the bag if something is not caught either in the approval or the execution of a development. Thank you.

Thank you, Chad. All right, that'll conclude the public comment portion. Uh moving down the list to old business discussion of workshop regarding UDO section D917E additional specific requirements for conventional residential development. I feel like we need to push that one until we have a full to actually talk about right our little workshop and when it works. Uh there are a couple of those I think are pretty

Yeah, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I would I would recommend that we move that agenda item uh or postpone that agenda item till the end of the meeting so that we can address the subdivision first and then kind of group all the code text amendments afterwards. Want to make a motion? Uh yeah, I make a motion we adjust the agenda to uh to move that further down the agenda after we discuss um uh more more. All in favor?

Unanimous. Perfect. Excuse me. Moving on to new business A. Greg, I am going to let you take over from there for now.

Thank you, uh, chairman, members of the planning board. U, this is an application by Toll Brothers requesting conditional zoning approval for a 39 lot conventional subdivision. RCD allows for conventional or conservation subdivisions. This is conventional, meaning 40,000 square foot lots or larger. Uh located on Weddington Matthews Road. Uh parcel number ending in 011. Uh this is a agricultural or farm property. um that is approximately 94 acres and some of the site plans it references is 92 something 93 or 94. Um that varies depending on the GIS record or the record of the applicant uh which the engineer of record is Kimley Horn. Um again this is zoned RCD and this is zoned to produce your conventional lot subdivision. Um, a couple notes on your site plan before getting the staff report is that uh there's a table of contents on sheet number C300 uh with the site data table. Um, a lot of crucial information is in there including your site acreage um your total site area and your zoning district. Um, some other things of note is, um, maybe some corrections, but things that are still code compliant. Um, Bill and some other folks have brought this up. Um, the required acreage for open space in this zone as of 2026 is 20%. At the time of application, which could date back all the way to a TIA, which was submitted in early 2025, uh, would be 10%. So if we just want to

air on the side of caution and say that they must meet current standards of open space, you need at least 20% that site plan now has even double that um at 40 acres or 43% open space. So this has gone through several revisions which many of you are familiar with. Um brothers have met with staff as well as members of the planning board as well as members of the town council in a noncor fashion uh to determine code compliance for this section. So uh defining features of this site plan is that it has an excess of open space uh that's primarily found on the eastern and western edges of this property. So there was a creek crossing um on the far east portion of the property. Uh that has been removed which resulted in several lots being removed. So you now no longer have to cross that wetlands or creek area. Uh that solves a couple issues in reducing density u reducing impact to environmentally sensitive areas and reducing tree uh removal. There's also a reduction of lots on the western portion of the site um to the southwest where there was previously some panhandle or flag lot um lots that were located there. That's where the majority of the trees are located on this site. Again, it's because it's majority agricultural. Um that's now open space. There's two BMPs, one to the west and one to the east. And some of the drainage uh patterns are shown on the site. There is uh a existing uh farm pond or existing kind of agricultural pond that's on the site um that would be removed or drained. I think it's worth raising those questions and concerns at this stage of development at the planning board to ask how that's going to be done. it was

addressed in public comment as well as comments from u other members of the public who has contacted staff and you guys. Um but otherwise uh this has gone through multiple revisions. Uh some of those revisions were to address the number of culde-sacs that are proposed on the site. Um technically speaking there are three uh one on the west and two to the east. Um, and there's also kind of some grid format that shows up abuing Bonner Drive. Uh, Bonner Drive has been a question since the inception of this U proposal. Um, the most code compliant site plan would have a connection to Bonner Drive. Bonner Drive is platted to show that it connects or has potential for future connectivity. um staff has recommended that in our staff report, but I've also addressed that in the staff report saying we are sympathetic to that neighborhood and that if it were limited to an emergency gates or something with the Knox box, Knox lock, you know, that there's potential there. Um but that could potentially affect if it's a public or private road because providing a gate um to that road. So the most code compliant option would be leave the connectivity. Um but it is something to address publicly particularly in the town council phase. Um whether that connection is appropriate at this location. Otherwise, our goal is to get as code compliant as possible and that's why there's been multiple revisions uh and many of those revisions removing things like culde-sacs uh which we are trying to limit as our UDO has prescribed previously being 1,200 square feet uh in linear length for a road and now it's just 500 ft. Uh other defining features of this site

plan is um the access to Weddington Matthews Road. Uh there is one ingress and egress point on that road. Uh the spacing of the project. Uh DOT did not recommend two entrances per the TIA uh which is provided you guys and is available publicly on our website. So there's just one way in and out, but there is turn lanes proposed uh eastbound and westbound. now uh for that development as well as the connection to Bonner Drive. The TIA is connected to Bonner Drive in terms of impact and that's another reason why staff recommended we keep that connection because that's what the TIA was in reflection of even though we've reduced the number of lots since that TIA was produced. Um the TIA reflected that there would be a connection to Bonner. Um there's also a existing stream uh stream uh that would have an 100 foot that would have an 100 foot buffer um buffer um located at the southern located at the southern portion of the portion of the site. site. So um as our public comment reference, So um as our public comment reference, this was the previous site plan. You this was the previous site plan. You could see that there was more lots over could see that there was more lots over here. There were at least three lots here. There were at least three lots over at this section with the stream over at this section with the stream crossing. Um there's also a existing crossing. uh the existing pond was to remain and then the creek is right here. Uh the site plan that we're at now uh is much different than that and that this area is now common open space. There's common open space on the top here. Uh this stream is protected and there's no crossing over this area towards the power lines. Um this is an exhibit of some of the tree save. I think there's a new exhibit from Toll Brothers in the PowerPoint that they're presenting today which better better illustrates this fact. But basically what this sheet says is that uh existing heritage trees are in green.

Um trees smaller than that are in gray and then heritage trees that would be removed would be in red. And you can see that the storm water pond right here is uh the primary reduction of many of those larger trees. These are just zoom outs of that. And this is kind of the tree area total. So it's important to understand the context of where many of these larger trees are. They're in these two uh eastern and western portions that I referenced and those while previously having lots of them are now reduced and removed. Um the only thing I would note and public comment also addressed this is many of our um newer subdivisions we want to look at what the um setback the 100 foot thoroughfare buffer looks like from Weddington Matthews. So we've had that as a condition and several other projects. I think that's an appropriate landscape plan to show um how that 100 foot setback is applied here particularly because there's no existing trees along that portion of road. Um so as a condition I would say that there should be uh kind of a landscape plan or thoroughfare plan for that stretch. Um we also denote this potential connection as a as a condition of approval. And lastly, uh, excuse me one moment, uh, is the kind of middle ground for this connection. So, there's the potential to have it connect full-time. There's the potential for it um to not connect at all, uh, which would not follow code. Uh, but the middle ground is that it connects even on a temporary basis. So, at a bare minimum, I would add to my

staff report the condition that this this section be closed off uh in a in a very detailed way and detailed plan um prior to the closing out of the sub subdivision releasing the bond. So, uh the point is we don't want any cut through traffic. So, uh, Luna and Bramley is a good example of where there's there was construction cut through where large vehicles were going in and out of that property. It was barricaded. That barricade didn't necessarily stop additional, you know, crews coming in and out of the development. Now, that's u addressed as out there today. But at a bare minimum, if if a even if a permanent connection is provided here, I would have a condition of approval that um this be closed until the last hole that last house is sold uh in this development and the bond is released. Otherwise, I think we spent a good amount of time refining this project. Uh the TIA is is going on years old at this point. Um the public meetings for this project took place in the spring of 2025. It's now um pushing the spring of 2026. So I think there has been thorough review of this project, including for completeness and the septic permits that are provided to y'all. Um but we're open to more constructive criticism and recommendations before moving forward. Uh with that staff recommends uh approving this with the connection to Bonner Drive, but um that is your discretion if that is required.

All right. Thank you, Greg. Do we got uh Tol wanting to present as well? Beautiful.

All right. Good evening everyone. My name is Margaret Pucket. I am the vice president of land acquisition for Toll Brothers. Um I've been on board for about nine months and I've spent a lot of time on this project in particular. Uh Mayor Bell, we've had lots of conversations about past, present, and what the future looks like in Weddington if toll becomes a part of it. Um Greg has been instrumental in helping us get to this point. Um, we spent a lot of time, Greg went through a lot of our changes, but tonight I'm going to go through this presentation, highlight what the plan looked like previous, what it looks like today. Um, I've got some images of architecture in addition to some of those buffer plantings, our entrance monumentation, some of those things that I know are concerns of the constituents in this room. Um, I will go through that tree exhibit, heritage trees, in detail to highlight what's being removed or what would be removed, what would not be. uh red and green. We can go through all of that. You go through the next slide for me. Uh this property is located on Weddington Matthews Road. You can go down to the next slide for me. I've got our before and after. Um that top plan is actually our very first plan that showed 47 home sites on 94 acres. Average lot size at that point in time was a little bit smaller than what they are today. Today they're 46,000 square feet, a little bit over an acre. Um, Greg hinted and highlighted, but today we have 40% or 46% of the property as common open space. Our home sites today, there's 39 on the plan. And we really spent a lot of time eliminating areas of concern. Um, particularly on on the north side and the south side, eliminating crossings. We avoided trees where we could. Um, and we really really spent some time trying our best to um, Bonner Drive was a great example. We really tried to meet the demands of the

neighbors next door. Um, in addition to taking advice from planning board so before and after um, 39 home sites versus that 47 that we started with. Um, want to highlight some of the work that we've done to improve our landscape architecture and our monumentation. Um, this area is relatively flat as Greg alluded to. So, we really have spent time, effort, um, making this look like what Weddington should look like. Um, if you go to that next slide for me, um, really enhancing what that entrance will look like, that 100 foot area along Weddington Matthews, we intend to make this look like this picture. Um, our goal is to make sure that we're working alongside Mayor Bell, the the town, uh, Greg, you've been very helpful in giving us guidance, but we really have done a lot to make improvements from what we started with where we are today. That next next slide, I want to highlight in my presentation tonight, I'm going to go over Bonner Drive, traffic updates, our enhanced architecture, and then items in appendix 2B. I know this team spent a lot of time going through appendix 2B, creating it, making it what it is today. So, Toll has has done our very best effort to understand the heritage tree ordinance, septic permits. We have those in hand. We spent time and effort going through to get those completed as well. Um, all while things were changing. Um, block length changed while we were going through this process. So, we've made those tweaks to our plan to incorporate those changes. We've increased our buffers and then enhanced our burm and landscaping efforts as well. This is our proposed site plan blown up a little bit from that first slide that I showed, but the number of home sites that we're showing today are 39. This is

on lot septic. These home sites are over one acre right away to rideway select clearing. Um the average lot size is over 46,000 square feet and we've got 46% open space when this current code as as I heard Greg correctly requires 20% open space. Go to the next um slide for me. This slide highlights our proposed meet in the middle. Um, as Greg alluded, um, connectivity was required from the TIA and Bonner Drive connection was something that was was recommended. We heard very strongly in our community meeting that we held in August um, from the residents along Bonner that childrens aren't playing in the streets. They they do not want the connectivity. So, it's that uh, push and pull between both. And I know that you've dealt with this scenario before, but Tol's proposing kind of that fire access gate. We've talked to the fire marshall. This is something that would be a meet in the middle. Um, and we can agree to the conditions that Greg proposed where there's no cut through traffic. There's no construction traffic going through until that last home close. Uh, we are required to put in a southbound turn lane on the left hand side. I've highlighted that with the yellow arrow. Um there we go. That is required and that's something that will be completed. Go to the next slide for me. I know that Mayor Bell uh Mayor Prom have spent a lot of time even walking our Luna model with us. Um enhanced architecture is something that was very important to them. We have committed to doing all crawlspace home sites. These home sites are individually cleared. We have enhanced and you'll see on the next few slides enhanced four-sided architecture. Go back for me. Um, new elevation designs. We have brick exteriors. And

these homes will all be siloed with three to four cars, garages. Um, here's one plan. These homes will range from 4600 square ft to 6,300 square ft. Um, in this presentation, I'm going to show some rear elevations in addition to some side elevations. Um, I know these these pictures, um, depending on how you're looking at it, could look a little flat, if you will, but bear with me as I'm going through the presentation. Rear and side of the Rosella floor plan. If you go to the next slide, this is the Hallstead plan. This is a threecar courtyard plan. If you go to the next slide for me, it shows that side elevation, mostly brick. I would say 90% brick on the side of that home with a few exceptions. And then I've thrown in that floor plan as well. So you can see what the back of the home would look like from the street. It's not going to be flat. There's a lot of articulation in that floor plan. This is a Brier Crest floor plan. This is a threecar sideloaded home. If you go to that next plan for me, I've actually included the roof line on the right hand or lefthand side. So you can see all of those um shapes, if you will, are are um angles of the roof. So it is not a simple build by any means. That that home is going to be pretty complex from the from the top. And then you can see that home is 95% brick on the on the rear or that side elevation. This is the Kensington plan. This is actually a fourcar courtyard plan. You go to the next slide again that roof line and the side elevation of that home. You go to the next slide for me. This is the Winthre plan. This is actually um a great floor plan. Primary down very very large home. Three car side load with the option to add that

fourth. If you go to the next slide for me, this home um again from the side, full brick. Um and that home lives extremely well. Very, very popular floor plan, but it's 5,500 square ft, four to five bedroomedroom with the ability to go up to that five bath. Um this is the Silverglenn full brick on the exterior. again that roof line and then the side of that home as an example, predominantly brick. We went ahead and put some streetscape images together. So, if you were pulling into our community, this is what you would be looking at. So, you'd be looking at a full brick facade of a front home. um you'd be seeing the side loaded garages as you pulled into the community, but predominantly you're seeing you're seeing brick homes, which is what Mayor Bell has made very clear. Um on the rear you get that articulation landscaped um more consistent with what traditional Weddington looks like. If you go to the next slide for me, um I know that one of the comments during public comment had to do with our septic permits. Um, if there's any specific questions, Robert, my counterpart, can help answer some of those questions, but we do have what's required under appendix 2B um to have septic permits in place. Um, the primary area of that septic field is in highlighted in purple. I know it's hard to see. And then that repair area is highlighted in green on the site plan. You go to the next slide for me. I know there was a lot of discussion about heritage trees. I'm going to do my best to go through this exhibit. I've got three versions of this site plan that you'll see. What you'll see change is the color of the dots, but bear with me as we go through it. Uh the existing heritage trees on

this site are highlighted in green. I have a total, see in my notes here, there's 143 total heritage trees on the site. And a heritage tree um as defined by the tree ordinance in Weddington can vary. A tree um as small as 5 in all the way up to a tree greater than 12 can be classified depending on the tree type as a as a heritage tree. Uh of the 143 trees and you can go to the next slide for me because I think it shows this shows our street infrastructure going in. But here you see the 143 heritage trees that are highlighted on the site. Go to that next slide for me. This actually shows in red the 22 total heritage trees that are being removed or being proposed to be removed from this site. Three of which are in building envelopes. um they're in the bottom right hand corner and they're in areas that based on septic based on the home site itself they were very difficult to work around. I'm not saying that we absolutely cannot find a way but there's three heritage trees in that um circumstance where they're inside of building envelopes. The remainder of the 22, the 19 are in our storm water management area in the center of the plan and they're clustered pretty much together. So of the 143 I identified on this site, toll is removing or proposing to remove 15.4% which is only 22 trees. If you go to the next slide for me, this actually shows whole holistically all of the trees on

the site. So there's,87 nonheritage trees on the site. 184 non-heritage trees are being proposed to be removed, 15.5% and then there's a 103 non-heritage trees being saved. Um in addition to the trees that are being saved, Toll has quite a plan of adding new trees once we are active in a community. We have street tree requirements in addition to all of our supplemental planting. So in addition to what you're seeing here from what we're saving, we also have 237 street trees that would be planted on top of 518 supplemental perimeter buffer plantings that are not even shown on this plan. So, I want to highlight that we've done above and beyond what we feel like is um normal for this type of exercise to save as many trees as we possibly can. Um, and 22 trees is what we're removing or proposing to remove as far as heritage trees go in this community. And I will open it up to questions. I'm more than happy to address them. If I can't answer the question, hopefully my team can um help me out.

All right. Thank you. Uh Scott, you got anything?

Had an issue with Amanda, which what Bonner stubs off of where it was supposed to connect into Um but the land was not um the there was the the land between the two roads uh came into question. We couldn't we couldn't get that done. Looking at a map, Bonner doesn't look like it comes all the way down into um into into this area. Are we going to run into a problem with who builds the road, who owns the property? Has that all been thought of and addressed?

So, it's there's a difference in how the pavement is aligned today versus how it's platted and is recorded on record. So, the final plat for this development shows it going to the property line. There is right away going up to the property line. The asphalt as it exists today does not go all the way to the property line. Um, so it I'm sure that an extension of several feet is feasible uh by the applicant to do that connection. I don't think we would require residents of of Arbor Oaks or people on Bonner Drive to to pay for that extension.

But to your question, there's not a gap. There's not a middleman gray area land. It's buted right up.

There's no there's no paper. Yeah. on paper it is finally connected and if there is a gap I'm sure the applicant would testify on record that they would pay for that. Well, and I think when Am or when um Panri Court, they were going to pay for that, too. But the the land off of Amanda, again, the the road did not go all the way up to the property line for Amanda Drive, and that was where the problem laid. Is there a problem with the fact that Bonner is not up to the property line? I do understand the concern. I've encountered communities in the past where that was maybe subdivided into a separate parcel and then five years passed and the neighbors said, "Hey, can I buy this?" You know, it's never going to connect and they bought it and then there was a connection later and that became feasible because it was now private property rather than uh plotted u public rightway. Uh that problem hasn't been encountered before, but this is this is a public road rightway up to the property line.

Is uh is Bonner a statemaintained road? Yes. Yeah. And these will be statemaintained roads. Yeah. These are proposed to be statemaintained. Yes. Anything else, Scott? Uh no, that's all I've got at the moment. Steve, you got anything for him? Yeah. Uh the uh the details in the septic plans, are there any pumps or anything that would require inspection from any anybody other than the homeowners? So are the homeowners going to be responsible for these systems? Nothing the HOA would be responsible for.

That's correct. It's a homeowner um maintained system. And Robert, you can jump in if I'm missing something, but these systems would be maintained by the homeowner just like any other subject. No inspections other than what the homeowner would have to do. Correct. Uh the storm water analysis, has it been updated? Do you have an updated storm water analysis? Is it is it in here? Okay. Uh the school capacity letter. What about that? Is that in this package? Yeah. So we we did

we did notify the school board and we had a conversation with them. This preliminary about capacity. Uh we ran out of time with that conversation and are scheduling another conversation with them. All right. Is that's a part of appendix B. So you got to have that. All right. You got to get that in. uh the entrance design. You showed an entrance design uh and and the um I guess that's a 100 foot buffer landscape design, but that's not in here. We can include it and add it into that and pend into your Yeah, just make sure that he's he got he's got those because that's what we got to hold you to what what you're going to submit here.

Okay. the stub roads. Do you know of any issue with the stub roads where the DOT would not accept those for state maintenance? I have not come across that. That comment was new to me today. Um,

is there a possibility that you could get some kind of u letter from the DOT that says, "Hey, yes, we if you if you build these to the right spec, we'll maintain." We can definitely entertain the conversation with them. So typically what mitigates that is based on not having those improvements up to the property line. Like we stated earlier the rightway today does go to that property line. The only variance between what you see in this plan and what is uh existing today is a culdeac that resides on the adjacent property. But our intent would be as we kind of communicated earlier is that we would make sure we have full improvements contiguous up to that property market. Okay,

to answer your question, yes, we could actually get verification from NC DOT. That's what we would like to have. Talking about also the two stub roads that end flat. I'm sorry. Sure. The two stub roads that end flat. We we just got to make sure those are can be built to spec and state maintenance can be taken over for those as well. That is accurate. Correct. And everything that we're seeing here is being proposed for state acceptance and maintenance. Okay. So, if you could get a if you could get before probably you go to the council or you know get some information from the DOT that says yes, we will maintain those if you build a perspective. Correct. Yes, we can definitely do that. You're talking about just making that a condition of approval. Correct.

It can be. Yeah. Yeah. Uh let's see here, Steve, if I may. Yeah, I I think that's acceptable. Um you could see that one two houses are served off of this end. Yeah. And there's not necessarily maybe this one house is served off this end. We had talked about this corner and I addressed this in the staff report. You know, this is something that could have stubbed out to this parcel right here, but that would have created another kind of dead space and common area that, you know, maintenance is was unclear. I'm good with it. I just want to make sure that the state can take them over and we don't hand it to the HOA to do it.

Understood. Um, let's see what else. The turn lanes you talked about, you have a turn lane in there, right? So, there's no turn lane coming from uh it's it's the south side, nothing from the north side. That that is correct. Yes, sir. Uh, you're going to provide the fire access gate. You're going to build that the way you expect here. You might want to get that into this as well. Okay. Y we could that's a isn't that a determination whether or not boner drive is going to be connected right

well right if the determination is that we we we're going to put this gate up then we need to have specs and it needs to be in here what you're going to build I know you showed us a picture but we need to have it that's dependent on

and that that picture is is an idea for that gate we would have to talk to the fire marshall make sure it meets the code and the spec what is acceptable. That was just an image to basically show you what can be done. I know there are variations of that in Weddington, but we want to make sure and we can and will put it into the package if that's where we land this evening. Um, but our goal is to meet in the middle. We would like to put that gate in to protect the residents on Bonner. Um, we understand connectivity is important, but we've heard very loud and clear from that community that they do not want connectivity and our goal is to be a good neighbor and that we feel is the best solution. Um, it may not look exactly like what's shown, but I will get you what we know is approvable by the fire marshall and what they would want to see.

Yeah. Like all that I'm saying is that if that's what's agreed upon, we need to have the spec so we can hold you to that. Understand? uh the uh the landscape design on the west side. There's a 10- foot SEM roadway that goes for to to maintain that pond. That might need some kind of enhanced uh you know buffering what I'm talking about like like evergreens or something. So that can't be seen from the road and that pond can't be seen from the road as well. You might be planning that already. So, you know, I just want to say that that's what we would be looking for to screen that stuff for us.

And the last thing that I'm going to say is that you got, and this is not a requirement, okay? Uh you you you presented a very nice 100 foot buffer with nice entrances on the east side of the road. You got four power poles. Uh you're not required to bury those poles. That would be great if you did. Okay. Also, uh, to get power to the other side of the road, a union likes to go overhead. It would be great if we went under the road, right? So, we can enjoy that beautiful landscape you want to put in there, you know, going down Weddington Road.

I agree with you. And if possible, our intent would be to go underground. Okay. It's not there's no ordinance to that, but the council can, you know, it's negotiation. So things can happen. That's all I got.

Okay. Um I just got a couple things. Um, I'll start by saying, um, if we were going to the strictest level of exhibit 2B, um, you wouldn't be before the planning board because we require all of the drawings to be the same scale of one inch equals 100 ft or less. Yours are at 200. That's a small thing. Okay. Um it's just for future reference. Um having said that since the planning board and Toll Brothers started working together a year year and a half ago, God knows how long ago. It was a very very rough uh I'll call it relationship. Um some of it on your guys' part, some of it on the town's part. Since that time, um, we've made a lot of adjustments to the ODO, providing clarity, getting things in place. And bottom line is I would say I want to congratulate Toll Brothers on this presentation, Robert, and and your team. Um, very good job. Very good job. And I appreciate all the work that's gone into it, working with the town. And I want to give you compliments for that because I know you've been beat up a lot over the last years on some other subdivisions. So if you're doing nasty, I'll tell you you're doing nasty. If you're doing good, I'm also going to tell you you're doing good and I think you've done real good on this. I just have a couple questions and one is is it addresses the one of the stub roads we talked about and I don't know if you can do I have it on drawing 701. It's page 45 in the packet, but um

and I don't know if you can pull that up, Brad, but if I look at that um stub road, it's on the west side. And this is just a question I have is um no other side. Yeah, there you go. Right there. And I'm looking at that and I'm not a builder, but if you did a on that um I don't know the lot number on 34 south of the step right right there. That one 34.

Yeah. If you did a mirror build of that house, in effect, move the house to the left or the west, put the driveway on the would be on the other side. I'm thinking a couple of things. One is it takes that home. Anyone coming down that road at night, their headlights going to be shining right into that house. And I think if you did that shift, it'd take it out of that headlight line of sight. And I'm also thinking it would allow to eliminate that stuff. It would just be a an L left turn. The only downside I could see is you then end up with two driveways next to each other. I mean, I've got a couple situations like that in my neighborhood and there's landscaping or trees in that area. So, that was just a discussion I had for you guys and for the planning board. I I actually I looked at that too and I don't know that you even have to mirror it, but you just take away the stub and make it a longer driveway that loops around in place of it because I do think you might have an issue with NC DOT. We've had some neighborhoods in the past that have had small and they were culde-sacs, but they were relatively short and they didn't have enough homes for NC DOT to actually take it over. So you you might want to consider I think like Bill was saying just make that you know just make that a right turn and then you can have instead of the road stubbing just have the driveway kind of pulled around that it would probably save you some infrastructure cost.

Do you follow what I was saying on that Robert? I do. Um we're definitely receptive to that. I think one of the things that we afford in this case is that as we alluded before, these are large lots. Correct.

Um there is probably a little bit of grace relative to where we place the homes on each one of those lots. Whether if they're um sidebyside driveways, still going to feel as if there's ample room between each. I think the other thing that we afford in this project is that topography is fairly gentle. So we're not really stifled based on what direction the driveway sits. So probably the best thing for us to do is to definitely to explore that. That is one of the things that we do try to look at from line of sight in headlights too because we want to be very cognizant of our homeowners as well.

So that was that was just a suggestion I have. I don't know whe it's something I don't think it's something you make as a condition, but u these are side load garages. Yeah. Yes, sir. That's correct.

Yeah. So that was one question I had. Um then the other one is on uh drawing 702 which is page 46 in the packet for the council. Um, and that's basically I'm coming over to the stub road on the other side be on the east side. And this one um I'm trying to kind of accomplish the same thing. And I'm thinking um if the home on the on the the bottom of the stud should move to the left. Now, if you look at that on the drawing where your septic is, I think it would move into it some, so that wouldn't work. So, I'm thinking, is there any way maybe it could move a little bit to the left and the home up top could move a little bit to the right, line up those two driveways, and um then that stub would cut off right where the two driveways are.

Just another idea um to consider. Like I said, it could in the downside could it could impact the septic field on that that lower house. Um, my last one, same thing on uh 702. Let me see if I've got it here. I don't think it is 702. The one where Yeah, 702. um lot. It looks like the flag flag lot. Yeah. Right there. As I'm looking at your drawing, um I'm showing a a saved heritage tree right in the middle of that house right there. That's green. And unless you're gonna have a really weird house with a

No, you're you're absolutely right. There is a green. No doubt. You want to make that red. I think we're probably just illustrating it wrong on this. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I think we're illustrating it wrong on this slide. I think if we go to the other slides, I think we show it as being red. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to make sure you guys didn't get down the road that tree came down and now you're Yeah. hit with a big fine. So, I'm just looking out for you on that one. And I had the same question on that same house. Um it looks like you've got a couple a green heritage tree along that driveway line just you know hopefully you got some room and you can save that but I just wanted to point that one out to you.

And um lot the one up top at the other side of the culdeac. Same question. You've got two trees. these heritage trees going to be removed. I understand that. But you've also got it looks like at least one heritage tree right on the side of that house. Now, I don't have I didn't measure this off, but um I don't know the lot number. Uh looks like lot 12. Right at the back corner of the house there, you show a green heritage tree, which is great. I love it. But and maybe on your other plan it's showing it as red or maybe it it is savable. I just wanted to point that out to you.

Yeah. Yeah. Our intent obviously is to try to salvage all the trees that we can. One of the things I think that helps this circumstances is that with septic the elevation that exists today will stay relative to that. So, it allows us to be able to go ahead and keep whatever exists in that area to where we're not going back in and changing those grades, which aligns kind of with that particular topography, but we'll definitely go back in and take a closer look at that as well. Just a couple things to look at. And again, um, I want to congratulate you on the presentation. I mean, I think it's it's been a lot of meetings back and forth. I know Greg has been involved a lot, so I like to give kudos when they're due. That's all I've got.

I got just one more thing. You're showing these these squares in the backyards. Pools. That That is accurate. Yes, sir. Are you building it with the pool or are you just showing where a pool could go? Just where a pool could go, right? In reference to the bleaching fields that you got to put. That's right. Exactly. Okay.

Awesome. All right. All right, I got just a few more technical things that maybe can get uh squared away. So, we're going to drain this pond. And is that not is it not created jurisdictional wetlands that you have to have a buffer around where that pond was or is the pond small enough that you get free and clear that tenth of an acre or whatever to disturb?

That's correct. Um and it's a farm pond. um dating back to I don't know exactly when probably the 1950s farmer digged it out, had a farm pond. Um it's actually it it's going to be a beneficial thing for us to undam it, drain it slowly, um have control over where that water's going because at any moment today um a farm pond it it's just a farm pond. So, we we really do believe that draining it is the better, safer option for everyone in the area. Um, and it will be done on a slow release and be monitored. Um, yeah, with that, I was just making sure it would didn't constitute a wetland once it was drained. No.

And that you couldn't disturb or you had to buffer or mitigate with the core of engineers. All right. Uh, they alluded to the entrance plans. They got me there. And it looked like you have what how many floor plan types? Was it six or seven? Um, there's six shown in this presentation. We're actually working on one more. Mayor Bell requested a plan that is north of 6,000 square feet. So, we're working on that. It's not complete yet. I didn't have it ready for this presentation, but we will have it for council. And are our streets curb gutter? Sidewalk as well. Um, yes. Yes, it is. Okay. One side right side. I just saw a little bit of heavy grading on the road. I just wanted to make sure we could get the street trees in. Yes.

Um, I'm going to say on some of this that as we go through it, I think we've been holding everybody to a tree survey, like a real tree survey, stamp, sealed, legends, all that. I would say that we need to condition that these come with a tree survey showing all of them per our uh tree survey requirements. You've got it already. They just need to put that on paper. Should be a good condition to have

by the time it's there. That way you can see all the the trees. Um to the engineer we had a similar situation where we wanted ditch type streets. They went in and uh once they became a the SCM had to have the ponds NCDEQ required that to be a major and they had to collect all water on the site. How are you allowed to not collect all water and get bypass on some of that drainage area? And do you know that you can do this? Is this something you can get DEEQ to have a letter that can confirm before council that what we're presenting we can do? We don't want it to come back and then you have to do all this other clearing and we're back to try to get the horse in front of the buggy because I don't know that it would get approved like the last one did. So, I would just want to make sure up front that what you're proposing can be done without collecting all of the water on the site and treating it at a pond.

Sure. Sure.

So, that that was another one. Unless he can answer the bypass part with confidence that he's got it. That was the question on that. On your hydroad, I noticed on your drainage area page, uh, let me find that page. You've got your pre-development drainage area at 26.87 acres. Revealing the hydrocad you have the actual drainage area for uh drainage area 2 in the hydrocad at 28.87 2acre discrepancy that adds up on the plans to be the 51.4 but the hydroad looks like there's two additional acres. Uh just which one's right?

So I'm not Oh. I will I will do that. So I notice the hydroc was two acres different uh and I didn't know if that makes any difference and but

correlating both that I saw that number in drainage area too. It looked like it was per your plan 51.4 acres of total and hydroad is 53.4 acres of total. Um, and then again, I would ask to get how or assure us that the areas outside of your drainage areas that do run off this property do not have to be treated in a water quality situation because it is 12mile creek or west fork, right? Uh, 12 mile creek. You're eventually going to get to 12 mile creek.

Yeah. So the other part that the hydroad that he didn't have that part of our ordinance would be is uh first the pre and post peak at the the poas at each site. Easy enough he he's going to present that. The other one was we need one year of 24hour volume control that wasn't demonstrated. So I just wanted that the ponds were look accurate what we're building. So without seeing that in hydrocat I just wanted to make sure that the pond bring that up. Uh the other one was again and I think she may have alluded to it. We didn't have our entrance plan he got we the tree survey. We had a thing in there where we you could show us canopy to do canopy preservation come back from Google Earth but a mitigation for heritage trees. And I assume what you kind of rolled in was your mitigation for the heritage trees are going to be buttload of street trees we're planting and all the other supplemental plantings we do on each lot. We're going to make up for the heritage trees we take down. Right.

The mitigation plan per se. That would be our intent in addition to my my understanding is there are are fees in lie um that we can pay um to when those trees do come down we would be responsible for paying for those fees was my understanding. Gotcha. Gotcha. And we would be willing to do both. Gotcha. Uh those are again just a little bit of the technical stuff. The I think we require a landscape plan. Um Yep. And that entrance plan. I think you can conditionally we can have both of those ready by the time go to council. Right.

Um I would ask for also if uh there's I didn't see a BUA summary. If you just would throw that on for council to kind of get an idea of what's impervious, what we're really running through. You've got your totals. Yes. And you're well under. I got it. But yeah, we can definitely do just more to to clean up and make it more apparent when it it's seen in the public. Sure. Um and we're certain at this point to a degree that we're not going to be required to have any kind of off-site easements and trying to go acquire something from neighbors. Yeah.

Yes. I think we feel very very confident that we do not require anything else other than what you see that's shown here. Awesome. all contained. All right. You don't have a problem doing the tree survey by the time, correct? Just producing a tree survey that you can throw in the packet. Yeah, that's information that we already have. We can just go ahead and just make sure it's part of the packet, but it's a very, very easy ask.

Perfect. Perfect. I think technical-wise that was all I had. Uh I would I would echo there is if we could get rid of those two little stubs. Um if possible I I would again more about the quality of it than getting stuck in some of this. If it makes sense to have and we know we got to have I think you've already uh imply that you're going to do whatever you can to meet in the middle at Bonner Drive and make that right by them. Right. So, we shouldn't have a problem making that a condition.

Well, I I guess is that a discussion the planning board needs? I think I think there's two questions there. One is, is there going to be a connection permanent connection to Bonner Drive? And if there even if there is or isn't, let's say if there is, we're talking about having a gate or something to prevent construction trucks and traffic from coming from Bonner Drive to get into this uh parcel. Oh, I think we're talking about blocking this thing for eternity. Like, it's going to be emergency use.

That's one of the options. And the reason I'm bringing it up is for me personally, I think it needs to connect to Bonner Drive. Well, I don't know that they going to get be able to get out of connecting to Bonner Drive, per se, but if they if we can lock or gate to where Bonner Drive still gets their little bit of privacy they've had, then I think that could be a win-win.

Yeah. Well, again, that's I think that's a planning board discussion. Knox Locks, whatever. I still think I'm saying we've had other subdivisions recently that have come through that they actually built a fence and we said no it's got to connect and now the UDO actually says if it's a culdeac for a future development we require a sign that says this will have a future connection. So again, I think it's a from my standpoint, it's not a block off for eternity or it's not an emergency access road. It is connectivity to Bonner Drive,

right? Connectivity connectivity with a statemaintained road, but it but like like they had there. They had a fire only access like you have at your community. Well, there's no access in Bonner Drive now,

not to access not today or not. But so but again I think we if I think we're all I think we all want the connectivity. So then the question becomes is it is the fire access a permanent thing or is it a temporary thing? And when you said meet in the middle what is your interpretation of meeting in the middle? Our interpretation understanding that connectivity is very very important to planning to staff to the town. Our our meet in the middle is it's a fire access gate only to be used during emergencies. So fire truck, police officers, they have the key if there is an emergency. The road's there. We built it, but it's not something that

your teenage son can drive through to cut through traffic to Zoom to get ahead. It it strictly for emergencies. So there will be a gate 99% of the time it's going to be our community will not emergency access road. That's right. That's been my understanding as well. You're going to build a road and to build a connector and it be it'll be a statemaintained road. State maintained just going to have the emergency gate. Correct. And that we feel like when I say meet in the middle that was our intent with the neighbors that did not want connectivity at all. uh we felt like well we'll give the connectivity for emergencies but not for regular everyday traffic and I think dressing up that gate to almost look like it the quality of your entrance is a

yeah sold one and and that would be our intent um you these homes are not going to be inexpensive we want it to look good to be high quality and that's exactly why I picked that picture um we would want it to look like that if buyer access fire marshall approves that that's exactly what we'll deliver. Yeah. And I think that can still we make that a condition council can hammer out kind of what they want to do on a higher level of detail with that. But whether they do it or not do it. Yeah. Uh yeah. Um

I'm just afraid that the town's going to open up a can of worms because we've already said in the UDO connectivity and I know if I lived on Bonner Drive, I'd be out here talking too. Don't don't connect my road because we got a nice culde-sac there and that's where the kids play and this and that. Well, I don't know what the other subdivision was connected.

I can tell you from living here pretty much my entire life back in the day and I'm going apologize to the Ritters and other people live on Ma Drive, but we used to burn that road up to carry and cut around. Man, I at 16 I wasn't looking for no kid. been blessed. So, they've got a little piece and if they're willing to block off, I just couldn't say that we would ever want to argue that part at the moment because I can tell you the kids will cut through there and come through and by the time you're done, you're around the traffic circle, you're already out at at Vintage Creek and it's

Yeah, they'll be coming through there to get over the Weddington Swim and Racket Club without having to get on the Weddingington Matthews. road. That was the intent with Vintage Creek, that connectivity.

Yeah, but I don't see where they're not going to be able to not connect to it. I cannot see. We're going to see DOT. It's there. It's platted with us. I think they're going to have to connect. So they're willing to meet in the middle and I I feel like that's a great gesture and stewards of neighboring cuz this is definitely going to impact uh farms been a staple here almost taken for granted. So um I think that was really all I got other than just making these conditions. Is there anything else you want to talk about that we shouldn't make conditions or should

No, I was just trying to get clarity on what the conditions are. Landscape plan, which staff had already said requirement. Uh BUA plan, which I think is done, just needs to be in the packet. Same thing with the tree survey, right? Done. Just needs to be in the packet. Those are the three I captured. What about your hydroad? Yeah, get the engineer. And if I you need me to send an email, I can send an email. Just get the engineer to to check the hydroad and check with NCDEQ that creating these ponds. You don't have to clear the whole site and capture all the water from the entire project.

Entrance plan was also on there at the entrance. Uh, I had landscape entrance, storm water analysis, school impact le letter, tree survey, um, a statement I guess on the permanent um, firegate with Bonner connectivity, your hydro statement. Yeah, hydroat. It's just their hydra clarity between the 51 acres and the 53. Yeah. And also the DOT that with the sub roads, we want to make sure that they agree with that. Y you wanted an NCDOT letter confirming that provided they're built to Yeah. They're gonna they're gonna if they build them to spec, they'll take care of

and I don't need a new hydrocat. I just want to make sure he knows that there's a discrepancy. Make sure the ponds are accurately sized. Sure. As to what we're looking at. The stub road issue could go away depending on what you can do on those two instances. We're in Florida as well. Well, yeah. And and I know you guys are keen on moving this along, but there's a fairly long list now of conditions. Would you want to willing to

I'm sorry. have us hold this off until our next meeting so you can have a more thorough packet so that there's less conditions that we have to move on to council or are you fine with having these conditions attached and then making sure that council understands what we

Scott if I may they're not going to the council next month either way um due to other projects we have in the queue so uh that to an extent is up to them and I'd like them to respond as well, but um this isn't going to be rushed in any fashion. This isn't coming before uh a public hearing until at least April.

Scott, I I appreciate it, but based on the amount of work that we have and the asks, I really do think that we can go back to the drawing table relatively quickly, definitely before our next council meeting to have these items addressed. Um the the homework's done. We just got to do some touch-up work. Um,

but again, if if you're not going next month, so you would have another month to come here and if it's relatively easy, does it behoove us council to have a more thorough packet without all of the conditions to send than to send it with because you're not I mean, you're not losing anything. No, absolutely not. We we we would be willing to come back if that's Well, it would be it would have to be the next month's meeting, right? It would have to be our next April. Yeah.

Um I guess the only question I would bring up um you feel very confident about those items that you described that are I guess we'll call them outstanding that they're all addressed. Um, the only thing that I think would we would have some concern about is the opportunity to move forward if we were to table this and address the comments here to move forward relative to what we think that timing is for for council. Um, meaning other petitions that fall in line and then we're then unfortunately held up as a result of that change.

Yeah, absolutely. We we would not want to be sliding if that makes sense. We we've you know had a lot of snow days this year. We've had things happen to us that have slowed us down. Um which is why I you know so I mean I would prefer to have less conditions but I don't want to I mean I want to be cognizant of the fact that you know do we have another applicant coming at next month's planning board? Because a lot of time what we're doing we're doing an applicant at a time

and I think staff's got these these you know they can get they'll get this information and it ain't going to go no further you know if they don't have it. Yeah I definitely think these are minor from my side of the table. Okay. And they've got the work they just need to polish it right understood. I just wanted to make sure especially given the fact that we potentially do have some time. A real quick question whether you know or don't know you on these roads I saw I mean you were in heavy heavy cut. What are y'all doing with the dirt? You going to stockpile and use it or are you exporting all that dirt out?

We'll probably have to go back in and just do a better analysis of that because our approach is to do right away to right away clearing and grading. Um we'll probably stockpile some of that so it's not impeding anything from obviously the septic uh and look at from analysis of what is going to be needed for the lots. But we again we have to be very cognizant of the grades. Um yeah and well that's I saw it and I ran a little thing and I mean it was heavy just just for the roads. It it is just for the roads it's heavy. Um we've actually gone back in it does balance relative to the overall site from a holistic standpoint. Beautiful. But but again um well balance using a hoodoo number or like for real balance like you want to benchmark it

based on the information we have today because obviously we'll we'll get more into the credibility of the engineering we get a little bit further but based on what we can actually take from what is um build run tobo it does balance cool looking for a motion Mr. chairman. Yeah, I guess in the list of conditions, if you want to run through the motions with Take a shot. I make a motion to uh recommend approval to the council um on Morris Farm with additions. There' be a landscape plan completed.

Well, hold on. When you say landscape, this is for the buffers, right? The 100 foot buffer landscape plan. Well, this Yeah, this uh specific exhibit would would highlight the the view from the road. So, the the buffer area. Yeah, but that's not including the entrance as part of the landscape plan. I was putting both those together. I I would include I would separate I would generally say if you were standing on this road, I would like to know what this looks like. Yes. And then she also alluded around the edges in the buffer. Y'all were going to do perimeter planning as well, right? For the neighbors. Yeah. We'd let's see the landscape. It would be great if you could just insert that plan that you put up there into what so he can, you know, and we can check on you. Okay. With

with a condition for a landscape plan along the buffer and the entry uh landscape plan, all the perimeter buffers that you're planning to plant so that everybody's aware of what of what's coming. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Inclusion of the tree survey in the packet. um uh inclusion of the BUA plan in the packet. BUA summary summary um the school letter included in the packet and um I don't know whether this is a condition or just confirmation or resolution of the hydroad between the sure the discrepancy is that that a

I don't think that needs to be a condition. I just think that was a technical advisement that I can 51 or 53 it's going to work either way. Yeah, but the pond is sized on that. So now if you're five feet different deeper, now your grading just went out, extended out or whatever. That's all I was just saying. I'm just saying it's Yeah, two feet now. So it's two acres. I'm sorry. Two acres, right? Correct. In one drainage basin. I'd say let's put it in there. All right. Just so that it's there and we can check it off. Sounds great. We'll make that a condition. Verifying hydro cab. That was uh DOT DOT approval of the stubs if they're going to continue if you're going to keep them.

NCDEQ approval of all the bypass water will be allowed under this design. Got that? That's not the BUA summary. No, ma'am. This is of bypass water. Being that he has a pond, it will DQ will trigger this to be a major subdivision in their eyes, which means I think they got to treat all water. It would be considered major. I think I've captured all the conditions, right? Uh unless you want to say anything about the firegate at the Bonner connection. I I'm assuming that's something the council will have to address.

Yeah. So stacks recommendation is to connect because that is the most code compliant thing they could do. We have continually requested that applicants check every box they possibly can whether that uh is is good for them or not so they could say that they checked all the boxes. So if there is a condition or exception that our legislative body can do to say we think it's fair to wave this requirement because it's a better design or it's more fair to the neighbors then that's a rule we can wave but the so it's not a condition we would make right now. The assumption is it's connected road. Yeah.

And then that can be addressed at the council if they want to correct Yeah. Do do you guys want to recommend something that's not code compliant or do you want to put that on the town council is that's a short answer. We want to be compliant. I think they can decide right after that. We got that. You want to do a readback? You want me to do a readback, please? Be in the same order. Wait. Uh did when we were talking all the hydro stuff, was that one of those the storm water analysis? Define the fine storm water analysis. Uh when we were talking I don't we I wrote down storm water analysis question.

So there was a question I think Chad brought up a question about the storm water u analysis. Was it updated in in the change from original to the next? I guess I would ask Greg based on information you have today, does it reflect the most updated plan on that storm water analysis? So, and and we're happy to reshare any type of information if need be if we need to make a note of that. I just want to confirm either he has receipt of the current and or we can reissue.

So, you've got an you've got an update of the storm water plan. The question is, is the updated version in the packet? Correct. There's been a good bit of back and forth on submissions just to qualify based on the appendix 2B. I just want to re-qualify that he has receipt of the most latest and greatest. Um, irregardless, we we can resend it just for confirmation. Now, I saw all storm water. I saw all the catch basins, the percentages. Yep. For for instance, we referenced the postdevelopment drainage map. that he that's in that hydroad. Yeah,

he did not have uh he did not have pre and post at the point of returns at the at the end. Uh I I spoke on that. He did not have the he had two acre difference in drainage too. And then he's going to answer about the bypassed undetained water. That's major per his plan. Yep. Sounds like we got it. You got it. I believe it's already inclusive of the of the packet, but y we'll we'll address the the comments though. So then yes, that should be everything. You want to read back? Okay.

Landscape plan for the perimeter and the entire development. Perimeter buffers and entire development and the entrance school impact letter statement of approval. Um sorry, I had to go backwards. Um for the from NC DOT for the stub roads the hydroad calculations confirmed. Check the discrepancy and entrance plans. Right back at the top tree survey BUA summary NCDEQ approval of bypass water. How many is that ready? One.

That's low hanging fruit. Five five six but like the perimeter buffer and the landscape plan and the entrance plan can be well the letter from NC do on the stub roads is predicated on whether you have stub roads what they use well and I think the other thing to note here too is it's going to be based on our spec design which today we're doing a pavement section that is reflective of what they would accept as well. So, we need a second if you're good with those conditions. Good. Anybody got a second? I made a very clear motion. So, I'll second the motion. Thank you. All in favor? I I

unanimous. All right. Good job, guys. Thank you, G. I was looking at you like, man, you had all the engineering answers.

Oh, gotcha. The dark side. All right, moving on now. Let me get back to my paper. All right, we're going to move down the new business discussion and possible recommendation of text amendment 2026-1 section section D607C conditional reszoning. Take it away, Greg.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so in your packet, there's a memorandum that addresses all these text amendments, not including the old business. Um, for what is proposed, I think everything in this memo uh is a is a strike through or or quick amendment. Uh, I'll go through each because I think each is in a separate section. I want everyone to understand which change is which um and which text amendment would be required for that. But I think all of these are straightforward. Uh I've worked with um Bill over a couple months to get these together. Our objective and an objective of the council retreat is to better bundle our text amendments so we're not slightly changing things every month. As well as for people like Tol, you know, they've had numerous text amendments that have gone through while their application is is pending. Uh that creates questions of vested rights and permit choice. So, we'd rather have text amendments all done at one time so that we know exactly when they take effect.

We knew it would be a moving target, though. Yep. So,

text amendments are still good. Still recommend them. I recommend almost them with all these. Um, the first one, uh, which would end up being a text amendment 2026-1 as a as a, um, as a item that goes before the council is to amend the section of conditional zoning. Very straightforward answer is this references a code section that no longer exists. uh we would instead reference D917B and it's a proposed table 8D. So it's talking about what we're trying to prioritize in open space. Uh we now link to a current code section rather than a defunct code section and we talk about the priorities in that section. So here it is as shown uh with new text in green and old text in red. Uh this is very simply stating that we're going to reference this exhibit uh which u Jaslyn our our planning assistant has worked on uh for some time now. So that we have a visual exhibit of what open space is supposed to be. So this would talk about your choice as an applicant to develop in the traditional way which the Toll Brothers project that we just discussed is or the conservation route talks about the lot dimensions setting aside primary and secondary open space some other things we've talked about in workshops and etc etc over the past couple months. So without getting into the content of this exhibit, unless there are are strong opinions on it, this is getting rid of a se a reference that doesn't make sense to referencing a new exhibit in a section that does exist. And that's recommendation.

Looks good. Great job. Cas worth a thousand words. Yes. Do we need to get a motion on each one of these as we go through? Yep. We can go I'll go through even one even faster. Perfect. Well, I make a motion to accept the uh text amendment to section DO7 conditional zoning. Um on-site visit and shret process three. I should I point out the specific text? I got you. I think we're good. Second. A second. All in favor? Unanimous.

All right. That was B.

All right. Second reference um talks about D917A uh which talks about private roads and gate houses. Uh a directive of council is to remove any references that are ambiguous or say maybe or you should instead of you must. This would eliminate a reference to the greatest extent feasible in regards to um providing connection and compliance with exhibit 2B. So this eliminates the phrase to the greatest extent feasible uh and it changes the reference of when this would be required. So, if you guys remember, we would have subdivisions. We'd approve them or recommend them to the town council. The town council would decide or not decide to approve them. If it was approved, then they'd come back just to show us what the gate looked like.

That's an unnecessary step. This would say, you know, as part of your exhibit 2B application, basically saying as your part of your conditional zoning approval, you have to provide the design of your gate and what have you. So they don't have to come back twice. They can just provide that as part of their application and it's saying you have to do it, not that you should do it. Don't see any issues. Make a motion.

I make a motion to accept the text revision to d section D917 AG2 as presented. I get a second. I'll second. All in favor? I I moving right along, Greg.

All right, keep going. Uh, this is D917B. I don't have to explain what 917 A versus B versus C, D, and E are. We've talked about it at length. This would again remove reference to the greatest extent feasible and talk about your design of the neighborhood green. Uh this was a this is a current topic of discussion at a town council level as an item has been tabled twice. So I will not go into detail on that current application status. Um but there has been question about you know this is required versus it says to the greatest extent feasible. Now we're just saying it's required period. Um and then a compromise is that um existing trees um like in the thoroughare the shade the shade tree planting requirement still count. So as it's defined as a neighborhood green right now you have to space trees around the perimeter. It's defining them as new trees. This is saying that basically old trees or other tree standards can apply towards this neighborhood green. Again, let's not over complicate it. It's removing a reference to the greatest extent possible and saying you have to do it. I

I just got a couple questions. One, it probably should be worded a neighborhood green is required for each conservation res residential development. You know it the wording the way it was confused people when it just said neighborhood green required period. So a neighborhood green is required period each conservation residential development and should provide at least well I think the way that section is listed it's kind of aesthetically it's list. So number nine number nine neighborhood green required

right and then it's it's giving you a it's like a question for the UDO. Hey, is a neighborhood green required? Then it gives you the it gives you the output. And then it goes on to explain each conservation residential development should provide one sh at least one neighborhood green not less than 10,000. So that gives the that gives the details. And the other questions I have in reference to neighborhood greens, they can be built in the conservation area. It can be it can be part of open space um which is at least 50% and that 50% or greater has to be put in a conservation easement has to be conservation land. So

can't be primary like what we set aside first. So it can be it's going to be in the open space obviously of what's left but we wouldn't it might not be in the conservation area right it might be in between all the houses right the green I'm just getting to the point I'm trying to get to is is there any credit for this it's only a quarter of an acre a little bit less than a quarter of an acre is there any credit and the reason I'm saying that is because smaller subdivisions that credit may make a difference to a Are we going to are we giving any credit for this if it's not in the conservation area?

I'd say the intent is it to be centrally located and it's and no because we're removing the term the greatest extent feasible. We're not really giving them credit for it. We're saying you have to do it. Well, you have to do it. I I agree with that. You have to do it. But are you going to get anything? Are you going to get a quarter acre leeway maybe that which you could put another lot in? No. not not in a smaller subdivision. You know, this is for six acres or six houses or more. So, if it's eight houses, you have to put a neighborhood green in. You know what I'm saying?

So, I'm I'm just trying to say, are we going to give any There's no credit to give. There's no credit to give. If it's built in the conservation area, it's already credited, right? It's already in the credit area. This is not going to be a standalone lot that they would sell. It would be in the It would be in the common open space conservation by default, right? It just wouldn't be in the primary. And the credit they're going to give is actually letting you say don't mow over 10,000 square feet of trees to plant trees. We'll give you credit for your for the tree that are on the property on the property. Yeah, that has to. There's ne the never intent for neighborhood green was to give someone extra

uh density bonus or lot count bonus in the threshold of the zoning by default is is giving them something. It's giving them lots that are half the size of or now 20,000 20,000. Yes. But yeah. Any other discussion? Yeah. Good. We got a motion. I got a motion. I motion to accept uh uh recommend the council approval of the text change on section D917B L9 regarding um neighborhood greens. We got a second. I'll second it. All in favor? I I

two to one. It passes.

All right, last one. uh is uh talking about lots and flood planes. Uh I'll talk through this. Uh in your packet, there is a reference in this section right here that says 5,000 square feet. Uh let's just say the staff doesn't recommend that. I'm not pushing that forward. We'll keep that at 10. Staff's recommendation is we just get rid of this word basement. Even that's pretty that's about as minor of a text amendment as you can possibly do. U but that's what has been prevented to presented to staff and I think that's reasonable to remove the word basement but otherwise I wouldn't touch

twice basement and basement. So is that what you're saying? Just have it say it once. Yeah, it's that's basically removing the typo that says basement twice. All right. Can we get a motion? I make so the basement 917 DC is not part of this motion. The only part of this motion is removing the redundancy of the word basement. Right. Okay. I I uh make a motion to recommend approval by the town council of section D917E D. a duplicate word. Second. All in favor?

I I pass. So that concludes our new business. So now we are going back to our old business. Quick question. This is going to be a long discussion. Do we want to give any of our guests the opportunity to leave without being disruptive of the meeting? If y'all want to leave, you better go now. You got You guys don't don't enjoy sitting through these plants. Good call. It's a good call, Scott.

They're sitting there just waiting for this to be over. Been there, done that. All right. As we're chasing them out the door, uh, old business will be discussion of workshop regarding UDO section D917E, additional specific requirements for conventional residential development. Right.

And this is again us discussing about getting us a workshop to workshop to make sure everybody's on the same page. Correct, Greg? So, um, to go over this section, I got to go way back, so bear with me. My freaking Outlook crapped out on me.

Um, these were some of the previous text amendments we had proposed. Then we had holidays, storms, other acts of God that um ceased us from concluding this discussion. I think we addressed some of those issues by the things we just voted on. Um but some of the topics we discussed at our previous workshop u talked about steep slopes talked about primary conservation lands a very important term that the planning board and the town council need to use in reference to buildable area. Um and then you know changing some of the definitions of what is a yield plan, what consists of a yield plan, what deliverable is in the yield plan, uh etc., etc. So these were the exhibits provided. I think Rusty provided an email to us as a board that said, you know, we want to talk about the 25% as being defined as a steep slope. Um in this draft um provided by the planning board subcommittee, we eliminate steep slopes as something of a priority in secondary lands because we want them in what's defined as primary conservation lands and give that a new section. Um so very technical stuff that we haven't talked about in a couple months and we may be fuzzy on um because we forgot what we were talking about. But uh this brings back those exhibits that are provided in your packet. We're trying to distinguish between primary and not saying that they're unbuildable, but we don't want new lots to be in that area. We want that set aside as common open space. Um these are some of the

other references and code to that. So, um, Jaslin, our our planning assistant, put this together as well. Talks about a checklist for those areas. And this was our first draft of what those look like. you saw as the uh motion that we recommended earlier um as the D917A um or I'm sorry the D607C recommendation that we would provide a new kind of exhibit that improves upon this example um of primary and secondary. So um other changes that we talked about would be that open space as required of the percentage would be better defined in the appendix 2B which we worked on uh late last year. So this would add the term including the percentage of primary open space in that definition so that again people and applicants looking to provide their stuff know what we're looking for. they know what the yield plan should show. Again, distinguishing that primary and secondary land. The last exhibit I'll bring up, which I scroll through to get back to is just to reference what buildable area is as a term. So, we want to talk about primary and secondary open space is the stuff we want to conserve. This is stuff we want uh the builder to set aside when providing their plan and providing their plans. This is what buildable area and buildable land is defined as in code. Just so the public in the board knows what this is. Um so this is this could be added to the code but it is important just for you guys as technical experts to reference when people talk about you know what's the buildable area of a site plan. You can build the whole site. You can build out of a flood plane. You can build out of wetlands. You can build a

bridge over wetlands. You know everything's buildable. So that's not the appropriate term. We can drain a pond and build on it.

Yep. They can drain a pond just like our previous applicant just talked about. This is what buildable area means as codified. It's the building footprint. And so this is where if you can build your house, you can build as big you want. These are your setbacks. How far your home has to be away from the property lines. We want to conserve all of this area outside the dotted lines. But your front setback's going to be constrained by your utilities in your driveway. Your side setbacks are going to be constrained by your drains easements. But your backyard may be constrained by a drain easement, but otherwise should remain as it is. So when we talk about buildable area, we want to prioritize here. We want to set aside at least people's backyards. So when we talk about the term buildable area, this is what code has always said. This is what code has said since I started here. But what we want to reference now is this table which we just recommended for approval to the planning board that says, "Okay, when you pick which type of development you want to do, we want your yield plan to look like X or Y. These are the materials that you need to include in there." And so that's what we were discussing several months ago. Uh and that's what we're bringing up for discussion now, not necessarily as another text recommendation. Um, but this is a continuation of the discussion we had in November. With that, I would I would just open it for discussion with me.

The the drawing you had of I know we've always said we don't like to use buildable in our UDO. The only place buildable appears right now is within the tree ordinance. Um uh D917 A Q2B I double I and triple I down to it's a description. Can you put that drawing dead? If I'm understanding the intent text is already in the UDO table then just like table 8D puts it in a picture.

Let me just ask these are not very small questions but I'm going to ask them anyway. Uh, it says buildable area, but to me, I look at that and it it's a building pad, right? My house can go anywhere in that red. Correct. Building pad, building envelope. They're legally allowed to build this corner to that corner to front corner. Maybe building I like building envelope. Yeah. Yeah. I like building pad. The actual pad where the house is built. The building envelope. Building envelope is the whole entire thing. You can put your building pad anywhere in that building envelope, which is the buildable area legally by zoning. If you had to get outside that area, now you're violating zoning. You're coming for a barrier. It's asking for a side setback reduction

or something. So, in the context that he's using buildable area, buildable area, buildable envelope, but but I would say going to a picture is probably an easy resource for most. Yeah. So, I mean, I like I like your term buildable envelope because it basically defines it by the the setbacks versus buildable area. That envelope's got a cut out of it. Not really square. Well, they've been stealing bail everywhere. Stamps.

Yeah. So I thought uh if I remembered I thought we were one planning board members to make sure we understood the whole Z process of what this was. Uh, I believe if I'm not mistaken, Nancy was here at that time. And so I still think when we get a full deck of cards, it would be a good idea to to sit and run scenarios amongst oursel to make sure everybody understands what they're seeing, understands when you're saying buildable area. I know it's got to get right in here and everything that had on that text amendment is kind of a no-brainer and going to pictures. Um, but I'd still like to just make sure us as a whole, since we're the first step of kind of the technical, we know.

So, you want to have a workshop? Well, that's what I thought we were trying to do at this one point of this was thought Rusty was going to bring us handy dandy crayons and give us some I think pictures. Yeah, we were gonna cause draws, too. We did have a workshop already, did we? Yeah, we we did. And but I thought that was over going over this.

Yeah. Well, the the direction the direction the planning board was taken was um just as we defined in table 8, flood planes, hydric soils or affect ponds, steep slopes um are not are are I hate to use the term non-buildable, but they're primary conservation or primary open space. And then in a discussion with council members, um the council member said, "Well, I don't care if you got a 40,000 ft lot and if you've got steep slopes or a flood plane behind it and it's a 60,000 square foot lot, then that's okay." Well, that's a totally different direction than what the planning board was going. And after further discussion with the the council person, I thought we were back on the track of which to me is a simpler track of none of those defined um items can be on a uh a lot with the exception of that's why we have D917E in there.

Yeah. But that's in the subdivision. Yeah. Yeah. As as you newly create a subdivision. Right. Agreed. Because this is new, too. This is seen this before. Well, she's been she's been working on We saw the first version and knew that she was going to create some some pictures and some Yeah, this is basically taking the text and again putting a picture a lot better pictures than the one I put together that you guys gave me a bunch of crap over. So, Jasine did a great job.

So, yes. So, it's it's it's old business, so we had to bring it back up. But my hope was really just to get us back up to speed. I don't I'm don't think there's an urgency to to make a decision today particularly because we're missing a couple people. But so then we table the next meeting

or do you want to have a a discussion with the planning board workshop? I really think a workshop would be beneficial if we've got new planning and even right here between us. We've got a little bit of if you take one and just go from no time constraint. We can sit and talk and show from start to finish because again we're not trying to say that steep slopes in a yard is not what we want. But we're trying to get trying to make what land is usable in these conservations to be good land and not not go ahead and just get crap lots out of something especially with with conservation because you're already giving up smaller. It just is better use of if if you're going to go with a smaller lot. Um do do we have a time frame on the ticket seat being filled? Um, it'll be appointed at the March meeting.

So, we want to meet after that. So, are you because that way we can make sure Rusty gets here, Amanda gets here, and then Are you visualizing a planning board work session? I don't know. I mean, I would So, here's where I get lost in this whole thing of being formal and law. I would want to be able to get around here and I can show things, say what I want to say, you say what you want to say, draw pictures, but we don't we're not constrained with keeping everybody at time at night. I mean, even if we could, are we allowed to do it during a day? Yeah.

Where we have time so that when we do have one like toll comes, everyone sitting here looking can give technical input and understands the process, not confused that, oh, I thought it couldn't be steep slopes, but you can have steep slopes. And then we're

is can't speak the council, but is the is the council clear on the policy they want us to develop these texts for regarding um steep slopes, ponds, flood planes because like I said, I thought as planning board we were going down one road. Yeah, I I think it'd be good to have a a uh work session just so we can talk what about this, what about that, we can get that info,

we can nail down, but I think the question before that is is that the policy direction the council wanted us to go. So if the plan the policy direction and how are we giving input as well I'm saying let's get what the policy direction is is is the council's policy that none of these items can be on a lot. They can be in primary conservation land or are they looking at something different? No, they can be on the lot. A minimum 40,000 square foot lot.

Yeah. Well, you can't say it can't completely be because I mean, you might only be talking six acre track of land. So, I mean, we're we're not in a perfect world here. We've got to be able to Yeah, that's the we come to dance with for everything. Yeah. Right. Right. Yes. But if you capture it and then while it's conditional, it's conditional kind of smooths that over. Yeah. But but honing it in if we don't understand it does nothing for us I think uh to make sure we understand we want to schedule a workshop but we can get direction from council for the workshop I say their input. Yes.

What is the what is it the council wants regarding this topic? Because like I said, I thought we okay, here's what council wants and we were going that direction, but then after discussion with a council member, I said, well, wait a minute, that that's not the way the planning board is developing these texts. So, so do we direct the mayor to get with council to figure out what what direction they're so that they can come back to us? Sure. It would sure help. I mean, just make sure the council's aligned. We're trying to develop text for their policy, but

if there's not clarity of what the policy is among members, then we can't do anything. You want to do it during the day? Well, I just want to have we ain't trying to keep everybody here at night. It's going on 9:00. Do it at like five or something like that. 4. Yeah, maybe like at 4:00. We can bat around one time because we're going we have member we don't know need to check Amanda to check Rusty's schedule. I mean we put the date out there. Sometime in April after I mean I'd love to get

March we get a new member. April will be our first meeting with the member. Uh no March they get sworn in. Right. Yeah. And they'll be here. Okay. So, April be When's the next council meeting before this March 9th? This is February's meeting. Okay. So, staff staff's feedback is we we should wait till we have our full counsel. I think we want to respect the input of our new appointed member. Um, you said full counsel. You mean full board?

Full board. Yes, sir. Yeah. And then uh I'm jumping ahead a little bit, but in terms of updates and things, uh we do have a variance request that has been formally submitted. So we would have a board of adjustment meeting prior to the planning board in March. So that will be kind of a long day. Yeah. Having a workshop separate from that has value. I think April's the Yeah. target will be to be determined. Okay. I just feel council have enough time to give us directive

two two meetings I think before that. So they would have time to do that. Give our chance to be sworn in and not thrown into a big mess of technical jargon. Yes. And uh who was on our board of adjustments? I'm done with you. I know. Well, I just want to make sure that they know that they need to be here for that. Uh it's nice everybody. Well, it seems like it's been hard now. Yeah. Stephen are alternates.

So, one one of us is not going to be an alternate because NY's off. I thought it just changed already. I just want to make sure that we let the other board members know that priority or let us know way ahead of time.

I mean once we get I'll say a clear direction from the council on this topic as part of our workshop. We're probably also going to have to factor into this the 25% slope that Rusty brought up as a question because if it's going to be something other than 25 foot slope that's going to impact the UDO as we're trying to put it together. I know we've been working on this for a long time. It's important we get it right. But I go back through my notes to July of last

confused. Are we council directing us to do away with 25% steep slope? No. No. R Well, I don't know what council is directing us on. Rusty brought it up as a topic of the um of the retreat and I didn't hear the council say appreciate your input, Rusty, but no, we're keeping Steve I don't know whether that is whether that's something we need to to factor in discussion. Yeah, it'd be good for Rusty to defend his stance and let Rusty say what he's got to say too with him.

Yeah. Yeah. Because that that that's basically doing setting the polic incorporate the policy that whatever the council wants. We want to be singing off the same sheet of music using the same terms and knowing what deliverable is provided by the applicant for their yield plan. So what they're taking out is, you know, clearly shown and defined as primary or secondary. That's what we're looking to to get to. But there's differing opinions and yeah, but I thought we did a pretty good job of that. I guess maybe we were headed down a different road. Well, that's what you're now telling.

I I don't Well, I don't know. We got to hear from the council. We all thought we were going one way. We got to get council to confirm what it is because like I said, I got notes. I think it was July of last year, we were having discussions on this. And at our last council meeting, which several months ago because we've missed like two because of bad weather or different things like that, we the planning board made recommendations on the definition of um primary open space. Yeah. Right.

Yes. And we just basically we're going to take what was in primary conservation land meeting would be to all right this everyone on board recommend approval to the council and um I honestly thought that's where we were with that. Well, I thought that's where we were too. I just thought there was some of that people didn't quite understand what we were saying that were on the board. That's where I was saying get the clarification with the good work. So yeah, on the is there is there any reason I mean we're talking in circles a little bit. Is there any reason not to hold this off until we get some clarity from council and new members?

That's what we're going to do. Especially if our dog got Yeah, there's really no discussion left. Yeah. As opposed to where we additional zoning even though this is not in the UDO yet. the council can in effect make it part of the UDO as conditional zoning, but I think the quicker we can get it resolved, get everything in black and white. All right. So, do we make a motion to table to April and a date to be determined? Does that make sense? Can I get a motion? So moved. A second. All in favor? I

Ah, see Easter. All right, moving on to an update from our town planner.

Keep this succinct so we can get out here by 9. Uh the uh town council tabled their current agenda item that's now been pushed to March. That creates kind of a log jam of stuff for them. But I would anticipate a lot of projects coming before you guys. Our intention is to batch text amendments. So, we don't have text amendments every month other than the one we just discussed, but we do have a lot of development interests that would be coming before you in the next several months. So, uh just keep that in mind in terms of attendance that uh we have several other applicants in the queue that are waiting development item at the town council to be resolved before they can uh apply and go for you guys. That's all I'll comment on for that.

All right. Uh the board member comments. Scott, you got anything? Uh no, I just want to thank um everyone for being here and being interested in in what we do as a first step to moving things along. Um making Weddington all live in now and the place that we want to continue to live in. Um, I want to thank the staff for their hard work and thank the members of planning board for for all of our input. Steve, I'll ditto that further comments.

I'll ditto that. I do see we have three of the council members here. So, looking forward to the council providing some very good clarity so we can get this topic put to bed. Awesome. Well, I did owe likewise. Really especially like our staff and thankful for people that showed showed up. So with that, we get a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Journ.