Town Council - Regular Meeting

with an invocation, please.

Let us pray. Our Heavenly Father, we just thank you for this opportunity to serve. We ask that we do this with a servant's heart, that you give us wisdom, that we will deliberate well, make good decisions for the town. In Christ's name we pray, amen. Amen. Amen.

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Now I'll call the meeting to order. And first off, we have some public comments. Kelly Rusk. Hi, Kelly. Welcome again.

Mr. Mayor and members of the Town Council, thank you again for your time here to speak about the Westone Motel, a favorite topic of mine because we care so much about the protection of our children. And again, I'm encouraging you and here to fortify you with the community for when the time comes, if the developer decides to move forward with this proposal, that you deny the abandonment of Westone Drive. And I look no further than our own town of Charlotte. In late May, I don't know if you saw the news. It was a major police bust. After over 600 calls from police to a single motel, a major, major gun trafficking and other kinds of trafficking operation was occurring, and they shut it down with the help of the FBI. The amount of strain it put on the police force in that area, 600 calls, and imagine what would happen in our neighborhood given the seclusion of where the proposal is, is daunting. for our children and for their safety. So we encourage you beyond not abandoning Whetstone Drive. If the developer decides to proceed forward with this, to be very strong in the site planning process, to leverage crime prevention through environmental design standards, to maximize security and safety for our children, to ensure that flow from in and out, the transitory flow that's gonna come through the neighborhoods to the motel, that we have safety. Again, an increased police force presence would be very welcome in our neighborhoods. We would feel that it would be most appropriate if the motel was to go forward, that we could have a regular patrol and a regular presence right at the entrance to Chestnut Oaks in particular. That's across the street from Whetstone Motel. So these are reasonable protections we hope to have in place. We are hoping that the developer sees that this location is just not viable for a motel, given that it's not near a big commercial area. And again, the community thanks you for your time and service. We are continuing now and escalating to a national campaign focused on the developer. So in the coming weeks, you'll see more of that. But again, we are focused wholly on where the developer stands and trying to get them to reconsider this location, not only for their own business purposes, but for their own reputation. Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly. Next up, Karen Knutson.

Once again, Mayor and Town Council, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Back to talk about my neighborhood Willowbrook and the continuing damage we are seeing from the construction with them burying their fiber optic lines, the conduit. We've had additional damage since I was here about a month ago. We've had a major gas leak, continued internet outages, ongoing damage to irrigation systems. We have a road that is damaged, and I'm not sure the status on that right now. And then over the weekend, after the rain we had Thursday night, by Saturday we had seven sinkholes develop in areas that were dug. And a neighbor discovered them walking her dog Friday night. A 65 pound dog fell into a hole, a sinkhole. And he was not injured, thank goodness. So we notified Kinetic immediately, Saturday. We heard back from them. They said they'd send somebody out and take care of it today. But the only markings that have been put out are, I took cones from our neighborhood pool and marked the sinkholes in people's yards that I found. And those are still there. And none of the holes have been covered up. So they are... They've indicated they plan to be out, an email Saturday said next Monday, so I'm assuming that's next week, but I'm not 100% certain there. And we continue to have yard repairs needing to be reported. They've overseeded and put straw out, but we're in a drought, we have water restrictions, and fescue goes dormant in the summer, so no one has any real hope of anything happening with the repairs they're making to the yards. And my one question I kind of posed to my cousins over the weekend, and I think he shared with Alex, was who at Stallings is determining that the repairs that have been made are adequate for them to move on with their construction efforts in the community because they continue to maintain they're going to leave it better than we found it. And that's, we're finding that not to be the case. So it's just more of the same. I find it discouraging that the gentleman who's in charge of the subcontractors has accused some of our neighbors of misrepresenting and actually quote unquote lying about damages to their homes and their yards and things like that and it's turns into quite a little bit of a battle to get them to come and fix things so but it continues so hopefully they'll be gone soon because we are ready for them to be out of our neighborhood oh the next one will be along though probably it's like our neighborhood yeah i know um i think mike talked to kevin parker with regard to what's coming next i think shanamara and hunley creek are google fiber I think Kinetic's due to go in Country Woods East, and I think Google Fiber's going into Emerald Lake. Those are the ones that are teed up right now, but we are aware that this is going to be ongoing.

I'm one of those that has dirt in their front, rolling down the yard.

They've been boring, and it's created quite a mess.

Thank you for keeping us up to speed with those. The next one is Ann Curtis, but I see you're also on the public hearing for the rezoning project or parcel, so.

That's the only one I wanna talk on.

Okay, I'll hold your, or put you off of this one and put you over there. You already are. Anyone else that forgot to sign or didn't sign up for public comments?

I'm also with Courtyard and Emerald Lane.

You'll have a public hearing for that one will be shortly. Anyone else for general public comments? All right. Agenda approval is next.

Mayor, I move we approve the agenda as written. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Good deal. Ridge, you're up. CZ26.02.02, the Lawyers Road Commercial Project. I will open the public hearing and ask Staff Ridge to come up and present.

Hello.

Hello.

Just give me one second. Hello, council. Today I am presenting conditional rezoning application CZ 260202, Lawyers Road Commercial Office. This conditional zoning request is a proposed non-residential commercial and office development on approximately 1.23 acres located at 14721 Lawyers Road. The request seeks to rezone the property from single family residential one to conditional zoning mixed use two. We had a neighborhood meeting on March 31st, a planning board meeting on May 19th, and today is our town council hearing. This is just the aerial and street view of the property. So this little pale piece is what's proposed to be rezoned. To provide some context, the site plan has gone through multiple revisions throughout the review process. The initial proposal had a building located along the left side of the parcel because it is a triangle parcel. There was no sidewalk and there was a reduced buffer along the courtyards at Emerald Lake. adjacent property and there was no connection stub. Following staff and subcommittee comments, the applicant revised the site plan to include the building location to the right portion of the parcel, a type D buffer along the parking lot on the lawyer's road frontage, an added outdoor patio area, and a connection stub to the adjacent parcel on the left. The current site plan, which you have in front of you, And conditions have been revised following the planning board recommendations and concerns from neighbors, including buffering, screening, building placement, parking location, and impacts to adjacent residences. These revisions following those concerns include a five-foot sidewalk along Lawyers Road, as well as an increased buffer adjacent to the courtyards on Greenway, which is this side over here. That would be a 28-foot type B buffer with a six-foot wooden fence. These revisions are not currently shown on the site plan, but they're included in the conditions of the rezoning, so they still have to happen. They're just not on the current site plan. Additionally, the proposed conditions do continue to prohibit smoke, vape, hookah lounge, and CBD uses as included in the original application. Again, this is just a project summary. It is 14721 Lawyers Road. The current zoning is single family residential one. It's currently vacant. It's 1.23 acres. And just as a side note, this is the The side of that parcel and this is the closest Parcel to court yards at Emerald Lake and it is a 220 foot. I'm sorry tree buffer It's to around 220 to 230 feet right here From the parcel that's currently being proposed to rezoned and the next resident a lot liner from the house to lot line to lot line So this lot line here to these lot lines here. The future land use designation for this PARP sole is suburban multifamily neighborhood, which is intended to accommodate residential developments such as townhomes, apartments, condominiums, and age-restricted housing. The planning board recommended denial of CZ 260202. The board's concerns included the lack of a sidewalk along Lawyers Road, insufficient buffering adjacent to the courtyards at Emerald Lake, and including the site layout with the parking located in front of the building, and also the proposal's inconsistency with the future land use plan. Staff currently recommends approval of CZ 260202. Although the request is not fully consistent with the adopted future land use plan, the applicant has revised the proposal to include a sidewalk along Lawyers Road and increased buffering adjacent to the courtyards at Emerald Lake. Staff finds that these changes improve the compatibility with the surrounding development along the Lawyers Road corridor, including across the street, and supports the town's 2030 economic development plan. Any questions for me?

Rich, can you go back to the map that showed the 230, or 220 to 230?

Yeah, I can actually pull this up for you a little bit better.

So what is the zoning of that property there, and is there any potential for future development, or is that a wetland?

So this is that parcel. It is currently owned by the courtyards at Emerald Lake. They're HOA. And so it's conditionally zoned.

So they could expand their development and put something, houses or something in there?

I don't think they can. Not without an additional conditional zoning on top of it.

There's a sewer back there.

There is a sewer easement that is right here.

It's a big sewer easement.

Any other questions?

Didn't you in the packet have some renderings of what's proposed?

That is on the applicants. We're going to look at that in a minute. Yeah, so they can show you that.

Is the applicant here?

He is, yep.

And he can come up and. Would you say, Bridget, that he has a plan that is gonna show us the sidewalk?

So we don't currently have a site plan that shows the sidewalk, but it is included in the conditions of it, so they have to place the sidewalk in. It's just not on the site plan currently.

Can you show us on here where it would be? Sure.

Let me zoom in here a little bit. So if you look right here, it would be along this frontage right here, a five foot sidewalk. Right here.

That's the road? Yes, this is Lawyer's Road right here. So would it be adjacent to the road?

Yes, so it would be like, if you look here, it would be right here where my cursor's moving down. It would be right against the road.

Is there going to be something buffering the sidewalk from the road?

I think that would come in during site plan review. I don't think we have anything currently in the conditional zoning that requires a certain buffer from it.

There would be a landscape buffer. A landscape buffer, yeah. But we haven't determined how many feet that would be away because it's not part of the conditional zoning. We didn't request that of the applicant. All we requested is them to comply with the five foot sidewalk requirement of the ordinance.

Okay, thank you.

Would the sidewalk potentially be affected by future widening of Lawyers Road?

I don't know of any future Lawyers Road widening. If it is, I'm not sure.

Hold the comments down from the audience, please. Anything else, guys, gals, gal? Gals and people. All right. We'll hear from the applicant.

Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council, Stallings, town officials and everyone in this room. My name is Yuri Vorobets and I'm presenting rezoning petition GZ 260202. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow for the development of commercial and office 6,000 square feet space. During our required community subcommittee and planning board meetings, we engaged with nearby residents and officials to discuss the conditional site plan and address their questions. We believe We believe this rezoning aligns with the City's business plan and will serve as a positive addition to the local area and community. We respectfully request your approval of this petition and are available to answer any questions you or the Council may have after the finish of the PowerPoint presentation. I was going to go over the conditions, but Bridge has covered all of them in great detail, so I'm going to jump into the PowerPoint presentation. Page down? Just scroll.

Just scroll?

Yeah, there you go. Okay. This is an aerial plan which is similar to what BRAGE has presented to us. Just gives a different perception overview and this is a black and white presentation which was presented earlier. And this is the slide which shows actually after the Checking the square footage, it's 1.25 acres, which is not that big of a difference. And the distance between the boundary is around 230 square feet. I mean, 30 feet. On the left-hand side, this is the property line, which is right here on the far right corner. I decided to take some pictures to really show you all the... the layout and the position of the property because pictures will show a lot more than any words can describe a property since the concerns were about the landscape trees and logs and stuff. This line represents exact line from here to here. As you can see, 99.9% of the trees are located outside of the property I'm presenting. Again, I have shoot some videos. I'm not sure if I could play video here Probably not But this also depicts the properties layout and property line Elevation that it's not anywhere higher from the from the Community in the back and this is from inside out as well As you can see, there aren't any serious green trees that will be cut down for this project. Here's more pictures. This is the right side. This is where the old garage stays as of right now. And this is the same picture on the right hand side. And this is the left side. What we have in mind is, is to build a nice brick building. One option is to go with modern style, which is similar to this. Obviously, this is not brick building, but it will be a brick building. Or to go with a conventional style building. We, by any means, want to downgrade the beautiful place in the Stallings-Matthew area. The interior of one of the businesses that we plan to engage is the coffee shop. This is my wife. She's a great baker and I told her many times to cut down because I need to lose 20 pounds. This is the interior that we plan to develop. easy on ice, pleasant interior, soft music inside for people to come and enjoy themselves. These will be the collars. We've made a decision to go with these collars, if it's approved, to stand out for interior design elements, to incorporate natural materials and textures to create warm and inviting atmosphere, soft lighting, and also encourage conversations from local community. These are some some of the goodies that will be presented at the coffee shop. The coffee shop will not occupy the whole building. We're planning to go 2,500 square feet with 35 for other perhaps financial, like my background is, or medical, like my sister's background is. So it just depends on, or legal, like my cousin's background is. We don't know. So I really thank every one of you for giving me the chance to present something that I think would be unique for the city, town, people. It may not be in line with everyone's vision, but I think for the majority of people, and I hope that I speak from the majority of people, we don't want anything but peace. We don't want anything... to disturb the neighborhood. And as you can see, the distance from the boundary line to the boundary line, in fact, when I was buying the property, I had no idea that it was that far. I thought that it was cutting way closer into the mainland, let's just say. But distance is pretty significant, and I hope, with true intentions, having three kids, placing strong emphases on security, safety, and coordination amongst community, I'll be the last person to bring in something that would disturb, discourage, create chaos, but peace and blessings. So thank you so much. Thank you very much. Any questions?

No samples tonight?

It's her fault. Okay, okay. No, no, we couldn't do that.

Are you saving any trees on the site plan?

I think on the far right corner, there are beautiful trees, and I don't think there is any need for, in fact, this is the area where those oak trees are on the right-hand side.

Down the map, where you're going to have trees.

Yeah, sure, sure. It would not be wise to cut them down, because, I mean, they've been there for years, and See, like, right here on this picture, right here, this tree right here?

Yeah.

This is a beautiful oak tree.

Where is that?

It's right here. It's, like, to the left right here. Yeah. But see, this line goes straight up. There's a tree right here. It's a dead tree, completely dead. So that tree will have to come down.

Okay, will that be on the plan? Would you say, Bridge?

They have tree safe.

Yeah. They do have it. Okay. I didn't see it. I think it's on the plan. And where is the connection stub to the north?

It's to the left. Go ahead. If you want, I can show you.

Yes.

Here would be the connection.

WHAT? IN THE BACK CORNER?

YES, THAT'S TRACY RIGHT THERE.

OKAY, OKAY, YEAH. I SAW THAT. I JUST WANTED, I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING OUT FRONT.

AND YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE GOING TO, IT'S GOING TO BE BRICK. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO COMMIT TO MAKING IT the style match the Harris Teeter Shopping Center so that it's not... Exactly what I was thinking.

Not to walk away from that style so that it's uniform, not to stand out by any means. In fact, there is a new business that was built recently on the left-hand side.

So I was thinking that... Yeah, the whole shopping center seems to have those teeth going, so it'd be nice if that's a consistent look. I don't know if we want that as a condition or not. Can we?

I don't know.

Mack. You can, as long as the applicant proposes it and agrees to it.

Would you be willing to agree to that? Yeah, absolutely. It's going to be brick building, for sure. Okay. Rick and similar appearance? Similar, yeah.

That's what we were talking with my wife, in fact. Okay. All right.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Bridge, I think we'll get more.

No, I was just bringing up the statement of consistency and reasonableness.

We're going to get to public comments first. Yes. So I have three folks and Curtis. Lead off, please.

I prepared something this time, so I'm not going off the top of my head. Thank you, Mayor, members of the Town Council for letting me speak today. I am here to share my concerns regarding the proposed conditional rezoning of the 1.23 acres located at 14721 Lawyers Road, particularly because of the direct impact it will have, your decision will have on the residents of the courtyards. I am the one house that's the closest to it, so when you looked at the map, Mine was the one that butted up against and the closest, and it's about 222 feet the last time I measured. I'm not opposed, and I want to make sure that I'm really clear on this, for commercial development in Stallings or in this area. We have to grow. It's important to Stallings, and I know it's a hard balancing act. At the same time, growth should also honor and protect our neighborhoods. that are already part of the town. This parcel is a unique situation. It's small. It probably can't have a huge building on it. It's triangular shape. There's limitations for the layout, the traffic, the buffering. But the rear boundary does sit 222 feet from my house, not my property, my house. And so that concerns me. The means of the property is not just a commercial property there. It's really going to be a transition point, I believe, in the commercial activity we continue to go through as we grow. For the residents who live behind the site, myself included, the outcome of the rezoning will be felt in very practical ways. What we can see from our yard, what we hear during the day and evening, how much light reaches our home, and whether the neighborhood continues to feel safe, peaceful, and residential. These are reasonable concerns, and I believe that they can be addressed in a thoughtful, constructive way before any approval is actually finalized. With that in mind, I respectfully ask the board to acquire substantial undisturbed buffer along the full residential boundary, supported by an opaque fence or masonry wall, but having year-round evergreens that can grow quickly and use as a screen as well. These protections are practical and reasonable, especially for the parcel that sits so close to our homes. We also ask that the building, and I believe it is in the plans to be oriented and faced toward Lawyers Road, and that the parking, dumpsters, loading is not behind the building at all. I'm also asking that if we can look at the lighting and the noise protection that are clear and easy to understand, including being fully shielded, downward facing lights so there's no spillover, reasonable limits on late night operations. I don't think he's planning that. No outdoor amplified sound and then restrictions on the higher impact usage, either late night and high traffic retail areas. and I don't think his is gonna be a part of that. These would help ensure development remains compatible with our homes that are directly behind it. But most importantly, I really ask that these protections be included in a clear enforceable conditions of approval. and reflected on the final site plan, as this plan has changed over several occasions. So this is the third developed plan that we've seen, and each one has been different. Written conditions, I believe, will provide the clarity that I would prefer, the applicant probably wants, you guys want the board, and then my fellow neighbors as well. It will also help ensure the good intentions discussed during the time frame that we've met in the rezoning process will be carried forward and honored for. I do believe there's a path forward that supports this growth while also protecting the integrity and the peace of our established neighborhood. Not as established as some of the neighborhoods, but we're getting there. Those goals, we can all work together and the right expectations are set. I respectfully ask that the rezoning not be improved unless the neighborhood protections, are included in binding conditions of approval. Thank you for listening. And if you have any questions for me, I'd be open to answer.

Thank you very much. Next up would be Larry Lawrence Crank.

Hello.

LET ME BRIEFLY INTRODUCE MYSELF. I'M A RETIRED ACCOMMODITION. AND AS A DEAN IN 40 YEARS, I'VE BEEN ON CAMPUS-WIDE PLANNING. I'VE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR PROJECTS IN BUILDING. have dealt with such things as Chicago construction, which would put anything to shame for its wrangling, corruption, and politics. But I'm retired, and I live in the courtyards. And I think probably the proposal, as presented with some clarification tonight, I did not know about the sidewalk, the proposed fencing. And I think Anne has just highlighted some of the concerns of the neighborhood. I also think we could do worse in the use of the property. And I don't want to fault it so much because it's somewhat removed. I would fault this council. and the Stallings government for its past neglect in relationship to development by allowing developers to strip mine our neighborhoods, tear down trees at random right up to the street lines, tear down our green spaces without proper zoning when we could have had green strips between developments. And that process is going on right now in the EPCON development just across the street where we've all had to endure the noise and the filth and the pollution coming across. And again, the stripping of the greenery that we used to enjoy. And I would ask this board to look at that context of the zoning proposal before you rather than just the proposal. Because there is a creek bed. There's a natural forest. There used to be wildlife. You have allowed EPCON to use its zoning right-of-way for a sewage disposal area that's stripped 30 square feet width through what used to be a rather nice walkway through the woods and stuff to something bleak and plain. with no planting whatsoever. You've taken 10 feet now from that same wood area by a right of way to the right of Lawyers Road. You plan to put in, if this is approved, a walkway further reducing, and by my estimate, we will have lost 55 linear feet of woodlands that used to protect us from the noise levels of the shopping center, and increasingly, the noise level unmonitored of Lawyers Road, with three additional entries and the addition, without proper planning from the North Carolina Transportation Department, of right of ways to a right of extension of the road for a turning lane. Now somehow, the planning that Stalingrad is doing has to come up to the standards of other cities that are growing and face similar problems, and you have to do better. And my disagreement is not precisely with the proposal. My disagreement is with the council and the planning and the lack of proper zoning for green spaces and the spacing. So when I looked at the plans, I looked at the context of how much green space would be left. And the proposal doesn't infringe upon that as much as you've let EPCON run ragged over there. So what I would propose that you do is take this Zerling project into the context of what to do with the natural creek bed, wetlands, and forest area to do a little conservancy on your public's part. Save that woods as much as possible. Keep the noise protection that we have and insist as you have not done, that when you strip 55 feet of woodlands away from our neighborhood, that there's not a single tree planted to replace any greenery or any noise abatement. Shame on such planning. And we pay the price with fireworks over in the mall, with lights that go and come through the woods, the increased noise of lawyers and the increase without proper zoning, without proper spacing, and without proper intervention of you as our local government that we're dependent on. do better jobs for us, please.

Can I just ask you what you're talking about?

We will have conversation back and forth at this point.

All right.

Thank you.

Later.

That's exactly, later. This is the conversation that we listen to you folks who want to speak. And William Burke is next up. William Burke.

Gotcha.

Who wants to speak for him?

Me. Karen. I just have one question. Why is there, given the development going in across Lawyers Road from Emerald Courts, why is there not any traffic impact analysis? I understand this is a small parcel and probably limited traffic, but when you start looking at all this cumulatively... Karen, if I might interrupt. Okay, that's fine.

I'm trying to catch your eye. I'm not trying to be rude, but we're doing a public hearing on this one project tonight. We'd love to answer that question for you either at the next meeting or email me or staff, and we'll get that answer to you. But tonight, you want to speak? Yes, sir. Your name?

I'm Larry Pinocchi.

My wife is the president of the courtyards of Herma Lake. She couldn't be here, unfortunately.

I just spelled the last name again.

F-I-N-O-C-C-H-I. And she's unfortunately out of town, so she asked me to come in. Your address, please. 1020 Avalon Place. Thank you. Sure. I really have to apologize, but my technology failed me a little. I wanted to show you all a photograph of the reality, and I hope you can share this a little bit. This is a photo looking directly perpendicular to Lawyer's Road. That's a favorable angle that was shown by the applicant. As you can see, you can see the back of houses already. That's a result of the original buffer area that was required under the UDO was compromised because a 30-foot clear-cut path was installed afterwards by the Union County sewer. So that buffer has been seriously compromised. And I think you can see from the photo is there's not many trees left between Lawyers Road and the back of her house. Also, if you'll look at the elevation, you'll notice that the six-foot fence, although I'm sure it's a significant expense to the applicant, And it's useless. As far as a line of sight, she's looking down onto this property. So the six foot fence is not gonna be a visual barrier, not effective. Also the sidewalk, interesting going back to Lawrence's comment, Town of Stallings did not require EPCON on our neighborhood to put a sidewalk across the full frontage of our neighborhood, only half of it. From our entrance to one end, there's a sidewalk. From our entrance to this property, there is no sidewalk. I'm not sure what the logic was there, but as a result, the sidewalk, again, a considerable expense to the applicant. It's gonna be of no benefit to us since it won't connect with anything we have, all right? So I think, although I think there's the best of intentions here, I don't think we're fixing anything. And we certainly have caused, just as a result of various government decisions, has caused serious harm to the people who are now looking at this situation and hoping that you'll deny this request. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That takes care of our public comments, so I will.

Mayor, before you close the public hearing, can we have a discussion about the vote issue?

Absolutely.

With only four voting members of the council here tonight, state law requires that to pass this or, frankly, anything else on tonight's agenda, it will take all four of you voting in the affirmative to pass anything. The rule is either a majority of the actual membership of the council, or in some cases tonight, two-thirds of the actual membership of the council, and both of those with six members works out to be four. So before you close the hearing, out of fairness, you might want to offer the applicant the opportunity to continue the public hearing to a future meeting where there are more than four members seated.

Mack McCarley is sitting in tonight for our town attorney, and he is a highly renowned expert in land use law, so we're always welcome. Welcome, Mack, when he comes to help us out. So there you have it. Would you like to table it or go forward tonight? Mack, if it does not pass with four, what happens?

Unless the council actually passes a motion to deny it, It is still alive, and you could take it up again later.

So if there's not four votes, it could roll over to the next meeting.

I will work with the planning staff to see whether or not we think an additional advertisement would be required. But yes, it's not dead.

It should be made in the affirmative.

I always request that the motion be in the affirmative so that we have a clear idea of whether it passed or not.

So if it does not pass with four tonight, it's extremely likely it'll be on next month's meeting. For a vote, we'll more than likely have the additional full contingent. Yes, come on up.

Just a quick comment to the last presenter. I consider myself a very honest person, and my record speaks for itself. I never try to evade, hide, or steal or present incorrect information. To the last presenter, as far as the fence looking down, that is not a true statement because the level or the... There is no... sloping from the property, from the lawyer's property towards the back of the community. In fact, it's the reverse. This property sits below or, if anything, right at the same level. That's why I shoot that video for you, ladies and gentlemen, just to see it instead of me expressing myself and defending, and that's the least thing I would like to do. but hence we can play that video and you could see that it really, there is no slope looking down on the property in the back, absolutely. And having the fence and like I say, the trees that are on the property, there are hardly any trees. I didn't take any favorable pictures. I mean, I took both sides. I took left side, and I took right side, and I took the center side, and I shoot the video from all sides of the property. I mean, I hope I don't sound like O.J. Simpson, but...

I think the question is, I think the mayor was asking, did you want to...

Yes, I understood. I think I would... Let me talk to my wife quickly and see what, I'll explain to her what it means and just give me a few seconds, if you would, please.

Mayor, the other question I would have for the board is whether or not you want to work on any of the requested conditions. We've done a draft of the architectural commitment that Mr. Hall asked about. I'll check that with both. Ms. Sheehy and with the planning director, and we're ready for that one. But if there are any of the other conditions that were requested that you want to ask the applicant to agree to, now would be the time to do that. Anything further?

None for me, Mayor.

No, Mayor. I believe putting in the fence and expanding the... barrier, the buffer, met some of the concerns. It's 200 and some feet. And then 20 more. That's huge.

Okay, let's postpone to July 13th meeting.

Postpone?

Yes, please.

All right. Thank you. In that case, I would suggest that you continue the public hearing to that meeting. All right.

I need a motion, folks.

I'll make a motion to continue a public meeting on the public hearing for CZ 26.02.02 for July 13th.

That's our meeting in July?

Yes, ma'am.

Go to first. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion to continue the public hearing passes.

Thank you. Yes. I'm sorry, we did not hear who seconded that. I don't know.

The voice from the right. No. All right.

Thank you.

No, thank you. I mean, yes. Thank you, too, though, for presenting, and thank you all for coming out tonight for this issue. Next on the agenda is TX26.05.01, a minor telecommunications formatting fix. I'll open the public hearing, and Katie, you're up.

And, Matt, just to clarify that, all four votes in the affirmative is for text amendments as well, right?

Yes. Everything on tonight's agenda is going to require four affirmative votes to pass.

Okay.

Just wanted to make sure.

So I'm going to be really mean and just not approve anything tonight.

If that's the case, would we be... prudent to just set aside everything or go through it one by one and decide at the time.

I think the minor formatting is gonna.

Pros and cons. The argument in favor of doing that is so that the two absent members tonight would be present for the public hearing and would hear all of the details of it rather than having to simply either look at a recording or read the minutes. The con is that I don't think a couple of these are very controversial. Exactly, that's what I was just thinking. I might be able to move forward with that.

Is anyone here today for a public comment for this particular issue, the telecommunications formatting fix, which essentially is to bring us in compliance with one of the state laws regarding this issue?

It's a reasonable one to move forward with.

Yes. So we'll move forward. Public hearing is open. Staff, I mean, Kelly, I mean, Katie, whoever.

All right. So this is text amendment TX260501, where staff is proposing an amendment to Article 10 of the Stallings Development Ordinance. This is to correct one of the wireless telecommunication facility standards that is missing from our ordinance. In June of 2021, staff completed an amendment upload of the development ordinance to our website. And prior to this upload, Article 10.1-34 listed the additional standards for telecommunication facilities. These regulations are required by North Carolina General Statute 160D, and during that ordinance upload, a technology glitch occurred that caused a formatting error which resulted in those standards no longer being in Article 10. The removal of these standards was unintended and was not an approved action by Council.

So Katie, if it was inadvertently taken out and they were supposed to be there, Help me understand why, I mean, if it was just a technology glitch and it was supposed to be there, is it just because we're changing the numbering?

Yeah, partially because we're changing the numbering, and since it's been so long, since it hasn't been in the ordinance, it's adding something back in that it needed council's approval.

Gotcha. Just to be sure. Just to be sure.

Cover all our bases. Okay, yeah. But staff proposes to change Article 10.1-34 back to its original state as the standards for telecommunication facilities. And these standards are word from word from the development ordinance before June of 2021. No new information has been added or removed from the ordinance in that standard. Okay. And this update also requires the renumbering of one other additional standard that would be relocated to the end of this article. And the number for that would be changed to 38 instead of 34. And that is the only thing being changed about that entire section. This also requires a corresponding update to Article 8 where it shows those additional standards. It's just changing that 34 to the 38 to match the new relocated number. And Planning Board did recommend approval of the proposed text amendment and staff also recommends approval of TX260501 because this amendment corrects a formatting error in the Stallings Development Ordinance while also restoring its compliance with state statutes. Any questions?

Any questions, council?

I just want to tell you that I had to read that twice. The first time, you know, I'm thinking, what does pawn shops have to do with it? But I got it. I'm understanding.

You're not the only one. I was like, so we're taking pawn shops out and we're replacing them with telecommunications? That seems like a really crazy swap. But whatever, whatever.

Yeah, we're good.

I ALREADY ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, BUT JUST IN CASE SOMEBODY CHANGED THEIR MIND, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COUNCIL DELIBERATION VOTE.

I MOVE APPROVAL OF TX26.0501, THE AMENDMENT TO THAT CODE FOR MINOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FORMATTING FIX. I'LL SECOND.

DOES THIS REQUIRE A CONSISTENCY STATEMENT? YES. NO.

DOES IT? IT'S DOWN THERE IN OUR AGENDA. OH, SHE'S READING IT. YES.

OH, THERE IT IS.

AND TO INCLUDE THAT.

AND TO INCLUDE THE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AND REASONALNESS THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVES THE TEXT AMENDMENT, FINDING IT CONSISTENT AND REASONAL WITH COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 27, 2017, AS IT SUPPORTS THE GOALS OF PROMOTING QUALITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAND USE REGULATIONS UNDER NCGS. 1 6 0 D the council concludes the amendment alliance with the key principles objectives and goals outlined in the plan for the following reason that corrects an error in the Stallings development ordinance and restores consistency within CGS 1 6 0 D. Thank you, Graham.

And you resecond it?

Oh, resecond it.

All in favor? Aye. Unanimous. Thank you very much.

Okay.

RV occupancy Is there anyone here to speak to this one on the public comments? No. I guess we'll move forward then.

There's an R&B clerk.

I'll open the public hearing. And Matt, lead us off with a discussion of this issue, please.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. So tonight, yeah, I'm bringing forward a text amendment to our RV occupancy ordinance. The request is that the staff is proposing an amendment to Article 12.10 of the Stallings Development Ordinance regarding recreational vehicles or RVs and the occupancy of those. The goal here is to improve the clarity, consistency, and enforceability of the ordinance while supporting neighborhood appearance, health, and safety. So our current ordinance allows RVs 90 consecutive days of occupancy, no more than two times per calendar year. which would total 180 days annually. So enforcement of these provisions has proven difficult in the past and still to this day. When occupants are periodically in and out of the RV, they're occupying it, then they leave, then they come back. So let's see. So summary of this text amendment would include, the proposed text amendment would prohibit the occupancy of recreational vehicles on all properties within the town. It would establish clear and definitive enforcement standards to ensure consistent application and administration of the ordinance, as well as promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community while preserving the character and aesthetic appeal of residential neighborhoods. So right here is our current ordinance statement. And on May the 16th of 2026, Planning Board, they were presented two options, and they decided on the recommendation of the changes here, which the only thing that's changing is the last line of the current ordinance. And that will read, RVs shall be licensed motor vehicles and shall not be occupied while parked or stored on any property. Staff's recommendation is the approval of the proposed amendment to Article 12.10 as presented. The new amendment would establish definitive enforcement standards and promote compatibility within residential neighborhoods while protecting the community's health, safety, and welfare. I'm open to any questions that y'all may have.

I got lots of questions on this one. Okay, so most of the neighborhoods that I'm familiar with in the area have HOAs, especially on the northern side of the neighborhood. So are we having a lot of issues with this?

I do have one in particular that is very common with the in and outs. The foul smells due to the improper disposal of waste and things such as that, so yeah.

And then I guess my other question that I was talking about with Max and Alex was like, you know, if Cousin Eddie comes down for Christmas, you get 30 days to clean this up, right? So, I mean... If somebody comes and spends a couple of weeks in your driveway, that's not going to immediately get you fined. You've got 30 days to rectify it, and by then you probably want them gone anyway. So I was a little concerned when I first read it that, like, hey, grandma and grandpa drives their RV from California here, and then suddenly they can't stay in my driveway for a couple of days or whatnot. But it seems like the way that enforcement – would roll out, it seems like they would get at least a couple weeks of grace period or whatnot before that would, we wouldn't be throwing grandma and grandpa out of the driveway.

So. That is accurate. We, so you decide to, the notice of violation would allow 30 days to correct the violation.

Okay. I kind of just wanted to say that out loud because the way it made it sound is kind of like, you know, if I have a couple, you know, if I have family stay over a couple of nights, The takedown's going to happen.

Yes, sir. And this is more geared towards being able to set a definitive line instead of keeping up with these timelines of 90 days here and then maybe a week there and whatnot. So it just gives that definitive no occupancy. But then, as you stated, a citation would allow 30 days.

So storage of a vehicle, RV, is allowed.

Yes. This is strictly the occupancy of that vehicle.

What about the instance near me where their house burned down? They've got a very large lot. put one end and live in it while the new house is being rebuilt.

Yes, sir. And that's something... How do we accommodate that? That is something that I spoke with Max about. Max, do you want to elaborate a little bit on that and how that took place?

We are lenient during hardships. So, for example, if someone's house burned down, we understand that they need some time to construct, so that would be... We wouldn't enforce that during the construction of that house.

Okay, so now we're doing an ordinance... which is supposed to be, follow it, that's like a law, and we're going to waive it for certain people at certain times. That part, I'm not sure I... Well, I don't disagree, but I don't know how we would... How do we do that? I mean, that house has been burned out for well over a year now. What's a reasonable length of time? I'm not saying them in particular. I'm just saying how long do they get for hardship to rebuild or if they are or they aren't?

Until they get the zoning compliance currently.

I mean. They're moving along fast now, which is great. They're nice neighbors and all that. And that's the only one I can think of that would be an exception. But how do you have an exception to a law given by a staff person?

Well, it's a safety. So we have construction trailers in there. We do a lot of construction trailers.

Construction trailers aren't residing.

And we are allowing that for the company. But we can make it clear in the last sentence if you'd like to make it clear. a suggestion that we add a hardship category to be determined by the development administrator.

Could there be, I mean, would they apply for a permit or how would that, is there an official mechanism for doing that? Require them to apply for a permit.

Makes sense. We'll look into our town attorney, town substitute attorney. If there's

Some consensus on council that you'd like to see a hardship provision written in. I'd suggest that you table this and we'll bring it back next month with some proposed language for you. Okay.

Okay. Is that the only way around it?

A hardship provision or is there just a... That's the easiest way I can think of.

And I was going to propose that maybe there's something in there that, I mean... Max, Matt, I mean, is there potentially any other cases that you could think of in this time period? Maybe it's not hardship. Maybe it's something that says, you know, extenuating circumstances as determined by code enforcement or something like that there. Just something out. I mean, that way it might cover something else that might come up.

Yeah, I mean, we can discuss that. I don't think that's a problem to see what we can work out there for sure. Do we need a motion to table it, or are we just... Yep, we do.

Mayor, I move that we table... Which one is this? 26.05.02, text amendment regarding RV occupancy. Table this until staff has, and direct staff to add wording handling extenuating circumstances.

And continue the public hearing.

Continue the public hearing. Thank you, sir. We need to give a specific date for that, for continuing the public hearing. July 13th. July 13th, 2026 meeting.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. All right. Thank you, Matt. Oh, you're still there.

Y'all get to stare at me for a little bit longer. All right. So the second one I have tonight is also a text amendment regarding open burning in the town of Stallings. So staff is proposing amendments to Chapter 95, open burning of yard waste, to improve clarity, consistency, and enforceability of the town's open burning ordinance. The proposed changes are intended to support public safety, fire prevention, air quality, and the overall health and welfare of the community. A little bit of background regarding the open burning ordinance as it stands. The town has experienced ongoing enforcement issues involving the burning of household debris, yard waste, construction materials, land clearing debris, and other unauthorized materials. Under the current ordinance, only yard waste burning is specifically addressed, creating gaps in that enforcement. Individuals have challenged enforcement actions. by arguing that certain burning activities are not expressly prohibited under the existing ordinance. These limitations have resulted in inconsistent enforcement and delayed actions to correct the problem. The current ordinance also does not authorize the Stallings Police Department to enforce open burning violations, which creates additional difficulties when complaints occur after hours and on the weekends. So the proposed text amendment, these revisions would include the following. They would establish clear definitions related to open burning. They prohibit the open burning of any materials unless specifically identified as a permissible exception. It would remove land clearing and right of way maintenance burning as a permissible open burning activity within the town. It would retain exemptions for for campfires, outdoor cooking, recreational fires, ceremonial fires, and fires used for warmth and comfort, provided that they do not create a nuisance and do not burn the prohibited materials. I would like to clarify a little bit more on that. This does mean that you can still burn fallen limbs or twigs and sticks or similar materials for recreational fires. So like in a fire pit, you could still get those little small debris to use as that fuel.

That's what we talked about earlier. It's like a third of my neighborhood is going to be breaking the law over here.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. So moving forward, these revisions would also include authorizing code enforcement, which I'm already there, as well as the Stallings Police Department to enforce the ordinance. It would revise the penalty section to reflect authorized enforcement officials and applicable civil penalties. It would remove the requirement for a warning citation on the first offense and provide enforcement officials the discretion to issue a monetary fine of $100 for the first offense if it's warranted, and that it would be discretion-based.

All right.

I'll be right back.

I'll say this slowly then.

Mayor?

I needed to open the public hearing.

I'm not sure we do. Okay. I may misunderstand this, but this is not a land use regulation, is it? No.

Code of ordinances, yes.

Okay. So there's not a public hearing required or a statement of consistency and reasonableness required. This is just an ordinary regulatory ordinance. So it's open for the explanation that staff has given you and for debate by the council, but unless I misunderstand.

And this only needs a majority.

It needs four votes.

Still, because all of them.

A majority of the members of the council. All right. Although in this case, it's on the date of introduction, it's two-thirds of the members of the council, which is still four, four out of six.

Well, we'll just hang on to the conversation. I have a question for him. Let her rip. So I know that it's very popular to lawn burn in certain areas, especially here in the South. This would prevent being able to do lawn burns, right?

Yes, if you could hold that thought for just a second, I would like to kind of go over what's currently there, and that may clarify your question. So what's currently here, this is how it's written now. What's in red would be the changes. So we would change it from open burning of yard waste to open burning prohibited. If you move down, the definition of open burning would change and just remove yard waste, and the new verbiage would be any matter that

Can't burn a couch.

No, sir.

Wasn't that one of the, wasn't that a problem?

That's been a problem, yes, sir. But if West Virginia wins the national championship. So as we move forward here, open burning prohibited would now state the open burning of any material in any form or manner is hereby prohibited within the town limits unless specified below. This has not changed other than the lettering since we added in the A here. This still... prohibits yard waste, the burning of yard waste, because we have a yard waste pickup, and that is per the North Carolina Administrative Code that was adopted that we're working under there. Permissible burning would remove the burning for land clearing and right-of-way maintenance. And then here is what is already in the ordinance that includes the campfires and fires used solely for outdoor cooking and other recreational purposes and so on. That has not changed, so that will remain the same. I do want to touch really quick on the enforcement and penalties section that changed. So this is adding in the enforcement to read the code enforcement officer or police department may enforce the provisions of this chapter. And then we go in and we've added that in our civil penalties where police can issue those civil penalties. And we did change the warning to a civil citation with a civil penalty of $100 for the first offense. Now, that is discretion-based, and I'm happy to answer some questions on that if you'd like to go into some more detail about how that would play a factor. And then we've added in police department here as well. And the rest of the ordinance has not changed. So staff does recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Chapter 95, open burning prohibited as presented. The amendment provides clear ordinance language, closes existing enforcement gaps, and establishes a practical and enforcement framework for both code enforcement and the police department. Staff finds the amendment to be consistent with the town's goals of protecting public health and safety and while promoting effective ordinance administration and maintaining residential quality of life. And I will answer any questions. Councilman Ayers, did that answer a little bit of yours?

Yeah, so... Burning your lawn off is definitely against the code. Yes. Okay.

So did you say or somebody said we have a town-wide pickup for, you know?

For yard waste.

Yard waste, okay.

Given that there's some discretionary or, you know, enforcement, and now that we're encompassing both code enforcement and the police, will there be something communication-wise to kind of ensure consistency on that discretion so that there's not, you know, heavy enforcement on one and more leniency on the other side?

Yes, sir. I think... Most of this is going to fall back on me. They prefer for me to enforce this. However, a lot of the open burning takes place on the weekends when everyone knows I'm not working. So that would allow them to be able to enforce this. A good example, a couple weekends ago, there was a pretty big fire that spread where someone was burning yard waste in the town on a Saturday evening, burn up a lot of the property. managed to make its way to a neighboring fence and then into, I believe it was a right of way for Union Power. So it got away pretty quick and fire marshal was involved and done what they needed to do on their end as well. But it did restrict the police with some of their enforcement, I believe.

Has there ever been a situation where somebody has been burning in a fire pit or something similar with work that there's been code enforcement on?

I've not personally had to respond to any of those, but I can't say that it's never happened.

Okay.

I mean, that's fair.

I think that's the, for me, that would be the biggest concern is that, I mean, I think, I think a lot of people will not think twice about throwing a branch in their fire pit and burning it. So that, that, I'm not looking to make everybody break in the law. That's all.

Yes, sir. And this is more, I would say, for people that are burning for the purpose of disposal of yard waste, not that they've picked up some loose limbs on their property and they've got it in their fire pit on their backyard. This is for these big, massive piles of leaves and limbs that people are burning.

I'd just like to say that I'm happy to see a fine right away.