Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alrighty. We'll call to order the Town of Weddingington regular planning board meeting, Monday, April 27th at 700 p.m. Uh, we do have a determination of a quorum. Everybody's present. Great to see. Um, 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. No. No. No.

No. Awesome. All right. Moving forward. Approval of minutes for March the 23rd of 2026 regular planning board meeting. Motion to approve. Make a motion to approve the March 23rd, 2026 regular planning board meeting minutes as presented. All in favor?

All right, moving to public comments. Individuals are allowed three minutes to speak and must only comment on current agenda items. A maximum of 30 minutes is allocated to the public comment period. The time limit may be extended at the discretion of the chairman. And on the list today is we have Mr. Chad. Good evening, uh, Chadam Ryan, Eagle Road. Um, earlier today, I emailed the board a couple comments on the Grand View project, but I wanted to mention a couple other items that indicate this application is not complete. First, I'd like confirmation this plan was reviewed by Labella prior before coming to the planning board.

It was.

Okay. My understanding is that level is expected for all forward. Second, I did not see detailed storm water calculations included in the materials. SCMs are shown without the supporting calculations are necessary to verify these are properly sized. Third, I did not see a tree survey included in the submission. Fourth, regarding sewer capacity, the letter from Union County Public Works indicates the sketch plan did not pass due to incomplete modeling. Appendix 2B also references improvement permits and or potential sewer extensions. This raises two concerns. First, we have a precedent. When Beachwood proposal was on the site, the board tabled the application until the sewer review and conditional approval were completed. Second, final sewer alignment could directly impact the storm water in the placement of the SM. The plans themselves note that the easements cannot be finalized. Union County approves the alignment which is dependent on the modeling. Union County has indicated those will be complete in the next couple weeks. Lastly, we have the school email with just a confirmation instead of the impact report. The impact report is what is intended with the 2B requirement. We need to adjust the wording so that's clear. Residents care greatly about knowing school capacity and if we're going to be close to potential redistricting or face more overcrowding. With this, I ask that the board table this application until these items are resolved. Advancing a project with missing or incomplete items cannot continue. Overall, this appears to be a strong project that could be a good fit, but only if it fully complies with our requirements. Lastly, I want to talk about the UDO amendment related to chicken coops. Last council meeting, uh, Councilman Tom Smith mentioned a six hen limit. However, I can't find any such provision in our current ordinances. As

written, the UDO treats chickens as a agricultural use with a large setback, effectively limiting them to larger properties. If the town's considering allowing chickens on residential lots, this needs a more comprehensive approach than just changing the buffer. That should include clear limits on the number of hens, prohibition on roosters, defined setbacks of appropriate for residential versus agricultural, and restrictions on the coupe size. We already have detailed standards for horses and the same level of clarity should apply here. So I'm asking that you table that until additional research and more complete standards are developed. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Chad. That concludes the public comments portion. Um moving on, we do not have any old business as of tonight. So, we'll move down to new business. A, discussion and possible recommendation of an application by Signature Properties of the Carolina's LLC requesting conditional zoning approval for the development of a 37 lot, excuse me, conventional subdivision located at the intersection of Providence Road and Ray Road. Thank you, chairman, members of the planning board. Uh this is a application for a 37 lot subdivision at the very prominent location of the intersection of Providence Road and Ray Road. There have been multiple proposals on this property. It's probably the highest value site within the town that is left undeveloped. Uh previous proposals were the Liberty Classical Academy as well as a proposal by Beachwood Homes at this location. Uh neither came to fruition. Uh the latter was not approved because they had not obtained sewer access to adjacent property to serve this uh proposal. So this is about 77 78 acres again located at Providence and Ray. Um it basically has one main access point which is located off Providence Road and after several revisions uh since the community meeting it has an emergency access

on Ray Road. This is not a uh street. This would be uh this would be composite um stone kind of access for emergency purposes only. This would not be accessed by the residents. It would be for simply for the purpose of fire trucks or EMS if the Providence Road intersection was blocked. This road is private. Uh it does provide basically what could be described as a neighborhood green at the entrance point of the property. Uh as well as an excess of open space. um approximately 32% of the property is provided as open space which the requirement uh which was previously 10% and now with current standards 20%. So this exceeds that requirement after that another 50%. as shown. Um, as as some of you have pointed out to me in emails or other correspondents, um, you'd like to see the distinction between um, steep slopes, you know, floodway or other impediments as defined by our UDO on this property. Uh, that provided as an accessory exhibit in this slide, but that today and so is not in kits. Um if you have questions on that um the applicant is here and can and speak to that. Um uh Brett who is with Isaac group he is not available today. He's not here today. Um but Mr. Isaac is actually here so he can speak to those matters. Um as well as Mr. Gran uh who's in the front row here, he can speak to this project as well. Um, largely speaking, this is a

a uh large lot subdivision, which more than meets kind of some of the open space requirements we have. It is um basically defined by the large one ingress egress entrance off of Providence. So, it's it's kind of one loop road. Um but this stub road located right here uh as defined by the UDIO this starts the measurement of the culde-sac and so um it is not a violation of the UDO in regards to culde-sac length based on this stub out. Uh they do not uh own or have not obtained access to this property. They have good relations with this adjacent neighbor as I understand. However, uh this portion of land is not involved in the proposal. Uh we are strictly looking at kind of the hexagon shape uh that's shown on on your screen as and involved in your packets. Um some of the concerns that staff had with this project um was basically the the landscaping of the 100 foot thoroughfare buffer. So, I'm sure y'all have driven down Ray and Providence many times being residents of Weddington. Um the Providence portion has some mature trees, some canopy trees, uh as well as some landscaping as provided by uh the recent um relatively recent um modifications Providence Road and widening of Providence Road. Um so that's that's pretty heavily um landscaped. However, the railroad side that's about to undergo significant changes. Um, but those tree species are mainly pine trees and so they can be a little sparse. They're not necessarily

the canopy trees uh that we talk about in our tree ordinance. It is still uh heavily wooded. It is still uh existing landscaping. Um but one of the recommendations the staff had made in the staff report was to see a visual um representation of that that has also been provided since contacting the applicant um based on some of you guys' feedback and I can provide that slide as well. But basically the two things we looked at and the two things that I had recommended was seeing what this looked like in a 3D rendering or a landscape plan as well as and I can pull this slide up as well. This right here. So this is the improved version. This is the new version uh is provided by applicant but stat significant concerns that this uh storm drain easement or SDE was infringing on the 100 foot thoroughare buffer. So application existed and was submitted um some 20ome days ago. Uh this limit of disturbance, this disturbance of trees and other things and ground uh would have fallen within this 100 foot limit which would not be in compli. Unfortunately, this happens all the time. people will say that they provide the um thoroughare buffer and then they'll provide later that shows they're trying to infringe on the area that is that is not code compliant. Um so my my strongest recommendation was this needed to be moved outside this limit of disturbance need to be moved outside of the 100 foot thoroughfare buffer as you can see by this exhibit here on your screen. um for viewers on YouTube or people on the Yeah, you can see this has now been moved slightly back to be

located on private property rather than within the common open space um to meet our code requirements. Um and again the other exhibit, there's several um that have been provided. Here's some landscaping on the entrance. Um but here's kind of representation of what Ray Road would look like. um from the applicant. You can see that there' be a uh kind of a walled fence with some masonry near the intersection of R and Providence. Um the actual intersection of R and Providence is a utility easement. So that's not involved in the landscaping. Um but you can see that some supplemental plantings will be provided um along the roadway here as well as Uh this um some of the landscaping near the entrance landscaping that's provided on Ray Road. Um this is the total site landscaping plan uh that was submitted again today by the app and the shows street trees are provided um landscaping along Providence and landscaping on Ray in addition to the existing trees. uh that are submitted uh with the submitt. Um this is a hugely impactful project for the town of Weddington. Um again, there's been multiple proposals at this location. Uh and them have come into fruition because this is basically the the front door of Weddington. This is the most visible intersection as it exists today. It will be even more so when the railroad extension uh punches through on the other side of this. So thousands and thousands of people across this intersection every day. Um Mr.

Graham um to give credit to our mayor Bell has has basically been handpicked to develop this property. Um when I first met with the engineers with the Isaac's group and Mr. Graham, I was assured that um Tom Smith and Jim Bell had already met with him privately to discuss this matter and that everything was going to be according to plan and everything was going to be to the town of Weddington's preferences. And so this uh site which was previously called Belleview um has been very very strategically planned um with or without uh the planning department's knowledge uh for some time. So um with that I think there are still some questions that I can uh answer or that the developer can answer regarding this site. Um, but I do think that these lots more than exceed the 1acre requirement, more than exceed the open space requirement, more than exceed the landscaping requirement, uh, and are in keeping with the the character uh, that our our residents and our most vocal residents have asked for in regards to a subdivision proposal in the town of Weddington. So with that, I'll be available for any questions or comments you may have. I

I got a question for you, Greg. You have a appendix 2B in the package and it's got red and green checks in it. What's the significance if any to those that that was as submitted by the applicant. That is not my information. So let me ask applicant what what's the significance of that? So we we had Okay. So that was an internal um checklist and we had uh two engineers checking it for different things. So Brent was red and Anthony was green. So that's your own control. Right. Right.

Did we get a new plan set? I thought we just got the pictures. We actually got a new Did you show a different plan just now or did you just say they moved it? So with the storm this one this was submitted today. So this is not in the pack. I have correct seen that. Okay. Okay. Okay. I did not see that.

So another thing was in in the omitted in that packet. Of course, this this county I understand that there was a landscape plan that was omitted from the packet which is why we also in that in the that checklist which was not checked there was not a table of contents which would have helped identify if the case in the packet. The other reason for the table of contents is that we don't want mod once once this board approves this. There should be no mod no additional modifications between the time it leaves this board and it goes to the town council.

Our cover sheet has a index of sheets on it which what we call a table. Okay. So that's only that's on the additional submittal that came in today. Yes. Which I have not seen. I haven't seen uh I had initially had said that uh postponing this or I may have used incorrect words on table but due to missing items. So with the new plan set there was a couple boxes there was a checked box about the uh calcs and I know that that everybody's either been presenting their hecraz or some kind of hydroad. Did that make it to this submitt as well or the new plan set?

Uh it did. So we we worked with Labella and provided them uh built upon area calculations and time of concentration um and sizing preliminary sizing in the basins. So that you know we went back and forth with Robert Wilson he had various comments we revised and reissued and he's satisfied with it. So we we did do sizing the basins. They are adequately sized.

And then then the uh you said that that Bob did provide a staff or a label. So again this is this is not ideal circumstances. There's several reasons for this, but um at 6:03 p.m. today, Monday, April 27th, 2026, um Bob responded to Brent, the engineer with Isaac's group, stating, quote, Brent, the updated schematic plan for Grand View addressed our concerns regarding the stormwater design. We have no further comments on the schematic plan and no objection for approval of the conditional zoning of the project. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I'll here circulate this amongst the board. Listen, I'm I'm I'm tired of of some of the BS that's going on with planning in general in this town. And I must speak frankly, um this is not how I like to do business. I don't like to get revisions at the last second. Um but I am happy that the applicant was responsive to some of the questions and concerns that I had and the planning board had when I sent out my staff report. on Wednesday and Thursday and they have responded to some of those those concerns and questions. Um those questions and concerns were addressed today which is the day of the meeting which means that it can't be included in your packet and is not uh appropriate that you shouldn't amend an agenda or a packet certainly within 24 hours of a meeting. So y'all can take this or leave this um as as adequate. You can table it or

you can say like I I feel satisfied with the information that I've been provided but this is not included in your packet at this time. Um but they have um made attempts in a very hasty manner to address some of the concerns that we had. With all due consideration to the applicant and to the designer, I'm going to make a motion that we table this application until such time as you can present to us a complete packet and that that we have had time to review prior to our meeting.

Comment.

You may comment. Yeah. Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you for your time. Just a little clarification, we uh do a lot of work in a lot of towns and and like to think we're pretty good at what we do. Um and uh just to speak frankly, we submitted this three weeks ago and have been looking for input. We did not get any input until an email from staff last Thursday, which was two business days before the meeting tonight. This team, my team jumped through hoops and hurdles to respond to those concerns immediately. Um, a landscape plan. Uh, the 3D image was previously submitted separately, may not have been in the package, but it was submitted. Uh the the email that we just got at 6 tonight from Bob with Labella was just in response to something I learned as of 4:00 this afternoon. We did not realize that letter was a requirement. We don't see it in the appendix 2B

which is not is not codified as of this date. Not a requirement.

So we've been reacting to things that we hear like two or three hours before this meeting. So, I want everybody to understand we're good at what we do. We take it serious. We don't want to waste your time. We don't want to waste our time. We have poured over appendix 2B and uh Chris and his team are very, very good engineers and we felt like we submitted a complete package. Had we had some timely response several weeks ago and the courtesy of a response, we would have addressed this and had it in your package long before today. Trust me. But we didn't hear anything until Thursday afternoon. That's two business days before tonight. And respectfully, I hear what you're saying. And and Mr. Sets, we would prefer you not to defer it. We feel like the package is complete. It's unfortunate that you haven't had time to look at it. And I understand it was all last minute, but it wasn't I'm not making excuses. Just want y'all to know it wasn't our fault. It wasn't Isaac's fault. We did everything correctly and we responded in lightning speed when we heard the first comment of what might not be complete. So, just wanted to share with you that this last minute stuff didn't just happen willy-nilly. Uh, it happened for a good reason. We just found out. And while I'm here, I'll say this, we want this to be the poster child project of Weddington. Um it is a a prime corner and very exposed as Greg said and uh we feel like we're going to do it certainly do it justice and it's going to be we want this to be the project that Weddington points to and says hey that's that's the kind of project we like so and there's no excuse for not having things in the package not having things done but just want to let you know that there was a reason for it and it's all there and I would ask that you reconsider and look we're here we can

answer questions Labella has looked at this. Bob was happy with it weeks ago. We just got that email from him again tonight to reiterate that when we heard a concern this afternoon. Um and so nothing's really last minute. This has been designed and presented for quite a long time. So we don't feel it's our fault that some things just got here this afternoon.

I appre I appreciate the comments and we've had some discussion. Greg and I have had some discussions and the concerns I have uh that I picked up on have were addressed. Even though they came in at the last minute, they were addressed. My my biggest concern was I call it the letter from Bob which is as Greg said is not a requirement right now. It is going to come up later in this meeting is a requirement going forward. And um I feel good because the letter from Bob is there. There was one there on um the TIA, but there wasn't one there on storm water and storm water is our biggest issue. The a question I have which is really for the other planning board members. Are there other things that any of you have identified as shortfalls or missing? We don't have to go into great detail, but to me has a if we table this, it's like, hey, here's some other things that we feel are missing.

Well, I mean, identified in the package is the two points of egress issue, right? The tree survey is definitely doesn't follow our UDO with Q. They did do a heritage and the mitigation, but the actual tree survey.

And I again, I would just say if we're for consistency, if we're holding every developer to these standards, there's there shouldn't be a a leeway of of accepting them. And the the again, some of this is checked and I get it. that didn't make it. But the tree sage was checked and I seen you had uh lens group uh do the tree survey for the heritage. But in that tree survey in our D17Q, it asked for 6 in or greater, dog woods 5 in or greater to be represented and seen from a canopy and preservation standpoint. So again, I am just looking for us to stay consistent from everybody across the board as to what we're asking

and and what we're seeing. And I did not have time to look at this. If it came this afternoon, I apologize, but I also wouldn't think that that'd be a good way for us to do business either. And understand, but once again, just on the tree survey issue, I have Lisa Gaffne here with Lynn's group who was a very experienced biologist who has done tons of tree surveys with their work at all. Yeah. just that it's and and well we well we did we did explore this and discuss this at length with staff

weeks and weeks ago about the way we did the tree survey. We did I don't know what it's called Lisa but we did block surveys and averages of the of she did extensive work out there for weeks and weeks and weeks and it would be very nice if we had the opportunity to to explain this to you because it's all there. Yeah, you did a you basically she did a an excellent job. I'm Yes. I'm like Chris. I don't question it at all. She broke it down to what she calls group A in the package which was disturbed areas,

right? And then she had another I'll call it the all other the undisturbed areas and um that would include buffers setbacks um open space and so that she approached it that way which brings me to another thing I think that's missing that we require from everybody is the building pads the setbacks

that is that So, you've got you've got the lot laid out, but you don't have the building pad where not the house itself, but the setback area to where the house would be placed anywhere in there. And that also would come into play when you're looking at um uh undisturbed areas. Well, I think he's got the you've got the building envelope from the whole lot, but like a representation of house pad to relationship to uh and mainly on your kind of your grading plan. We get it. This house is custom, right? That's right. That's right. Meant to fit.

That's right. Uh, I would still say we're giving everybody else the the routine of seeing it just so then we can see if it does conflict. Or if you took into account topographic and you move this house back, we just get to see it in relationship to to the to the site is I guess what I'm I'm getting at. But yeah, you you've got it, Chris. These are large lots wooded and they're all going to be custom and we're not going to mass clear or grade anything. they're going to be left treed for the uh owner and contractor to to specifically clear the driveway and house site and leave a lot of trees on the actual lots themselves.

Yeah. So again, I I think unfortunate circumstances are here, but I I feel like as a board we would it just is getting rushed in and I appreciate your hard work and your expediency to get things, but I just I I don't know that I could say without looking at it that uh what changed didn't change. Um because I definitely have been looking over the other plan and and had it. So yeah, that's kind of my stance on it. Okay, Mr. Chair, we we have a motion. We do have a motion. All right, I'll second the motion.

Well, are we going to have Aren't we going to have discussion before we vote on the motion? I mean, I don't know if anyone else wants discussion, but part of my discussion was on the motion. I'm not saying whether I'm for or against it, but as I disc is look at the motion is are there other to clarify if they come back in 30 days is like oh we didn't say this and it wasn't communicated or picked up by Greg or the applicant. That's what I was trying trying to get at. Bill, this kind of this would be my my stance on that. It's not up to us to tell the applicant what's in the UDO. It's up the applicant to do their own research for that. I I agree.

And and again, I appreciate I appreciate what you what you guys have gone through. I appreciate all the hoop jump. The problem from my perspective that this board has is that we need to pass and and provide the town council a complete packet and from the time it leaves this planning board and goes to the town council, it should not be modified again. And right now we have items that many board members have not had yet had time to even look at and we don't know what's in that. And so putting together a packet would be it would be a peace meal at best and be after the fact that that is that is truly why again what I've seen of the project I like the project. I think I think it's great use of the property and again this is my personal opinion

and I'm going to go to Mr. Graham's statement about being the poster child. I think this sets up from start to finish being our end too getting handled right and we're not leaving it up so that when it comes out of here and goes to council is confident that it has been thoroughly vetted and and and transparent. Uh now I did say that if anybody had kind of additional comments or something I think with enough time send them the issues that we have that you get time to address or or look at and be be ready for on the next one. I know one of them is the two points of ingress egress. Uh so again kind of getting those things to get a ducks in a row would be helpful. Uh Mr. Mr. Chairman,

if if I may, I just I I know Mr. Graham is agrieved over here, but uh I want to clarify some of my statements and uh the things I provided in my report. Um so my one recommendation was that the storm drainage easement SDE be moved outside of the 100 foot thoroughare buffer. That is that that is non-negotiable. that is that is important and they have done that. Um that does not make an incomplete application. I provided an email to Mr. Faulk and I would reiterate on record um the court case last year in Ash County, North Carolina which clearly states what a complete or incomplete application is. I'm going to on my dying breath reiterate and describe that court case at the next town council meeting is if I am so availed. Um just because something is wrong does not mean it is incomplete. It means you have to address it note that it needs correction and recommend that it be corrected. So they are not incomplete for that item. they are they need it to be modified. So I generously stated that as a condition of approval that they move it over a couple feet. They have easily accommodated that. However, it was non-compliant at the time of application. Um I have been told by my bosses that we can't do conditions anymore. And that's absolutely ridiculous. Like

that is that is absurd that a planning board can't put conditions on a project. And I am embarrassed for y'all. I'm embarrassed as a staffer and I'm going to say a lot more things later. But to say that we can't put conditions on the project as a planning board, that is by statute your job.

Well, maybe Excuse me, sir. I'm not done. I have a lot of things to say. Second of all, the landscape plan is a recommendation that I put on every project. That is not a code requirement. That's just the right thing to do so that the people who are looking at this project know what it's going to look like. So, if we're missing a 3D rendering of what trees look like, that is not a UDO violation. That's a nice thing to have. And we have asked every applicant to do that and they have graciously done that. This applicant has graciously done that. And so you didn't get it in time and that's worthy of tableing the item. But I would like to address on record that having a 3D rendering of what a subdivision looks like is an ask. It's a nice thing to have. It is not a requirement. It's above and beyond what zoning is. A lot of things that we ask for people are above and beyond what zoning is. Third, I'd like to address that they didn't hear about this till Thursday, they have no obligation to hear from me about what's deficient. You send me an application, you tell me it's complete. If it's deemed complete, then I'll tell you what's wrong with it, and I'll put in a staff report, and I'll tell you about it tonight. It's not my job to tell you that this project has to be perfect. If I had to bring a perfect project to you every time, which is what's being asked of me, then why do you exist? Why does this board exist? Why are you volunteering your time, your valuable time, if I can only present to you perfect projects? I will always have critiques and recommendations of a project. Any planner, my successor, the next planner who's going to work here is going to have helpful critiques and criticisms of a project.

And they're not going to say, "Oh, I can't bring it to you in April because I have some concerns about it. I'm going to delay your project two months and cost you thousands and tens of thousands of dollars because I want the trees to be green instead of, you know, that's not how planning works. That's not how zoning works. I am. If y'all want to table this, I I completely understand that. But I I feel very confident that this could be approved in a um special called meeting or in the next month based on the information that I have received and that I've shown you tonight. Um this project should be held to every standard that every other project has, including by Toll Brothers. I'll say their name again. Toll Brothers. Every project is held the same exact standards by staff. So this is not a preferential project. This is not a special project. Every case is exactly the same. So if you feel that something's missing, request that information tonight. They're going to provide it to you next month and it's going to get passed. Thank you.

So we still have a motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman, and it is seconded, I believe. Yep. We got a second to the motion. So we can't because I've got questions that don't even revolve around 2B, but I guess I can't ask those anymore if we don't have discussion on this. Well, that's what I was talking about the discussion portion. We jumped real quick to a second, but normally it's any discussion and then when discussion I'm just I'm to bring up your I only if we table it. That's right. I Yeah. So, we got a motion. We got a second. We want to vote.

Is the motion the table for Well, I want to say 30 days to the next plan next plan board meeting. That's the motion. Well, technically the motion was till such time. Yes. Okay. So, all Okay. Okay. Well, I'd like to make a friendly amendment to the motion and say if the applicant can provide what I will call the missing portions of the application

and we could schedule a special planning board meeting to address that and maybe keep this on track for a council meeting. I know my opinion is and believe me, we've had some major issues over the last two and a half years and I think we've done an awful lot to address it to fix it. That's why we put all this effort into 2B saying this is what you need trying to bring clarity. We've added clarity to the ordinance and you know I've heard comments we don't have to get back I'll say staff doesn't have to get back to the applicant or we don't have to tell them what's missing or something like that but at the same time I feel our role is also to help the applicant bring this to the proper conclusion whether that's good or bad. So my motion is

disagree with that statement. Okay. I don't believe I should be involved with letting them giving my input for them to design or what they need to do.

Well, I'm not saying I'm not saying give them input to design. It's like we're saying on here. We we'll be discussing later on. We'd like a a head nod from Bob Wilson on the stormwater plan. I'm not telling them how to do their storm water plan, what it needs to be, but you need a letter a letter from Bob. We don't tell them if you need a TIA. That's something they got to got to figure out. We do say you've got to have a tree ordinance. So, you know, maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but you know, my motion would be get the quote missing. I hate to use the term missing with Greg sitting right to my left there.

Missing is better than incomplete. Pardon? Missing is better than stating incomplete. Okay. So, my my my amended motion would be to get the missing information and the the planning board would schedule a special meeting to address it in time for the before the next council meeting. So, a friendly a friendly amendment has to be agreed upon by the original motion presenter. Is that correct? That is correct. That is correct.

You need you need you need a second to the motion. It's voted on. If it's approved, the original motion is moot. If it's not approved, then you then it's like peeling back an onion. Then you go to the original motion. I don't I don't think that's right. I think that's a separate I think if you made a separate motion that's the way it would go. But if you're making a friendly amendment to Rusty, Rusty has to agree to have it as part of his motion. Yay. Nay, I have to look that up. That's deep. This just is already getting

So, why don't we do this? Why don't we vote on the original motion and if it passes or fails, we can make another motion. Well, we can talk to the we can ask questions or Rusty's motion does not give a time frame. So, if if something happens and you're able to call another special meeting, my concern, if you're worried about if you're trying to get this for the next council meeting is I won't have time for public notice to go out for the next council meeting. So, So, I mean, I'm not worried about that either. down. They wouldn't be on the next.

I mean, we get chastised for rushing things through, so I feel like we're kind of Okay, we need a parliamentarian. I'm looking at We can I mean, we can do it. We can I I I whatever if if you think your way is right, we can do it that way. And then after the fact, if it is Mr. Chair, Mr. Chairman Corner board, there's been a motion made has been seconded. Okay. Have the vote. All in favor? One, two, three, four to two. You got to say all oppose. Yeah. All oppose. Sorry.

Okay. All right. That was interesting. So, I have right that Scott and Bill oppose the motion. Correct. That's correct. Thank you. All right. We're going to move to the next one. B. Discussion and possible recommendation of text amendment 2026-3, appendix 2B, town engineer review of zoning schematic plans. All right, we'll let Greg take it away.

For our previous discussion, the town engineer, which is Bob Wilson with Labella Associates, uh would hereby be required to review and provide a written recommendation for any future application. Period.

All right. Any discussion from the board members? Yes, there is the term uh look at trying to scroll down to get to that particular piece of information right now on here we go here we go says that the confirming that the that they have reviewed the application and I'd like to have the words and on a preliminary basis removed What page is that? That is on page that is in the package is page 115.

Leavella should be doing their label should be doing their review my opinion before it comes before it comes to board. When we when we bring it here and we vote on it and it leaves this this board, it should be going to the town council and should not be modified. That's what we're here to do. That's one reason that and from from y'all standpoint talked about having a table of contents. That is another good reason I want the table contents. So, put that in there. I helped write that to be revision schematic plans and I want that table of contents in there with the initial uh issue date and any revision date. So, we can look at that and go this is what was submitted. This is what was approved. This is what we're til on a question on that. Can I just read this out to so I understand what you're saying? A written recommendation by the town engineer confirming they have reviewed the application and that the plans meet the intent of UDO regarding storm water flow and SEM facilities.

That is correct. So, are we saying there could be changes or adjustments as the building permits are issued and we go through that process, but they should be minimal.

They should be minimal at that point in time. Again, we talked about this when we talked about rewriting rewrite this this table, this this 2B appendix. If they go out there and they have they hit rock in an area and they need to move it six to eight feet one way or the other because they have to there all kinds of things bad soils things you're going to encounter during construction. If they move it 40 feet that direction and take out 16 more trees that is where we need to be. So if we're saying there are changes and there could be changes. They should be minimal changes. Minimal changes won't come back to the planning board. That's correct.

They're addressed by the planner. So when you say they're final and they don't change between now and the council, I guess I'm I'm looking for some clarification. This this is not a this is the this is the review by Labella, right? That that that that is required prior to prior to the plan board or town council. In other words, I'm not this is not this is not a preliminary review. This is the dollar review. He can't know there's rocks on the ground, isn't? Well, that he said that that's going to be a minor adjustment, right? Know that when he does his review, he'll say it's good. It's good to go based on the plan that's here. It's good. Yeah.

And from an engineering standpoint, I think that that Bob would say or what's not I don't want to use the word preliminary, but there is a lot of things that he could easily say that this is obtainable to be addressed in CDs, not at the CZ situation. And I think that would be enough for me to say that he's looked at it and knows it could be overcome. Whether that be you showing a head wall and he turns it to an FES or he's saying there's no big deal there's no big issues correct for you at the planning board. Right. Correct. And if you run into that situation that's got to come back to the planning board. Well, if it's big I saw them to say yeah it's something dramatic but

something dramatic. Yeah. I would think at the sketch plan or schematic plan that we're at that most things will be ma minor and it would be just things of based by the time you frame there the application head wall versus fees versus a yard inlet versus I can't I'm trying to think of anything it's just not so it says the plan the plans meet the intent of the UDO regarding storm water flow and SCM facilities So they meet the intent. Yeah. Again, now if you're running preliminary basis, they meet the intent. Yeah. All right. I think

was Greg, were you putting in preliminary because of a situation where an unforeseen circumstance comes up like we've talked about. Uh so yes. So if the the the wording is deliberate to say that if the pond is exactly you know, 667 square ft or whatever on a plan and turns out that in the future based on actual engineering it has to be 700 square f feet for instance that that's not violating the intent. That's not a change that needs to come before you guys. That happens all the time,

right? We have actual circumstances in this town right now where people say, "I'm looking at the plan that the town council approved for this SEM pond and this pond looks differently than it's built today and you're not allowed to do that." And that's not true. We're missing a plan. That's not what I'm talking about. No, I'm just saying though. It's the idea and you actually have to go out there and build the thing and there might be adjustments. There will be there will be adjustments to SEMs in almost every circumstance. But the level of schematic that we have done has a proportionately shown pond versus the little color-coded pond in this area. Drainage features.

Yeah, determine fog is correct in that previous applications just drew like a little squiggly circle and so this is where the pond's going and it was not even remotely realistic of the current circumstances. They rushed it in just to get the application in just to get zoning entitlement. And so we very clearly through our appendix 2B have required actual studies and analysis of these ponds so that what you guys are looking at is a realistic proposal.

Yeah. We talk about preliminary drainage storm water management plan wetland protection plan proposed details of storm water structures and plumes preliminary loca that's easements. But my understanding is not just related to this specific thing. We're saying we want more homework done upfront. Yes. But it's truly still is a preliminary basis. He's not going to tell us whether head wall versus fees until you get and I I agree with that. I'm just trying to

and built to the to the point where to what this is designed to do. What I'm looking at is this is not something that we tell the developer, okay, you can do you're going to pay for one preliminary review here, then we're going to approve it and then it's going to go through another review by Labella. You can pay for that and then it's going to go to town council or it's go another review. This is the review in this process. That's that's what it is. And I agree with that. And I just is is this wording is that the wording that everyone understands? I mean, I I agree with you totally on that. So um and I'm fine if if people feel this is what you get from um this text. It it was it was written to provide a degree of administrative flexibility if things change based on future engineering information but it is still a engineering checklist item on your on your

I don't think removing that changes Bob's review or thorough of what he's trying to get us at this level and I do believe that Bob is probably going to be of mindset of others that that at this level, at this stage, uh he knows where he needs to review and and confidence should lie on, hey, this this either works or it doesn't work. And if it doesn't, here you go, team. Y'all y'all figure out making it work due to X, Y, and Z. Okay,

I agree with that. So, I just have one question. I don't want to get nitpicky here. We're putting it in as B58. All of our storm water exhibit 2B items are around I think 356 seven eight nine something like that. Would it be beneficial to make this B 35A so it's right in the section with other storm water requirements versus at the tail end of the I'm thinking you don't want to re resequence reumber everything, right?

It's just it's just a thought. I I can go either way on it. I I anticipated you saying that. I think that is that is more than fair. It just requires a little more formatting of the chart. That can be administratively. Yeah. Is it is it you're not sure how to insert a line there? Is that what we're saying? No. No, we can. He's saying structure though. I just put I put it in there in the simplest format. I I agree with what you're saying. We can do that. Okay. So,

so before I before I let before I let this go, before I let go of this bone, we have we have a councilman sitting in the out there. At the last council meeting, I heard specifically the ability of council to require two reviews by label. A preliminary review. Yes. And the we go back and listen to we go back and listen to the recording. I I I could not tell you one way that all I know is personally I want to see that it's been reviewed by Labella and it's it fits or it

fits or doesn't that's that's why I don't I don't want there to be additional burden on the de double up on on the development. I view this like the TIA. Yeah. I think uh I think we got a handle. D we got a motion for this one. Uh you want to make the motion? Sure. I'll I'll make a motion that we approve the uh text as submitted with the B35A B58 being modified by staff that yeah B58 being modified by staff. I'll second that follow please. All right. All in favor? All right. I'll approve. Huh?

Unanimous. Unanimous. Well, I didn't see his hand. I wanted to ask if it was a Yeah, but extension is is a positive vote, right? If you don't if you don't vote, if you don't vote, it's I feel like I'm constantly learning. All right, moving to the next one. The item C, discussion and possible recommendation of text amendment 2026-4, section D917D, A, agriculture uses, chicken coops. Take it away, Greg.

Thank you, chairman, members of the planning board. One guy stood up before council and said, "I can't put a chicken coupe on my property due to the setback limits uh imposed by the UDO." Uh he actually had a point. So, 150 ft setbacks on both the side and rear because it has to be located in the rear yard is quite imposing. Let's say that a lot is 120 feet wide. that effectively prohibits the use of that coupe that he would not be able to use his property for that use. And so, um, it's not quite a taking, but it severely limits the application of that particular ordinance. The way that that ordinance reads is it incorporates uh that structure as well as things being holding animal waste. So, the intention is if you are have a building that's holding something that stinks should be really far away from your neighbors. Um, that that might not necessarily apply equally to um something with pigs and whatever and chickens. So because that guy could not build a chicken coupe on his property under the way it was written uh the language was revised to reflect how horses are set back which is 60 ft. So it's not an arbitrary number. The setback it would it would reflect what the horse barn setback is in regards to the UDO. Um there were some public comments about additional restrictions on the number or the type of animals. We can certainly entertain that. I'm just trying not to over complicate the situation. I'm just trying to reduce the burden on a particular property owner reducing the step back from 150 ft to 60 ft.

All right. Quick quick question. Couldn't he have come in for a variance? Isn't that kind of what our variance as opposed to the one that we just saw which is not really a variance due to our zoning that this actually would be a variance because of restrictive zoning. Technically it's a zoning issue. I think he could, but it doesn't necessarily mean he would get it. And and this still doesn't mean he could get it. You're just saying

Yeah. I think to Greg's point is that this we know we have chickens everywhere to clean this up 150 feet on the 20,000 square foot lot. You're not putting the chicken coop anywhere per right the agriculture use probably on a 40,000 square foot lot unless it's a flat chicken definitely go just one step further uh and I it's unfortunate but I am familiar with these chicken urban backyard hen ordinances with other municipalities and surveying I would say now would be a good time to put a cap on that number no rooster clearly defined and then what our setbacks are for chicken coupe And uh

the question I would have on that is that something that belongs in or just the general ordinances or the the details about how many chickens, the cleanliness of the coups, the size, the you know the number. I got we limit we limit horses. I got Matthews. This is Matthew's ordinance. And I hate to use somebody else's ordinance. We just don't have one. Well, they they make you get a permit though.

That's right. Yeah, we're not I don't think we're trying to go to the level of a permit. I just think we're trying to cottify in the UDO a little bit of room for these homeowners to be able to put a little chicken coupe and even some now have those movable ones where they just slide it so it gets a little grass and keep moving it. Uh but before it becomes a problem with neighbors, we we kind of codify that that you can have it. It needs to be 15, 20, whatever off of them setbacks and maybe Well, this one says 60 feet 60 feet off property line. That's what this is saying. So that kind of really that means are 60 basically, right?

So usually these things are from what I see are are due to lot size and proportionate to a lot size. So normally in most areas if you got less than 20,000 square feet, you might not be allowed to have backyard chickens. They don't want it on your neighbor's yard nor get 60 feet off the property on 60 you can't but I'm saying most of these other urban hins give you 15 give you 10 yeah 25 if you've got a 4 acre park different then you can actually and and most of them have it proportionally to how many acres is how many chickens you can have

so then I think the question is that you're trying to address I'm fine with the 60 foot the way you've got it written Greg is I'm not opposed to saying all right max of I don't know six chickens no roosters to it's not a huge issue that's going to make or break the town. But um I think chickens is nothing though. No, the chickens aren't the problem. It's the waste is the problem with stinks. So, you know, I mean, I've had I've had and it's not HOAs because HOAs will not allow it. You know, they just don't allow it.

It's the lots that are in Union C county's uh perview or the lots that are in the town's purview, not in an HOA. I will disagree that most HOAs are that is the number one violation is that they have backyard hens and it's overlooked. And what most people don't realize is if you let it go then all of a sudden you're mad at your neighbor. You want to go after them having hins and everybody does. It's you can't kind of go after that after you've our neighborhood's one of them. It's against our HOA but there is a ton of chickens in backyards.

Right. Right. But there was a case that just came it was just it's astonishing. This this case just came across the Supreme Court of North Carolina where an HOA the person was saying that their chickens were pets. They had names for them. That was a Marvin actually. Yeah. They had names for them. Do they take it on the airlines with them to help them calm their nerves? To the Supreme Court of North Carolina and and they said a chicken is not a pet. So the HOA can ban them if they want. All right. So I mean they can and if the HOA enforces it from the very beginning, they can enforce it throughout their CCRs that we can't pick and choose when they want to enforce is what happens. Agricultural to me which is allowed in our thing farm stuff not pets.

Yeah. But in our zonings I believe agricultural uses is allowed. Agricultural uses are allowed on every residential property. So the issue is you don't necessarily have enough room. Right. So now, do we just fix the room part to begin with and let council find out if they want to limit number of chickens? I think there's a lot more to this than just just that. I'm telling you, I have seen some crazy backyard h ordinances that that really So really since we have a since we have a council member here, would you like a much cleaner, wellthoughtout chicken coupe ordinance or

I'll say this, I looked at this years ago when I moved here and the old UDO or whatever kind of ordinance had a six chicken, no weapon, no rooster thing in it. I got a feeling when it changed at 21 or 22, it was there because I read it. Okay. As I looked at it because my neighbor had chickens. I wanted to see what was legal. My backyard neighbor has chickens and two or three of them across the creek have chickens. One of them has a rooster. My next door neighbor across the street has chickens. They're everywhere in this town. I think we we got to be reasonable with one. You don't want to make everybody illegal in town who has chickens. Agree.

That's part of my thought, too. But we need to be responsible with how they are allowed. Okay. We don't want commercial operations. Well, let's just have like to get us off the dime. I would propose that we make some edits to this text saying maximum of six chickens and no roosters. Well, and if we get some flood of feedback from the residents, we can always come and revisit. Oh, yeah. Did Greg did you have a recommendation on distance off the sidelines or was it up for us to

I will I will say that this conversation sounds silly but every single town and municipality in United States has what plan is referred to as chicken wars and every town has debated this exact item. So this is not this is not unique to Weddington. Uh however I don't give too much about should we table this for more research. That was that was that was actually my question because we could we could pass the y'all need to pass something that one is going to be acceptable to people who have chickens in a reasonable manner but do not but you want you want us to do that as opposed to as opposed to y'all doing it.

Well, it's got to come to us as a recommendation. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Table it and let's do some research. Yeah, let's do some rear shot because there's plenty of other ordinances out there reference to chicken. We don't have to match somebody's exact ordinance, but let's make it right for us here at W. Find what's reasonable for this town. And I mean, the concept of so many per acre or something like that could be reasonable for somebody who's got a big farm and has 20 or 30 chickens. You tell me. I mean, there's people that, you know, own a lot of land and they may have more chickens. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, would you like me to make a motion? You didn't Didn't you already make a motion?

No, I said I could just formal wound up. I I make a motion that we table this for uh further research. Second. All in favor? Unanimous. Okay. All right. Moving on to the update from town planner and report from April Town Council meeting. One more. We got one more text. 917A. Um so

I Yeah, that's Thank you, Bill. Um there was also uh a recommendation in your packet um based on some comments from Bill um to amend section D917A subsection Q tree requirements um to change the definition of buildable area to buildable envelope. That's that's really the substance of it. we've just changed the term. Um the reason that this would be important is it's stating where you can and cannot remove trees um by rights. Uh when you're developing a piece of property, the intention is that you know you can you can clear that building pad or the buildable envelope of a lot which is your setbacks which is within your your setbacks for house. So you can clear trees if you want to build somebody a backyard, particularly if it's under one acre. Uh but areas that are outside your setbacks, particularly your backyard, you should not be removing trees. Um this provides several exceptions to that which would be right away easements, utility and drainage easements, existing ponds, lakes, streams or buffers. And then added the recommendation of item V or five, septic drain fields. And so this is kind of just a

Yeah, if if you remember at the last planning board meeting, we had this for discussion and there were some concerns. I think Rusty raised some concerns about buildable envelope that that's where the house is. So we took it offline and basically the subcommittee which is me, Chris and Rusty had some discussions, tried to come to some acceptable wording and so now this is coming back for the planning board to say hey is this acceptable?

I think it's again I'm gonna speak from my side of the table. Building pad is where you would put a house. So, if I go pad stake, building envelope is everything that I've got within that setback to move my house around and make that pad fit. Uh, correct. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. That was the Well, that was the issue in our discussion a month ago.

The issue was and I did and I went back and did the research and and the uh AIA, if you if you Google that under AIA, building envelope is the building skin. But then when you look at it from a development standpoint, it says building envelope is the area that the house can sit on. So they they basically double defined. They they use the term terminology twice. So I don't have any objection to it. I just want to make sure there wasn't confusion with. So this was trying to come up with a way to to to address both those those issues. And then so this would be something that a nice picture would clear everything up.

Well, and there is a picture Jasine's already done. I don't suppose you happen to have that was 8A or something like that. And what I just wanted to make sure is whatever wording we end up here, does that tie to her graphic that she put together? I think that's a a great recommendation to take to the town council is that if this uh text amendment is is affirmatively recommended that include that exhibit. Okay.

Can we get a motion? I'll make a motion to accept the text amendment to D917 AQ with the inclusion of the graphic that uh um Joselyn had presented earlier and the graphic is specifically for the building showing. I'll second that motion. All in favor? Unanimous. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one more question? I don't know if that's allowed. Okay.

I'd have to I don't know that that's allow it's a follow regarding the table of contents. Just want to make sure we're being accurate. We can always I would say Yeah, we'll take that after. Yeah, because I would I've got a couple things I want to add. So I was hoping you guys would stick around. So moving to number eight. Now we have update from our town planner and report from the April town council meeting.

So we met for 8 9 10 11 12 about five hours and the uh April town council meeting. Um, a lot of things were discussed regarding planning. Um, the Morris Farm subdivision, which is a proposal by Toll Brothers, did not have a public hearing, which is the result of my actions. There was general comments regarding that project. They mainly pertained to accessing um a connector street uh Bonner Drive to the north of that project. And so a lot of people who lived on that road objected to the connection uh which was discussed as part of your planning board um meeting and your recommendation um but u there was not any decision and there legally could not be any decision on the item. So it was tabled um and actually no I I misspoke. It was not tabled. It was remanded back to the planning board. So you guys will hear this project again probably in May next month. So you guys recommended approval with seven or eight conditions. It went to the town council. Towns council was very displeased that any conditions were placed on this project in general. uh and had wanted it remanded back. However, there were also concerns about storm water which were very valid um that our town engineer brought up that Chris brought up and and other members uh brought up that were not addressed at the time it was brought to the town council. And so, uh, to my understanding, this was when I was out

of town on personal leave, which is a separate thing I'd like to talk to you guys about, but while I was out of town, um, Chris and the town engineer and that applicant met to discuss some of the discrepancies in the conditions that were, um, put in place by this board. Uh, it's my understanding those conditions still have not yet been met. So that's why it's not before you today. They haven't satisfied what y'all were asking for and so it's not before you here in April. Um but uh we are very hopeful that it will be brought before you in May. Um if I if I may in defense of staff, it is my understanding that that was pulled from the agenda for three reasons. One, um, the timing of getting the notice out. Two, the request of the, uh, planning board chairman because of some issues that surfaced about storm water. And three, because the applicant asked that it be pulled. Am I correct on that?

Thank Thank you, Bill. That's that's very it's very kind to point that out. Yes. That it was never going to be voted on to begin with, right? It's just it's I don't want this to turn into a beat up Greg situation and so there were multiple reasons that was pulled from the board.

I I am a thousand% confident it would never would have been voted on anyway. However, I do accept my responsibility for that. Um with that said, again, I'd like to put something on record. Um, this project has now been tabled. That project was remanded back to the planning board. Um, I as planner wholeheartedly suggest that you wave the resolution that only says one development item can be on an agenda and allow both of these items to come before you in May. These are minor amendments to both of these projects. Um there's no reason to move one above another, to pick one above another. I I feel like both applicants were nearly there but had some missing pieces that you guys can address in one evening. You guys, you're not going to be here till midnight like the town council was. Okay. So, I feel like you guys can both address those in May. I I have a question and I'm not opposed to that. I think that's a good idea. My qu because they should be rock solid clean when they come to us. My question is I don't know if it's written policy on the one thing or if us making a resolution.

You see what I'm saying? Procedurally the council passed a resolution to I'm not sure. I'm not sure that we can act on that. They would have to but we could make We could make a resolution to the council to do that or is this all a point? I'm I'm putting my I I don't I'm putting my foot forward on saying that's the right thing to do. Y'all can do whatever you want, particularly after May. And I think that would be a request to to ask the council to suspend that. And I think you guys are going to get in some serious something

legal trouble if you pick one project over another or move one project over another. That's all I'll say about the matter. So, but just for clarification, is our body under the one thing per or is it the resolution uh addresses the planning board and the town council? It is a resolution. So therefore it's kind of enforced by the town council on this specific item or it's all resolution I understand amendment to the UDA that said the planning board has only this was council that did this and said the town could only have one project. So I guess the chairman could

ask the council if they could resend that. No just suspend it. Suspend it. And I'm not trying to get you guys in hot water. I don't want you guys to say something you don't want to say. But this is my this is my one opportunity to say this to I don't think it's a big issue. I think it's something we can do and the council can say no. I mean you remember two years ago we had 12 13 14 applicants lined up because we had we had more holes in the UDO than a civ. And now that we've tightened this thing up um to use the term we no longer get the tire kickers coming into. How would we make this? Just make a motion to recommend or we just ask.

I'm I'm just stating on record how I feel about the matter. I'd recommend you not say anything. Let Let me Let me try something here. I make a recommendation that we have a special meeting at 6:30, our next meeting, and to review one and then conduct our regular business at 7. you.

We have we can only we can only have one at a time, but if you if you have special call meeting, you know, 6 6:30. Oh, you need to uh to to review one of these products and then we have a we have a regular meeting at 7. Does that does that address the issue from a timing standpoint? I like the way you're skinning this cat. Sorry. And every once in a while I'll hear I'm like I can't do that and then I have it. Okay. So So is that a motion on the table? There's a recommendation. Well, I mean everybody the next the main meeting is Tuesday after Memorial Day.

So that's everybody but the calendar is a little um different. So is it just a matter of say I hey I agree with your recommendation. It's not a formalized in a week. Is that the uh the announcement time frame? Um announcement time frame is 48 hours. So, all right. So, I'll make a motion that we have a special meeting at at 6 uh 6:30 on What date? What date is that? May 26. Tuesday. May 26. Yeah. To consider one of the two projects returning to this. And then we have our Well, should we determine which one? I'd say we leave that up for that's that's staff's burden.

They're both gonna get soft. No, nobody's nobody's going to hurt over that hour and a half delta. So So special meeting at 6:30 and then regular planning board meeting at 7. Yes. Uh is that that's a motion? I would second that. Any discussion? Oh, okay. All in favor? Unanimous. Um, also at the April Town Council meeting, council appointed Taylor and Rusty as alternates to the board of adjustment just so we had that housekeeping done before the next one made.

Congratulations. That's a heavy lift. All right, Greg, does that conclude your I I would like to uh speak with y'all personally after uh this meeting concludes, but this is my uh conclusion of public comments on the matter. Can we do that? And that's not a an official meeting. I can meet with you guys in bunches of two to three. Okay. All right. Wraps that up. Let's go to board member comments. We'll start with Bill.

Okay. Uh, a lot going on. Uh, not always going the way everyone wants, but I'm a glass half full guy. I think we've made a lot of progress over the last two and a half years. I think we've made some more progress and clarity at the meeting tonight. And um again, as always, I want to thank staff for all their work and um because I appreciate you and that's all I've got. All right, Steve.

Uh the only thing I got is uh I just like I say I appreciate you guys on the on the plan board. U all the I guess the time behind the scenes that you have to take to look at all this stuff and get prepared for all this stuff. Um, I mean, I I did some of it today while I was working. So, I mean, I know that, you know, you guys do it while you're working, too. So, I appreciate it. It seems like everybody's prepared for meetings. Again, thank your staff. Thank you for everybody that came out tonight and appreciate you being here.

Likewise. Thank you, Bill, for being here and being invested in our town, our community, and looking forward to digging into some chicken issues. We'll echo the same from everyone. Thank you to everyone that's here. Um, thank you to staff as always. And a reminder that food trucks are on Friday. Start Friday.

That's right. I want to thank uh everyone for coming out. Um, appreciate, you know, the fact that we have more than one person in our audience most times. Um, I think that's good for the town. I do appreciate the staff and all the hard work that you guys put in. Um, and also, you know, for my fellow uh members around this table, because you are right, we do we do put in a lot of work and I think it does pay off uh for the town and the citizens even though they may not always appreciate what we do. All right. I agree with everyone. Can I get a motion for adjournment to adjurnn? Second. Second. All in favor? I

adjourn. Thank you. Let's take a survey before we'll leave. Who has chicken coops here?