Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

2025. It is 700 p.m. Um, we go through, we got a determination of a quorum. I believe we do. And I'm going to read our 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. Refrain from any participation in the matter involved. Bill, no. No conflicts. Conflict.

Then no. Perfect. Perfect. Moving through. Approval of minutes. The January 28th, 2025 planning board regular meeting. I apologize. I did not have a chance to look over it. I will take NY's word that it looked looked good. look accurate. Is that a motion? I move to accept the notice as presented. I'll second. All in favor?

Perfect. Unanimous. All right. Do we have public comments? Thank you, Chris. Absolutely empty. Man, we're scoring today.

Yep. For the record, we have no sign. So, can I skip through reading the statement? Perfect. All right. Moving on to old business. A discussion and possible recommendation of text amendment to section D917 AG private roads and gate houses and section D 918 I screening and landscaping BM language.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning board. Um these can all be kind of grouped together and I hope not to over complicate some of these. These are essentially items that we have addressed before or have come before you before and these are merely administrative cleanups or amending text slightly um before they are uh officially ratified by the Weddingington Town Council. In this case, uh this was a text amendment that has already gone before you and been recommended for approval by you which became ordinance 2025-04. I would refer to this as kind of a a cleanup ordinance. This was to address some language that we've addressed either conceptually or through other text amendments. And this specific ordinance cleaned up areas around um private roads, basically saying we're not responsible for maintaining or inspecting gates. And regarding BMS, which was a little more impactful in saying that we previously prohibited them, now we actually encouraged them and they're recottified into the code. Um, this ordinance went to the town council but was not actually adopted yet. Um, there was some concern about the Burm language or if we actually wanted to add additional language u regarding BRMS. um firm language is uh in the thoroughare buffer section and then actually in that D918I screening and landscaping section of your code and so part of that is that your thoroughare buffer code section doesn't reference D917i. Um, just for full clarity and disclosure, I would just recommend in the thoroughfare buffer section adding reference to section D917 I say C section D97I. I

have this uh just for you all to have. I can pass this around Bill. It actually has the design standards and size and requirements and all those things. 4 to1 scale that buffers had. Uh the town council at the time had asked if those design standards were included in the the code. This is to verify that it is already present. So uh this is simply to get this ordinance 20254 back to town council um as a cleanup language. A to say do we want to cross reference sections just for clarity sake so that that chart is clearly known by developers and B as a board do you have any other cleanup banquetss that you would like to discuss or include um new business item 7B is an example of this. Is there anything else you'd like to include kind of our ordinance 2025-4 at this time? All right. Well, guess I'll open it up to board members if you've got anything.

No, I think it pretty much clears it up. It's kind of housekeeping, but as Greg said, we got to make it official. So, y'all have already recommended approval on this. You don't have to necessarily amend it at all or you don't have to pass or recommend this. So, we don't we don't have we don't have to make a motion for it. Not unless you want to add something to it. Okay. So, we can keep moving. Unless any other board members have just need to recommend it. Just basically reaffirm commitment to it. I reaffirm a second. I'm good with it. All right. Great. Thank you. We

see. Go ahead. All right. Moving on to the next one. Again, similar discussion regarding not D17E. additional specific requirements for conventional residential development.

Yes, thank you um chairman. So this um this ordinance again was recommended for approval by the planning board and was adopted by the Weddington Town Council. Um, this was a kind of a conceptual overhaul of our development regulations for new applications and specifically new subdivisions. Categorizing D917A for all properties, B for conservation properties only, C for non-residential properties, etc., etc. U, with a new section D917E being new rules for conventional subdivisions. So conservation type subdivisions like we're reviewing tonight have additional rules and regulations on top of our base regulations. We added some of those rules to apply here to 917E so they apply to any type of subdivision as well. And the idea of making a D917E was to differentiate our rules that apply to new development, new subdivisions, kind of developer scale projects versus your D97A, which would apply to Joe Homeowner who just wants to build a shed and basically should have enhanced property rights or strong property rights versus a developer which is subject to conditional zoning approvals and we have more flexibility to ask or demand things of them. um this discussion, it's not a discussion and possible recommendation that you can make a motion if you wish is just to discuss this section further. I stated on record both the town council and you guys that we're not quite there yet on this. We've got the concepts in place. We know what we want to talk about regarding buildable area but if there was additional language we could add or how we can amend this section further uh for the benefit of clarity of you know I'll give an example um when an application comes in and they're providing a yield plan on what area is topographically challenged or steep

slopes or flood planes or things like that. um adding additional requirements to provide new exhibits or better information for you guys so you can make an informed decision. Um I think we have a concept of what buildable and non-buildable area is but if we were to enhance that concept we would insert it here. So I believe it was Mr. Deer uh suggested that we discussed this section and see if we could enhance it even further if there was uh kind of consensus among this board of how we could improve this section even further. If if I could before we start on that is I'm looking here um like as I go through the page number three minimum size conservation lands continuity.

What page are you on Bill? Uh page 10. Okay. 10 out of 61 if I got it right.

We we had lined through and I think we've done this before but I'm not sure. Greg, town council and we said planning board and then we line through preliminary plat and we say sketch plan. You I know we're going to be talking sketch plan, schematic plan. Is that line three or bullet number three? Are those changes in or are those that would be part of our discussion? So this this is uh in your packet is the basically previous staff report that was presented to you guys as is and I do believe when it got to the town council level because they were concurrent ordinances that came up back to back uh there was consensus that we switched to the sketch plan in this ordinance. We adopted the kind of general overall term of schematic plan in the next ordinance. It was kind of a chicken and the egg thing, but we agreed that this reference to sketch plan is in the UDO referencing a schematic plan. Um, per a later agenda item, not all references to sketch plan have been removed from the code, but this one has been changed.

So, we don't have to address it here because it's okay. And then, um, one other thing is scroll down to the bottom of that page. It has appendix definitions. you know, we adjust we added adjusted track acreage yield. And if you look at the second sentence, I think it's just a typo. Measuring all the trunks and then adding the diameter of the largest trunk to the one half the diameter of each additional trunk. It looks like something that was carried over from the tree ordinance. Gotcha. Probably a cut and paste that that needs to be lined out. And which page is that on? So we can

That's page 11. Bottom of page 11. 11 or 10. Appendics definitions is read from is 10. Um I'm sorry. 10. Depends on where I scroll it on my laptop. Yeah, 10. It's the bottom of page 10. We've got appendix definitions there for ad adjusted track acreage yield definition. And that was a definition we created that basically excludes flood planes, steep slopes, uh, ponds, streams, that kind of stuff. Got it. Okay. So, that's kind of a housekeeping thing. All right. I'm sorry to interrupt, but

No, no, no. I have I need a little clarification myself. Uh, on that same section, um, page 10, let's see. It's uh 117B when it talks about non-commercial recreational areas such as playing fields and um courts and playgrounds and things like that. Could someone clarify playing fields? Is that just like a level space where the parents go out and kick the ball with their kid or is there going to be a game being played there? Because if there's a game going to be played there with two different teams, then 10 parking spaces isn't going to cut it. I don't I I I interpret it just to mean an open space. You're out there with your kid or

Yeah. playing. Yeah. Not an organized lined off. I was assuming that that's what we were talking about, but I didn't want to That's a good point. But I mean, that's how I interpreted it. I I would interpret it that way as well. It's It's meant to be amenable space. So, it can't be something that's got a bunch of topography changes or floods all the time. It's intended to be a flat space that could be used for those purposes. But actual athletic fields has a separate session section in the UDO and it talks about things like fencing, advertisements, lighting, all those. I don't believe this is intended to be that. I just wanted to clarify that in my mind.

So, so the first one here section D917A open space. Uh I know that we when we discussed this we did not we did not move forward with 20%. But I think subset sub did. Yeah. Right. So is this something that we are revisiting or is this Yeah. This is just a discussion. So if um if you'd like to if we are making changes of the section today, we can amend the text any way you wish. So you could uh amend to say you'd like to change that back to 10% and it would go to council for their consideration again.

But council council put it like that one at 20% which basically my understanding right they're setting policy that that's what it is. So I guess we could come back but you could yeah you could come back but they've I think they made their position known so it came out of our lane. Yeah. Yeah. I think the I think council said 20. We It's It's 20. Um did the council give reasoning for 20? I think there was some reference to the county is 30% open space or is it 20? I think I think it was in line. I mean the uh Union County is right with moving to what Union County had did. But

I think Union County is 30 and we we were gotcha. we were, you know, still not that high. But I mean, if if you're talking about a sixacre major subdivision, right? That's a major subdivision. That's an acre in a in a little bit over over six. Yeah. It would be Yeah, you could have six or more acres, I believe, in a in these type of subdivisions. And you need six more acre acre plus that you're going to have to set aside, you know, on a six acre subdivision. Yeah. We haven't we haven't seen the implication of this text amendment yet, right?

Yeah. So, it might be something we need to look at down the road, how it affects especially R40, R60, R80, you know, might push people into RCD when it normally wouldn't be that way, right? Yeah. If if you're already having set aside 20, why not set aside 50 and get get the yield of the smaller lots? I think somewhere in the UDO, it also caps it. It's not just a percent. If it amounts to so much acreage, it it caps. We'd have I'd have to we'd have to go back and look. But

so is there anything else on that page with those few little I know the sketch plan was gone the 10 to 15% uh 917 then you go to 917E. Um, and so I guess with this would be a little bit more discussion as to what you're saying to add to and and fine-tune. And is this a critical path that we need to get something in to council for approveful or is this that we have a little bit more time as we see some projects roll in? We're actually seeing a little bit more of knowledge of what it is, what it isn't. And I don't know if we could wait another meeting to fine-tune and talk.

I think I think when Greg and I spoke and the the subcommittee, we worked on this before it came to the the full planning board. And I just wanted to make sure I understood the concept we talked about. And Greg says, "Yeah, that's the concept." And maybe it's just me. As I read 917E, I didn't I didn't think it was clear enough. Now, you know, if Greg understands the concept and the planning board was on board with the concept, you know, I don't think it's something that has to be handled immediately, but I'm thinking for an applicant that comes in and they're looking at the UDO, it would need to be made clearer for them. Which parts were you struggling with?

Well, basically just the entire the entire section and how to apply it. Um, kind of I mean basically our concept was for 917E a exist exists for existing uh residents. Yep. Current homeowners doesn't do anything to them. Right. But then if if it's going to be a large track that changes, the intent was we created that categor that definition adjusted gross acreage. Adjusted track acreage,

right? Just track acreage. And in a nutshell, it was okay, we're going to take out, we refer to it as a as primary conservation. And what that primary conservation is is, as you were saying, um, steep slopes, flood plains, creeks, um, ponds, uh, I don't know, rock outcroppings, stuff like what I would call unbuildable. And so that's primary conservation that we said, all right, that you set aside. And then if you're doing um RCD, you would take that adjusted gross acreage and you would develop your yield plan from that. And let's say it's 20 40 homes. Then you're saying, okay, 20 acres goes into secondary conservation and then I build my 40 homes on those 20 acres. That was the concept behind it. And as I read through this, it it wasn't clear to me.

So when you say adjusted, what are you adjusting? Are you taking out of You're taking out what I would call non-buildable land. Yes. But and this was to treat all subdivisions over six acres kind of uniformly versus it just having an RCD category. We talk about unbuildable land, but quite honestly, that is the prettiest part of the property. Usually, that's usually the prettiest part of the property. We're not arguing that. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

So, I'm confused on So, what you're saying is you take that out that you are going to conserve and you don't get to use it as part of your yield plan. You cannot make a 40,000 square foot lot and count it as a lot in the flood plane just because you never steep slope or the So that's what we're saying is is to pull it out then yield plan on what you actually truly can practically on a buildable lot is what you're trying to say. Correct. But I've seen many fl uh plats come that part of the one acre is in a flood plane, but the buildable building pad is not in the flood plane.

And that that's that's the change. Yeah, that's how it was. As long as you had I think it said 9,000 foot in some places it said 10,000 foot pad you can build your house and the whole rest of your lot can be flood plane or steep slopes. And what this is saying is if you've got that situation and I live here and I've got three acres I'm I finally want to build a house on it. That can happen. But if I'm uh a developer is coming in, they wouldn't buy three acres, but they're buying a bigger parcel, six acres or greater, then then that would that would kick in.

Well, I guess I just think about the mountains. I mean, how many houses have you seen hanging off a cliff almost? And so you would call that as you would term it as unbuildable, but somebody built there and yeah, there's a big lot around it, but it's down a steep slope, got big trees and all that sort of thing. Let's say I'm on the mountain. All right, here's my mountain. I got some flat or or you created not sleep or something. I can go ahead and build on that. just this cannot be part of my my uh my 40,000 acre or 20,000 acre if I'm doing RCD lot. I

it's there is is for you know visual effect and and all that kind of stuff. But you're saying that that wouldn't even be qualified as a lot. You could have 40 acres up there, but you wouldn't even qualify it as a lot because you don't have 40 you don't have one acre of buildable lots. You may have 12,000 square feet. Yeah. of a building pad. But but according to that, then you couldn't even use it as a lot because there's not 40,000 square feet. You would not be able to use the beautiful part. If I Yeah. If I was in the m if the mountains were here in Weddington. No, I'm completely confused by what you're saying here. Okay.

Interject. You know, the current rules, the previous rules were basically, you know, as long as you got a buildable area, it doesn't matter if you have flood plane or sleep steep slopes in your backyard. As long as your building pads flat, you can build. Uh some of the direction uh in speaking with uh our elected appointed officials was we don't want anybody to be able to have steep slopes or flood planes on their lot. And I said, 'Th that's going to be an issue with private property rights. If somebody has existing land or if they want to subdivide it from one to two and you've got a tiny little corner of a stream in the backyard, you're saying the lot is unbuildable. And so staff worked very hard to say, let that's that's not a great idea. Let's not do that. And so this was the compromise and saying, okay, if you're building a new subdivision, particularly one that's conservation, put all the steep slopes and flood planes and everything else in the common open space. So it's under the management of the HOA and the flat land is where or the buildable land is where you are reserved to build the lots. So it's to discourage challenging topography or conditions on a private lot only in new development.

Yeah. Your first example where I've got it and I've got a little corner of my lot there that I can build. the rest that would be 9 917A that doesn't affect I'll say direct homeowner. Yeah. Yeah. A home. Right. So that's why 917E was was put into place. Again, this is for for major for subdivisions.

Yeah. So that's why we're we're talking through this. It's it's a it's a big change and it's a big conceptual change on telling people what is buildable. So staff's really just looking for direction from you guys and I'm really just planting the seed in your mind. You know, if we're all not in consensus on what the section E is, let's think about it tonight, give throw out some ideas for the whole board and then I can have a text amendment before you in the next month or two. Yeah. You know, you would think of a major subdivision, you're thinking about 50, 60 acres, you know, not 12 or 10 where this might have a extreme effect. Well, yeah, but we don't make a differentiation. Yeah. With

Exactly. Correct. It's just six acres or larger. So, we're kind of treating everybody in a in kind of in the same uh scope, I would say. Well, but I would say that if you do have I feel like everybody and I I could be totally off base, but everybody goes to the RCD when trying to develop here anyway for and then you're down to they can't go RCD if they don't have sewer for value engineering. And

if there's no sewer to it, RCD is not an option. And well, I I hate to say it, there are certain engineering engineered systems that you can get on smaller lots. I I I don't know for sure, but um yeah, I wouldn't I wouldn't make that such as just a blanket statement. I wouldn't I just am thinking about the push back from a previous applica applicant that didn't um

that wasn't using the 1950 standard of the right they were trying to use technology new technology and it was uh shouted down. But on this approach that we're talking about 917A and correct me if I'm wrong on this, we kind of touched on a little bit. If you're doing RCD and you calculate your yield plan or you're doing R40, that yield plan is going to be the same. Mhm. Except you're going to build it on half half of the existing

said that you threw out some that's quote considered non buildable and you're not going to cut that off primary conservation land. Correct. You're going to cut it off, right? But you're going to cut it away. You could have had a lot there because you had a 10,000 square foot building pad in the front of it and then it had a slope going down to a creek. But you're not going to let that be part of a lot. So this lot is not there anymore. I think our building envelope or buildable area is greater than 10,000 now. Correct. Well, I'm just using that because it's easy to calculate. Yeah. Do I think that's what it used to be? Yeah. Do you understand my Yeah. And I think

my confusion here. Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah. If we're if we're if we're talking an owner that had I I've got

to to Greg's point, I've got my my land I want to build on, but it's all a flood plane, but I do have a little corner over there. They can still build on that. That's why we created 917E. If I've got my Let's say I've got my same or let's say uh Morris Farms, you know, that's I don't know how many acres that is, 37. I don't know what it is, but um if they had flood plane, any other things we talk about, then that's what we're we're referring to as primary conservation. It's it's the arts uh

concept. Basically, this may be a better role to workshops on this to where we can sit internally, draw, show exhibits, and then kind of Let me break out some crayons and color. Okay. I just I just say because this is I get it's confusing and I think okay, when you read it, we are here's Keystone. Is this not their conventional thing? Uh, this was their conventional Keystone is RCD. I know, but isn't this a map of their how they could do a yield plan? I do not believe those are 40,000 square foot lots. Okay. I could be wrong. I'm just looking dimensions. That's at this point on the agenda later. Yes, let's

I think I think that's a great idea. Staff's direction on this topic is to hold workshop. Yeah, we will do that. Yeah, we can air it out, show it, use some examples and have some uh real world properties here to kind of use to talk through again because I do believe we need to add to it and I actually believe we might need to be a little bit more concise with what yeah is happening here

but as as part of this and just tell me we can workshop it but if you go to D and I'd mention this to you Greg um setback requirements ments. All principal dwelling units within a conventional subdivision shall be set back at least 100 ft from the external road rightway. Well, the external road rightway is going to have a 100 foot buffer. It's D number one there. Yeah. And so that to me that doesn't So now you're saying a 200 feet back. It does. Well, it would No, it wouldn't have to be that. still the 100

because you got a 40 foot set back. So it depends on the shape of the lot but it won't you know to be 100 ft the principal dwelling at least 100 feet back it could be right at the very back of the the lot and it would say that's okay. So we have this was in place before our thoroughfare buffer ordinance was updated A and then B each lot still has setback requirements so they can't build on the property line. are still subject to the requirements there. So I guess the closest they could be is 115 ft if it's facing the internal road. So we can work through make that part of the workshop and get

So yeah. No, I I think we move to workshop this one when we can not hold everybody hostage on time and Yep. I'm with you. And work through that. Okay. Do we need a motion for that or are we good? We're good. I just needed staff direction. It was just a item for discussion. All right. I will uh I guess from that we'll move the thing and we'll grab some dates that work for all parties involved. Is um is town council going to be a part of that or are we going to get input from town council?

Uh if we can do that I think that'd be great. I don't know what to the extent actually I would say first let's work out our kinks to make sure we understand it before uh we we get them involved and that way we could definitely articulate to as to what it would be for them then see how they receive it and what changes. Can I make a little suggestion? Absolutely. How about if we get a subject matter expert a lot a developer who can show us the process that they go through of how they look at the land. The civil engineers of the world. Are you a civil engineer? Maybe you can just look at

uh we we would uh as y'all know that is a wide range as to as to what is the goal for your client, what is the goal for for value engineering. Some things you could do to make look good that don't that make it look good. It cost five million to build something that you can sell for two. Yeah. So, it's kind of a depends, but you we can definitely get some I mean, Labella's guy Bob would be a great resource for us. That's a good to use at that can can come from a practical side of of keeping us on track with

with common sense, practical use of what we're trying to do. I just think it's important that we respect the the property rights, individual property rights. Well, nobody's saying we can't do the you can't do the property. This is just totally saying that. I'm just saying I I just know that um with all the regulations things that you plan gets smaller and smaller with all of these, you know, parameters. I want to just be careful about it. It's all and I am so not uh qualified to have that discussion. Gotcha. Well,

so uh Greg, you're good with that kind of direction? have a workshop, find dates, invite Bob. Yep. Bob buys lunch. Um, all right. We're going to move on to new business. New business a discussion and possible recommendation of an application by Keystone Custom Homes requesting conditional zoning approval for the development of a 12 lot conservation subdivision located at 3009 Forest Lawn Drive. We will let Greg take over for here.

Thank you, chairman, members of the planning board. Um, this is an application by Keystone Custom Builders, um, requesting conditional zoning approval for development of a 12 lot conservation subdivision off of Forest Lawn Drive. Uh, so this is approximately 16 acres. Um, it's currently just a single family home and I believe we have the property owner here in the audience with us tonight. Um, this proposal would turn it from just uh one home site into 12 RCD homes. So we all know this but RCD means that 50% of the land or more is preserved as conservation land and the other 50% of the property can be developed uh in smaller lot sizes. The current standard is a minimum of 18,000 square foot but has to average out to 20. And in this case, uh we do have a variety of lot sizes uh with the smallest being approximately uh 19,000 18 something and then the largest being 23,000 plus or minus. Um the applicant is uh as far as who did the engineering report is Casey Whiteitman from Collers. Uh he is here tonight and they will give a presentation. Uh but first I'll go through our staff report. Um uh the final application was submitted on August 1st, but this has gone through um the public participation process uh since April of this year. Um there was a onsite uh sharet walk which several members of the planning board attended. Uh there were two community meetings um with the second held here at town hall and as well as a presentation to the town council several months ago uh with

the conceptual plan. Uh this plan has not changed since that concept. It is still at 12 lots. Uh there's a yield plan I believe in the uh applicants presentation which will show um some of the things that we discussed earlier today on how that was arrived to. Um I'll bring up this slide just for the rest of uh this discussion so we can see the preliminary layout. Uh there are 12 lots provided around two roads. Uh that second road is a stubout to an undeveloped piece of property located to the south. Um that secondary road is also serving the purpose of um meeting our culde-sac and road length requirements. If it were just a single culde-sac on uh the property without that, it would be considered too long to meet our standard of 500 ft for a road that ends in a culde-sac. Um site conditions include uh a stream in the back which includes some flood plane which is denoted in gray there. Uh it's heavily wooded in the back portion, but the front is the front yard of the existing residence. Uh and so there's not uh too many trees actually at the front of the property running forest lawn. There are several heritage trees at that location around the driveway. Uh but those trees are unfortunately right where uh this site plane would go in the center of the property. Um, as far as other conditions, this uh is applicable to UDO UDO section 917A just your standard requirements uh for all residential development which is found in your staff report. I won't go into too much there. It just uh it notes the things that are compliant where our existing code. It also is applicable to UDO section D97B additional specific requirements for conserv conservation residential development. So some of the things we

were talking about early today uh definitely applicable here. Uh just to denote some of the highlights uh we talked about the areas that should be reserved as conservation lands and the idea of steep slopes and flood plane. Uh we have some kind of contradictory language here. Some of the things we're trying to accomplish in our plans is that you shouldn't get credit for some of these steep slopes and flood planes when calculating your your areas or buildable areas. But at the same time, section D97B says these are the most important ecological lands and should be preserved. So staff kind of clarifies, listen, this section in conservation area says this is definitely what should be considered the conservation area. this is there. It should be remain untouched. We shouldn't penalize a property that has these conditions as long as they preserve it as conservation space in perpetuity. Um some of the additional requirements for conservation lands um is that uh a trail system or um pedestrian access is provided. uh that's shown on one of your sheets as a a walking trail that runs around the perimeter of the property. Uh that's shown on kind of one sheet that is your landscape plan, but isn't shown in the others. I would just note that that really needs to be a focus of these plans. That should be shown on all of them and it should be shown as practical making sure that it's actually usable land because there is some challenging topography in the back of the property. And other design considerations that I noted is that conservation lands typically have a neighborhood green uh a set aside area that's surrounded with a perimeter of trees that is a usable amenity space. We talked about ball fields, you know, community or neighborhood green can serve as that kind of function. It could be served as your I always like to use the example that I heard several months

ago is where you're going to have your Easter egg hunt in your community um in the spring and this would be that location. Currently, this project does not have one. Our code says that it's uh to the highest extent possible you should do one. Uh but it doesn't say it's a requirement. This project does not have one. Staff highly recommends that it should. I think a neighborhood green is a fair concession when reducing your lot size in half. U that you provide some kind of amenity back to the neighborhood for that uh type of development. Um some of the goals in our land use plan um is that it be consistent with our future land use map. Uh this is specifically listed as a conservation residential area in our future land use map. This meets that goal perfectly. Um that residential and uh the large uh development should be a priority. Uh in this case this is considered low density housing. Yes, they're on 19 to 20 to 21,000 square foot lots. This is still less than one unit per acre. This is 12 homes on 16 acres. So, this meets that land use requirement. Uh and then it also denotes the importance of preserving open space and conservation space. U clearly the rear of this property is the most sensitive and that is preserved and using this RCD method. Uh the last important note is this is a sewer development. So we don't have to discuss septic systems, nor should we. So that's a blessing. The sewer connection is um through that ravine in the back. So uh sewer lines flow with gravity and therefore usually fall along these these basins and creeks. And that's the case here. So there's an existing trunk line going down the creek and this project would connect to it. Um, the last thing I would note for this

project is that this is our first application that is being subjected to our new appendix 2B requirements. Yes, appendix 2B was formally adopted after this application was received. However, it has been communicated both by elected appointed officials and staff that because this is conditional zoning, we expect you to meet this new highest standard. And so this is subject to scrutiny by this board of saying it meets all the new requirements of our appendix 2B. Uh which I think I believe is understood by all parties. But it also means if this board is not comfortable that it meets all those requirements um pause should be given in either tableabling uh the project or something else until those requirements made. So if you guys don't have the information you feel is needed uh in meeting that appendix 2B, please um share those concerns with the applicant so they can make those changes with that. That was my basically my recommendation. If you feel it meets appendix 2B this is only 12 lots then please feel free to proceed. However this is our guinea pig or first case in these new standards. If you have any questions at all, it is completely appropriate to say, "I need clarification on X, Y, and Z item." before you're comfortable moving forward.

Quick quick question for you, Greg. If if we want to make sure that they have the walking trail on all of the um all of the drawings. Is that just a is that just a clerical thing where or would that would we have to see that to be able to approve it?

Uh you could do either. You could say it's a condition of approval. You could say, you know, it needs to basically be done by the time it gets to the town council and we believe you have enough time to make those edits. Or if you're not comfortable with how it's laid out or you have questions about how that's going to be laid out, you could say, um, you know, I recommend tableabling this motion until that item is added to the plans for us to review. All right. The applicant consider topography as you laid in that walking trail. that we got. Does the applicant you want to present something? Yeah, let's let's let them Yeah. Thank you. Mhm.

Thank you board members. Appreciate the the time to give you this quick presentation just to kind of give you a little background. Um, next slide, Greg, please. Thank you. So, this is just a quick recap. Greg already mentioned a lot of these milestones that we've achieved. We started this whole process back in February. Here we are eight months later uh trying to well seven months later. Um it has been a little arduous. Um we got caught up in the text amendment which uh Bill thankfully at the council meeting kind of brought to our attention that it would be something we should adopt. So we did. So we made modifications to our plans. Unfortunately because of the timing of that we weren't able to get on last month's agenda. So that's pretty much why we missed last month just because of the adoption and the modifications we had to make. Um, other than that, uh, that's pretty much the recap on it. This is the yield plan. Uh, we were able to get 12 lots there. Um, all of that, uh, where the houses and the pads are are outside of the flood plane and inbuildable areas. Um, this is the cluster option. So, we pulled everything up away from all of the conservation area. We do have that 50% criteria already um, applied here. uh you will see that the culde-sac is to Greg's point um we've met the cross-sectional uh component as far as the intersection to comply with the length of that culde-sac this is the aerial so you can see it is heavily wooded entire property except for the front there are actually no trees in the proposed buffer area which we have hatched right now this is some examples of the treed areas and some of the angles and we wanted to identify that. So, if you look at the circular area there, we're looking at the northern part of the parcel adjacent to the adjacent homeowners. So, I'm just taking some shots from inside our property towards the other property that

is not our property. So, you can see these aren't even heritage trees. So, it's fully wooded with or without the heritage trees. We just want to kind of point that as a reference. Uh we have no intention of taking these trees down. By the way, uh this is the other side of it. This is the rear of the property. This is at a point where we're beyond the limits of where we're building. So from here back, we're not touching any of those trees as well. Again, none of those are really heritage trees. Uh there are some scattered throughout, but we're still maintaining all of the trees whether they're heritage or not. This is the last view adjacent property where we're actually going to be connecting with a road system. Uh again, heavily wooded. Uh we intend on respecting those trees except for where we have to cut in and put that side road. This is an uh image that's showing the site plan overlaid with the existing tree areas, the pond itself, the buffer in the front, and then the topography. So you can have an idea of the relationship of what's happening here. And I'm going to kind of expose and go into each detail on the next slide. So there's the pond uh that has been fully designed. So just so you know that is not just a schematic. Uh that is the true intent of meeting all of the criteria for town of Weddington as well as the state. This is a slide that's showing all the trees as it relates to the different criteria, especially with appendix 2B. Um, as was alluded to earlier, the buildable area was questionable. We had to meet with Greg a couple times to kind of get clarity on the intention of that ordinance and that change. Um, so this is showing how we've complied with that. Uh, you can see the front buffer area. We will fully landscape that. So that will be installed new trees. The

heritage trees, that's the next call out. I highlighted those in yellow and that is a correction I need to make that's in the report itself. Uh it's saying that we are removing three out of the four. We're actually saving three out of five. So you'll see one that's kind of a little offset from the row. Um we're able to save that one in between those two lots. But where the road comes in, obviously we can't save those two trees. Uh but we made every intent on saving those larger heritage trees. And then moving wait uh sorry step back. Um the existing heritage trees to be saved. I just pointed out that everything that you're seeing in circles within the forested areas, those are all heritage trees. There's a quite a quantity of heritage trees throughout. And again, those are not going to be touched. The ones that we're showing in addition to the trees that are surrounding those trees are not going to be touched. And then the last point there is the required tree lots or lots on the um the trees on the lots. Again, that's typical. So all the black dots within the lots themselves are the required trees per lot. So this is going to be very forested when it's all said and done. Uh next slide. And I think yeah, just questions if you have any. Actually, I look, I see four trees per lot, but with a tree ordinance, since this is RCD, I think it's three trees per lot.

I mean, four is nice, but it's telling us three. Appreciate that. And if you've got existing trees on there, they can be used as part of your three trees per lot. Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Okay. Because we do have some in the rear of the lots. Is there any plan to buffer the pond with some plantings or screening?

Uh, not necessarily outside of the area that we are modifying the land, if you will, to create the BMS. Beyond that, we're not touching those trees, but on the pond BMS and its surrounding areas, we will not uh because we also need access to be able to maintain it.

Why no community green? We were contemplating that and we were between the chicken and the egg on that one. It's like, okay, we we'll have to remove more trees to create the green space because there is no more space. Uh and we just kind of figured if we create a a really viable trail, the fact that we're saving more than 50%, we kind of are complying with a lot of the intentionality of that and the fact that it's only 12 homes. I have a question for my fellow council members or board members, excuse me. Uh, sorry, had a brown out there. We got promoted.

Oh, no. We do not want to be promoted. Um, instead of a looking at this lot, this tract, it seems to me because of the prevalence of all the trees that you would want to have not a playing place, but a nature trail and picnic tables and places in the common area where the families could go and have that. So would would this board think that that would be um a viable option instead of cutting down trees and planting grass, which is not going to grow well in a forest, but you know, a place what you're talking about for the common space is a place for the families to gather. It doesn't have to be grass. You can gather in the forest. That's what I'm saying. And I would hope that we would count that if that something they wanted to do. I definitely would think that could be a a ne negotiable item if uh presented. But I I guess I'm going to bring up this. Uh have y'all guys looked at 2B and these sheets of plans as to how it rep relays with our 2B? Have y'all had a chance to cross check that? I personally feel like we are missing a lot of information that we were trying. And being that you're the guinea pig, I hate to say we've got to stand on the right foot of how we issue 2B and apply it across the board to every developer coming. Um, I have a lot of questions, tree survey questions that we've required and I see your trees, but like I don't think it meets our tree survey. It's just the symbols. Um, I have and I'm just going to go through a lot of the questions I see on just very few documents I have. I'm going to start with your tree survey or existing conditions. Was it really surveyed? Because you got

plus or minus acres plus or minus 16.71 plus or minus uh 5.51 and five in the rightway. So, I was just curious if it was surveyed or is the plus or minus because this is kind of decompul. Yeah, fully understand. um that land was surveyed by a professional surveyor for the boundary as well as the topography. Um I'll speak to our engineer in terms of what was represented on the plans. Casey, if you have anything to say on what was shown

just plus or minus would go away and it's really the 16.717. All right. Just saw that on existing conditions and I'm really quick going to show why I don't think we have enough information

as to some of the stuff. uh go through and let's just say from the existing proto uh topography where we want to take out the steep slopes and stuff. Uh well, let me don't jump. Let me go to the next page. You've got your stub road coming to you look it's hatched as if it's like some kind of gravel or rip wrap, but that was going to meet fire apparatus turnaround standards, right? So that'll be paved. It you were just showing it was going to be the fire turnaround, not that it's gravel. Okay. I didn't see a legend. Didn't see much of the the notes on some of that um grading plan this one. So, I'm my understanding was on that water quality pond and this has got to be a water quality subdivision, right? And if can you pull up some plans, Greg sheet? Uh so, I might have to stand up on this

C300 uh page. There it is. Uh, no. You got our packet. C300 is the drawing number. I've just got the site. I got you. So, on the grading plan that I'm looking at, the top of BM on the uh the dam going around the 635 basically, maybe 634. Yeah. Does that not have to be 3 to one going back up to the back of the lot per state standards? I believe it is.

O, it did not from our PDF that measured way steeper in in the plan that I have measures way steeper than 3 to one on those outsides. If it is and you're you're referring to the inside the below the No, I'm talking from the outside pond going back up to the lots. Does the state not require that to be 3 to one as well? But I believe that's what the design was was 3 to one. Maybe my design looks different. [Music] My design may look different than that.

I do not see all the wies coming down the line uh looking like a tail ditch coming down the property line or something. Um this is just the plans I've received in our packet. So lot basically 7 8 9 six and maybe a portion of five. The the obviously the topography for the grading is intense. So would it be basement lots? I don't see anything identified. uh which is where we're trying to make our our revision was to get a better sense of a real world situation of what was going to be built and then in return for the upfront investment of what you're going to do to show us again great pond size everything that that you hold the difference doesn't have to change so much going to council and then trying to somewhat go to CD so we end somewhere in a totally different kind of design so we are trying to request as much information as possible to assess, analyze on the ordinances that that Weddington can control. So, those steep slopes seem to be an issue versus our steep slopes that we want pulled out in our kind of initial math not to be replaced.

Um, again, and just to address that, I I mean, it would be a basement lot that lot. Um, as far as the slopes go, I I guess from what I'm hearing is out of your checklist, you're looking for a final finished grading plan that would have given you the I guess you'd be able to check that box that that was a three. We would see what you're going to end up leaving on the site because this is not the final grading plan. So, we're looking at something that again, we're trying to get the most accurate and upfront information and and we're just not there. So again, not to say you're

and I I just don't see that in the 2B checklist that it would be that level, but that could be a misunderstanding. Again, us being the guinea pig that it was supposed to be a final trading plan.

Gotcha. Um, another part coming up with that your existing and again it was hard to read because your existing conditions is a twoft contour interval, but your grading plan is one foot. So it's really blurred. So you trying to zoom in it. So it may look it may look crazier than it is because behind it is twofoot and I'm looking at at the one other part with water quality is I was concerned with is there is a gosh this thing in the middle of the property there is a ridge heeltop kind of you've got water that is leaving and headed towards lawn and then you water you capture headed to the pond. Do you not have to capture and treat the water that's headed to Forest Lawn?

We have to we have to capture any in the roadway and then we were the lots we're going to so we would most likely have a storm drain running down the roadway.

So in that 2B we kind of request a little bit of a storm drain just to see again not holding it to it but an idea of how your storm network works. How does it impact trees? Not that we're going to say this is approved and then all of a sudden we find out your storm network after you get to approval has affected these heritage trees that we want to save today. So again, looking at that practical look and it's pretty clear on your erosion control plan is really where it stands out. As you deal with your pond and you've got some ditches holding the water from the back, but this hilltop right here, all this water is going to the front. So, I think if I'm not mistaken, does that mean you got to have some kind of a BMP up front on the front road?

Well, we were going to try to capture as much in the storm drain. And I I do see your point that we would need to to show them that going to that um BMP. Um but with that being said, that covert that is in front has an existing flow to it and we would be decreasing that, you know, substantially. So, we look at it as a, you know, benefit to to what we're doing for that cover because I do know that water crosses forest lawn when it gets really heavy. Uh, and and we'd be helping that situation.

I and again, you may know a lot more than what these pages are showing. I'm just saying from us looking at this and kind of coming at this with the 2B and the the standards that we're trying to to set for development developers coming here. that that's just some obvious things I see which would lead me to say we still have issues of of a concept that is going to have to change at some sort of if we approve today you still got to change this and what we looked at today is probably not what's about to be built from our standpoint. The other one's the walking trail. You show it, you delineate it around on that last landscape page, but there's not any notes to how is that being built? What's the root impact? What's our tree impact to? Is it what kind of type of path is it? You just going to run with it? So, again, just some

our intent on that, just so everybody understands, um, that was meant to be a walking trail that we thought was, you know, a pretty substantial almost a half a mile exactly. Um, we we we didn't want I mean, we don't have a full landscape plan. I'm not aware of that being part of uh 2B as well where we get to that level of detail. However, we did we did take into consideration the topography. There's kind of that that u hill that's in the middle and we were trying to walk along the outside of there. Now, it wouldn't be exactly because where we show it maybe because we want to try to work within the trees and not come and clear trees to make that

that's to my point. I'm not saying I want to see how you want to build, but just a few notes to we're going to run with the land. This is kind of an idea instead of showing it and implicating to the planning board members as if that's where our walking trail will be with kind of a hey I'm just saying just put some notes intent is to make the walking trail. We're going to run with the land. We're going to avoid trees. We're not trying to chop down a tree. We're not paving it. It's not going to be a golf cart path. Something to that. But there's not any notes on that page that say anything other than it points to the walking trail. If I may, um, in in to Casey's defense here, um, we were following the appendix 2B to the best of our ability. I think what you're asking is a little beyond that to be honest. And here we have open discussion and we're willing to make the changes, but that level of detail seems to be more than is and this is all going to be recorded. It's documented. So whatever you're telling us that you were referring to

I'm going first off I'm not going to apologize for something to be delivered that is represented here as what represented at the end. I feel like since my term has been here we have been hoodooed and you see something that is not actually what's built little symbol of BMP then they size it and find out it's two acres. So just asking for an accurate depiction and I feel like with the erosion control plan we're just very a lot of questions the the heel what happens to the water in the front. I don't even see drainage areas a storm system uh and and some of that is in in in 2B and I'd be again willing to point out some things and send an email on behalf of us at Weddington as to my stance on this. I don't know the other members.

It is is an erosion control plan 2B. It is. I mean, other than outside of what we showed or what is it just a higher erosion control is part of 2D, but that what are you doing with erosion control on the other side of the hillside?

So again, you got diversion ditches and temporary ditches running to the pond on the on the flood plane side of the hill, but what's happening on the hill on the front? Is it just silk fence that gets that? I feel like there should be some ditches. And again, if we got to capture water, get it to water quality and treat it. and and we did submit a full erosion control plan that was part of our original submitt. I mean, I think there was 30 sheets or so and and we did redact that back to a smaller number of sheets through our review process and and maybe that

Yeah, the 30 sheets would have probably been a lot better just to say because I mean that's what we're trying to ask for up front is a higher level of detail, a higher standard here so that when the res upset about things, when they see that we're vetting it and then they see the final product, it looks like hasn't started. Not to say you've got to design the whole entire site up front, but again, well, there's nothing left. Letington there's a Well, again, design the site. I I I mean, if especially water runoff because we've had several issues with that, right? I'm I'm relying on their expertise as engineers in the field and I feel adequate with the 30 pages that were already designed, but we pages aren't in our table. I've got seven.

Understood. But we felt that that was excessive. And the calculations are included as well. I saw that and I and I'm having time to run through those because I was curious as to on the calculations for your storm water roughly what was our impervious aotment per lot that was going to go to the pond. I can't remember in the

Okay. I I thought it was off of low versus building a nice big custom home. And I was wondered if you just used the in your picture the box area and the driveway that you're showing as kind of some of that impervious and obviously the roads. Again, I got questions with ditch grading, but a label is going to go over all that. I'm just saying from us I feel like now that we are in a situation where I would like to table let you guys get back to 30 pages or whatever you see to let us have a better look at this as to uh Chris would you be willing to say if Labella agreed

they don't want to do plans yet that's right well why am I going to go through a whole full CD approval review process says, "If I can even get beyond this, that's that's backwards." Yes. Plus, Lebella, the last review cost me $5,000. Again, I get it. And I know I've we do this with many of municipalities. This is not Weddington is different. I get it. But again, I'm not gonna I can't apologize for Weddington and what Weddington residents and council are are wanting and wanting to hold developers to. Again, I'm not

I'm not saying I'm just saying from this with seven pages and asking not that 2B I know you came in early, but put your best foot forward. Here we go. And I get seven pages. That's all I'm kind of saying is again I think I would like to hear from the other planning board members.

Sounds great. Any I'm on board. That's the reason I asked the question very basic question on the community green. I know your comment was, "Well, we'd have to take down more trees to put in the community green." I mean, how many more trees? What kind of trees? Where would you Where was your thoughts to put that community green? And of course, I have the same uh questions on the walking trail because I've walked that thing when you had your your community meeting out there. And um

if I may answer that, the the we did look at the green area and the only area that was viable was in the rear of the lots with an easement cutting between the properties and then that unfortunately resulted in the highest topography area, which means I'd have to take even more trees out just to make a plateau. There's just nowhere viable on the topography of this per the UDO saying it's a recommendation except for extenduating circumstances which we feel we have. You're saying up in this front area here. I guess my question is where were you visualizing the community green? We were thinking of putting it behind the rear lots of the culde-sac. Oh, back in here.

Yeah, there is no other area. We're already limited and restricted by the road and the square footage of each lot. Okay. I guess I'd like to see a Well, I I have a just a couple of quick questions and then a comment. Um I can't tell from this, Chris. Is there a left turn lane or is there What kind of turn lanes we have getting in there? Think we have a turn lane at all, do we? No, there's no roadway improvements because of the low amount of traffic that we are creating per DOT.

Correct. This would not qualify as requiring TIA. Yeah, I know what we're saying about that, but Luna got away with not having a lefthand turn lane on a curve. Has anyone driven on Forest Lawn lately? There's traffic everywhere. You have one car trying to hold up 30 cars behind you. That's what I'm saying. But I also want to address my fellow board members. And I had great reservations when we passed that last amendment. I think that we are being unrealistic to ask developers to spend to come with essentially a final plat with to us. I mean down to what color the flower is going to be on the BMS. So I I don't think we're getting to that point. We're not I mean you're not you're talking construction documents. We're we're no we're nowhere near that.

Yeah. I mean, the the planning the planning plan is it's pretty much simple. I mean, it's I think a tree every 100 feet, bushes every I don't know what it is. And I'm just saying they're drawn from the approved plant list from the Union County urban forest. I was being facitious when I said that. I'm sorry, I missed it.

Yeah, I that was that was my sarcasm. Sorry. No, I know that we have a very extensive landscaping thing and how many plants are on and that sort of thing, but it seems that for us to say exactly where is the walking trail going to be. I know I'm saying where just give us what Bill was asking to what it is, how it is, what's your plan of install instead of visually showing us and then coming up at the end and saying we can't do this after they've already got approved which is what's been happening. So again, but don't want duped from the front end. Uh well I

the walking trail again I'm not saying show us where it's built give us things just allude to what the plan was for the walking trail. that I misunderstood because I thought that that's what Bill was asking for. Where on here do you want your green and I'm Well, that's I was talking separate issue community green that's separate from a walking trail, right? Yes. But I was just going to I was just going to in my mind I'm just connected that the walking trail would somehow be connected to the green. That's in my mind that's how I visualized it. But um I got a whole list of other stuff. I I'll remain quiet. Scott, what do you think?

Um, so my understanding of 2B was that we were going to take on a big chunk of the town council or take away a big chunk of their responsibility. So that's that's correct, right? So if when developers come through the planning board now with the extra uh processes and information that we require, then they're not going to have these conversations with town council. Is that that's kind of the idea with with 2B

goal score? Yep. Absolutely. So we'd rather get to uh So I'm sorry.

So So kind of keep that in mind as you're as you're processing things. Um, so instead of having instead of having approval from us and then going through this process with town council where we're, you know, requiring the the process a little earlier. Um, but I and I I do I mean I agree with Chris, you know, there's it having having that knowing that that's the the situation. I think having a little more detail or at least having the information laid out um so that anybody can look at it and understand what the thought process was. Um I do agree with Nancy. I'm not a real big fan of community green on this particular property. I think having, you know, the walking trails a little more spelled out, not necessarily um, you know, 100% laid out, and maybe making, you know, a community area, you know, picnic table or something back there where you don't have to remove trees. I think that's a much more fantastic idea than than cutting trees down just because we want to trying to plant grass.

Totally agree. Um, you know, so I mean it's it's a hard spot because you know you've you've done a you done extra because you we've said we would like you to fall into the 2B situation. Um, you know, I mean, it's, yeah, I'm not saying that you're not in a tough tough position, um, in any way, shape, or form. Um, and I've got I've got a a internal question about the stub road. Um, yeah,

but we can talk about that at a a later date perhaps. So yeah, again, I'm not trying to say the project's not warranted. The project's not a good idea. At the end of the day, I think you maybe have said it the best was that it was 30 pages and we got seven. Yeah. I mean, we're at 85% design already on this this project. And and as I reiterate, when we chose what to submit, we were looking at the boxes that we were checking and we said, "This is overkill. We don't need you guys to go through 30 pages of information. But now it sounds like you would have preferred the 30 pages. It sounds like I mean again and then I feel like we're hitting a moving target every time we come in front of the

that's what we're trying to change to Scott's point is is that it comes through us where we give a favorable we recommend approval. We wanted to get to council and council not have to second guess what it went through for them. So they may have some conditions on something that's purely aesthetic versus you know what from technicality this doesn't work for us and it and it goes with that we're just trying to get a line to where it comes through this board to get to council and it's not a yes here or no there not a no here they would have wanted it um and and again 2B may be overkill we've said from the very beginning in our thing that we put it in there trying to flush out. If we get 80% great, but it's going to take guinea pigs and projects to actually flush out the practical part. What's too much? What's too little? Each project's different. Where does one do we get to say, you know, this is not warranted here, but it would be warranted there, but at the end of the day, the goal is to align and be consistent from each developer so that it's not a moving target anymore. It is here. It is what it is. And again, uh, communicating with the planner definitely a great idea. Staff, um, and taking there. So, that's all I'm saying. I'm not, and that's why I don't want to have to have a vote that it's like a if you're voting on this,

I think you summarized it pretty good. At one point in time, prior to our attempt at a I call it the new 2B, we weren't requiring enough upfront work for the planning board to make a decision. So, we're trying to tighten it up. We're trying to get I'll say more upfront and that more upfront would mean coming from the applicant. It's just like what's too much, what's not enough. And I think that's where we are right now. I mean, if I was you guys based on what came through this planning board before under the old 2B, which was almost anything, I'd say, "Oh my god, this is way too much." So that's what that's the balance we're trying to get to. And to Bill, can I ask you a question?

Sure. Do you even understand all of these maps? Do you think that Amanda understands all of them? Do you think that I understand all of them? Chris is pro, excuse me, probably the only person at the table. I'm not sure about Steve over there, but Rusty's very much in this. Scott, do you understand these? Can you are you I understand him to a degree, but my level of expertise to say if this is good enough or or not, that's what we have. Not even Greg. He's not an engineer. And I agree. That's what LeBella is supposed to be doing, right? Not arguing. So I I guess they got to get past the council to get to a label.

But I don't do you mind if you I would look at it I would look at it this way, Nancy. I agree. I'm not the technical person. Yeah. I have a a good understanding of I'll say the elements of the UDO. That's the reason I pointed out three trees versus four. You're putting in more than you need to. But then Chris has a wealth of knowledge. Rusty's not here and I wish he was. He's a civil engineer, construction engineer. Yes, I have. So in my mind, that would be another reason I would say to give this the analysis it needs by the planning board. I would table this.

Okay. Then I have another question for you. I have another question for you. What happens when those two subject matter experts rotate off this board and it's going to be just regular people nurses and teachers and and and real estate pay. How that that's been our problem in the past and got us into the dilemma we're in. And I think it's easy to say it, but to actually accomplish it, hopefully the guys with the real technical expertise won't rotate off this board or if they do, we get someone with the same level of expertise.

And I think that's what we lost over the years when we lost uh Rob Dao and and Dorene. Yeah, Dorine was a civil engineer. She couldn't have she was very smart. Trust me. And and they had but not to the level that we're now requiring. But isn't that part of the reason why we wanted the tob uh changed to put all that information in there? Right. My question is did we understand it?

So I've got a question for Greg if I could. it. In this particular case, is the applicant voluntarily doing 2B or are we because they came in before 2B, correct? And it was highly suggested that they follow our new 2B. I I will answer this carefully because this is a matter of vested rights and timing and completeness and application dates versus review dates and etc. It was told to the applicant by myself, by members of this board that because it's conditional zoning and that full authority lies in the town council, town council is going to want you to apply this new standard. It's not that we're it's not that we're applying a standard retroactively. It's that conditional zoning

authority lies in the town council and town council's more or less directed staff tell people you need to do this new appendix I don't care when it started I'd say strongly suggested and again because of zoning RCD yeah which by default made it required so is There is there anything short of tableabling it that we can put in requirements?

I think the key is if even if we put in requirements goes to the council. I can't speak for what the council's going to do, but I would not uh I think the applicant's taken a pretty good risk because I'm the council can do two things. They can return it to the planning board or they can reject it. And that's the reason I'm saying we're trying to why we created 2B to try and get that resolution here versus you can put conditions on it or whatever. It eventually goes up to the council and the applicant ends up getting a a slow no instead of a

I'll say a fast or pretty good possibility of a quick yes timing wise. So, and forgive me, what happens if the council says no? Do they after we've approved the hardcore? Let no let's say for instance we can come to an agreement on what conditions we could put on this where the conditions say that if if X

if they provide X then it meets 2B. If they provide Y it meets 2B. If they provide Z it meets 2B. If they can meet those conditions, we can go ahead and approve it with those conditions, right? Because we could put conditions on. Correct.

Let's say but let's say because they're not it's not 100% to be approval for us because it's conditions. If it gets rejected by council, does it come back to us? If they kick it back, if council kicks it back to us, obviously timing wise, if if if we approve this tonight, it would go on council October meeting. If they were to kick it back, we would get it in October. If we didn't do anything, we would do it in October. Is it possible for us to recess our meeting and reconvene in 10 days and still make the council deadline?

Don't know. But what's the alternative? If again, if council says no and doesn't bring it back to the planning board, then you're going to tuck your tail, walk away. I'd rather you say that, "God damn, that's the hardest damn planning board I've ever dealt with, but once you got through it, council says yes, we like it. It was tough, arduous, but you're there versus us give you some conditions and we know it's the path to know. Yeah. The conditions two, three months. Yeah. And if you're Is this the first planning board? Yeah. Correct. Yes. First plan.

Yeah. I think I think the one question I was going to ask and just it kind of goes back to the technical drawings and us trying to simplify them to make sure that they were clear. Um, as Keith said, we we've put a lot of thought and effort into the plans and um, I do acknowledge the storm drain probably should have been shown that takes to that basin. I do think that we have the 3 to one one slopes and we can show that. I think my plan is different than what you had in that thing. So, we might be

okay. Um, I think the concern here is is that we submit technical drawings uh, two months ago and there wasn't any technical review done until tonight in front of you. And I think that's the little bit discouraging part is if there was technical review done before we're here in front of you, I think we could respond.

And and if I can add to that, with all due respect, the items that are being referenced are almost to the level of being an engineer and really dissecting this plan. To Miss NY's point, it's it doesn't seem reasonable to get to that level for what we're attempting to do here because we will abide by the regulations, the UDO. And at the end of the day, what we're trying to design here is in the best interest of not only Weddington, but for us as well.

To our defense, this is you have said what every other developer comes up here and says, and then we have to have another meeting because they put math to it. I've already got an approved project that I'm going to be building which is going to speak volumes of what we do as a company. Again, I'm just saying

and I think that that's where I mean just coming from our perspective before you were right. It was a sketch plan. It was just pretty pretty minimum you could kind of run wild after that. We had a a grading plan with contours. That's a big first step. We had utilities shown. We had, you know, an erosion control plan that we should have obviously submitted all the detail on that final submitt, but there there was a step up for sure from what a regular sketch plan would be. A significant step up.

I agree. And again, I'm not apologizing for me. I live here. These are my neighbors. And for holding to a higher standard, Nancy can may say, "Yeah, we don't have no business looking at something. I don't know what I'm looking at." Which is more suited to say that the board a technical board. Maybe we have flaws, but I I I'm trying to beat into that. We've got 2B first time. Let's give you a chance to putt it in without it getting either turned down or not getting to council and an approval. I I I promise you I'm not against this. It's just

So, so then when do we get because you said you um I've heard the slope, I've heard the the storm water, and then you know the the the path being more defined or clarified. Are there other items? Because I it sounds like we need to take these back with us if that's what you're suggesting because can you let us know what the other items I can give. So the the on the grading plan as you got off the end of the culde-sac you've got the where the sewer is going to go. So Union County is going to allow 10% ground slope or greater

it's going to be steep. We we've got to go through that design process. Okay. But yeah. So again, I would have rather seen what the final grading plan looked like with a little bit of basement cut in and this is what it kind of looks like than these sharp contours that again when I take this PDF and I measured those slopes, it did not meet 3 to one. So I was concerned and all we're all I'm saying is I just don't want to see an image today that's not the image at the end of the run. That's that again that's all. Not saying we need the whole set of plans done,

but what is the real world look here? Uh, and if it's a second pond, if it can't be handled by storm drain, I feel like we wouldn't have been doing our due diligence to say, "Oh, we didn't catch that. Here you go, council." Council approves it. And then we both got black eyes from the residents because, as you know, this this town is very contentious with this development. So, we're trying to just put our here it is. You get here, you come, it's been vetted thoroughly, gets to the council, great. Then you go to CDs and everybody's happy. Not. You get here, concept says, "Yeah, that looked good. Oh, you're going to move this over there. Move that over there." And then council says, "No, and we're in a worse situation." I promise you, I'm not working against you. I apologize if it seems that way. And if I'm getting animated, I I animated. I'm just trying to say what I saw from technical side. It was seven pages versus what we think we were going to see with R2B. Uh if if I can also mention um as Greg also referred to our multiple meetings with the community. You mentioned how town of Weddington is very particular as far as the residents. This has been vetted four times and as you can see today there is no one here in opposition to this project. We have done our due diligence and we feel very confident with this plan. Um, I would highly ask to go with Scott's recommendation of outlines, very specific items that you want addressed and we'll bring it to council and let let us roll the dice on that. Um, listen to the board as to what [Music] church. Well, I mean I mean uh Greg, you put a lot of uh information in here reference

to the UDO sections and I guess pertaining to the applicants responses to that. I'm sorry. Can you restate that? in in this package, uh there's a a bunch of UDO sections that uh in reference to this and then I guess you put some responses. The one that I'm concerned about is the the storm water. Do you have that in front of you? You know what page it is? Uh, it starts on page 15.

I mean, I'm going to vote I'll tell you where I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote not to recommend this to the council at this point in time. It can still go to the council. I mean, because we just make a recommendation. We don't approve. Now, what the council does, I don't know. And I I I feel like we're beating a dead horse. I thought Chris has done a pretty good job of summarizing what we're trying to accomplish and um so I mean you say you want to take the risk. I mean that's I guess I'm looking for a compromise and I don't see that on the table to be honest. I think the comp well I thought the compromise

from the conditional as aspect I thought the compromise was let's clarify this information and and table it for 30 days come back and look at it when we've also got another expert here and so we've got it solid when it then can we shorten that I I feel like we've got a lot of information that you're not privy to right now what we like to do is work with you specifically Chris and get you the information Is there not a way to shorten that time? Maybe can we reconvene? Um, not in 30 days, Bill. To be honest, we're working with Mr. Helms. He's trying like crazy to sell this propert. Sure. Sure.

All we want to do, guys, is get um you know what you guys need in front of you. Then that way you guys can check the boxes and then go to we can go to council from there. What we're asking for is a compromise potentially. Chris, can we get a list ASAP and then can we reconvene perhaps in in 10 days or something, Bill, where it's not another month out? That's what we're we're requesting in terms of compromise via timing. And this is to be honest with you, this is to out of respect of Mr. Helms who's been dragged through this for the past seven months. And we

get it. I'm not trying to drag Mr. Helms through something. Uh, I I honestly wish y'all would have just bought it from him. But I I get it. You You're not going to do that. I know that. But uh to the point we still owe Letington and his residence a thorough shot at it as well. Again,

Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I I would love if someone made a motion. And I think there's been four potential outcomes of this meeting. I'd like to explore those outcomes. I make a motion that we recess this meeting, not adjourn it, but recess the meeting and pick a convenient date within this 10day window for Chris, especially Rusty and the planner and the engineers before it goes to council. I hate to be the conflict, too.

You need You need a second. I I didn't second. Thanks. I've got a I've got a question. Would that There's a window for town council. Would that if we pushed that out to 10 days, would that fall under the window for town council? And if it doesn't, then that's move. I just picked 10 days because it can't go more than 10 days. We could do seven if we want. That's a that's the whole point of this guys is to be on next month's council.

And again, I feel com, you know, Casey and his team have done a lot of work, guys. I think we've got a lot of what you're asking for, Chris. So that, you know, everything you're asking, we we we get I get it. Okay. So, council meets on the second Monday of each month. Uh October 13th is the second Monday. Just my Google Maps is saying that's Columbus Day. I believe we work on Columbus Day. So that is not a holiday. Uh that would be three weeks from today

and they need how much time I need. So, is that yes or no? Is that enough? Because they you got to send out notices for the meeting for the packets. Yeah. Packets go out a week ahead. Packets need to go out a week ahead. That'd be October 6th. Yeah. And if you're going to meet in seven days, that's that's next Monday. Yes, sir. Yeah. But if we can get these back to you like in the next two days, like I said, though, I think we've got a lot more information that could be helpful. We already established Chris, what's your plan? So, I'm going there's a there's a motion on the floor. Can we Yeah, I'll second that motion.

All in favor? Do we establish the date yet? Within the 10 days. Okay. Sometime within 10 days. All right. Got a motion second. So, what is is this a reconvene of the meeting? Yes. Yes. We recess until we can find a time for them to have submitted what we're asking for for us to sit down and review it and still get it to council for their October meeting. So that be the week of the 29th, week of next week. Cool. Yeah.

Motion second. All in favor? I'll do it, I guess. So three all opposed. So three to one. So we are going to recess for 10 10 days to get the information. Right. Up to up to 10 days. You're right. All right. All righty. Uh just clarification. So we're sending this to you, Greg, right? and then you'll get it to them or however the board just specified the motion.

Yes, I'll send my information to him as well and uh I'll see with Bill. I will briefly uh make sure I get with Rusty in time. I know he's in Germany. I'm going to be in Amazon. So, I'm we'll get what we can get to them. Uh hopefully within the next day or so of my things for sure I'll get tomorrow. You said tomorrow. Yes. From my end of what it is. I don't know what they want to see as far them, but I will definitely get you. Okay. Get you my expectations on the 2B. Thank you. I appreciate I know 2B is new. We appreciate you guys and says it's new to everyone. So, we want to do the right thing. Get you. Okay.

Perfect. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So point of clarification then we're recessed for the rest of this meeting. Correct? Yeah. Yep. So we pick back up when it's time. So that's right. We get to finish the meeting. We will just recess, not adjourn. Yes. Yeah. and we will get together at some future date within 10 week within 10 days. That's as the motion was stated. Yeah, there's is I I said 10 days because I think that's the rule. You can't recess for more than 10 days. Isn't that it?

I I don't know. I wish we'd discussed that because then we should have just adjourned and called the special meeting. No, because if you call special meeting then you have to do the notifications and things 10 days you're still going to know. Okay. We just suspended the meeting until we will suspend the meeting. We're we're we're still in the meeting, but yes, we'll suspend the meeting. Recess. You'll get information. Okay. It's my understanding that when we get down to number 10, instead of getting a motion to adjourn, we have a motion to recess. Correct. That's what I said. So, we can still finish what's on the agenda? Yeah, we have to finish the agenda. That's what So what were you asking for clarification on?

Yeah. Yeah. Just so I can write down specifically what the motion is. Um we made a motion to recess the the meeting for up to 10 days provided they are going to provide the board with all their information whatever that may be. And then uh I guess after that we'll readjourn a date that works for everybody. I don't know how that works. Um, so is this so then we have to call another 10 days and that will include the list of requirements that just you are sending. I'm obviously I think we all have a different

I think you got you have to reconvene the planning board meeting. Yeah. Yeah. But no, she's saying on the 2B the requirements that I want to email them. I've got I've got uh 40 bullet points I'm going to that that's fire off. It's not part of that wasn't part of the motion that may have been discussed but oh well whatever was we watch the video we're going to quote exactly what that states we're requesting the board is requesting additional information from the applicant whoever wants to provide that information to them I feel is allowed to do so

so did we recess that there we recess the meeting or did we recess the applicant for We will recess the meeting. The meeting. What do we vote to do? To recess voted on it. You tell me. We voted to recess the meeting and and bring it back up within 10 days. Correct. Reconvene. So the meeting is done. No, no, no, no. That part of it will come back. We just don't go to adjournment. We just don't get to adjournment. So you just that part of the meeting is being recessed. Yeah. and we'll reconvene in up to 10 days with a response to the

at a time convenient for all parties as is the way I state stated it. We will send an information request. They will answer those or provide the information back to Greg. Greg will then find a time where the planning board can reconvene. I'm assuming they will be there when we reconvene and then the planning board will say yay or nay or so we're reconvening just for that just for that subject. Yes. Yeah.

We won't hit to an adjournment. Can can Greg find a time before all that happens? Like could that be task number one instead of waiting for answers back and then find a time? I think we need to get on everyone's calendar because I know you're very busy. I'm probably the most flexible person. Maybe Bill and I are the most flexible people here. Um, so when Rusty's back from Germany, I don't When are you leaving?

I'm I start this weekend and then I'm I'm fishing in Amazon for weeks. So definitely in my uh I will I will see if I can come back right before I go. But but depends on what the date is. We'll see. I'd leave Thursday and my travels start like this Thursday evening. This Thursday, yeah, but not for that. I got family travels, but ultimately end up in Amazon Peacock Bass Fishing. So, I'm not I'm not I'm not at all upset. Uh, so I guess we'll just have to see what the dates are, but I definitely want to see what the information

start with your dates and then everyone else works around you. So that's you're you're a key player here. Gotcha. So what I'm going to say whatever works for you. I will and Greg then that's those are the days we pick. Am I good to talk with you about that tomorrow? Awesome. They will have to work around you. All right. We good to moving on? Yep.

All right. Uh, new business B, discussion of removal of 11 sketch plan references from UDO and replace it with schematic plan. This seems like very easy work. I'm going to be super quick about this. So, we passed several text amendments which we've discussed at length tonight. One was in regards to appendix 2B. That was the last thing we adopted. We adopted our new appendix 2B and with it we reclassified what we previously labeled as a sketch plan which was more conceptual to being clear with our language and saying that we require a schematic plan for planning board review meaning that it has the technical information that we discussed tonight. Um in that definition um and in that section we replace sketch plan with schematic including that other ordinance that reference sketch plan. Uh as Bill pointed out sketch plan shows up a lot more times in our plans. Uh we discussed that at our planning board meeting when we had this item. I said you know a sketch plan is also a dedicated term and doesn't necessarily apply to where we have to replace all of them. But in cases where we're asking for information from the applicant for the planning board, all UDL references should say schematic, not sketch, because we're asking for a sketch plan. Uh all this discussion is saying, okay, it's still in our plan 11 times. Can you do that administratively or does this have to go back before this board or can it go straight to the town council? I think the intent of that ordinance was to replace all references to sketch plan to schematic when applicable to the planning board. It was not intended to necessarily place sketch plan everywhere in a control F kind of scenario. I think

staff can find these references and in particular we have this cleanup ordinance that we just all agreed to bring back to town council. I can with your consent I can just add any additional text amendments to where it says sketch planner it's not supposed to and insert it into that ordinance. So what I would like to discuss and clear with you guys is on a staff level without you guys having to review it and look at a text amendment and the staff report and all that stuff about that text amendment just let me do those cleanups and insert it into that ordinance 2025-4 and bring it straight to town council. I

understand correctly. You had 11 references. You're going to go through those 11 references and say eight of these should be schematic. The other three should stay as they are. I'm with you, partner. I agree. I don't think it warrants a dedicated event to do that. Yep. So, do we need to make a motion for that? Uh, just direct instructs that Yeah. direct staff to Follow my recommendation. I direct staff to follow your recommendation. Recommendation. All right. Uh before I commit. Any of y'all good with that, too?

All right. Perfect. Update from town planner. So, at the last town council meeting two weeks ago, uh the major planning topic of discussion was the downtown overlay and its location on that zoning map and the potential to direct staff to amend that overlay or add a specific property. The property in question was the Pola property across the street. Town council ultimately decided not to direct staff to make that change. Um, so until that particular zoning item that was referenced in that meeting, the additional two office buildings on that property, until that can return to the planning board in January, which is likely from the applicant that they will uh try to reapply, we're not to mess with the downtown overlay or to mess with kind of the commercial zoning of that area. So, um, that was the determination. That just means we're not going to talk about it for a couple months. Um, any applicant is still welcome to reapply for zoning at their property at any time. No map amendments on that level at this time.

Um, was any uh was there any dialogue or conversation about the downtown overlay that includes property that's not actually zone commercial? We have two. Correct. We're not zone commercial here either. We don't need commercial zone, but correct. Yeah, there was discussion that uh in the overlay there are residential properties. Um there was discussion about what commercial use actually is and because it's actually listed as business. It's a zoning designation and our future land use map and our our zoning map. Um, but just to keep the motion succinct, the motion was not to direct staff to amend that boundary.

Okay. But they didn't really come to any conclusion on the on say the west side of the street, right? I I would say that it was discussed, but that wasn't part of the the decision or vote. So, that was okay. Still going. All right. Uh board member comments and I'll start with Bill.

Uh I knew we were going to struggle on uh exhibit 2B with the applicant. Um I'll be very honest with you, I'm a little disappointed. I think we kind of had a fuzzy shady up come there that we're not real clear on. But um every day we're making progress. Well, Steve.

Yeah. I mean, uh, the 2B stuff, I mean, I don't know if maybe in the package we can get a there's a lot of stuff in that 2B appendix. Um, so maybe somehow we can get that in the package to see what somebody conformed with or didn't conform with and and and some kind of statements because it's there's a lot of stuff in there. And I know you put some you put some uh information here in reference to the UDO, but uh it's you know basically if staff approves the the 2B appendix says that they met everything um we should be good right we should be good to move forward and

the staff recommendation was the opposite or he recommends but us to vet right the 2B yeah I'm I am saddened to say that staff recommending approval for something or staff recommending that this meets the appendix does not classify a project as being suitable for approval or that does not mean the town council is going to approve it. So

that's correct. That's correct. But I mean there's no in this mean there's some sketches in this package but like like you said the information is not I mean it's hard to decipher. So that's all I'm saying and I'm not I'm not a layman in that in those terms. So I'm trying to make a decision best I can. Understood. I I appreciate it and that's all I'm saying. This is diffult. Nancy, no problem. Scott,

uh, I want to thank, um, everybody who showed up for the meeting. Um, obviously, you know, this was one of those where it probably did not go as smoothly as some others, but I also think we knew kind of, you know, when we started talking about 2B that there were going to be, you know, bumps and bruises and,

you know, learning curve along the way. Um, and you know, I I I understand where we all were coming from, you know, but I think, you know, unfortunately, somebody has to be the the first applicant that goes through this process. And, um, you know, they obviously are the are the first one, so they're going to they're going to have bumps and bruises along the way just like we are. Um, and I understand, you know, that it was not the cleanest, but I I think it I think it was a I hope it was a good a good compromise. Hopefully, we'll get what they left out and and everybody can be happy. But, um, you know, I always appreciate the the conversations that we have around this table and, um, you know, learning and and trying our best. And you know, Chris was is right and I don't think we have I don't think we should apologize for for what we asked for as long as you know we understand the ask that we're making. So, um that's why everybody wants to wants to come and live in Wington. So, um, but I, you know, I app I appreciate all of our hard work and and staff's hard work and, um, you know, I I I thought it was a good meeting. Well, I'm trying to reserve my thoughts to not emotionally speak as much, but I would say I was disappointed to think or hear you think that we don't have qualified people to look at plans as a technical advisory. Uh I think said Amanda then again

again again I I would hope that we we get better as a board at being technical. Uh I'm never going to apologize for our higher standard of living here as I reside here. They kind of forced into wanting to get to council fast. That's going to be their risk. Um but other than that, I appreciate staff. I appreciate Greg. We got the best planner. We got the best staff. I mean, we we've got we've got the team for sure. Um, other than that, thank y'all for coming. Chris, thank you for staying. Mayor, thank you for staying. Everybody watching. And, uh, I guess we do not adjourn. We just say goodbye until you see us again.

I think we make a motion to What's the We don't So, it's a motion to recess. Motion to recess. Right. All right, I'll make a motion to recess for second for Hold on a second. for a date and time to beered. A date and time to be determined no longer than 10 days. Second. All in favor? Thank you everyone. That was all right.

That was hard, but we knew it'd be hard. I know. I just feel bad for him now. So, who's my teacher?