Planning Commission - Special Meeting

convene the meeting um relating to the planning board uh that was recessed on September the 22nd. Uh we have a quorum this evening. Uh since it has already been read into the minutes uh regarding but to reaffirm since we have members that were not present, I'll go around the table right quick and reaffirm that there are no conflicts of interest with regard to the matters this evening. Any conflicts? None. No.

All right. So, we are resuming the meeting September 22nd, and I'm going to ask the town planner to give an update on what has transpired since we recessed the meeting. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You do have public comments before. Uh, there will be no public comments this evening. We have already had public comments with the with on the previous meeting. So procedurally the meeting was recessed incorrectly. So we had to recall a special meeting. So we're not we're not at we are not in recess. We are special meeting special meeting

and with the public comments on the agenda we have. Okay. In that case, I I was that was I was under the impression based upon my watching the meeting that this was recessed. That was previously correct.

That was previous that was previously correct. All right. In that case, we'll have public comments. All right, Clayton. All right. Clayton Jones live at the panhandle. And unlike future comments, I'm going to keep this one very short. You guys probably know the UDO better than anybody else. That's that's one of the most important things of your job. And I wasn't trying to ease drop, but I couldn't help but hear that you all got the new appendix. What 2B and uh that's great. That that was an improvement to the UDO. Uh the only comment I'd like to make is I think it was clear from the town council that the appendix is something that must be complete and I understand again naive but overheard some of your comments that maybe it still may need some tweaking and if that's true then that's not unreasonable. So, it needs to at least be reasonably the application needs to be reasonably complete before you take action and send your recommendation to the town council. And here's the only caution I would give you. If you no doubt have thought about what two options the council may take if they don't deem that it's reasonably complete, one is they could still take action on it based on what you recommend and public comments. The other thing is they could send it back and say you need to get those extra items and you need to reconsider your recommendation. But I suggest you I think there's a third option that you might not have thought about and I call it the kiss of death. If it's not reasonably complete, I think the town council on the face of it can say this is not complete and deny

the application without even considering the merits. just my opinion, but that would be a terrible thing because I've met the Helms who own this property and every time I've spoke about this project, I want to see it go forward. I think the world of the Helms, I think they need to be able to enjoy the rest of their life with whatever they can u make out of this development by selling their land. I want to see it succeed, but I I do not. Worst is bad enough if it comes back to you, but I definitely do not wish the kiss of death on this. So, uh I trust you guys. I know you'll do the right thing and I may not hang around for your vote, but uh I trust you guys. Do the right thing. Good luck to you guys. Thank you.

All right. No other no other uh person signed up for public comment. So that will close public comments. Sorry about that. I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. All right. With that, then we'll proceed with uh town planners update of what has been submitted.

Thank you, Chairman Settzer and the members of the planning board. Just to clear up some parliamentary procedures and to clarify while we're all here today on a Thursday rather than the Monday and what occurred at the previous meeting at our regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, September 22nd. This meeting was recessed, but it was recessed without a time, place, and location. And under general statutes, you have to say when you're going to return in order for it to be kind of immune to reposting and readvertising requirements under state law. So we had hoped to adjourn on Monday. That did not occur. We are now resuming the meeting on Thursday. And technically this is a special meeting. So we don't necessarily need to get into the different results of a special meeting versus a recess meeting, but we're coming back to discuss the same topic item. We're not here to discuss any other topic items that were on the previous agenda of September 22nd. We are simply here to discuss the discussion and possible recommendation of an application by Keystone Custom Homes for conditional zoning approval of a conservation subdivision. That's 50% open space with smaller lot size for 12 lots on Fourth Lawn Drive. Uh my previous staff report is in the record. You can watch it on uh YouTube or whatever minutes you wish to see my previous statements. I will recap some of the statements and general facts to this board because several members were not here for that previous meeting. Again, this is 16 acres, 12 lots. It is single family zoned and it's on an RCD lot that would be

developed in a conservation style which means that the lots would be at least 1,800 square ft a 20,000 square ft um in return for setting aside 50% of open space. Uh this site is topographically challenged off forest lawn. There is flood plane and a creek on the back side of the property. Uh it is flat on the front. Uh that is where the thoroughare buffer the 100 foot thoroughare buffer which we hold in high regard in Weddington would be located but that is not where the trees are located. The trees are located in the back in the flood plane in the steep slopes. There was a yield plan provided that showed the maximum yields was 12, but that would be a maximum yield of 12 with some steep slopes. Um, previous comments made at the planning board meeting was the feasibility of these homes with those steep slopes, how they would impact development, uh, if those homes could be built on those steep slopes and what type they would be. as assumed they would have a basement or crawl space rather than being slabed near the back of that culde-sac. Um, this also is a subdivision that is applicable to our new culde-sac rules to where basically culde-sac can't be longer than 500 ft because there is adjacent undeveloped property. There's a stub at that's provided to that undeveloped property which creates that break point or that 90 degree angle where they can restart that calculation and complete a culde-sac that is in compliance with code. So this would connect to undeveloped property. This is not an extended culde-sac because you're creating that right degree angle. you are meeting compliance with the UDO and we actually encourage we encourage interconnectivity between our between

our parcels and this adjacent property will get developed over time and so it's a positive note that they connect there. Um this planning board requested additional information from the applicant. So there was no decision made at the previous September 22nd meeting. It was not tabled nor was it recommended for approval or denial. It was recessed for more information. So that recessed information was provided to the planning board with now meeting on Thursday 10 days afterwards. There's subsequent time for you guys to review that information. Um some of the notes that were provided by the applicants specifically callers on September 25th. Um they note that in regards to the materials on kind of that stub out that it does not have to be paved that can be just uh a all weather surface for someone to turn around. So we as code just require that to be connected. They create kind of a T um shaped turnaround at that location. That does not have to be a paved T so to speak. that just has to be um connected to the adjacent parcel and it provides a turnaround per the fire marshall in that shape. Um grading plans, additional information was provided. Uh the made comment from our last meeting was basically that uh a condensed version of their engineered drawings was provided to the planning board. uh in speaking with staff and as the applicant we thought you know let's just provide the information that are pertinent to the the planning board um I think we all agree now that the more information the better to be submitted up front and to be understood particularly by the planning board as the technical review

body uh so that if it gets through us so to speak that the the town council has more than enough information to say you know this isn't this isn't an incomplete complete application. They haven't done their homework. They haven't done their engineering requirements. They have provided the information that you need whether you can interpret it or not. And so 30 pages were provided to you by the applicant uh after the recess of the September 22nd meeting. Um, some of the other comments that were made by staff in the staff report was that this is again a conservation type development, which means there are some concessions that need to be made in order to get your smaller lot size. Some of those concessions that we address in code are that you provide walking trails and pedestrian connectivity and you provide a neighborhood green. Uh the applicant has provided documents that show why their preferred location of a neighbor who green is not suitable. That's mainly due to topography. It would be located at the back of the culde-sac of the property. And then some of their um previously submitted um site documents now show that trail. Staff's opinion remains the same on the project, the concept, and the submittal as a whole. We would like to see a neighborhood green. The burden is on the applicant to show why they cannot provide one. Uh they have submitted that to you. Uh you guys can determine if that's required or not. The exact verbiage of our code says that it should be required. It says neighborhood green required but then it further states to the greatest extent possible. So if you guys determine that having actual preserved trees and trails are preferred to having a flat green that could be used as a ball court or something like that is more suitable

this location which is is a topographically challenged location. um please state that on the record so that we know going forward that you know this is suitable and uh the elephant in the room is appendix 2B. So appendix 2B was adopted by this planning board several months ago and adopted by the town council which provides more stringent application requirements to the applicant. These guys have had to do basically engineered drawings for thousands and thousands of dollars to provide the evidence to you that they've done their homework and they know that they're going to build what they're supposed to build. Uh I have uh email records from our um chairman Chris Faulk and others kind of asking for that additional information or questioning that additional information. Uh but what should we should determine based on comments here today is you guys are the technical review board. If you need additional information, which you've done before, request it from this board now because when it goes to town council, the information is not if this application is complete. The matter that should be voted upon by the town council is that this application meets our land use requirements and other goals as stated in our UDO. So the last thing we want is for this be rejected on an arbitrary reason of not meeting appendix 2B completeness. If this project is rejected, it should be rejected on the basis of not meeting land use goals as stated in our 2024 comprehensive land use plan. I'm available for any questions or comments you may have. You have 30 pages of very detailed sheets which I'm sure uh that we can all clarify both myself and the applicant.

All right, with that I am going to open that up to the planning board members to comment with regards to what you've reviewed since the previous application. We'd like to get started. Do we want them to present the new stuff that they sent us? I have they have gone we we we receive we received that they've done their presentation and we'll we'll allow an opportunity in a little while to to provide comment.

What I'll say is that uh I did provide some questions pertaining to uh 2B. some of the um uh the reference numbers to some of the items that I didn't see on the original uh submitt and uh they did supply uh corresponding pages to that information in their second submitt. So I appreciate that. U so as far as I'm concerned as 2B goes I I think we're okay with that. Well, I I do. You guys make your own consideration on that.

I've got a few things. Um I think uh Greg, you've already alluded to Chris's letter that he wrote and I think I'm not going to read his whole letter here. I just printed it off. Um he was very appreciative of the information being provided. Um several of his questions um one had to do with BMP. The applicant has uh reflected storm drains on drawing 30301. He had a question on the uh fire code and the applicant has responded to that. Um we had talked about uh a drainage area in the front or would it be needed and on drawing 500 the applicant is showing a temporary sediment trap with ditches to divert the water there. He was very appreciative of that. Um he asked a question about the grade and I think this was related to the um sewer connection and uh the applicant says sewer has been designed to Union County requirements. So that is good. Um had another question on on grading in the back. The applicant says, "Uh, I think the previous plan showed both one and and and two foot intervals on the same drawing, and now you've got them broke them out, so I it was easier to read and understand." Um, uh, Chris had concerns about on the grading plan, uh, I'll just read it. Steep slopes created on your grading plan seem to contradict our ordinance with wanting them to uh not be on lots. The response was

the grading plans have been revised to show retaining walls. Actually says potential retaining walls. I don't mean that there'll be retaining walls or you're not sure yet on lot grading slopes in the concerned backyard have been reduced. So I think he said that that was addressing his concern. the intent trying to eliminate this and get more to this um uh walking path. That was a question I had raised and um I'll just get into it right now. I'm assuming the drawing I saw still didn't show a a uh neighborhood green and I know the UDO says neighborhood greens are required. And then we have the the

greatest extent feasible,

right? It's kind of like our our it's kind of like our culde-sac ordinance. We say culde-sacs are prohibited, but then trying to work with people on the various things. We then have other things that said however, but so um I put that in that category. I know I'm going from the UDO that um a neighborhood green is required. Whatever the other wording is, I don't think it falls into that situation. So, I'm saying it is required. I know the applicant said, "Well, we can put it in the back behind the culde-sac. We're going to have to take more trees down. It has a falloff." I think you said 15 feet or something. That that's not the concept of a neighborhood green. I actually think that's also where your sewer connection goes in. So, I'm assuming a lot of those trees are going to come out anyway as you put the sewer in. So, my concern is the lack of a neighborhood green. I understand an approach and I'll call it a workaround is we'll put in a walking trail. A walking trail to me is an amenity. And if you look at exhibit 2B under amenities, we specifically refer to walking trails, which means if you want to do one, that's great. Not necessarily required, but it's something you can do. So, I'm thinking a um a neighborhood green is required and right now it's not reflected in the plan. Um we can talk about that later if the if the planning board wants to. Um well the response is we believe the best amenity for the neighborhood is a walking path and that's great as an amenity. This plans exceed minimum

requirements by creating a halfmile loop and I don't know if that's a true statement if that exceeds minimum requirements. I don't know whe that's just a little poetic license or what. Um I had questions or there were questions and Chris included in his letter on the tree survey other documents which is required in two view which you did and I really um in looking at the tree survey and the uh the tree removal and mitigation plan that's when I see of you've identified in the survey 123 heritage trees trees of which 107 87% of them are going to be removed.

Are they heritage trees or are they just No, they're large trees. They're Well, I'm assuming they're heritage trees. I'm going by by their drawing because I didn't see that.

I didn't see it either till I looked at this heritage tree removal. I'm just going by the plans on C600 and I understand I did an overlay. I can see, hey, the way the roads are and the lots that because it is so heavily wood, it's going to be hard to to maintain those trees. So, I mean, if that's what it is, that's what it is. But then we also require in the planting plan and you did provide a planting plan um and you showed some potential trees for preservation, but part of the planting plan as it relates to the um the tree ordinance is what is your canopy coverage? And it's in there and I'm sure this is over 40% right now canopy coverage. And that's determined by um either aerial photo followed up by survey whatever method you guys want to use supposed to be approved by the urban forester. But I just think my question is do you know what the current canopy coverage is because I had this discussion with Greg on Monday trying to get enough time for you to have that information. I'm sure you've got it just as part of your your tree survey. Um members of the board, um so the as far as the total canopy area, um I I I don't know that um I'm familiar with what you're saying as 40% for the entire in the code. It's it's more referred to the buildable area. Correct.

Yeah. I'm just I'm just saying it what it does if if the if the canopy and I don't know the exact number. Oh, if it's if the canopy coverage is less than 20%. Within the buildable area.

Yeah. And then when you are done, it's it has to be a 10% canopy, which means you might have to plant some 2 and 1/2 inch caliper trees. And what will they be at maturity to add back to that canopy? If it's greater than 20% but less than 40% then you maintain 20% canopy. If it's greater than 40% at the start and I'm assuming this was greater than 40%. I don't know just looking at it then afterwards you should have a 30% canopy coverage. So, I was just looking what is the canopy coverage before and then afterwards do you meet the uh and I'm saying 40% greater than 40% is what it is. I don't know. It hadn't been measured yet. And then afterwards, is there a 30% canopy coverage?

Not within the buildable area. Um and and I think that's where there's a little bit of confusion in how the UDO is written. Yep. Yep. as far as what the buildable area is. Um, when you really look at the definition that's right above that, um, and you take out what's outside of the buildable area, there's there's some confusion on exactly what that is. So, I agree. If we if I talked about that on Monday, go ahead.

Yeah. So if we if we take what I think the intent of of the project or of the UDO is where it's the kind of the fingerprint that you're going to take out of the trees and what is that area that's remaining afterwards. Correct. And I think we ended up with around I don't know I think it was over over 40% within that buildable area but we were keeping around half uh I'm sorry 15% of the uh so 30 would be the required amount I believe.

Uh correct. Yeah. and we were saving I think half of that in the and it was mainly up there on the north side um along that um those those northern lots and so I you know when you really look at that and and if that's the the intent is the buildable area is this limits of disturbance um you know you're you're looking at needing if if the entire project was forested you're you're you're looking at needing to keep you know your 50% outside and then inside another 30%. So you know that really limits development as it is. So there has to be some sort of replacement or or um mitigation

discussion. Yeah. Mitigation discussion. Yeah. And and I understand that totally. I think that's another thing as we go forward if we've got some areas that aren't real clear, we clarify those. So based on your thinking, do you feel that uh because I don't think there's any tree mitigation plan attached there? There isn't. And we we had some discussions um with Greg as we were we were going through the review and and one of the things like you mentioned at the last meeting that uh we had additional trees within each lot. There's a three minimum of three and we had four.

I miss I I misspoke as I dug dug back in. I said three and you had four. It is four and then okay it is four it goes to six it's one I do believe we have a we have more than the the minimum requirement and the replacement the number of new trees does exceed the number of heritage trees removed. Okay. But in terms in terms of the canopy are you're saying

we did not go through that that analysis and mainly just because it was it was my understanding that you look at it two ways either with the canopy which there's some you know confusion on how that's calculated or by tree by tree replacement and and that's again maybe an area of the UDO that that may not be 100% clear. if I could speak to that. Um,

so the percentage of canopy um is as a code concept is best applied to R40 type developments. Basically saying listen, if you've got two acres of a lot, there's no reason to cut down your trees in your backyard. They should remain due to steep slopes or other conditions. In an RCD scenario, you're already setting aside 50% of land as trees. And in this case, we're setting trying to set aside 50% of the land that have existing tree canopy. So, we're trying to meet that intent there. What the discussion of buildable area occurred between myself and the applicant was listen, you can't just declare a buildable area like the pad, which is one of your exhibits here, and say you're going to you're going to clear cut that entire area. You have backyards, you have sideyards, you have areas that are not impacted by easements, you have areas that are not impacted by driveway, you have front yards. What are the existing trees based on your tree survey that we've required you to do? Please indicate where we can save some of those additional trees to meet these calculation requirements. It's not so much saying like there's a binary tree area, not tree area, we're trying to achieve, okay, even if you have a building pad that's still half of an acre, there's still existing trees on there. Where can you save those trees on that existing halfacre? Um, and for all the discussion about completeness of this application, uh, the applicant has done their best to try to understand our tree requirements, our tree ordinance, and and how to best meet those requirements if if there are additional exhibits that we need. Uh, I feel like we've we've tried to go through this process

and and if I might, um, you know, the other thing that after we looked at that original tree save, that's when we came back and we were able to save even more, including those three heritage trees in the front that you'll see from Forest Lawn. Um, so those those weren't, you know, part of that 15% that I mentioned before. And it's hard to get a, you know, on an existing tree what that canopy is going to be because they're all next to each other. So you save one, we don't know what it's going to look like. We could average it, but uh we didn't we didn't get to that level.

Yeah. And our tree ordinance is more of a it's more of a stick than a carrot. So if these guys say they're going to preserve these trees, call it out and denote it on your plans because if they cut that tree down, that's a very heavy penalty. Well, that's where I was going. I appreciate on your planting plan C601, you've identified some trees there, heritage, large trees that you're you're trying to save, and I certainly appreciate that. But if I look at the tree between lot one and two, that looks like a big tree. I appreciate your efforts to save it, but if we approve this plan and you get in there and it's like, uhoh, that tree's got to come down. That's an expensive take down for you guys. So, I want to make sure you balance like, yeah, we want to save that. So, we approve it as it's being saved. Then you get in there, find out it can't come down or you run into some problem because it's it's right on the edge of the um the building pad and let's say that's a 30-inch tree. You get in there then it's got to come down. That's a $24,000 cost to you guys.

I have a question. Yeah. What if the person builds their house and they don't want that tree right there? And that's a great that's a great question. I don't know the answer. Do they incur a penalty? It's their property.

No, I guess I don't know, Nancy. It might be tell the developers, listen, I don't want that tree. Take it down. I don't know whether the developer says, "Fine, we'll take it down, but it's going to cost us, the applicant, $24,000 to take it down." I I don't know the answer to that. I mean, when I built my house, I had a big pine tree close to my house, and I also had a I think it was a big maple tree. I told the bill, I said, "Take down that pine tree." And it was literally this close to my house, and they took it down, and they kept the other one. Of course, that was before tree ordinance. So, I don't I don't know. I'm I'm just saying that I with the whole tree ordinance thing, I have great difficulty especially in the RCD neighborhoods because you already have a smaller lot and you have a building pad and if you're limiting the type of home, if you're limiting the type of home and the design that that an individual property owner can achieve, what if they want a pool in the backyard, but they've got this tree there that we demanded that they save what what happens then I I'm I have difficulty with the building pad.

I'll open that up to the planning board members for thoughts. From a staff perspective, the burden is on the development community to preserve and get credit for the trees that are on site. If a tree is diseased 10 years later and they're on a halfacre lot, uh our intent is not to penalize them, but for somebody who is developing land for the purpose of profit, we are trying to incentivize as best we can that a tree that is 70 years old is worth more than 700 small trees. You know that those mature trees have significant value.

So understand Are you are you building are you building it out or are you selling the lots and then building? Because I would tend to agree once somebody buys it, it's no longer it's no longer incumbent on them. I mean, if it's my lot, unless the town says No, I I think I think you're right. I think you're right, Scott. If they built it out, that tree is there. Someone comes and they buy that house and I don't like that tree. I don't like leaves in my yard. Even buys the lot before the house is built. Pardon me. Even buys the lot before the house is built. If and that's I don't

I I'll speak to that. So we're a home builder. We happen to develop. So we don't sell lots. We build homes. So we're buying this piece of land. A client chooses their lot, but they can't buy the lot. and then we build the home that they choose on that lot. Okay. To address at least for my understanding of this was is that the the requirements of this fall upon the developer. It does not fall upon the afterwards does not fall upon the individual homeowner. Is that the fair assessment? Greg, that is that is the intention of the UDO

as that is the opportunity for staff to review these measures. You know, we can't drive around town every day and see if somebody's got a chainsaw, but we can determine that the landscape plan provided the planning board and then construction documents that shows the existing tree canopy and the tree survey that these folks have provided. So Nancy to your point if someone buys the property and later decides I would like to put a pool in and then they they have their own sub rules again with this individual land owner as opposed to a developer developing multiple home sites and multiple homes.

Yeah. But I'm I'm still and I understand that you build homes. But if if somebody comes in and says, "I want you to build me a home on that lot, but I don't want that big tree." What happens then? It It's not necessarily an option. Yeah. The land is Okay. The land is the land in terms of the way we designed it. Correct. Say, "Oh, I don't want this next house." We have to build, right? So, they don't have that option to answer your question.

Okay.

And along along that same line going the other way is I overlaid your tree survey over your um your planting plan. It looks like between lot um the two in the back. One, two, three, four. Looks like five and six. One, two, three. But there's a a huge tree there that I would think could be saved. I don't know, maybe as you get in the topography or your grading it won't be. But here's my real my my real concern is one in terms of percent canopy. Are we achieving it? Because I'm afraid what's going to happen and I want to avoid this at all possible. People are going to drive by there and they're going to say They clearcut again. But if we're following the plan, you're not you're not clear-cutting. You've identified it. You've you're going to have a mitigation plan. And my concern is is there a mit do we have a mitigation plan or have you when it's all done achieved that 30% canopy or at least you'll have it achieved when the trees are at maturity. It may be 20 years from now.

I thought I saw one where they put trees along the street. Did I Yeah. Hallucinate on that? No, they've got trees and they've got trees they're planting um on on various lots and we require trees on the road. My only question is does that get you to a 30% um tree canopy? If they're putting in more heritage trees than are taken out, would you have to figure that out? Well, I I mean they're taking out 107.

Bill, Bill, again, and I'm gonna interrupt you just a second. What Greg explained a while ago is we we probably need to go back and revisit this from an RCD standpoint. Look at the deltas because RCD you're already saying you're going to set aside 50%. and as a can as a canopy requirement and and so trying to get 30. Now you're saying you got to have 80% coverage on the property if that's No, no, no, no, no. You're missing my point. No, that's what I thought. That's what I understand.

No, I'm not talking about revisiting the UDO doing clarification. I'm talking about getting clarity so we can make a recommendation to the council because I know you guys want to get out here and get before the council. So can you just clarify on the 30% because again I go I go back to the UDO and and those those percentages are a little unclear. So what what are you asking if if 30% of the existing trees that are out there today will remain? The answer would be yes.

But but we also have 50% that's already 50% of the land is that's covered in trees. We won't touch either way other than the one utility easement that's going down the back. Okay. Which by the way takes out four heritage. I guess what I hear you saying is you will have 30% canopy coverage. Correct. At the end. Yes. and ma and mainly because we've protected the forest lands as part of the uh the requirements for conservation and um we've tried to locate the the the subdivision to the north or I'm sorry to the to the front where there's not as many trees. So the back I'm sure is over 30%.

That was my that was my only question. I don't know if you've done a calculation or you're just saying I'm sure it will be 30%. I think I want to help you guys. I want to get this through. I appreciate that, Bill. And I and I think to Casey's point, the treed area, which is all the area that we're not touching, is greater than 50% of the land. So the canopy by default is greater than 30% just looking at that conservation area because it's all forested whether it's heritage or non-heritage.

Yeah. And there there are significant steep slopes on this property, including several potential residential parcels, which I question how you could save any trees on those. But what's important here is that both sides where the 50-ft buffer is included, those have significant amount of trees. And I think for the benefit of the board andor the town council, showing how the front will be supplemented is important because yes, if I were to stand on force lawn drive and I see the initial bulldozer drive into that development, I'm just going to see nothing but cleared land,

porn soil.

Yes. And so, um, one of the conditions that was suggested by Chairman Faulk was to have, uh, Labella Associates review this plan, not on a construction document level, but at least to provide their professional professional expertise as engineers to what is provided. if the slopes make sense, the ponds make sense, if the development is feasible, and then staff's other recommendation other than kind of determining the feasibility of a neighborhood green is if we can have an additional exhibit. If we could provide additional information on how that's supplemented in the front to further enforce that there's a forested property here. I think that's important. You know, we have we have one landscape plan that basically shows a dotting of trees. You can show species renderings, other things. I think a visual exhibit would be beneficial. Uh with regard to the tree safe area, uh one question that I had, your your s your sanitary sewer fall line goes you you show a right of way a maintenance right away for the for the storm sewer, but all you have are limits deser disturbance on the sanitary sewer once it goes beyond that. What kind of an easement is required by Union County to maintain that? What what's the width of that easement? Is it 20? I thought it was 30. It's either 20 or 30.

And but to your point, that easement will have to have trees cleared because we have to open that up. Exactly. Install

pipe. I'm also looking at the I also looked at the profile and the profile you got some you got some big structures there. You got a lot of fall on that area. I mean, you got you got uh 10 11 foot inside, you know, between invert in and invert out. So, you've got some deep structures there. If you take in consideration what that's going to do to your your roots in the surrounding trees because you're going to have to trench box that unless you're going to take out a lot of stuff. You don't have room to bench it. Have you taken that in consideration with regard to the trees that are along that along that? Because right now the limit right now you just show the limits of disturbance. It looks like it's what 20 ft. Correct. Yeah. 20 feet. And that and we we looked at those trees,

right? And you're going to have you're going to have at least a six to eight foot wide trench. Probably a six foot wide trench in there minimum and probably 8 to 10 in order to get your structures in. So is that is that are those things taken been taken into consideration with regard to your tree, especially if you're around the heritage trees? Right. Those are the things we want to make sure. Much like Bill said, I don't I it's not my desire to have you fined for having damaged a tree if we can identify it now.

Well, everything in the path of the easement will be removed regardless. Uh anything outside of that will be preserved. So, we don't anticipate impacting any of the trees that are heritage trees classified outside of those areas. And 20 ft is significant enough to get down to 10 to 11 ft of depth. We can still bench that. We don't need to trench box. Okay. Re the reason I'm asking again because you've got trees that are on that border line that sit on that sit on that line. The canopy and the root ball, the root mat for that tree are going to extend into your limits of disturbance. Understood. Rather have you identify it now. Yep.

So, can someone tell me what the answer to that question was? I see a 20 foot limit of disturbance. Right. And you're saying that's also the easement or the easement's going to be wider than that? Uh I believe you set the limits at the easement line, right? Yeah. I'm sorry. They're one and the same. One and the same. Easement line and the limits of disturbance. Okay. For the sewer outfall. Yeah. Again, you showed on the other on on the sanit storm sewer, you showed the easement. Of course, it's like a 30 foot ride of wet on that one. And then uh didn't see anything with regard to easement uh easement on the survey for for that for the sanitary. That's why I'm asking.

Yeah, it it's a 20. Okay. Okay. So, if this gets passed, a recommendation to council, are we saying the drawing, and I looks like it's C300? I've got the old version. I didn't print off the new one that there needs a note on there that the limit of disturbance is also the the easement. Yes. Like, yeah, at least have that. The new plan shows the Oh, it does. The new plan shows the easement. No, it shows it shows limits of disturbance. It does not. Yeah.

So, all we're saying is limit of disturbance easement are the same. I would just suggest that that be noted. Need to not need to note that then just just for just for record and I'm sure it'll be that way once you once you get your platform. Yeah. Point clarification. Yeah. any easements, any deed issues, you know, that's typically not shown on a sketch plan, but that's what we require in our new schematic plans. And that's and the reason being is that we look at exactly what we look here. We we don't have any say so over the over the sewer that's between you and Union County, but we do look at it from what is it how's it going to impact the tree ordinance.

Do you mind if I ask a question though, you know, about Union County? I will note that, you know, we're not through the process with Union County. I do want to ask the question, if they request a a change to the path of that sewer and we have it on this plan, does that mean we need to come back or is there going to be flexibility to follow the sewer line? I think it's dependent on how big the change is. I'm thinking I'm looking to Greg here. It's a little minor thing. I think Greg can handle that. If it's become something major, then yeah.

Isn't the general rule of 5% change and then it has to be kicked back? That's just something I recall. I could be wrong about that, but I 5% of what? 5% of the original. If something I mean 5% of the original what of the original plat something changes or the final plat I'll address this. So, we want we want the easement to be realistic, right? We want want that to be what they submitted to the county at this time. We don't want this to be I hope this is where the connection occurs. We want to say that

the application is made. This is our this is our connection. We have an understanding with the county at this time of where it can go. Things happen. But if it impacts the tree canopy to a greater extent, I would say they have to do it over again. If it's the same extent, it just bends a different way, but it's still just a 20 foot swath somewhere and reduces the same amount of trees or even less trees. No, it would should not have to come back before this board. It's a matter of impact.

Yeah, that's the reason I was asking 5% of what I mean. Exhibit 2B number 27, identification and delineation. And as you remember, we worked long and hard on delineation. It went up to the council. It came back. We actually put in um a definition. Delineation refers to precise markings and documentation of boundaries, work zones, and responsibilities within the construction site. It ensures clarity between the project stakeholders. So um I'm just saying delineation uh and it as sewer lines if applicable.

So again I'm trying to answer these questions before last thing I want and maybe I'm beating a dead horse here. Last thing I want is this to go up to the council and the council says kick it back to the planning board or they may add some conditions or they may say we reject it and if it gets rejected I mean that's the nuclear I don't want us to get to that point. So, I want to make sure when we recommend approval or we don't recommend approval, it's all based on exhibit 2D. And our effort has been to make this as clear as possible so it doesn't get to the point where it's an incomplete application. And this is our first time through. So, that's reason, you know, I think we've kind of going over this with a a fine tooth comb. There's some things in here we're not even looking at. You know, notify the This says notify the school that you're building 12 homes.

We actually asked them to do that. It's that was a point of contention at the time of application.

Yeah. So, see, I mean, those are some of the things we'll improve as we go. To me, those are minor things. The things I've been talking about is tree canopy. um because we've received a lot of angst like I said of clear cutting realizing this won't be clearcutting but I want to make sure that we're real clear on yeah uh Mrs. Jones, this was not clear-cutting. They went through, they met our tree ordinance and they had mitigation. They required to have 30% canopy and this has 30% canopy. But I want to see somewhere on the drawing or someplace there is a 30% canopy. Not you guys here saying, "Yeah, it's going to be a 30% canopy." That that that's where I'm trying to get to.

Okay. But can't we just deduce by looking at the plat that over 50% of the wooded lot is undisturbed? And we can say that 50% and I and I think that is probably correct. All I'm saying is it's asking do you meet the 30% canopy? So it's some simple this does meet the 30% canopy requirement of the town ordinance. Put it on record and the burden is on the applicant. That's exactly what it is. put it in. It doesn't mean anything unless it's identified and written down and that should be a I mean that's that's a one minute fix for you guys, right?

Correct. Yeah. If you need to put that as a condition as a text reference in the plans, that's an easy fix.

Okay. So, again, I hate to drag this on, but I'm trying to be as thorough as I can our first time through. Um, I guess the only question I have, and it sounds like for you guys it's a showstopper, is a neighborhood green. To me, a uh a walking trail does not replace a neighborhood green. A walking trail is an amenity. The UDO calls requires a neighborhood green. you know, early on, and I had this discussion with Greg, but I don't know how it applies anymore, is when I was concerned about you guys not being able to meet the uh 30% canopy coverage. Now, I think from what you're saying, yeah, we can. I'm thinking, all right, look at lot one, two, the third lot. I overlaid I overlaid your your tree removal plan and basically your well where you've laid out your lots and as I look at that and I look at lot three um lots of trees on it lots of trees not so much up at the front but a lot of trees and I'm thinking and as as you know if you look on the the topography that is probably the highest and the flattest least sloped area on this whole parcel. My mind, that's a perfect spot for your neighborhood green. It's relatively centralized. That's also the spot where you can put in your um uh cluster mailboxes that have to go somewhere on here. And if you did need additional trees to meet your canopy coverage, there's a bunch of them on there that that would

add to that. Lot three is right here, just to Yeah. clarify. So, I don't want to actually Well, you don't have this one. I mean, I actually drew in lot three on your on your plan here as I was doing the overlays, and that that's the one that popped up. So, for me, and then I'm going to shut up. I feel like I've been dominating this whole meeting here. Is my hangup is my hangup is neighborhood green. Okay. So, are you saying lose lot three? You're saying lose one of their 12 lots for me? Yeah, that's what that's what I'm saying. Unless they can come up with something better.

So, let's just say that they decide to put another lot in the back where the trees are. So, now we're going to lose trees in the back. Well, they're going to have to redo their whole drawing and they're really going to get in some steep slopes then the whole back end of this Well, I understand, but they can also grade back there. Correct. I can fix I can fix slopes all day. Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, you got to put in I I'm talking about the intent, the purpose of of agreeing. You can get around you can get around. Could you could you read that uh one more time because I thought there was something on the end. is that was relevant to this discussion if applicable or when applicable.

Yes ma'am. So I highlighted four sections of this portion of code. This is uh 917B. These are the specific conditions to conservation developments. I had highlighted um that you should minimize grading that is consistency with the existing topography which is what we have discussed quite a bit that is interconnected which in solving the culde-sac issue provides connectivity and I feel that has been soundly met the idea that pedestrian pathways are required whether that's in the form of a sidewalk or a walking trail they have now indicated their walking trail on more um sheets of the application and the last is number nine that a neighborhood green is required. Exact language is to the greatest extent feasible, each conservation residential development should provide at least one neighborhood green not less than 10,000 square ft in area planted with shade trees at 40 foot intervals around the edge

to the extent possible. That's what you started with. To the greatest extent feasible is the language. The

greatest feas. Okay. So, so if I can expand on that, um, we ran into this last year, Bill, specifically with that 100 foot buffer where the UDA was very UDO was very explicit on if we could do 50 foot and and we got hung up on just a portion of that and ignored the rest of it. We complied to the detriment of our project. This is a similar situation just a different apple. And at what point do we take into context the intent as you say because this is a 12 lot subdivision. It is not a 200 lot. A neighborhood green of this size for this type of area and neighborhood would probably never get used to be honest with you.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. I can challenge you on that. Okay, you can challenge that. I wouldn't say that. I mean, I I honestly don't think and and and for what purpose to tear down more heritage trees or more trees or, hey, you're the applicant and the developer, just get rid of another lot. It's easily said, but that's a significant impact to us. I I understand that totally. And I want to use the language that's in that UDO where it gives us that exception where feasible. We have made every intent here to build something that is very manageable and acceptable to the town of Weddington. And I think what I hear you saying is if you lose a lot, this is not viable for your business model to complete.

Correct. Backing up, but that's not the that's not the reason I don't want to do the green. The feasibility as it's referred to is the only location based on the design because again we had to go with through a yield study. The yield study says I can build 12 lots but I can kill more trees doing it without the conservation. We're reserving and preserving. We've made this a little bit more condensed based on UDA criteria and we green work on what is remaining land. when you had your initial community meeting. Yes.

Okay. Your initial community meeting reflected 11 lots. When you made your I call it the show and tell presentation to the town council, you got up and said except instead of 11 lots, we now have 12. If you recall, that was prior to the culde-sac change. So, we had to make adjustments to reflect the culde-sac change. And by making that side road, it opened up more frontage which allowed us to build that 12th lot. So if I get rid of the side road, which I'm happy to do, I'll go down to 11. But then don't meet the ordinance.

I think that's up to you. I'm just state my position in terms of I understand, but you're only taking a portion of that. I don't want to make it sound like it's non-negotiable, but I think it's a very very important and that's why in the UDO we say required optional if feasible. Understood. Yeah. A culde-sac or prohibited unless Okay. to try to try to have as much Yeah. Go ahead.

They really can grade the heck out of the back of that lot of that parcel and put that ridiculous 12 square 10,000 square foot bring you back there. But the amount of damage that that does in my mind completely negates the whole objective and of of having a conservation subdivision. I mean I I mean it's we disagree on it. That's and that's fine. Yeah. I guess I

I mean a lot of those trees are going to come out. If I understand last time you spoke about where you're going to squeeze in a um a um neighborhood green is basically right where your sewer line is going, which is going to be some of it cleared out anyway. But it's not flat.

No, I know it's not flat. And you guys have actually come back based on some of the other discussions where you've identified some four foot walls you're going to put back in there just to try to level out the lots that are there. You know, if you want to Yeah, I can put in You can put in a 10,000 square foot green back there. Now, whether you do I wouldn't I wouldn't vote for this anyway. Here's a 4ft wall. Here's a 4ft wall. Here's a 4ft wall. That's how you get it in there. And you certainly don't want to put in I think you said it was a 15t drop. a 15 foot tall wall in there and then back fill it. So again, this is just my my thoughts on it. I'll shut up and I don't know what the thoughts of council are going to be, but I'm I'm sure they put a lot of value in in a neighborhood grant.

All right. Any other comments from the board members? As far as the green, I think that it's okay without it. It would be nice obviously, but with the trails added. Um, and if we're going to look at everything in detail, minimizing grading is a huge part of that. Um, so I personally am okay without it in this one, especially for such a small subdivision. Yeah, I was going to say such a a small subdivision. Yeah, I'm I'm fine. I mean, it might be nice if they could, you know, maybe, you know, put some picnic tables or something back there to make it an area, not necessarily a neighborhood green, but I wouldn't I I wouldn't want them to grade and and disturb trees back there just because we want to have a neighborhood green.

Okay. couple questions that I have and civil engineer. Okay. So, uh you you you've got you you've got your pond designed looks like you basically basically from my side pipes are size and whatnot. Your surface drain surface drains is around around the property on the side where you have a full home you're basically taking a swell around. Yeah. And you can kind of see that on the revised documents that we submitted. We did have what we what we showed as a as a swale kind of along that north side to to make sure we can go around trees and still get something cut in there.

And with that, your your ponds your pond calcs are pretty sound. You know that that's how that's how big the pond is going to be. And you've got some variable. If you need to tweak it a little bit, you can go to depth. Yeah, we could change the depth on it. The we sizes were all to the 50-year. Um it uh I think the calculations were submitted with the original application. You're just looking. Okay. Just looking at that with a you change it with depth. You don't have to change the footprint of it. Correct. Yeah. It would just be adjusting the weird height on the overflow.

Okay. All right. That is the things that I had looked at. I think that had it. That covered everything. All right. If there is no more discussion, is is there a motion?

I have a question. We had talked about I had the conversation with several with Bill and Chris everything about um feels like that the town council's asking us to be technical advisors to this. I don't feel like I'm qualified for that. You clearly are. We talked about um um Labella having a quote cursory look before uh because they typically look at it after it's approved. Does would the town council would we feel better or would the town council feel better or more confident if that they did the cursory book prior to but quite honestly sounds like you could do that

I'm not I'm not an engineer. Uh, okay. You sound like one. You You could play well on TV. Okay. But do you understand my my point here? If the if the town council really wants us to say that this is a go, I mean, I can take the checklist and I can say, "Yes, they submitted this hydrarology plan and this grading plan," but I can't really look at the braiding plan and say, "Hey, it looks good to me." So if they want that kind of assurance, I can't offer that. What's our alternative? Part of a motion.

If I can read this, this was on uh the letter Chris sent in. Again, apologizing. Couldn't believe here. Um, my biggest concern is that Nancy and Scott have stated they could not constructively examine or review the actual plans and implied that other members of the board could not either, as they've noted in their statements and emails. For that reason, I recommend a condition of sending the plans to label for a quick cursory technical review to provide the council before their meeting. So I think that's what you were saying Nancy.

Yeah. I had that conversation with him and with you just I mean if if that's something that the town council Well, one thing I want to be sure that board's very clear about our job is not to understand the couchs on the on the erosion on the the storm water management. It's not up to us to design sewer systems. Not up to us to evaluate that. that that falls under other people's purview. Yep.

Ours is to see that where they're going to put it. How does it impact the things that we do have control over? What is under our purview is this is this is a tree ordinance. This is the setback lines. This is the land use itself. So that's what we're that's why we requesting this information. This is not we're not trying to get into the business of engineering right storm water systems nor are we qualified to do so swailes and ditches. That's that is that you did it to be

right. It just seems like in the past that the council has been concerned about it and and therefore um perhaps did not look favorably upon an application because they didn't understand it either. So, I'm just wondering what is the fix there?

Well, the we're all concerned about different things at different points of life. And what what do we have as as someone explained it to me years ago, this is our area of concern and this is our area of influence. So, the more we focus on this, the bigger this becomes. Well, Bill has said it three times tonight that he wants it to be a complete and airtight so that when it arrives at the council desk that they are confident about it and I I agree with that. So I'm just trying to figure out how we get the confidence level up.

Say preliminary storm water lines and structure doesn't mean engineering drawing construction is drawing. Let's just say you know where where are they going to be preliminary because that can impact um uh ground disturbance and and tree preliminary calculations proposed imperous surface and runoff volume which basically is related to BMP bonds and again it all comes back to does it impact uh ground disturbance that could impact act the tree ordinance or or maybe some other things in it.

Okay. If you look at page 82, a lot of stuff on there. Sounds pretty technical. Well, that's what I was reading from. I know. Location of retention ponds, location of soils and ditches. And I think when you came back with your expanded um plans, you showed ditches. You showed a um I think it was a temporary um uh retention up at the front. So, and I don't know whether that was in the full pack or not. I mean, if it was, then this could have

again that what he shows on the on that plan that is an erosion control plan. That is not the storm water management plan. The storm water management plan falls in the other. erosion control. We we have no we have no I I understand my my point being does it and again it comes down to to ground disturbance that's the only thing you know where is a planning board look at

yeah okay so I'll go back to do do we have a motion for action on this on this issue on this application Greg, what were the what's I think you're I think we've got one condition maybe with you still. Is that correct? Uh so I I noted my burden of the applicant on the neighborhood green of why it wasn't necessary because the exact language of the UDO is to the grace extent feasible.

Tell me why it's not feasible. um that was not necessarily a condition but a challenge to the applicant for the resubmitt which was provided here tonight. Um I think for the tree canopy portion um I've noted it before, I'll note it again. There's been a lot of discussion about how much work has gone into the application. They have put in a lot of work to understand the tree canopy information and the tree requirements. So if if that's a lack of information provided by them, um I I feel confident that they can provide that in regards to the 30% or the canopy or the heritage trees. Um you're more than welcome to provide a a condition that they provide additional information on the trees. I think it's fair for you to ask them to do so. Um the other thing I just talked about is the is the front. um 100 foot thoroughare buffer. We've asked this previous applications when it's bare, there's nothing there just to say that we're going to plant 18 trees there with circles. It's not necessarily going to provide full confidence to the council that this is going to look like a, you know, a complete new neighborhood that this is going to buffer uh properties. We've reinstituted buffers and actual BMS and mounds. And so I would, as uh my previous comment, you know, I'd like to see a little more detail on what that 100 foot thoroughare buffer looks like in terms of providing it from a landscape architect or providing a rendering or providing exact tree species and not only the tree species, but the shrub species, the, you know, supplemental plantings that go on that burm and that mound. I think that's a fair condition as well. Uh but most importantly, I think our goal here tonight because

we're meeting here a second time on this application is to say we want a very thorough submitt that has been reviewed and vetted by the planning board. And I think saying, "Hey, let's have a label look at it." That's what we pay him for. If that assures the town council that an engineer has looked at another engineer's work and feels that is viable and realistic, then absolutely let's add that condition to there.

Can I ask a question about the BMS? Are the BMS required? Because quite honestly that does not that's not a natural landscape as you're driving down the road a natural landscape and lay the land. It's not a bunch of birds and things because they I mean it's almost like they have a that 100 foot buffer could do a lot of nice trees and big trees that could grow to be big trees and so to put require burm. So is a burm required?

So the the burm was previously not allowed. It is now through text amendment allowed again. Everyone's preference would be if we had 100 feet of existing trees, we would not touch them and we would leave those 100 feet of existing trees. If they were trees in the front of this property, we would not encourage them to replant or to unnaturally grade the land um just to make, you know, a subdivision entrance.

Yeah. I mean, I'm just thinking of driving by, especially that stretch of road. The color in the fall is extraordinary. And so for them to put in or we could ask them to put in like uh sugar maples or yellow or red maples in there to go with the rest of the the uh existing vegetation along that road would be in my mind preferable to a burm with your basic, you know, evergreen holl and your pine trees and your little shrubs.

Yeah. And I'm not a landscape architect, though I wanted to be and I studied to be one. Um, but it's again that's just it's putting the onus on on Keystone and Collers and these guys to be like, listen, town council is going to want to know what this looks like. This they're going to want to know the impact of this because it's so bare right now. What can you do? What can you add and supplement to provide confidence to this application? Mr. Chairman, I'll make I'll make a motion that that uh we approve the application with the condition that a landscaping a detailed landscaping plan is provided for the 100 foot buffer.

I think that's part of exhibit 2B. Anyway, I was trying to find it.

Do you want to add the Anything else to I would like to propose a friendly amendment that a second condition that we have Leella take a cursory look before town council. So I mean they they I mean they have engineers. I mean what is they are they going to pay for the bell to do it? Yes. Right. They would have to pay for that. Yes, we would have to pay for that and I actually object to that. It's it's not a process in your ordinance. You guys are very well equipped to make the decisions

and I would say that they have engineers that could really look at, you know, could answer any questions that came up in the next process. You can make it a condition and the applicant can say I don't want to meet that condition. Well, right now the motion is Let's clarify the motion. The motion is to approve with a detailed landscaping plan for the 100 foot buffer. I'll second that.

All right, motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor? All those opposed? All right, the motion passes 4 to one. Um, is it too late to put a note on there about why even if we go around why we think the green was not or is that is the conversation we had enough for counsel? The motion's been made and seconded and voted upon. It'll be it'll be reflected in the minutes. I I think you you can put something in closing comments if you want it. Yeah, I think that's fair. Okay.

Thank you. All right, that being said, let's move on to closing comments. Okay, almost. Scott, I'll start with you. Yeah.

Um, I want to I want to thank the hard work uh staff and planning board on this. I appreciate the applicant getting this information back to us in a rapid fashion so that we get this wrapped up. Um, I do want to state also I want to thank uh the the visitors we have that come out and see what we do. also want to state that for town council um while we do encourage a green I think because of the rather small size of this subdivision and the unique um topographical issues on this piece of property that removing extra trees and doing some pretty serious grading just to have it green that I agree with the applicant would be very seldom used um is not a good use of that natural area. Thank you.

Um I will echo your statements. Thank you to staff for always informing us on everything and thank you to you guys to applicant for bearing with us as we do our first to be kind of in-depth review. I think um overall it will be good for everyone and um thank you for your patience with us. Thank you. Yeah, that was what I was going to say too. Last time people refer to the you guys as the guinea pigs. Yes. And I'm sorry for that choice of words there, but

lick our wounds. to thank you for your patience uh with us because it is a steep learning curve for everyone and um we appreciate uh you guys taking the time and effort to go through all of this and I think it will uh also I would like to echo what Scott's comments about the green. I feel the same way about that that um disturbing more natural area to provide a green is not within the spirit of the of what we're trying to achieve. So I think you guys have done well with it. Thank you.

Uh I just appreciate the additional information that you guys provided. Um uh I understand it's processes, you know, we're just starting it out with this with this new checklist and there's going to be some bumps in it. So um and if that and if it's if the discussion is that we want to have a community green and it has to be required with no caveats, then let's change it to that. Uh but when you're talking about seven lots or eight lots or 12 lots or it could be I think the wording in there is uh is important because it might not be feasible for a smaller subdivision uh to put that in. So uh if we want to change that we can have that discussion. Um but uh I think I think with the RCD uh the 50% of the property that is conservation um I mean it's it would just be have it would be something that we'd have to discuss if you wanted to make it mandatory without the caveat.

Um I apologize for taking up so much time. I thought we had a lot of good discussion. a little bit disappointed that there wasn't a condition of meeting the 30% tree canopy. That's a simple one, but um of course I'm on the opposite side of of a neighborhood green. They're not required for R40. They're specific to RCD. And um I know we have that if feasible. Well, I think what we're saying is we don't feel it's feasible to take out a lot of trees and they're saying it's not feasible for us to lose a lot. So, somewhere in there, we've got to find a resolution going forward. I'm done.

All right. That being said, uh, I'd like to thank you all for bearing with us through this and thank you for the plan board for extra time and extra effort and to Chris and Bill and Greg because I know we have talked significantly throughout this. Appreciate the extra work. That being said, do we have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. All in favor? I I Thank you all. appreciate.