Town Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, call to order. So, Monday, February 9th, 2026, 7 PM. It's good to see everyone here tonight. Thank you for showing up. Um, have everyone here. We have, you know,

we have a quorum of everyone. And, uh, let's stand for the pledge of allegiance, shall we? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Do we have any uh additions or deletions? Any adoptions to the uh uh agenda? Are we all good? Okay. Can I get a motion to accept the agenda? Make a motion we accept the agenda as stated. Okay. All right. All in favor?

Unanimous. We'll move forward. Conflict of interest statement. In accordance with North Carolina state law is the duty of every council member to avoid conflicts of interest. Does any council member have any known conflict of interest with respect to any matter matters on the agenda? If so, please identify the conflict and refrain from any participation in the matter involved. Any conflicts? Okay. No conflicts. All right. We'll move forward. Mayor council report. Does anyone have anything to share with since this past time? Anything with Wuma? Anything any uh anything with that? Well, we had the Wuma meeting. I forgot what the day was,

but the 26th. And the next Wuma meeting will be February 26th at 4M at Mineral Springs. Mineral Springs and um I think we're going to be talking about security and a few other things at that meeting. So join us if you can. It's at the town hall of Mineral Springs. Um secondly, I've been in what? What time? Four o'clock. Four o'clock. four o'clock Mineral Springs Town Hall.

The uh next thing I've been in contact with Ameilia Helms at NC do and they are in the middle right now working some contracts for some resurfacing and there's a good number of streets in our town that are on the list to be in those contracts. I don't want to promise anything until it's finalized, but hopefully some of y'all will be happy that long neglected streets may get a resurfaced job. And what they're looking at using is something different than what they used last year, which they call pavement preservation. It's not full um asphalt. It's a different treatment. It's supposed to be better. And then they put another top coat on it that makes it a lot smoother and everything. That's what she says. So when we get the uh the final information of what's going to be done in the next year or so, I will get it to Karen and we'll go on the website. Then you hold your breath and wait for it to happen. But at least if you have a contract, if it's under contract, it will happen in the foreseeable future. It's better than not having being on a contract. So anyway, thank you.

Okay. Anyone else? Okay. No, we'll move forward to the uh public comments. Uh Gabby, come on down. Okay. Thank you. Um just for as a reminder, public comments are limited to four minutes. Public hearings are limited to three minutes. Uh public comments are to be directed at the entire board and not individuals uh nor anybody in public uh people in the public attending the meeting. If you turn that way and start to you know address the public then I will stop you. If you don't want to stop then we'll make you stop. Uh a designated spokesperson uh for the group of three or more may be allocated six minutes to speak. At least three members of the group must be present and the names and addresses of these members may must be present and must be submitted to the town council or to the town clerk I should say before the meeting begins. Other than pursuant to these rules, you may not give your time to another speaker to increase a speaker's a lot of time. You must be civil in your language and presentation and act within reasonable standards of courtesy. Any use of slander, name calling, personal attacks or threatening speech or behavior is prohibited. The audience must maintain under uh maintain order and decorum in their conduct. Please refrain from any uh disruptive applause, comments or disorderly speaking during the meeting. Uh disturbances will be prohibited. The mayor or majority of the board may suspend these rules at their discretion. Failure to abide these by these rules after receiving notice by the mayor may result in one termination of your comment period or two your removal from

the meeting. Okay. And I trust we won't have any problems. Uh is it uh is it Nicole Kramer? Nicholas Nicholas Kramer. Come on down. Thank you Nicholas for coming.

Thank you mayor and council members. Um, thank you for the city that you have uh that we have today because of you. Um, it's because of the reason of of how you put everything together that we moved here six months ago. Um, you know, the safety um and the rural ruralness and being able like my kids can go out and play and we don't have to worry about safety and security. Um, so I was really surprised to find out that in a rural community like this that in essence we're all not allowed to have chickens like just backyard chickens, we're not talking like commercial raising or anything. But the way that the ordinance is written, you have to be 150 ft away from any property line, which means you need like a four or five acre lot, which is not most of our our neighbors. Um, we live on a twoacre lot. I've talked to most of my neighbors and they're they would love chickens. They grew up with them. my son would love to have chickens. He wants four. It's not like a ton. Um but the way that it's written and I talked to um code enforcement and it's like well no that's considered an agricultural use and so it has to be 150 ft away from the property line. Um so like the the city of Matthews and the count and the um and Union County both have what they call backyard chicken ordinances. you know, somewhere between 10 and 50 feet away from a property line, somewhere between 10 and 20 chickens per acre. Um, seems pretty reasonable. I'm happy to help uh write something like that. I did send something. I accidentally wrote it out to Ellen as district 3. It should have been written to uh Mr. Jones. So, you got it as well. Um, so I'm just hoping that we can kind of move that forward. Um, my son's really excited to have chickens. wanted to get some for, you know, for Easter. I know that's really close. Um, but I'm hoping that we can work together on on developing that.

Okay, cool. Thank you, Mr. Kmer, and welcome to Wedington. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Chad, come on up.

Good evening, council. Thank you. Uh, Chad Emerine, Eagle Road. Um, I'm still confused on this plan for Keystone, even though there's additional information that's been provided. My concerns are, does the yield plan provide provided confirm our UDO R40 requirements? There's three lots in the back with a large amount of steep slopes and a creek in the back. And I don't see where it reflects the 10,000 square foot minimum buildable space that's required for an R40 lot that then justifies the yield for RCD. Uh the second question I have is about the open space and the math from last month seems to not make sense compared to the math this month. Last month with the required inventory of steep slopes, flood plane, wetlands, etc. missing the table stated that the parcel is 16.66 66 acres, 8.53 acres provided of conservation space, which is 51.6%. By simple subtraction, that would mean 8.1 acres is developed for the 12 homes. Now, when I look at the new maps, I see we've removed one lot and there's a neighborhood green now of 10,000 square ft. The balance of that removed lot is spread among the other lots. So, there's a net reduction of 10,000 square ft of developed land. On the new map, it states that now that there's 0.95 acres of floodway,88 acres of steep slopes, and.51 acres of rightway. If you add that up, that's 2.34 acres. So, if that's backed out to meet the UDO requirement of 0% is comprised of those lands, how does the new map say the conservation space is now 7.53 acres? netting that down. Despite stating over two acres would be excluded, the net change is only one acre. And if you do the subtraction of the 16.66

minus the 2.34 minus the five 7.53 of conservation space, that nets to only 6.79 acres of land developed. That's significantly different from the previous one when the only net change is 2/10en of an acre added to the open space for the green. So, it doesn't seem like it complies with the UDO. The UDO is designed to have at least 50% of buildable land in conservation. In fact, if you look back at the previous ordinance, it doesn't seem to even comply with that. We changed the ordinance in November of 2024 where before it says no more than 20% of the conservation can come from those items. If you take the 2.34 plus the 7.53, that gives you a grand total of 9.87, 87 if that's correct of open space of which 23.7% is coming from those steep slopes and floodways. Also, if you look at the tree removal map, the numbers are also different of open space required and provided. It states 6.96 required and 7.13 provided. And I don't even know where that number comes from. Lastly, the UDO requires in addition wetlands and submerged lands in that inventory. And I don't see that clearly depicted. There's a stream running behind lot five that cuts across and there's a bank depicted, but no mention of how much acreage that is. That seems to understate the inventory. Based off of that, I ask that you deny this application. There are many concerns, including mass grading and no real trees saved outside of the steep slope areas that runs against our land use plan. This project has had many tries to get this right, and we're still here. Remember, this applicant had to have two community meetings since the first one was not correct. Had two reviews at the planning board due to missing items. It was withdrawn in November, then resubmitted before coming to you in

January with missing items. Still, enough passes have occurred. If this is denied, the landowner can move on to someone who could submit this right first time. Great. Thank you, Chad. Appreciate it. Um, Heather, come on up. Hi,

I'm not a very good public speaker, so I'm very sorry. You'll be fine. Um, I'm Heather Preston. I live on Forest Lawn. I wanted to first start off by addressing the comment that Keystone made um in regards to the last meeting when they talked about the on-site property meeting. Um, they had stated that on behalf of that the neighbors were very understanding, they appreciate it, they liked it, etc. That is just not true. Um there are multiple neighbors that were not in favor of this that did not did not like the way that the land was being developed. Though that was the first pass. They have made several adjustments and I haven't spoken in regards to that. Um so opinions may be differing now. Also there is a gas line going in on the opposite side of this road at this time. So I didn't pay much attention to construction over the past week and a half, especially with the snow or whatnot. I had a neighbor come to my door. Um he was very upset and asked if there was a meeting that he or I had missed. And I said under my understanding I have not missed any meetings about this project. He did um tell me that there was a sign now on the front of this property saying start calling get on the VIP list. Um I don't believe that this was an oversight by the Keystone property management. I believe it's a sneaky way to try and get traction to bring it back to you guys. Um, also, um, as you drive down Forest Lawn, you'll kind of see that the houses are further back off the property. Um, I don't know, I haven't heard like what, um, Keystone's plan is to try and create a barrier. I assume they're going to be hedges. Um, but my house is 2 acres and from my house there will be five properties. Um, and of course the back third of the 16 acres is farm is flood plane land. So there is a significant number of houses right there. So they will be almost right up against the road. Um, as far as I could see, I couldn't aside from some trees that they

were going to plant. I couldn't see any kind of big barrier. Um, this is also not congruent with the houses around the surrounding area. Also, at the last town hall meeting, there was some talk about schools being overcrowded. My family moved here about two and a half years ago, specifically for the schools that we will be districted to since my son was starting kindergarten. With the 12 new homes that are going up beside me, as well as the homes under construction closer to Antioch Elementary and a smaller neighborhood the other direction near the funeral home, this will only add to the overcrowding. And I was wondering what the plan's town was on that. If there was a new school coming, if there would be new districtricting, um what the town's plan is on that. I understand that um the time has come for Mr. Helms to kind of move on. Um it is a large property. It's a beautiful property. Um if this does not go through, I would encourage him to take his land and divide it up and have individual homes buy that land. I don't think that that would be an issue selling it as it is just a great plot. Um, also in regards to the neighbors, we were very disheartened when we heard um, and I will speak behalf on them on this that all of the historic trees out front were not being saved. That was a huge thing that everyone most everyone brought up during those first two meetings on site. Um, that's at the end of the day, I understand this is not a decision for me. I just wanted to address my concerns about schools and the appeal of these homes since the average acreage, I haven't seen the new map, is an average of a halfacre lot, and I know Weddington prides themselves on bigger lots comparatively to the town surrounding them. Um, I also would encourage Keystone if they do get to go through to have Mr. Helms and his wife's Presley's

legacy honored in some kind of way, some kind of namesake since they have been in Weddington for so long. Um, something to give them some respect. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you for coming. That's all of our public comments. Uh on to the um consent agenda. Uh can I get a u motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? So moved. So moved. Uh all in favor?

Okay. All right. Uh it's approved. We move forward. Old business. Um discussion of the possible consideration ordinance CZ2026-1 application by Keystone Custom Homes for conditional zoning approval for development of a now it says 12 lot but I think it's 11 lots of subdivision at uh 3009 Forest Lawn Drive parcel 07150015 and statement of land use consistency. Um, Greg, I'll have you to kick it off if you don't mind.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Mayor, uh, members of town council. Uh, if it's all right with you, I'm not going to rehash some of the material that we discussed in our previous meeting. I think we're all very knowledgeable about this property and this case. I'd like to focus on the changes that have occurred based on the feedback received in the January meeting. What's changed? what uh deliverables have been been provided uh and then be available for any questions you have uh regarding that information. It is uh a little technical. It was still a little unclear even when submitted you know about the yield plan and what was removed from there. Um, some of the key uh distinguishing terms I'd like to point out is that, you know, the term buildable land is is not exactly what we're discussing here today. You know, all land is buildable if you build it out of a flood plane, if you add a retaining wall, things like that. But we do denote areas that you should not build in. Those areas with steep slopes that are within the floodway. Uh the floodway is the area, you know, directly adjacent to the waterway versus the flood plane, which is the larger area that has the potential of flooding. Uh these are all key terms when considering uh the information in front of you. We'll go over all four kind of key sheets that uh were provided by the applicant and but I would ask if there's very specific questions about how they came to that yield, how they came to that number uh that the applicant be able to um speak to that directly. Uh I'm I'm the messenger of providing the information to you guys and I hope I do that to the best of my ability. Uh what I would note is this was a 12 lot subdivision on forest lawn. This is a conservation type

subdivision. The revision that was proposed and is available in your packet reduces the lot count from 12 to 11 lots. So there was concerns about the lot yield. Um, we will probably get into the weeds about it, but I'd like to nip that in the butt anyway and say if there were concerns about 12 lots being too many lots, that has now been reduced to 11. So, if there's concerns about the yield plan and the maximum number of traditional or um normal lot yields of acre lots and that 12 was not enough or 12 is too many. Uh that's now been reduced to 11. And so hopefully that just negates the question right there. But if not um the second matter was did they provide the statistics on how they came to that number. The answer is no. And now they have. That's the deliverable that is provided in your packet. If you have questions on that, it's best to ask uh Mr. Casey over there. Uh the second concern uh that was noted in January was that there was no neighborhood green. Uh there was trails provided, just mulch, not paved, anything like that. There was a there was a trail system provided but not necessarily not not necessarily sidewalks and not a neighborhood green which is uh described in code as to the greatest extent possible which means it's not required but they should make an attempt to do so. And so now a neighborhood green is provided. Um the code states that need that needs to be 10,000 square feet or larger and be uh surrounded by trees at a 40 foot interval. Uh that is provided in your site packet as well. Uh the third change

in the previous site plan of the one provided before you today is that there are four large heritage trees at the front of the property. If you drive down forest lawn, you notice these these large prominent trees. Um at the previous meeting it was stated that you know they could maybe save two they could save one for sure but they would go to the greatest extent possible save the other tree uh by reducing the lot count and shifting these homes backwards. None of those trees will now be preserved in the current iteration. So that is the change and that is provided on an exhibit uh that I can bring up on the slide at any time if there's questions on that. I'll go through those four slides briefly. Um, but first go over kind of the code issues that were brought up. So, um, through public comment and comments from the council, there's two sections we're talking about in terms of the yield plan and what they're showing. There's requirements for conventional residential subdivisions, essentially what the yield plan showed. The question being, without getting into the weeds about it again, is can they build 12 lots? And this says that they need 20% open space and no more than 50% of that open space shall be comprised of wetlands, submerged lands, deep slopes, flood lands, or lands that are transmission lines. There's a couple things to pick out of there. Not more than 50% can be these compromised areas. Those are shown in exhibit in your packet. they are under that they said that they're at 30%. Second item is that 20% of the gross acreage will be common open space. Um they do not provide 20% open space in that yield plan because this code amendment was 2025-05.

This was implemented after their yield plan was submitted. So I would state that they have vested rights and they did not need to meet the 20% requirement because they submitted this yield plan far prior to that code change being taken place. So couple different things 20% versus 10%. No more than 50% of that could be these compromised properties that are shown on the site plane in front of you. This is not again defined as buildable or unbuildable area. It's denoted as something you should take out of the calculations that you provide. And then the third highlighted item is that that calculation shall be provided by the applicant and submitted as part of this process. So we were unclear about the calculations. They were not necessarily shown on the plans or shown clearly. That was the main deliverable we asked of the applicant and delayed the project for a month for that reason so that they provide those calculations. This is for the yield plan. This is to show how many blocks they can do. This is what type of development they have as a project. That is your schematic plan for consideration today. This is slightly different. This says that 50% rather than 20% shall be required to be retained as conservation land. So they have 50% or greater as open space, but you get no credit, 0%

for wetlands, submerged land, steep slopes, floodways, or other things. So there's a floodway in the back. There's some steep slopes on the back of some lots. This is talking about conservation land or open space only, mind you, but you don't get credit for some of those compromised areas. So to give an example, if they said they had exactly 50% conservation space and there was 1% of the land as a floodway, that would drop it down to 49 and that would not count. So that's the other consideration is the site plan that we have today. This is the submitted example uh including with some notes shown in red. You're not going to be able to read this on on the prompter right now. You're going to have to view it, you know, in your packet as agenda packet. Uh but the applicant can speak to this with greater detail. Uh this is showing the areas that are conservation lands if they were to do a conventional development. It's showing which areas are floodways. It's showing which areas are flood planes. It's showing which areas are steep slopes and how they came to the calculation of 12 lots. According to this diagram, they meet the UDO with this submitt. This is the product that they are proposing for you today. So, this is not 12 lots. Again, this is 11. The highlights being that a neighborhood green is submitted up front, which was a deficiency that staff noted as well as the town council. It still shows the walking trail going around the perimeter. It shows your approximately halfacre lots around this culde-sac and the stub out to this vacant land um down here to the south and again shows your floodway

marked here. Your steep slopes shown here and all this green is the 50% or greater of conservation space that they are required to provide. The third new exhibit shows the number of trees to be preserved versus those to be removed and those to be added. So the green shows the trees that are in the conservation open space. You can see in the front you this is actually supplemented by a thoroughfare buffer. Uh we talked about this in the past, but there is utility lines here on the front edge of the road. So unfortunately, unlike other properties in Weddington and especially on Forest Lawn, you don't have a tree canopy going right up to the road. There's uh between this 100 feet that is required. And so it's supplemented in a more dense fashion at the back of this 100 ft. And then you also see the supplemental trees that are planted here on this neighborhood green. Again, they're supposed to be spaced about 40 feet apart. Um so it's showing trees that remain um trees that are in the conservation open space and trees that are supplemented. And then lastly, again, this is a little hard to read as a as something on television, but this is a new exhibit that shows trees that are to be removed because of the placement of the building pad and the house, which are shown in orange. You know, most notably, the four trees here at the front are shown as removed because they're in the now the building pad or the kind of the essential building area. They show trees that would be removed because of steep slopes or utilities. These are marked in blue. So you can see areas around the storm water pond because the grade change,

those would have to be removed. Uh and then trees that would remain, these are heritage trees are shown in green. Uh according to these calculations, there's actually a net gain in heritage trees versus the previous model because there's some trees here that they had shown on the southern border that they were going to remove partially because it was on the on the boundary with grading and things like that and partially because of the trail. They're now showing these heritage trees here to be saved. So I think it's let me get the number right. 72 heritage trees that would stay rather than 65 which was shown on the previous plan. But this shows and that's better representation of why trees would have to be removed. Um with that, you know, there's a lot of technical questions that we're probably going to get into that we can't get into that being the applicant can speak to. Uh the applicant here here's is here to speak to that. The last factor is the development agreement. um which is part of any conditional zoning process that's been provided to you all. Um we're we're shooting for more um strict kind of aesthetic standards, uh more masonry building materials and things like that. Uh one of the conditions of that development uh standards agreement is that they would build the houses that they presented in uh in last month. So again, showing some of these renderings that this is supposed to be accurate to what they build and so that's a condition of approval. Um, with that, I'm going to give um Keystone a chance to speak to their project and then I anticipate there being some questions. I'm available for any of those.

Thank you, Greg. Uh, thank you, council members. Appreciate the time and the opportunity. And um Greg, by the way, uh thank you for the explanations. I was actually going to walk you through those explanations as far as how the calculations came out and the and the defining factors between buildable, developable, the common open space, the percentages. Uh so as Greg, Greg already referenced, um we are hitting all those metrics. Um I did want to point out a couple references from the audience. Uh and I just want to make some corrections. uh during the neighborhood meetings uh and I'm going to double down on the comment that we made. We did not get any uh negative feedback. Uh so this is new uh and and and I've got a lot of people that have attended that meeting on our behalf that can attest to that. Uh so I wasn't aware of of the naysayers to be honest with you. Uh secondly, with respect to the actual um the sign that was placed um there was no malicious intention on that. So I I actually the conjecture is inaccurate. Uh we have multiple departments in our company and there was something within our system that triggered our marketing department to do that unbeknownsted to us. So as soon as we discovered that we had it removed. So if you've driven by there that sign has be been removed. Uh that was a mistake on our part. Um and those were aspects from the audience that I wanted to address. Uh with respect to um the last meeting that we had, there were two points of contention that we were trying to address and we feel that we've addressed those today. And the two are specifically just the calculations, if you will, on the yield plan and then secondarily the green space. Um and as Greg mentioned, it wasn't a requirement. It was a recommendation but after hearing the council and some of the concerns of that we adopted that. Uh so we are providing that and secondly what I wanted just to emphasize we're not putting it in the back towards the steep

slopes and modifying and taking out more trees to do that. We're utilizing the open space that did have no trees and then we're supplementing that with trees. So we wanted to be very intentional about where we placed that. Uh so it's a flatter piece of land. It's a usable piece of land. Uh with respect to the calculations on the yield plan, as Greg noted, um we still got 12 lots out of the yield plan. Uh but we're not asking for 12 today. We're asking for 11. So with that, if you have any questions, I have a question. Yes. You you just said you put the intentionally put the um common green up front because you didn't have to remove any trees,

right? Nothing says the common green has to be wide open with no trees on it. And then by doing that, you moved all the the houses on that side, which then eliminated all the other heritage trees that were going to be saved. Why in the world didn't you put the common area between lot three and lot four and clear out the smaller trees to make it a open wooded green and leave the other the lots the way they were and save the trees up front. That would have made sense to me. This makes no sense to me. So you as you know we have the 100 foot buffer.

Yep. The 100 foot buffer to address that. We wanted to at least respect the relationship of the open green to the buffer because now it's completely screened. So that was one aspect. The second aspect was we also wanted to keep the houses because this was a reference on the architectural side to keep the houses as far away from the street as possible. So that also kind of checked that box off as well. Well, the one on the other side of your entry road is where it was correct. I couldn't make any adjustments to that one just just because of the constraints.

If you move if you had the green between lot four and five, you didn't have to lose the trees up front. And on top of that, there may be more of a central access point for other neighbors versus here they would have to cross a street. Like if you go on the path, they would have to cross the street to get to the greenery. Is that correct? Well, there's a trail system that connects it. Yeah. Right. So, that's one comment I have. Sure. Understood. And the other is it shows you're removing again on lot four and five a good number of of trees at the back.

Now, is those are on steep slopes, correct? Which means you're planning to cut the trees on the steep slopes, which I also take it that you're planning on grading the steep slopes. that that steep slope is directly in reference to the sewer easement that we have to build to connect to the gravity sewer Union County system as it runs around the back. I'm sorry. I thought you were meanting uh beyond the culde-sac. It's No, I'm talking about on the side the I guess that's the north side of it behind what four four and five and then part of five because that's where your steep slopes are showing predominantly. Yeah,

blue trees. The blue ones, right? The blue trees. So, the storm drain has to be there. Yeah. On the steep slope at the back of those yards collect

all the impervious runoff has to be captured and placed into that pond captured. But at the same time, you know, our our UDO and intent is is to is to not disturb the trees or the steep slopes by grading to prevent runoff and erosion. And it looks like you're going to be heavily impacting the steep slope. And that's part of our thing is we're not supposed to impact the steep slopes. So, as we were trying to define specifically on SE slopes and what else is excluded from the common open space, and I think Greg kind of pointed that out, it's strictly for open space, not buildable, not developable. Uh, we're combining two separate things. So, we can impact steep slopes. There's nothing that says we can't.

It's about impacting steep slopes. They're separate from this part of it. Understood. where in the limited uses that you can do to impact the steep slopes and it revolves primarily around driveway access. We don't have any steep slopes in the driveway access areas. Well, that was the main reason that you have an excuse to impact the drive the steep slope. I'm I'm not following you, but Casey, you want to speak to that? Do you mind? Yeah. You're telling me you're not rating on the steep slopes? Can you go back to the uh conservation site plan, please?

Uh right there shows the the steep slopes. Um those are not in the area that you you were referencing the blue trees. The steep slopes are still back behind in the conservation area. That will not be I'm not talking about down towards the creek. I'm talking about lot four and lot five where the steep slopes are. I can't see on there. Which one's four? Is that that one? Yeah, those those are the blue trees that that are affected by a storm drain, but not steep slopes. Not steep slopes. We're not grading in those steep slopes because they're part of the conservation crosshatch there that you are. It's cross-hatched because it's excluded from the open space which is green.

It's excluded because you stated is it is steep slope, right? It can't be counted as open space in our calculation. It has nothing to do with I'm not talking about white yield or anything else. I'm now talking about grading. Understood. We're not grading in our in the conservation area. So you you're you're removing trees in the crosshatch area. You have to be. If you look at the map, I don't believe so. Can you uh those screen those are still those uh go back one uh those you overlaid those two. You have to be

right. Right. That's why we color coded it blue for storm drain because there's storm drain that goes through there in our grading plan. The steep slopes are outside of that property line. H and I and I look at it and it and it seems I'll just say odd to me that where you say steep slopes takes a very angular method with the property line and it comes down on up on both sides of this

and and I I will say that there there is a small very small patch right there where we ended the property line that does make it look angular. I I I know what you're saying there, but it is looks odd to me. It is a very small sliver in there that that does get steep slope removal. I you're you are correct. It is less than a tenth of an acre. I mean, it is very small.

But if you look at lot four, what you show is behind the property line is a tree, a big tree that gets removed and right on the two of them right on the edge of the property line at the back. But those trees are for storm drain, not grading. Anything that's gray is for grading. But they appear to be in the steep slope area. So I'm confused, but I guess I'll stay confused. I have a couple questions. You

um I'll just throw the two out there. When Greg was doing his presentation, he said, you know, you guys would mention, you know, how you got to the uh yacht lot yield calculation. Well, you referenced it. Greg explained it. He just referenced back to you guys would explain it. So, I want you guys to explain how you got because there's a lot of confusion here how you guys got to that. Sure. If you have to give us the numbers and you know, we got them down or whatever, we can do that. But, uh, let's let's start with that that question first. I have one more to follow that. Not a problem.

All right. on the yield plan according to article 6D607 section C2 pages 18 and 19 that's what we're using as the defining factor according to the UDO that tells us exactly what we have to do for the yield plan which one is what can you give me that one more time sure article 6- D as in David 607 section C2 it's on pages 18 and 19 okay That's that's where it defines the yield plan and the instructions on how we have to calculate that. Okay, I understand.

The definition of yield plan is on page 71 where you have all the definitions of each of your nomenclature within the UDO. So we're taking that definition as well. Okay. Is now is it on here as well? Did you present that to us? You know, yes, that's the small print in the corner. It's kind of the O. Okay. To show you how we came up with the definitions and the understanding of the calculations. Okay. And then the math is in the red block itself. So we're showing the gross area and they're subtracting the floodway which is one of the the four or five characteristics that have to be removed.

Gotcha. Okay. Well, I look at that. Let me ask you this. Tom had referenced uh to to me. I'm just going to jump into it. To me, you're this whole the whole section there. Can you give me Greg that the either one of the trees save areas or or Karen um go forward? Um where top where it shows the trees. Okay. I mean that one's fine. to me. I mean, yeah, you're saving in the conservation area.

You have to, right? But if you look at this, it it looks like just you go in and you're cutting all the the heritage trees. It looks like you're going in just clear cutting the the property. And uh it it it seems seems to me and I I hear your reasoning for putting the the the green space up front, but it seems in the other map it shows the I guess it's the area where you're cutting the trees. The trees are right on the pads. If you move those down and put the green spaces like Tom was saying, what between was it four and uh three and four?

Three and four. you could shift those down and it seems like you're saving more of those trees on that on that other side over there. And the whole idea of our tree ordinance is to save as many trees as possible. It it it to me it looks like we've ignored the the tree save here just for the putting the green up front and whatever reason. I feel like we could shift those trees, put that green between four and five, save more trees and and eliminate

I'm sorry, three and four. Thank you, Tom. And uh and put that green more in the neighborhoods instead of right up front. Um I have a problem. It appears like we're clearcutting. We're going in just getting rid of everything in which we are. Understood, mayor. And um I appreciate the comments on that. We we don't object to moving that. That's just where we thought would be the best place. Gotcha. Okay. May I add one more thing? Sure. A part of the development agreement was also want for side loaded garages if you recall.

And that lot was the only one we could not as it was originally configured. We could not do a side loaded garage on lot number one. So that is another reason why we decided to put the green there as well. Uh, let's see something. I thought all the sidewalk problems were in the back.

Yeah. And they were Well, why why are you able to do it with lot number 11 and you can't do it with number one, which 11's just on the other side? You know what I'm saying? If you if you're doing it to 11 and it's it's just right there on the other side of the street and if you move lot one, you'd be straight across. I I don't see a problem with that. You could flip you could flip the house or just the and have the side load on the other side. I I I don't see that you can I don't see there's a problem. Understandable. Just one comment from a um a development perspective. You typically don't want a driveway directly in front of another driveway. Just as a side note, not that we can't do that, but we typically don't do that.

And I and I see those, you know, from time to time. Y um but I think in some cases you may have to. Um and in this case you may have to uh again we don't object to doing that.

Gotcha. Um I I just see that you know if there's a better way to I feel to do this and of course this is up to the council to you know move forward on this by shifting that down uh one one two and three into that open space just like you know almost you know put like lot 11 on the other side it frees up and some of those trees right in there like on lot one there's two right there's what two or three on lot two on the pad There's three on lot three. By shifting those down, it it looks like you could put those trees in between the homes now instead of, you know, laying them on top of the homes. Um, that could be, you know, that could be a big, you know, savings of the of those trees in there. And our our goal was to, you know, uh even in our public comment, uh some of those trees, those heritage trees out front are just, you know, just gorgeous trees have been there for a long time, and we would like to save those. Um even if we have to shift shift some things around. Um and I know you say you don't object to doing that. How can we how can we do that? Uh where do we where do we go from here? I'll ask you. Um, if you guys want to make a vote for an approval with that condition of shifting those two.

Yeah, that's Well, I I want to piggyback a little bit. Sure.

So, going back to trees, I I look at lot nine specifically, there's like that orange tree and it's considered um the the one in the back looks because it goes into the foundation of the property. that your house could even be shifted a couple of feet and that big tree and I know it's also on the lot line between 10 and 11, but the trees add value to the neighborhood. People would prefer I mean I know when I go look to look at homes I prefer to buy a house that has a beautiful tree in the backyard even if I share it with my neighbor because that gives me shade in the summer and um and an aesthetic. I think like that potentially could be a little of bit of an adjustment. Same thing on 11th that could get shifted just a little bit potentially. I don't know if that's possible or

So we we looked at every tree as it relates to the house pad and the relationship of what we have to do to get the the land to work with the house. So unfortunately it's not an absolute that the rectangle is the only thing that's disturbed and you plop a house on it. No, I

we're trying to really massage the land as it is today with respect to those trees. This is for all practical purposes the best that can be done for the application of that. Now, I don't recall seeing anything in the ordinance that restricts heritage trees from being removed other than if we do something postapproval that was not defined, there's a penalty involved. I do understand that, but we're being very very transparent on what tree gets impacted and why.

Um, you know, and I I wouldn't want to approve something sight and scene, you know, like let's approve something then we'll go work out and this just don't feel comfortable with doing doing that and I don't think the the council would is either. Um, I just feel that, you know, there's a better way to do that, whether you know, you do it here, uh, or take it back and look at the, uh, just run it through the planning board one more time just to get, you know, get their input on it. Um, I I'm just I'm just where I'm coming from big time is, you know, we did a tree ordinance primarily because of some development that was going on. it just went in and just just cut it all down. Had no respect for the land, the trees or anything. And so that's why we did the tree ordinance is to, you know, prevent this. And it just appears that we're coming right back and doing the same thing. Um, and uh I just I'm just I feel really uncomfortable with that. Mayor, if I may disagree, we have been very intentional on trying to respect every aspect of this ordinance and as you know, this really pigeon holes any developer into what can actually be done. Uh we have provided what we feel is a very viable compromise on everything. Uh we've reduced the lot, we've given the green space, which again is not required, but we're doing it because it was highly recommended. Um, we're not coming in here intentionally mass grading. We're telling you, we're telling you what we're removing and why.

No, I hear you.

But the net result is every tree in the development area is coming down and this will be a mass grade. That's the net effect of what this plan is. It's it's not like you did anything to work around the major trees to try to save them, try to jigsaw puzzle this thing in any way other than what you have here, which is if it's in the development area, it will come down and that's the end of it. I'm going to speak for our engineer who made the effort of pretty much meeting our criteria and the grading surrounding these lots homes specifically, not just the lots was restricted as much as possible as opposed to, hey, let's grade and get the perfect flat yard, the perfect trees. We we tried to keep all the trees in the rear yards. If you notice everything on the rears of the yards, we're not grading to the property line. We're within the setback, outside of the setback, if you will. So, we're not fully hitting the ent entire developable area. We we have respected as much as possible. Can you explain to me on lot five? That's the one I seem to have a lot of concern about because it seems like that is one that seemed to be have have a lot more shading and grading and I think I'd like to have an understanding of how much that will that particular lot would be impacted. I have concerns that um if it has slopes,

how do we make sure that that that over the long haul um it the land doesn't shift that the property doesn't you know I think if the slopes are and how much grading happens I'd love a little more description on what you're going to do to lot five in particular.

Sure. I can speak to that specifically. So, uh, we we avoid any of the steep slopes for the house pad itself. So, we're not going to run into issues there. The grades do start dropping off initially, probably about midstream of that house, and therefore, we would have to build a basement home there. That gives you an additional 10 to 12 feet right off the bat. So, that's what we're doing to kind of chase the grade, if you will. And then right after that, it just continues naturally. Thank you. Yep. percentage of steep slope. What What is that grade there? Do you have any remember what that is? 25 is the number.

Uh that's not that's not on this one of the slides there. I believe uh there was a there's two descriptions of slopes. Is it more than 25? No. Yeah, it's not. Yeah. The the most severe definition in code is 25 or greater. Right. Right. I just didn't know what this was if it was exceeded. And this probably falls in moderate 15 to 25. I think it's 15 to 25 is the other one. Correct. Okay. Mayor, couple comments. Yeah, definitely.

Uh number one, I appreciate uh couple things that you've done. I appreciate that you've added the green space. Uh even if it had to take up the lot, I recognize that uh was probably a big decision for y'all to make. And I appreciate you doing it. I appreciate the fact that you heard me about that road not being developable uh being buildable and you you took that out and I really appreciate that. Um so I it's not that I don't recognize the efforts that you're making here and I I do appreciate them. But if you were to go down Matthews Weddington Road, there's a development down there on the left where there was they took in a bulldoz and they pushed down every tree in there. And I got to tell you, I wasn't at town council them, but the town council prior to them took a lot of abuse and that was why our tree ordinance has been uh is the way it is now. Uh I I don't know the solution. It I what troubles me and I go down forest lawn all the time and by Mr. Helms. I see you see him out there cutting the grass all the time during the summertime and I spoke very early on that I wanted that I'd like this to be successful but the fact that those big large trees are just they're all gone now. And I spoke to you earlier. I asked you, well, we were talking about why some of those trees had to be removed. And you said, well, that road has to meet up with the road across the street. And I wasn't familiar with that state statute. And you pointed it out. And I was like, well, okay. Didn't like it, but if the

state requires it, it requires it, man. See, all these homes are nice, uniformly set back from the road, equidistance. My neighborhood's not like that. There's different ones that are set back further and whatever. I mean, the symmetry is nice, but I mean, it's just like Mayor Bell said, I I wish there could be more effort in saving tree by just slightly moving and They don't have to be in the road, do they?

I mean, I know there's some symmetry to that and maybe you like the look of that. Maybe home homeowners like the look of that, but Well, the setbacks define where they have to go. I'm talking about where the homes are all in a nice straight line. Do they all have to be in I mean, is there any way to say some of the trees? The three homes that we are in a line. Well, there's there that are in a line. And if you look over there down the the other road there, those two houses are in a line.

Uh I mean, it's not that they're in a line that bothers me. What bothers me is that and I just want to see some of those trees saved. And if a big one could be saved and I mean, I know you've put a lot of work in this, but God, I can just envision driving by there three months form and it's just everything's bulldozed down and then 18 months from now or from that point you won't see anything because of all the buffering trees that we planted. Yeah.

And that's what the toll brothers are saying down there too when they No you won't you won't miss them. I'm not saying you won't miss them. I I mean I personally appreciate those trees as well. We we tried to work around that.

I I you know again this is you know you guys decision. I would rather see this you know maybe go back to the planning board just to you know give you one more look at this to see if you if there's anything that can be done and get their input uh and try to work with this. Again this is you guys make your decision. Um, but I just don't feel comfortable going in, you know, uh, and to be and be quite honest with you, you guys are, you know, really the the first development to come in after the the tree ordinance. So, we just don't want to do a tree ordinance. They're like, nah, we're just kidding. And, uh, and so, we need to we need to hold to that. And then we did that for a reason because of things that been done in in this town. And uh we were talking with someone today who just moved here year ago. I said, "Why did you move here? We love the tree canopy. Ed Weddington is serious about saving trees." And and so um the residents recognize that. And so um so and and we we recognize that too and that's why we did what we did with the ordinance. So my my push would be to, you know, to, hey, let's click this look, take another look, not come back in 30 days and shut the houses down, but let's send it through and let's have some more eyeballs on it with the the planning board and and and and go from there, mayor,

but I'm just going to throw that at you guys. That's up to you guys. May I reference another point here? Um, I think it was kind of skimmed over. M when it's all said and done, we're going to have over 700 trees on this piece of property, which is more than what is there today. So, just kind of put that in perspective. Well, I I get that. I mean, you got 700 trees out there in in the back in the unbuildable area. Yeah. But you're still it doesn't negate the fact that you're you're you're basically you're just going to go clear cut that whole section. We were replanting significantly. Well, I understand that. And everybody else says the same thing, but you go out there and there's this tree about this and about this big around and

it's a maple that in 30 years is going to be falling down and we will not have the canopy that we want. Yeah. So that you know um you know would be useful perhaps if I was on the planning board or even for me here if there was an overlay. I like your new this new thing here, but if there was a way to have like a a clear overlay that you could lay over top of that that shows the existing trees and where they fall in line with where your your home pads and driveways are would kind of be a better visual for me.

That's the colorcoded it is. It's colorcoded there. It's the right there. That's that one. Yes. That's showing you everything. Oh, I see it. Yeah. 60. Okay. So, the colors are I'm old and my eyesight doesn't have a hard time. It's a little better on the computer screen. Yeah. Yeah. All right.

So, my comment is that I mean this has been incredibly messy up until the last hour before the meeting. The um that being said, the planning board passed this according to our UDO. Greg passed this according to our UDO. The people that are saying 11 homes or Wington's known for one house per acre. Yes, we are. That's R40. Conservation is put in place so that we can have the same number of one house per acre but on a lesser lot so that we can conserve trees and green space

because you can't have both. You can't conserve green space and and have you know in in some in some parcels of land. And so all that being said, if this, you know, I would I'm I do want to try to save as many heritage trees as we can if they fell under our new um tree save plan. Then do they pay the penalty? I mean, I'd rather have the tree than any fee, but do they pay the fee for any heritage tree taken down? because I thought they didn't fall. I thought they I thought

I thought it was before the tree save. So, no. So, so

if it's in the buildable area, so if it's in kind of the dotted line of the home pad, this is lot 10 for example, or it's in the driveway or it's in the utilities, which is in the front of the driveway, you know, things like that. Trees can be removed because that's the only way you're going to build a house there. You have to build the driveway. You have to put the water line in. Um, the intention of the code is best applicable to your traditional 1acre lot, which is basically to say there's no reason you got to cut down the backyard. Yeah.

And it's a little harder to apply here because they have to do more grading because the lot's smaller and there's more topography here. So, we want as a policy and as the UDO states, if you're outside the buildable pad, if you're outside this dotted line and you're in the backyard, there's trees there you should make every attempt to save it. Sometimes you need to grade in order to make the the building pad flat and so you can't save. And that's some of these things back here in blue and gray. Um, but you should preferably save the backyard. So, anything that has to be removed like this where the road is, where the building pad is, you are allowed to remove any trees there because that's the only way the subdivision is going to get built. But if they're saying, this is a good example. This is one we'll look at should this project be approved. This is in this guy's backyard. It's a heritage tree. It's right on this dotted line. There's going to be some steep slope back here. contractor might be being a little aggressive and building the building pad and say he put some dirt over that root area and the tree dies, he's going to pay a $50,000 fine just for that tree because he's removing something or killed something that he wasn't supposed to and is not indicated on the plan. So, it's very plan specific on what can be removed.

And as a clarity, green is what we're saving. Yeah. Let me ask you this, Greg. Do you think if the green space was moved between three and homes three and four and you slid those homes down one, two, and three u almost like between those homes that are sitting right there with you those trees, you know, um it's almost positioning them in between those areas. You think that, you know, would you agree?

I can't say without seeing it. you know, I've deferred to the engineer on how they've designed this thing, and we've worked through a couple iterations. It depends on what kind of our goals for that space is. I've always said the neighborhood green is like the Easter egg hunt. You know, that's the that's the central area that people can gather at and the community come together at, have picnics, do, you know, holiday events and things like that. Would you think that neighborhood I'm sorry, Tom. Wouldn't you think the neighborhood green would be better served back further off the street if that's going to be your Easter egg hunt and where the people come together instead of putting it up at the road? Well, they said they had changed that, Jim. But yeah, and it looks like if they slide one, two, and three down, maybe some of those yellow trees can be saved.

That's what we're That's what we're saying. I guess I'd go back to the plan that was here last month that showed a number of those trees, at least two or three of them that were going to be at least a noble attempt to save because we talking about having to fence them and do everything else, right? And those trees are gone in this plan. And even in the presentation mentioned two of two of the four at least would be saved. Now, none of the forest. Well, Tom, you you kind of raised a good issue here. Is the green space worth losing those big giant heritage trees? I'm not sure you have to lose it. Correct. If you move it, right? I don't know. I don't know the answer to it. Yeah.

Because like because the original area with those three houses down, at least the first two houses, one and two, there was some trees that were going to be saved. I believe if I remember correctly and and just to be clear, so by shifting the the neighborhood green down between three and four, I think it was brought up. The thought being that we would save trees in between three and four, correct? Not the four, I think. One, one, two, uh, one, two, and three. There was some chance. That's what the plan last month showed some tree in those areas with it, you know, going back to best attempt.

Best attempt. Yes. because it's still on that problem where it's in the setback of 15 foot and it will extend into the buildable area, but we would we try to preserve. Yeah, that was the intent to try to save several of those big trees was where those houses were. When this thing moved, it went right into the middle of the house. Therefore, that doesn't work. I think three of the big ones were saved when we had 12 lots and no green arrow. Well, that's because when this moved, a lot of things happened. I know, but that's what I'm saying is we've lost three big trees because of the green space. I appreciate them going to the 11 lots and and

I don't have a problem with that or the lot yield or anything else. I'm worried about all of a sudden we we just lost more more of the big trees. We're clear cutting. Yeah, I I share your concern. I don't know the answer. Should we send it back for more view reviewing? Well, at the very least, what I'd like to see instead of agreeing to move those lots down and just take what we see, I'd rather have them move that down, put the green space between three and four, and then look to see what it looks like. At least have a shot at it. have a shot at it before we approve anything.

Right. Right. I mean, I don't want to delay the process and I understand you got I know it's been delayed, but you know, this movement just wiped out everything and I I was have a real heartburn with that. Well, if they I mean, if if their desire is also to save the heritage trees, then maybe they would be willing to do that. I would vote like this fits in the UDO. It has been made clear. Your calculations are fine. The lot yield is fine. Is there any way that you can move the green space to make save more heritage trees and then everybody wins? Think creatively about it. Yeah. And and yes, to answer your question, we're very amendable to trying to do that.

So, let's try to do that. How do we move forward trying to do that? There's several ways.

Okay. Give us our choices. Your choices are that we create a condition to add to this general terms that requires them to um present plans to the administrator demonstrating saving trees with the 11 lots that so that's be prior to and we'll pick a trigger you know before they can get any kind of building um even a grading plan they need to get us they need to get that resolved. So that'd be the first step. Um and Greg if he if they can right now they're saving 72 trees um in this existing plan if they can get up to 73 74 75 I don't know what number because compared to the last in January they were showing that they were saving 65 heritage trees on their plan.

Now they're showing they're saving 72 heritage trees on the plan. It's the matter of where the trees are located. I think the heritage trees are located that is causing heartburn um up here on the dis. So, if they can figure out a way to save one of the because I believe in that that they had talked about being able to save maybe one of those beautiful trees up front out of the four, trying for two, but maybe only able to save one. Is is that was that correct from last month? Actually, I can ask them that.

Another option though is what Jim had said, which is to bring it back to the planning board. Then there would be more eyes on it too. Absolutely. And and I think that that's not a a bad idea because at least then the more eyes the better. They well the fir I mean the first time they pass like they passed it as is the first time. So why are we doing that? If if all we want is this one thing, why can't we pass it under that condition? I do. You want to do you do you want to buy something side on the same? Do I want to keep on sending something back to the planning board when it came up here the first time? I don't I don't have a problem with that. That's what they're here for. And I don't want to pass something without knowing what it is. And that's what we would be doing here. Yeah. It's giving It has to be okay based on what was said.

Yeah. I'm not sure I didn't pass the test like like and that they're getting a chance to do a redo. Yeah. I'm not sure I'd send it back to the planning board. I I would look at submit a new plan that shows what they can say. move the thing and you don't have to clear all the trees on the green if you know what I'm saying. It doesn't have to be a clearcut where the green is. Okay. And how can you work this around and make it more palatable for us to raise our hand and say yes, I approve this even though I know you're wiping out a whole pile of trees that I really am not comfortable.

May May I ask a question related to that? So this for us this is the chicken and the egg. We just can't seem to figure out what you guys want ultimately because it's always one thing and another and it just doesn't end to be honest with you. So what we're trying to look at now is if we flip that now you're going to have an open space with trees in it and is it usable? I'll put it wherever you want, but is it truly going to be usable?

What you you look at is it is a green. You look at what is reasonable to take out of it to make it a open woodland. if you know what I'm saying. There's a lot of stuff that can come and save the big trees and it's still open open usable parcel of land. You still got to put your mailbox somewhere to use which usually you put right in front of the green the green and having it back there would be reasonable. I was when you said y'all were putting a green in. I had no concept that we were losing these trees by moving this around. And I was, you know, my concern before was was this a proper lot count and making sure it was right. And I'm not fixated on the lot count. There's other issues discuss at our retreat on some things that I want to discuss about that. But when I saw that all of a sudden I'm losing these trees here, these big trees in the front, that's when I got very concerned. And it's because of where that went to. The the green went to. And you and you move the house is a half a half a yard basically. And all of a sudden, every one of those trees now is in the middle of where the house proposed house is. And that really got me. I'll just say that.

Try to find a way to work around these big trees as much as possible. So we're comfortable saying that's what I'm asking. May I recommend Miss Karen's suggestion where we make that concerted effort to your point and then Greg administratively can look at that and see if the it's been achieved. I will not raise my hand on that basis. I if I am going to get criticized for a bunch of trees getting cut down, I want to know exactly what I bought.

And that's where I am personally. I can't speak for anybody else. That's where I am because there's going to be blowback things happen that I said I didn't think it was like that. I can't I can't justify. Sure. Well, let me let me flip the lens then if I may. Can you tell me or point to me where in the UDO it says I cannot remove these heritage trees? I'll tell you this. This is conditional zoning. Understood. And this is what it boils down to. This is conditions. This is a condition. What were you May I speak as land owner? Sure.

Four trees y'all are talking about. Three of them are a danger to my house. And if y'all want me to still live in a dangerous house because they're not going to buy my land on any other condition. Well, some of these are not near your house at all. They're the There's four that you are so concerned about is a couple of them are. Yes.

And most of them are go a number of them are going. We're just trying to say there's a couple of them here and I'm not going to dispute you, argue with you or anything. just trying to save what can be saved because the other ones are going away unfortunately the way this thing shows and I will say this I want you to be able to sell your property too and that's not about not doing that we just we just have to make sure it it's correct

your people will be unreasonable about saving trees because 10 years from now these 12 and 14 inch trees will almost as big as those are now. And you're depriving me of the right to sell my property to these developers on the count of trees. No, we want you to be able to sell your property. And so don't don't think that we're, you know, but we just have to make sure all the conditions of the town are met. So we're behind you 100%. Just know that. But uh we just have to make sure all the other details. We want to get to a Yes. Yeah. That's acceptable.

If I can also point request of the sideload garages also contributed to that impact if you will. So we're we're trying to put everything into one bucket and something is giving. We just can't check all the boxes 100% and we're giving up a lot to achieve this as well. Can I ask this?

Yes sir. Um, I hear what you're saying about sideload lots. I guess what I'd like to see and and I don't want to send it back to the planning board. I I think we're we're that close. What I'd like to see is to come back here. I'd like to see that open space moved up between uh three and four. see what trees can be saved. And if you can say, "Look, if you're willing to give up a side load garage council, I can save that big tree." Yes.

You know what I'm saying? Yes. Yes. If you're willing to give us some options, whereas if we're being unreasonable about side load garages,

um but by having a front load, you can save one of those big trees, I think there's room for compromise. But I I hate quoting this, I don't want to buy a pig in the poke either. I'm going to have to stand up in front of the citizens here approving this and they say, "Why did you allow that clear cutting?" If I if I approve it, then I'm going to have to take responsibility for it. I don't want to say, "Well, no, Greg didn't do his job and and pass the buck to him." Buck stops here next. Um, what I'm going to recommend is that we

table it again till time certain next month. make a motion. And what but what I want to see so there's no misunderstanding and and anybody else can chip in what they want to see is move that up to the green space up between three and four. See what you can save there. And if there's any way of saving any of those large heritage trees by making a home a front load and and squeezing that in to save that. Um, I' I'd like to see that as an option. I mean, if I got a tray between a side a front load and a big giant tree, I'm picking the tree. Yes. Mhm. So,

or moving the lot just a couple of feet this way. It doesn't line up perfectly because then it saves a tree. Creative as possible. I would like to see the side load still if you can do it. But but I'll remind you also when we first started this process, you said, "Oh, this project can't can't move on unless there's 12 lots." Now we're at 11 and we're still talking about it. So So I I question, you know, you keep you keep saying we can't do it if you do this. Can't do it. But you seem to do it. So I I would say, you know, let's let's see what we can do with what we can do. I'm willing for some give and take.

I I appreciate that. If I can just comment on that. I think what's been challenging for us is we don't know what's the higher priority and it seems like everything is a high priority and we just can't seem to achieve that. Well, so now if we know how to play the game, we'll comply obviously. So if if that's the metric, we can hit the metric. But if the metric keeps changing, we we're chasing it and we're just constantly chasing it. That's all. Just want to point that out. But if you could come and it would say option one is this option two if it's not say the green space isn't between three and four but you come up with an idea that it's going to be between six and seven. Right.

Right. Show that to us. Then at least we'll have a decision-m point. I think that that I think the concern here is that each time we come up with something there's a collateral impact and then that becomes the subject topic and and we don't know what the next one's going to be.

I'll speak for myself because that's all I can speak for. I don't care about the garages. I don't have to buy the home if I don't like a front load garage. If we can save some trees, I appreciate the 11 lots. It matches it. It fits the UDO. the number of lots on the land size is okay for me. And then you know like if there's so many that like if Clayton already said that he cares about the trees I said I care about the trees you have to work on those two cuz I mean I think that trees over the garage and Jim will be mad but I bet that trees over garage but but show us options.

Show us options. I would love to gives you flexibility. I would love to finalize this without going all the way back through the thing. I appreciate that. Does need to go to the planning board. Thank you. This needs to come back to us. That's it. It needs to come back to us, but I don't want to keep going all every month here. I'm tired of it, too. I'd rather deny it and just move on if it gets it is wearing us out. May I ask us out? May May I ask a question? Is it possible to meet with each of you independently to show you what we came up with before coming to this public hearing so that we can come in knowing that we've achieved something because if there's a collateral thing that shows up, I'd rather not find out about it here. We can do groups of two. We'll save you some time.

Yeah, we can have a quorum, but yeah, I'm open to that. Okay, we can do that there. And and that that'd be fine. Um, yep. And the motion is to table until next month meeting. Do do we talk about the other item that was left out of the

uh we can bring that up right now since we already know in uh paragraph 5B of the uh general conditions. Uh we would like to add um it's that the it says no two homes either adjacent to or directly across the street from each other will share the same front elevation. We would like to add um or primary building materials. The the goal is that there's that it is not a matching neighborhood. Sure. And that this does not um that condition doesn't reflect that completely. Right. How do we define primary building material

in fair? Okay. Okay. Prim and so the primary building material I is what you're wrapping the house in. Okay. It's not the decorative components. So um and can you you read paragraph A? Yep. Does it the building materials used on the principal buildings constructed on site will be a combination of portions of the following. brick, stone, pre-cast stone, pre-cast concrete, synthetic stone, cementous fiber board, cementous fiber shake, stucco, decorative block, and or wood. Okay. So, the primary whatever that is would not be able to be repeated in that pattern we we outlined there.

Correct. Yes, Ellen. I would like one one additional request. Uh in looking at the UDO, I thought I had read something along the lines of um something should have been supplied to give you a view of what it looks like from the road. I would I'm curious if we do you have or will you put together something like that? So when we know when we're driving by, what would I be seeing from from the first line? Yes.

I guess I would revert to Greg. Greg, is that something that we have to produce for UDF? So we just discussed aesthetics of the home which is not legally permissible under state law unless it is agreed upon by the applicant and put in a development agreement that is signed by both parties and agreed upon before you start. That's a b. uh one of the conditions in that agreement said that the home should roughly match the presentation uh that was provided in January. So

I'm not talking about any of that. I I'm let me continue please. And to answer your your question, no, we don't have to know exactly what the houses look like and that's not a requirement. Um, you can provide renderings or views from the street. It's been very helpful for past projects to know, particularly with the 100 foot landscape buffer, what it looks like from the road. I'm curious about the landscaping from the street, the view of the landscaping from the street, not the elevation of the home. That to be perfectly clear, that is a part of the UDO. We we we can provide that. We already have that actually.

Okay. Yeah, there's been a previous example. Yeah. Yeah. No, I I I get you. I get you. Um, so so this has been worked through four or five times between me and applicant. So this is the 100 foot buffer. Here's the initial round of supplemental plantings. We talked about this empty space where the utilities are. They've provided these supplemental views. The reason that this was added is um Keystone provided a visual from the road and frankly it looked pretty sparse

and not comparable to other properties in the vicinity. So they provided that based on viewing that we said hey can you do better? Can you build a mound or something like that? Um and so so we have never seen and I know Clayton and I have never seen that before. Would we be able to see that? That would be helpful. Yes, that's Yes. So, I would, you know, I would say as a condition of approval, you do that, but everyone driving in this neighborhood is going to see that. That's the first point of contact. And so, like a a landscape plan is not required as a UDO item, but we almost always put it as a condition of approval because we want to see what it looks like.

Okay. We could need to go back to what you're discussing. What was I discussing? Oh, the siding. Yeah, the house the the the facade of the houses. So, the goal of the goal of the condition is to avoid a uniform looking neighborhood. Frankly, the all white houses um that that that is that's just not the look that the town wants. They want the variety. Color or material or both? Both. Both.

Both. And so the goal would be that um you know using your language regarding the um adjacent homes or across the street from each other that they have different facades and they have different different looks and by facade I'm talking about building material building elevations roof lines all that kind of thing. So that would be the that's the request. I think as we wrote it we were offering um a different facade. Elevation is what elevation is the word that you use. Okay. Well, I I am I am saying that interchangeably. Okay,

perfect. That if we could um just include that so for un for all of us to make sure we're understanding that elevation is in includes facade and the materials used. That's that's right. Am I Mayor, do I have that right? Yes.

Yeah. I but but just for clarity uh I do have heartburn the building material not being able to be duplicated but I'm already changing elevation. Okay. I mean now you're asking for both. Okay. I'm changing the elevation and I'm going to change the primary building material. Well, that's why I'm changing the elevation. Well, every developer will will say I'm not going to have the same elevation across the street or side and everybody says that, but we're trying to get away from like we said uh of having you had sent me a video and every one of those h it was a siding neighborhood

with a little bit of stonework up front. It was just a siding neighborhood. So, we're trying to get away from that look of being just a one thing neighborhood. Um and that's where we're going with it. So, we're not saying everyone, but you have to mix it up and it has to be can't be duplicated side by side. Does that make sense? We're saying here.

Well, it does, Mr. Mayor. Um, and I understand what you're asking for, but I'm going to repeat it just for abundance of uh clarity. We've offered we will change the facade elevation, same word. Okay. in that pattern as Karen read out. Okay. Uh and in addition, you're saying we could not have sighting as the primary building material on two adjacent homes. Yes. That that's the way you're reading that,

correct? You need now. Then I'll say to that, uh no, that is not possible because that's not what the market wants. This is back to a market issue.

Okay. So then that's why we're going to vary all these elevations. But then in that course of I think we said four homes there, the primary building material could not be duplicated in four homes in one area. Okay. The the primary home gets it. The ones on the side do not. And the one across the street. So then of those four homes, only one could have that primary building material. Okay? There's not enough building materials to make that work. After you go down the street, I'm going to run out of building materials. How? Let me ask you this. How do we how do we get away from or not have just a neighborhood that's just, you know, siding house, siding house, side you see those all over Charlotte. I mean, that's just, you know, how do we how do you tell me how do we get away from that? Now, I understand you you're talk you talk about bumpouts and and you know, the elevation on the front. Well, I get that, but that's all siding bumpouts. Uh, and so, how do we mix that up and not do that? I mean, I'm asking for your input.

Well, sure. And we showed you some nice examples on those earlier ones which had more stone in place more shape. But the the heartburn on this is to say the primary cannot be duplicated after you've used it here. I got to go too far away in order to use it again. The market is saying this is what we want. Okay. It's not us saying this is what you're going to get. This is what the market wants. I I I'm very sensitive to we don't want another example of an all-white neighborhood. I can promise you right here, you're not going to get that. I'm not going to put my name on that. Okay. That's not going to happen. H

how about how about the mix of materials? Would that is that would that pass muster with you, Jim? So that we're it's not the primary material but the mix. And so you've got stone, you're putting shake. So if we say a mix of materials. Oh, absolutely. I am very much in favor of the mix of materials. That's very important. Okay. So if it was and I don't know, I'm not I can't speak for the board. They're the ones who have this request. And so um you but my thought is that you it's a stone with because I with a side you know stone with the siding brick with the siding. Yeah. Shake. Right. Right. So there's a whole different collection of look like.

How about jump back to just a couple of those elevation pictures. The visual might help. That was a good one. Okay. There. Okay. There you have in that case three of those four homes have stone as the primary material. If we go with what you're saying, I can do that one time. Yet all four of those look or all three of those look distinctively different. That's that's the limiting factor.

How do you how do you you know that's just the front. How do you accomplish the sides and where they're not all just a sighting when you look down it's not a sighting neighborhood. How do you accomplish that?

Sure. Sure. Um it it is elevation dependent as to what's on the side. That's what I was uh showing you on that uh video was that most of the heartburn people have about the side of a house and there's plenty of them here in Weddington. It's flat and there's like two windows on it. Okay. We have to break it up with architecture. That's what I was trying to show. Architecture trumps materials all the time. Okay. So that some kind of relief on that side. Okay. Plus, we can't just have two windows on the side of the house. It's done here, but it's not going to be done uh in this particular neighborhood because that's not what we're going to do, which is why I was trying to capture that saying none of these houses have a flat side to them,

right? Okay. And and they won't on this particular piece of property either. Okay. just know, you know, we don't want heartburn either, you know, and and the neighbors around, you know, uh they want a nice product. If you're going to build around them, you want to we want something that's going to bring their value up, something that's going to make them excited. It's like, wow, look at this. This this makes this makes our house look better, you know, that kind of thing. So, it needs to be a win-win for everybody, and that's where I'm going with it. And uh so, it needs to stand the test of time. and uh and just you know and just you know you know you know where I'm going with it.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Actually we're a lot closer aligned than it probably appears. Okay. But uh I'm closely aligned with the marketplace who's saying I want something like this and then that thing they want is really the same thing I think most of the council here all the council wants is good architecture. I want I want down the road when Mr. Helms comes back and he looks at his property, he's like, "Wow, look what they did there." And the neighbors like, "Wow, I can't believe this." So that's where we're that's where we're heading.

And so and maybe so maybe it would be best if you knowing after this conversation if you're able to craft the language that matches the correct architectural terms with the vision that I think we're pretty clear on together. That's fair. Thank you, Karen. That's fair. The different colors break it up substantially. I mean, you have stone, you have various types of hard siding,

and you have brick. I mean, there's a number of things you can mix in, and you can mix the colors. It just Nobody wants to see the Greystone house here next to the Greystone house here. And the and the And it's just a mirror of the house next to it. Not for this price point. Yeah. We can't do this. No try. We can do that. So that would be if we would add ask for that for that if I'm assuming we're gonna vote to table this until next month. Motion to table I assume. Not yet. Hold on one second before. Sorry.

And so before but but that would be one thing that we're going to ask is that if you could help create craft that language on that to get make sure that we know what the points are. You will have that in your hands well before next month. Perfect. Okay. And and just know too I'll say this. We're all getting tired of coming here and doing this. So, let's get together so we don't get through this like Keith recommended. Town Council's emails or addresses are available on the website if you don't already have he knows them. And I'm just saying for setting up those meetings once you've kind of got something for us to look at. Uh we'll work reach out the next couple of days just to lock in a date. All right. Please let a member of staff be in attendance meeting.

Greg needs to be in attendance every time. Most definitely. All right. Ready for a motion. All right. Yes. Make a motion that we table this until next next C March council meeting. Council meeting. Good. Yes. All right. All in favor? Okay. We have unanimous roll table to the next council meeting. Okay. Thank you. All right.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Helms, for being here as well. Okay, we're going to move forward to um new business. Um is Bob still here? Okay, thank you. U discussion and possible consideration of ordinance CZ 2026-01's application no

uh consideration of release of Weddington acres improvement blind number CM03303993 in the amount of $57,361. and Greg, I'm gonna let you run with it and we'll ask Bob to come up if you don't mind.

Thank you, Mayor Council. This should be much more straightforward. Um, so Weddington Acres, um, is located off Tilly Morris Road. It's on the northern border of town. Uh, this is a gated private road subdivision. It's got two gates, two access points. lots are sold individually as custom homes. This is not a master builder type of community. Uh the bond is for the amount of $57,000 and some change. I don't even think you can build a road for that price today. This was bonded a while ago. Um this is just a simple asphalt road. There's no curb, no gutter, no real storm infrastructure. not a lot of like no sidewalks. Pretty straightforward. It's private road. It would be owned and maintained by the HOA. Uh the concern about releasing this bond early is that all of these homes are built at different times uh depending on who buys it and who the builder is. And so if you would asked me four months ago, should we release the spawn? My answer would be no. Because there was so much con construction activity on site. A lot of pads were still being graded for the homes, tree removal, other things that could damage the surface of the road. Uh I was out there this afternoon. Um I would say half the homes in that subdivision are actively under construction right now. Uh but they are framed. They are kind of in the substantial process of being built and all those lots are sold. So, we don't want to release bonds for homes that don't have a substantial percentage of the the lot sold, and we don't want to sell or release bonds for things that are going to be damaged by future construction equipment. So, there is a lot of active construction out there. Uh, but as of today, the infrastructure looks pretty good. Um, Labella's

recommendation is included in your packet. They recommended releasing this bond. Uh and uh Bob Wilson is in the audience and he's available to answer any additional questions you have. Um but as far as bond infrastructure is concerned, this is pretty straightforward. Okay. And uh come on up, Bob. Greg, can I ask you a question? Yes, sir. So I understood you right. There's still a lot of lots that have they've not started developing yet. Is that correct? Uh there's a lot of houses that are not finished. Okay. But they've started on all the lots. Almost all of them as I noted today. It looks like all. Yeah. Okay. I thought I thought maybe there was a significant portion that they had not even started on.

Even even two three months ago that was not the case. Uh we at least we received a number of permits for new construction in that development through the winter and now uh almost it's a very active job site and turns all the homes being framed.

Okay. I was out there this morning and as well and uh about half of them have homes or there's six homes under construction presently and about half of them are still treated you know wooded trees nothing nothing going on them. So my question is I want you to speak Bob but my question is is there a threshold of where you know a certain percentage of homes or needs to be completed or built before you you know release bonds just for the reasons of damaging the roads and service. I'd hate to for the homeowners to have to bear the brunt of the burden of, you know, cost to fix these things, you know, if sta That's what I'm saying. I know.

So, so, but go ahead.

Yeah. I think not to reiterate what Greg said, but we we had several inspections on this towards the close out. Uh, first was they have uh extended dried detention basins. So, they're they're dry ponds. They're overgrown. We had them bush hog them, clean them up. They were able to inspect them, find some things, deficiencies that need to be corrected. They corrected all those. They corrected some other things we found. So, we had about three different trips out there and they've done everything we asked them to do. So, um I feel, you know, comfortable in recommending release of the bonds. There can be some ongoing home building, but it's it's there's not many lots out there to begin with. So, um it is a as Greg said, it's a gated community. uh very substantial homes out there. Uh no clear cutting per se because a lot of the homes are bigger homes and kind of conforming to the land. You don't see a lot of flat building pads. Um so far I don't think there's been, you know, the issues we have with any type of ongoing construction like this is primarily the builder lot erosion control. You have their own erosion control on their lots, but that's that's our job to police that. Um, and we have some issues from this one and other subdivisions that we deal with from time to time. So, as far as the damage to the streets, I think the streets have already seen quite a bit and they're holding up really well. The only um the only thing DOT had to accept on this was the turn lane improvements to the main road and Union County has accepted the water and sewer. So, from everything we've seen, we think it's fair to release the B. That's why we recommend releasing the bottle.

Gotcha. And there's no threshold of you know exor of homes have to be finished before you know that kind of thing. There is prior to the DOT signing off on a street. They want to have a certain uh high percentage of the homes built before they will take over a street for maintenance. But that's not the case for this road because they're private streets. What is the percentage? There is no percentage published for private streets. I'm not asking that. This is usually for a state. It's like 75%. it's a good idea. If the state thinks it's a good idea to have 75%, why should we not think it's a good idea to have 75%?

Because the bond is not for the road. The bond is for the for the turn lane. That's what the bond is for. This bond there was a bond prior for the turn lanes that DOT held has been released by the DOT. Okay. This bond was actually for the stormwater control measure, not for the road. Not for the road. Okay. I misunderstood. I thought it was for the road. And and I and I do too. I apologize. It's really just the storm water. Yes, sir. Okay. Which is Yes. And so we have Have we released the bond for the road yet? That you know of. He can get back to you on that. I can get back to you on that. Yeah. Yeah. If it was done, I'm sure it was done several years ago. I Yeah.

Because everybody said it was done. I can I make a motion? I'd like to make a motion that um we release the Weddingington Acre Improve improvement bond CMS 0330993 in the amount of $57,000361. Did I say that right? Close. Lost my mind. $57,361. And this is for the erosion. It's for the for the storm water.

Storm water storm water. Okay. All in favor? Okay, it's unanimous. All right. Thank you. But I appreciate you sticking in here with us. Thank you. Code enforcement report in your packet. We're chugging along working on the complaints we're getting and the mitigating the issues that we're having. Okay. Got some big inspections this week. So Okay. Okay. Can I ask you a question? Yes, sir. Has anybody ever complained about neighbors having chickens? Yes, actually. Really? Yes. In fact, we had to send animal control out because they had a rooster and then the rooster went away.

Now, I may have been mistaken. I thought it was permissible to have six hens in town. Now, it may have been there is other restrictions. I I think he was I think the the coup is what the issue is. You can't have within such a distance, but I think there is an ordinance saying you're allowed to have six. Correct. So, so the issue is not that you can't have chickens. It's where the coupe and where waste is stored. So, if you wanted to have a bunch of chickens roam free and not have any shelter, you could do so without setback restrictions. But there are setback restrictions for the coupe structure itself.

That seems counterintuitive. So I could have I I didn't write the code. Sorry. It's not Yeah. And I I'll I'll ask you to get back with Greg at another time if you don't mind. Okay. Because we're just discussing between us here. There there there's there's urban chicken there's there's there's an urban chicken ordinances all over the place that that limit the size the number of chickens limit the size of the coupe that do you know that that is something that if council's interested we certainly can take a look at that. didn't know if there were ever even I'm aware of people who do have chickens. I am too. I just don't know that they've ever been reported.

This chickens is one of the most common planting, you know, questions or concerns of the 21st century. What percentage of an acre is 150 ft? I don't I find it crazy you can't fit it on two acres. Well, let's put that on our list. You guys can talk about that on Thursday. How about that? Without bleagering the subject, I'm sympathetic to his petition and I think we should explore the issue. Okay. All right. Cool. At our retreat this Thursday. All right. So, any other anything else? Yep. Okay, we're good. Uh, how about Miss Leslie?

I really don't have that much for you this week. You have the monthly financials in your packet and you also have the quarterly updates on our skiff park and ARP money. ARP is gone, but it's not closed out from a federal standpoint, so I still have to report it to you. Okay. Um, at the retreat, we will start the budget discussions. We're already getting into that thing. So, if you think of anything you want me to include, let me know. And that's all I got. Any questions? No questions. Thank you. We'll dig deeper Thursday.

Yeah, we'll we all into it on Thursday. Um uh updates from town planner ed town administrator.

Uh keep this high level. Um so the latest Toll Brothers project Morris Farm uh was scheduled for the end of January ice storm and then a subsequent snowstorm uh delayed that by a month. uh that is scheduled to be on the planning board agenda at the end of this month in February. Um that will not be heard in March due to the um tableabling of the previous agenda item. So that will come before you in two to three months rather instead depending on the actions of the planning board. Um one bond was just released there's I think five bonds left of people requesting information. uh Labella and myself worked diligently to uh do those inspections. As Bob noted, you know, it took three or four rounds of inspections to get Weddington acres up to snuff. And that's a pretty straightforward one. So that's that's typical. A lot of these requests we received uh a numerous requests in like October and November just because they wanted to get it done by the end of the calendar year. We have not felt comfortable bringing those before you. So I know it feels like you have a bond issue every month. it's just because they all ask at the same time and they're not all ready to go. So, we're trying to hold that off and create keep it at a reasonable level um so that the public is confident when we release these funds that it's been properly vetted. Um other projects, we have several other potential subdivisions in the pipeline. They are uh in initial stages. is there at the community meeting level such as uh the property on the intersection of Ray Road and Providence or are just prospective subdivisions, but there's I'd say three or four now. Um I'd note that around this time last year, we had like 10. Our code revisions have slowed

or eliminated many of those applications. So,

I know there's a perception that we're just allowing all these subdivisions to come into town. That's not accurate. We're uh eliminating a lot of requests just due to higher standards and and uh requirements of what Weddington should be. Um and that's that's all I have for you today simply because I will be talking to you on Thursday about the development process and trying to um provide information about what our UDO allows, doesn't allow, or might allow. Um, I'd like to get into the nitty-gritty of some text amendments or proposed code audits at that meeting so everybody is comfortable with reading their agenda packets, knowing what's required and what's in our UDO.

Okay. All right. Cool. Thank you, Greg. And I, you know, as all these developments come in, as you know, and as you do, just to vet the heck out of them just make sure, you know, they have all their ducks in the row before they get here, you know. Um, transportation report. Uh really the really the only thing I have to reports which everybody already knows I think I mentioned it to you last month and uh as they keep saying 485 toll is going to open uh February 28th now. So we'll see February 28th is what do announced. So um we'll see how it goes. Other than that that's all I have to offer. Um council comments

nothing from me. Okay, thank you all for coming. Thanks to the um to the Weddington team for all that we're doing. And that's it. Okay, Ellen.

Um I have first I have actually left to say. Um first of all, I want to say thank you. Thank you to Leslie who spent a lot of time with me this week going through um the budget. I mean many hours of digging through numbers. I really appreciate that. It gave me a full understanding of what is happening under the hood and um a lot of time and expertise. So truly graciously giving of your time and and thank you. Uh thank you Karen also. Uh she has done so much lately in terms of organizing this um off-site or retreat as we call it. um and the training that we've gone through. So that's been a a lot of work and um and it's not unnoticed. Um I have a couple of announcements. Um I belong to the uh garden club of Weddington. If you are interested, the meeting is tomorrow. It is always like the second Tuesday of the month. It is at Siler Church at 9:15 tomorrow. And it's going to be about herbs. Um and it's not your typical books. So, it will be fun and interesting. Um, I also want to want to say I have something in the works. Someone from Garden Club did uh speak with me. It's kind of interesting. I'm going to probably have a meeting with them in the next week or two. It is uh there's a group called the uh constructive plant rescue and they um they're they're they have a group of volunteers that go to uh building sites before they're going to be um bulldozed, right? Or or or graded or whatever. And this is a way to save native plants. And so I'm going to find out more. Hopefully we can coordinate and work with them. But I think there's something intriguing and interesting there. So, uh, and then, um, something

near and dear to my heart. Uh, it's taken a little while. We've had some transitions over here with, um, by bringing on our our new officer, Flyer, but, uh, Wedding to Watch is going to have a meeting. Uh, we're looking at March 3rd at 7 p.m., and it will be across over at Fellowship Hall. Uh if you are not familiar with Weddingington to watch, it is a way for uh neighborhoods to coordinate together to share information about uh incidences and um and basically make each other aware uh of uh things that are happening within our community in regards to crime. It is a crime prevention group. And so if your neighborhood uh has a safety committee or someone that wants to attend, we would love to have you. just email me and uh we can get coordinated. So, thank you.

Yeah, thank you everyone. I know exactly what you're going to say. I'm sorry, Ellen. Yes. Okay. You apologize to him. You hit you same time you hit me. Probably I think when you started talking about Wellington watch. Yeah, we skipped our public safety. We we I I skipped right over. I apologize. Let's get public safety up here before we finish. Please. You want to hear it? Yes, sure. Come on. He's over there sweating bullets, worried about what he's going to say, and we forgot him. He will finish. You and me, we'll finish. That's okay.

Well, I'm Deputy For those that stayed. I'm uh I'm deputy. I work for the sheriff's office. I'm one of your Wellington contract deputies. U one of the roles they tasked me with to get stand up here in front of you guys and just give you a little synopsis of some of the things that we're doing out there to make this community better. Uh last month in January, we had over a thousand preventive patrols. Basically, what that means is that's us riding around in your neighborhoods during the day, during the night, making our presence known. Also, last month we only had two reported cases of fraud, which is awesome. I brought up in January that in December we had six. So, I love to see that downhill trend. I would also like to reiterate that if somebody calls you on the phone, it sounds like a scam, it probably is. Please hang up and call us. Let us guide you through. Don't give out any information, especially over the phone. We had almost 90 traffic stops last month. Uh we had 88 to be exact. That's us setting up on Providence Road, Ray Road, excuse me, Antioch Church Road, BA Church Road, and of course those major school zones off Deal 12 Mile and 84. Um we really want to cut down on some of the speeding in this in this city. So that's where we're concentrating our efforts. And last but not least, which is one of the best tools that I think we offer is what we call residential checks. We had 15 of those last month. It's a free tool, like I said, that we offer if you're going out of town for an extended time. We have a form on the town of Weddington's website and on the uh Union County Sheriff's Office website that you can fill out a form, your address, contact information, all the information to provide us and while you're on vacation or away, we can check on your house to kind of give you that sense of security. So, please utilize that tool. And uh thank you.

Thank you. I want to say too, you know, uh, Lieutenant May informed me last after the last council member, uh, Lieutenant, uh, Deputy Pler, you might want to speak into this. Um, after the last meeting, you know, we talked about, uh, dead zones in town, no sales service.

Well, uh, we had an officer injured in the line of duty. uh got into uh altercation over close to um um Long View in Weddington. Uh got into a fight. Uh went to radio for help. Dead zone. Could not call for help. And uh and so that's why I'm sharing this because I feel this is important and I've shared this before and I'm reiterating it. Rent to call for help dead because he's in a dead zone. And so he's in a fight. He'd log on to his camera and the camera just all swinging around. Lieutenant May shared a story with me last after last council meeting. He came up to me after he said, "I didn't know you were going to talk about this or I would have shared this." And uh he said, "Uh, you see the camera bouncing around there slugging it out. He reached he he somehow another guy his cell phone down, threw his cell phone down as it's going on, hollering, I need help." Hit the his red uh emergency button. and it correlated his uh co coordinates of where he's at and everybody came running to to to help him but he was slaying that and broke his hand and in the process and so he's he's out for a while. So they have another deputy here in town I assume to uh take his place. So anyway, it just uh goes to show you know we have just some things that we need to work on for for our deputies to make sure we're we're we're safe. And I want to say thank you to you guys for what you do out on the streets putting up with this kind of stuff. You know what I'm saying? And so thank you for all you do and putting yourself out there and let and let the deputy I cannot remember his name. Let him know you know we're you know we're behind it.

I will do. Deputy Pler may be new to our Weddington Force, but most of you probably don't know that Deputy Pler grew up in Weddington. And uh so he's one of our own. Cool. Good. Good to have you home then. All right. Okay. I get to finish up. I want to thank the staff for all their work uh preparing for this meeting and preparing for the upcoming retreat. look forward to seeing them on Thursday. I want to thank the people in attendance for sticking it out till 9:00 at night. And I thank you for coming out and participating. And with that, have a great evening.

All right. Can I get a motion to uh adjourn? Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Thank you guys. We're journey. Yeah, he's put me