Town Council - Regular Meeting

I mean call to order. Uh looks like we have everyone here for determination of quorum. So it's good to have everybody here this afternoon. Let's all stand for the pledge of allegiance. 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, deletions, or adoptions to the agenda tonight? Uh I have one, but I'll check with you guys and see if there's any others. No. Uh after uh nine, item nine, the Keystone presentation, we need to add I'm going to say 9A for public comment. and add public comment for the Keystone project.

Make a motion we approve the agenda as amended. Okay. All in favor? Okay. Unanimous. Okay. All right. The uh the conflict of interest statement. In accordance with state law, it 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 on the agenda? If so, please identify the conflict and refrain from any participation in the matter involved. I do. You do have conflict. Item 12A.

12A. Okay. All right. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. We'll move forward. Thank you, Brandon. Um, mayor, council member reports. Anyone uh have anything to comment on? I'll just mention that we do not have a Wuma meeting in July. So, our next one will be in August. And to be honest with you, I'll have to check with Karen about where it's going to be because we redid the schedule for the next year and I'll have to get that published or I can I can let you all know at the August meeting. Gotcha. Okay.

Great. Let me say Okay. I'll go kind of go down the line. Sure. Want to thank the Rotary Club of Laxaw Wedon for putting the flags up again on the 4th of July this year. They have done it every year for for a number of years now with their expense and time and labor. So, uh, give them a shout out for that. And if anybody's interested in going to their Rotary Club, it meets 7:30 Thursday morning at the swim and racket club. And visitors are welcome. And there's a basically a free breakfast for you. And there'll be an interesting speaker. And past mayor Craig Horn is the president of the club currently.

Cool. All right. Thank you. And and the slags look great. every, you know, Fourth of July, Memorial Day. Awesome. Thank you. Um, public public comment. I was just I won't be here in August in terms of a a report, council member report. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Brandon, no problem. Thanks.

Anyone else may be missing? Okay. So, we'll move forward to uh public comment. Okay. Okay. Gail Butler.

You have uh three minutes. Correct. Right. It's really four four minutes. Four minutes. But that's all right. I won't take that much. Okay.

Um I come with a heavy heart because what I have to say isn't that great. I don't know, Jeff, how much or what we have to tell you about the overtown overlay. We do not want it. We spent a lot of money on consultants and I would consider maybe six figures on them telling you that we did not want it. And with that being said, it's not our fault that the council overlooked that when they did. I'm sorry. That's your problem. That wasn't ours. And I just I am just firmly and believe that I we do not want to extend our commercial or allow Palisca this um grant or whatever you're getting to do. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Ellen.

Good evening, council members. Thank you for your service. Uh, this is also in regards to the overlay and text amendment changes. So, I love Lucy, the Brady Bunch, MASH, Friends, The Office. What do these things have in common with the Polifa meeting of January 13th? They're reruns. And just like those classic shows, today's meeting feels like Dja Vu. It's a repeat airing of the same proposal that we've already seen. Just like syndicated episodes that are aimed to squeeze more revenue from an original broadcast, this proposal for Polifka is an attempt to add more buildings in the hopes of increasing the property's future value. It's a rehash and a reintroduction of arguments that we heard six months ago, dressed up in slightly different language, but pushing the same end goal. Let's not lose sight of what's really happening here. This isn't just about a few new buildings. It's the beginning of a slippery slope towards expanding the commercial footprint, pushing the overlay further, creeping development outward, and laying the groundwork for sewer access and higher density in the future. And yet, here we go again. We've seen this playbook before. We say yes once, and it opens the door to more. and that is the real plan. This proposal was rightly rejected in January. They are welcome to reapply after a year, but instead are seeking a shortcut using a text amendment to slip the same proposal through the back door. It's a loophole, a workaround, a rerun, hoping this time the outcome will change. I urge you, vote no again. Don't allow this rerun to

become the series finale for our community's integrity. Let's keep this change where it belongs, in the archives. Thank you in advance for protecting our town and rejecting this change. Thank you, Ellen. Clayton Clayton Jones.

Good evening everyone. My name is Clayton Jones and I live on Panhandle Circle. lived there with my family for 27 years come this August. Balefka I call it Dracula. It has been killed and buried three times. It has risen from the dead once again and is sucking the blood of our citizens. The citizens of Weddington have spoken loudly. They want to keep the existing commercial overlay. It's time to drive a stake through the heart of Polifa. Bury it. Let it rest in peace. Don't waste your time and the staff's time and these citizens time to keep coming back again and again on a non-issue. There are more important things that you should be doing. Get to it.

Thank you, Annette Baker. Annette Net Baker. Oh, sorry. Didn't see you coming.

I'm Annette Baker. I live uh on Grayland Drive. And I've been here for 37 years this October. I moved here because I like the small town. I like the R40 and I like the low taxes. I oppose any changes to our downtown overlay. When we moved out here, Waxaw, it was a quaint little town. Uh, and now if you look at it, it's just like every other town full of businesses. I don't want that here. You, you know, we've got a small community. If you want it, all you have to do is drive a couple miles and you can get all the stuff you want. So, uh, I oppose I totally oppose any changes to the zoning of our downtown area. I wish that we could put in a town council that would quit trying to change Weddington. Weddington should be what it was when it was established in the 80s. And that's why people moved here. That's what they want. They want the large lots. They want a small town. They don't want all this commercial growth. Every survey since I've been out here that's been done has been a waste of taxpayer dollars because it shows the same thing every time. People want you to leave Weddington the way it was set up. Thank you.

Thank you. Chad. Uh,

good evening. Chad Emerine, Eagle Road. I wanted to discuss two things on the agenda tonight. The first is the discussion of areas deemed environmentally sensitive. This is something in both the old and the current land use plan, and I'm happy you're having a discussion on it. We've seen some devastating developments that were approved prior to this current current town council. The steps you've made in adopting the land use plan and the UDO are critical for preserving Weddington and what makes this town so desirable to live in. This was mentioned a year ago and I know there's been a lot to address with limited staff. So, I'm happy you're getting to this discussion and can enhance the UDO and protect environmentally sensitive land in our town. The second is the discussion of the downtown core overlay. I don't understand why this is a topic of discussion. The land use plan is pretty clear and it has been for multiple versions. Surveys, as mentioned, has been very clear. We have limited staff and many things to accomplish. It seems like this is way beyond the normal scope and process. Nothing can be changed here until we have another survey in a couple years and see if public sentiment has changed. The commercial on the other side of Providence Road was a commercial uh was a controversial and polarizing decision back then. At first, it was five buildings, then three, then one. Even then, the three council members that voted yes for this lost in their next election in part to this decision. It was built as a corporate headquarters with one building and some limited commercial below. Any change to that alters this significantly because it becomes more commercial. In the 12 years since we've in 12 years since we've seen massive amounts of commercial develop all around us very short distances including like Waxall that was mentioned. The only additional commercial we want is the current it was

what's in the current designated overlay. Three of the council members ran on limiting this commercial and I ask that any direction to staff to work on this be denied. Any effort here is a waste of staff's time and against the direction of the majority of the residents. Thank you for all you do to serve Weddington and keeping it a special place. Thank you, Chad. Jared, this is my first time speaking here, so I'm going to set a little timer just so I don't lose track of time. Four four minutes.

Four minutes. Right. My name is Jared uh Jared Pivka. I uh a proud North Carolinian. I went to school in uh Newburn High School, elementary school, middle school, and high school in Newburn. And I attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Now, my uncle, my uncle Basil, he bought that property in 2007. And in 2009, 2010, and 2011, while I was a student at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, I would do a couple trips per year to accompany my dad talking to our town council, talking to residents of Weddington. And at that time, there was a grow overgrown lot, and it was an empty building. It was an ugly building, and it was overgrown. My uncle wanted to put a beautiful building there that was on brand with the town of Weddington. Now, I come in peace, okay? I promise you I'm not a vampire, so please do not stake me. I think that was Was it Clayton?

That was me.

That was you. So, I am not a daywalker, so please do not put a stake in my heart, sir. Um, but I just wanted to say that we always believe in doing things with our neighbors like the Polifka family and our we like to go by the book and in 2012 when when the zoning was approved and we our plan was approved to build the building that is there now. We build exactly what we promised. Exactly what we promised. So we have a track record of doing exactly what we say and we're not liars. So, all right. So, um if if anybody wants to reach out, I really encourage you guys to uh I've emailed everybody on the council. I'd love to meet with you all individually. And I'd also like to give my phone number and email out to everybody in the audience. You can put in the public minutes. My phone number is 3308833032. Again, it's 3308833032. You can text me. You can schedule a halfhour meeting with me anytime. And uh if you have any questions, just feel free to reach out about what we're doing. And we are going to reapply in January. Oh, I should go back and also address we have a minute and 55 seconds left, but I just want to address a couple things that kind of came up. So, um let's see. Every survey that has been done from what I know most surveys that have been done in this town have been less than 3% which is not statistically significant and I don't know but it seems like the people that are very active in these surveys I don't know if they speak for the other 97% of the population. So if that's if you if you think that they speak for everyone then okay. Um the other thing I'd like to address is uh a shortcut seeking this is a rerun. Um, this is not a rerun. We were zoned uh mixed use in 2012

and there was not a downtown overlay at that time. Now earlier what I I'm listening it sounds like an overlay was not wanted. I was not aware of that, but it sounds like an overlay was not ever even wanted. So if no overlay existed, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now, right? Like logically. I mean, does that make sense or

Yeah. So, if if the overlay was never wanted to begin with, we have 44 seconds left. Um, I just wanted to address these things, but you know what? Text me 3308833032 or email me jared prolific@gmail.com and I'd love to speak with everybody on on council and the planning board and address uh any of these issues. Um, I think that's all I have to say. Uh, we believe in responsible development. We believe in working with our neighbors. We believe in being transparent and I'm happy to get coffee at the bagel spot. Also happy to welcome you to our office. And um oh I did want to address one other thing which is I have 11 seconds left which is um our company is growing so we actually need office space for our employees. Um that's also part of why we want it. So that's that's my time. So thank you.

Thank you for coming. Okay. All right. No more public comments. We'll move forward to public safety report. Deputy uh Deputy Ren nearby. Nobody here. I saw him earlier. He must Okay. So, we'll we'll just move move past that and see what happens. Okay. uh presentation from Keystone Custom Homes. You guys come on up and we'll have public comment concerning this just right after this.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council members. Um this is our second project in Weddington that we're presenting to you today. We actually don't have a formal name yet, so we're just using the address 3009 Forest Lawn. Um next slide, please. Just want to kind of give a quick recap of where we're at, where we started. February 19th was when we started our due diligence on this piece of land. That's when we discovered that there was sewer in the back. So, this project has public sewer from Union County. April 11th, we did our original sketch plan, worked with Greg, planning staff uh to make sure that we were checking all the boxes there. May 2nd, and then we had a revision June 6th of the yield plan. Our original one had 11. Our revised one had 12 lots. I'll show that to you momentarily. April 29th is when we had our on-site sharet where we had some of the general public attending. And May 28th, we also had another on-site meeting. That was the community meeting. Uh and then we did another meeting, community meeting in the town offices June 19th. So we had two community meetings on this project. And then in general, we've had multiple meetings uh with the planning director, some virtual, some in person. Again, our objective is to make sure that we're checking the boxes and we're doing things correctly according to the Yodo and if there's any gray areas that we can get clarity on what it is that we need to present. So, this is the yield plan. It has 12 lots on it. This is a non-cluster. As you can see, we're utilizing the entire uh parcel area. It's uh one road in. There's really no other way to kind of develop this other than having that one road. Based on the UDO, we did have to break and do a secondary road going to the adjacent parcel. Uh that's a requirement by Weddington. Next slide, please. Uh this is the site plan as we have it today. Uh this is the it's still 12 lots. Uh it is cluster. The main

objective here is we're shortening the road a little bit. We have a lot of tree safe area to the right. And I have a more of a graphic that we can show you after the fact, but again, the some of the stats are on the data table over onto the left. And I know we're going to talk about the pond in a minute. Right now, that one is just a sketch, but I will go into the details on that in the next slides. So, for this one, I have all the layers turned on here, so it's a little overwhelming, but I'm going to break this up for you. This site plan has all the trees because we did do a tree survey in anticipation of the text amendment that you guys are going to be doing uh after our presentation. Uh we did work with staff. Uh Bill from planning had a lot of things to say that we kind of took into our development. So we're trying to adhere as best as possible to that new text amendment even though we're grandfathered. Um you can see the 100 foot buffer is being respected. Uh that's where we have some proposed trees. Currently today there are no trees there and then the pond itself you can see to the uh bottom right hand. Next slide please. Uh this is an aerial and if you can distinguish the red boundary around the development that is the extent of what the development is comprised of. Everything outside of that will not be touched. So all that forested area including some of the mature trees will not be touched. Next slide please. This is the pond. We're just kind of doing a zoom in. Uh we know that there's a a critical aspect to that. We have done a full design on the pond. So this is not a Mickey Mouse sketch. This is actually how the pond is anticipated to be. Uh and you can see the four bays and the outlets. Uh the grading. You can see there's a lot of contours on there. So we're kind of going to the lower part of the property. Next slide, please. And I figured what's better than visuals? So, what I did was

um if you can see on the inset to the left, what's circled in red is where I was standing taking pictures of the areas that we will not be touching. Those are mature trees in the forefront. Everything behind it will not be touched in addition to the mature trees, the the heritage trees specifically. Next slide, please. This is to the rear of the property, the rear of the development specifically as far as up to developable area. Again, I'm taking pictures of some of these heritage trees, and you can see the surrounding trees around there give you that full forest effect. Next slide. This is the inset to the right hand side of the property. And as you can see, uh we have the heritage trees right near the driveway. And everything beyond that, uh to the back of it is again not touched. All of that remains in place even though they're not heritage trees. Uh, and this is a question for council. Uh, we need guidance. We're not sure which is the priority here. So, in the original plan, site plan that we showed, we are showing a 100 foot buffer. If you've been to the property, there are those four heritage trees that are highlighted in green. They are majestic trees. In our original plan, we do have to remove them. Uh, there's just nowhere else to go. However, I had my engineer say, "Hey, how can we save this?" If we shifted two of the lots towards the front, we would have to reduce the the buffer to 50 ft. Now, granted, we would plant that entire area, so we'll still contain the screening, but in this plan, we can save the trees. So, we're not sure which is the priority, and we're just looking for guidance on that.

That's it. Okay. and council. This is our informal meetings where we can give feedback and suggestions, comments, concerns, that kind of thing. And I should, you know, open it up to you guys. How many acres total is it on? Uh 17, right, Casey? Yeah. Yep. On public sewer, but well water. No, it's public water as well. Yep. There's a hydrant right in the front. So if you do the 50 foot buffer instead of the 100 which is what we require. Yes. Those are four I call them huge heritage trees.

Correct. We can save those. Why why can't you do the 100 foot buffer and still save the trees? And we we knew that question would come up. Yeah. Um because of the clustering effect, there's nowhere where else to go with the 12 lots. So, we're trying to respect the back end of the property because of all of the forestry that's there. So, by pushing everything towards the front and keeping the 100 foot, I've got to remove those trees. I've got a street there and I've got some lots. We did try initially moving some of the uh the house pads, if you will. Um, we were able to save maybe a handful, but nothing significant. Yes. Would you consider

increasing the sales price on 10 homes and then having the 100 foot buffer, the heritage trees and still your bottom line profit? We can't control the market. Unfortunately, yeah, but if you do, you know, 10 homes that are nicer that you can sell for, you know, I know, I understand that you have to make money, right? And I appreciate the question. We actually did look at running the numbers on 10 homes because of the development costs. We can't make the numbers work on 10. Uh that's why we're kind of really intent on trying to hold to the 12.

And you're restricted in going further back because of the topography issues back there. Correct. The topography does not help. Correct. Because I know it goes down then it goes to it does go down towards the creek. Yeah. Yeah. which restricts you on buildable land there. Correct.

I mean, I I have an issue with those are nice trees up there. You know, I'd love to, you know, see you save those. Um, and plus, you know, we're we're pretty pretty pretty tight on our 100 foot buffer. We just, you know, acted that enacted that last what, eight months or so. Um, and I know you mentioned also, you know, um, you know, even you made the comment even though we're grandfathered, you know, as you know, we're conditional zoning, so I don't see anything as grandfathered. Um, so I would I would encourage you guys to to uh try to figure out a way and but let me ask you this too. Can you describe your homes? Are they crawl space? Are they slab? Uh, what's what's those? What what are your home? Uh if you want to go to the next slide, I can actually show some of our homes.

Okay. Yeah, those are some of our elevations. And those that's the in interior. We actually won awards on the kitchens and the baths recently. What's your what's your price point? Uh we're definitely going to be over a million point 1.2 maybe 1.5. Um by the time we actually get to market it, it'll probably be higher. takes a while before we can actually get the houses on the market

because I was concerned I see your uh your information on Facebook social media you building in different you know areas you know wax all and whatnot you know and I it says right up right up top you know we pride ourselves in you know starting at in the mid60s for for entry level I think in your waxall neighborhood it's like mid7s or something like that my my concern was you know at that price point. Um if if you had said that um you would have joked. Well, yeah. And uh uh affect negatively affecting the homes around you, I guess. No, of course.

And that that's my concern. I don't want to bring down value from property owners around you by bringing in a lower product that you you're advertising on social media, you know, promoting out there in other neighborhoods. Yeah. Well, and and everything's neighborhood based. Um there's not a way to do a 1.5 to 1.8 like just increase the value of the 10 homes.

We are client-based in terms of the selection and the capabilities of what can be built into the home. So the marketing strategy of Keystone Homes is we we advertise a base price, but 99.9% of the time no one gets a base because it's really base. So you by the time you add on we have over 8,000 selection criteria. It takes a long time to select. We can move walls, we can move, we can bump things out, we can change everything on these homes. So it's almost truly customizable. So to that effect, we are typically seeing our clients add anywhere from three to maybe $400,000 of additional structural options and upgrades.

Question. the trees the I think it's four in there. Yes, there are four. I think I was out there at one of the visits and uh will they be on private property or communal property? That would be communal property, but they'd be protected. They get correct. No, that would be common open space. You couldn't have somebody say, "Oh, it's in my backyard there for No. No. Well, on this version, yeah, on this version, we would create that as common open space. That would be completely protected." Okay. Now we we did a lot of work to our ordinances as you know and uh and we reworked the culde-sac ordinance right

uh basically eliminating culde-sacs and unless you have to have a culde-sac and even then uh it can be no longer than what 400 500 feet right what is the length of this culde-sac as presented uh I thought it was 600 but I think it was 600. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. So, the whole thing is 600 feet, but we broke it according to the UDO as far as where we drew that side road. So, that's maxed out at the UDO. 300, I guess. So, you So, so the straight all the way back is 600 ft. Yeah. Correct.

Okay. Um, so going back to your your you mentioned your price points that price point is with all the additions that you're saying that people add or is that your base price point then you add to it? We haven't fully established the base price point at this point yet. We typically do that about four months before we're going to go to market. We're probably a year from that. So, so how do we know those price points are not going to be like what you're advertising in social media? Well, it's it would be to our benefit to have the higher price point based just on profit. So, we will not underell ourselves. Yeah.

Right. And I understand. I'm just, you know, trying to determine, you know, I I don't want, you know, us feel like we're getting one thing being sold one thing and now we're getting something else when it when we see the, you know, the sticks going up. Yeah. and uh and now you're negatively affecting the the homes around you in that in that area. I I don't want, you know, I tell everybody, you know, we're going to do this number. We're going to we're going to elevate everyone and not come in and do this number here. So, let me let me reference u a project that we did in that area. Yes. Uh we had a project called the vineyards

and uh in that one our model home was $2.2 million just as an example. So depending on the market and depending on where we're at, the price points are completely comparable. Okay. Y. Now, are these slab or found uh crawl space? These would be crawl. Crawl. Okay. Um well, I'm sorry. The rear ones would probably be basement because of the topography. Gotcha. Okay. Average just guesstimation of uh square footage uh 3500 to 6,000 typically 35 to 6,000. Okay.

Okay. Um any questions? Anything? Is that still because that's on the border. Would they still be Weddington High School zone? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, like you said, you have uh water and sewer. We have water and sewer. Public water and sewer. Yeah. And um um and you're working with with Greg on our our new additions, you know, with our ordinance changes and whatnot. Correct. Again, us being conditional. Yep. I don't see the the grandfather thing. So, just making sure we, you know, we follow all of that.

Yeah. Yeah. We took that a lot of that into account. We actually met with Greg. There was a little couple gray areas that we just kind of needed to unpack. So, we respectfully just try to adapt to that. Gotcha. Okay. Um Okay. Um no more questions from you guys. Okay. All right. All right. So, no. Thank you. And we might have a question or two after a public comment. So, we're going to open it up for public comment for this. Thank you.

Okay. Um, Clayton. Hello. Once again, Clayton Jones, Panhandle Circle. Um, I've actually just a brief oral comment on the Keystone project. I've printed up a two-page and I'm not going to read it. I've made a copy for every member of the uh council, the mayor, made a copy for Keystone staff. I was hoping the HMS would be here. I don't see them. Uh but just briefly, uh I went to the second public meeting, part two, I guess, here in the town hall. And it was that first time that I met the Helms, and uh I instantly formed a bond with them. I guess

the owners of the property, the owners of the property, uh if I'm correct, is that right?

Very nice folks. And and this project is not going to impact me severely where I live, but I certainly where I live, I I go down a Forest Lone Road all the time. I see Mr. Helms out there cutting the grass. My wife said she saw him cutting the grass today. And for there, I I'd like to see this succeed for them if possible. Uh but I tell you the hair stood up on the back of my neck when during the presentation he he mentioned grandfathered and Bill deer during the second meeting told him said man you got grandfathered you you just got to take that out of your lexicon because this is conditional zoning and unlike Dill Lake where it seems to me at least in my humble opinion it seemed like the contractor in Dill Lake dug their heels in and said we're grandfather bothered in. We're not going to do it and you can't make me do it and that's just not going to go anywhere. That's going to waste your time, your money, and I don't want to see that to happen to the house. So, I hope this can go forward. I hope you work with the planning board, with Greg over here, and ultimately with the town council, give them what they need to make an educated decision. And if I can, I'll hand out the the full version here. Sure. Okay. That concludes my comments.

Okay. Great. Okay. Thank you, Clayton. Yeah. I I will say, you know, too, you know, just to to you guys, make sure you work tight with the uh the planning board.

Yeah. And because, you know, we are tightening up everything. uh some ordinances that you may not be familiar with that have changed. Uh those guys are going to, you know, when you go before them, they're going to really just tighten it up whereas maybe last time things weren't as they are now. So, uh I just, you know, just make sure you work, you know, really good with those guys and get good input from them. So, anything else you guys? Awesome. Okay. Thank you guys so much. Appreciate you coming. All right. Thank you. Okay.

Yeah. I'd like I'd like to move back. Are you Are you guys okay moving back to the public safety?

Uh can we like I'd like to do the public safety comments. Deputy Ren, you want to come on up? Good evening, mayor, council, public. Thank you so much for having us. I apologize for the inconvenience for not being here on time. We tend to pride ourselves on certain things. First thing we pride ourselves on is being on time. Second thing is answering your calls for service. So, we'll go ahead and get started. Month compared to June. So, we're going to go from May to June. So, we had 71 911 hang-ups in the month of June. We had one to two abandoned vehicles compared to zero in May. The reason that we're really going to put this number in there is because we've all seen the spectrum trucks or the Google fiber. We've encouraged people to call if you don't know it. If you don't realize that that's either Google fiber andor some type of spectrum truck putting in wire, if it looks abandoned, call us. Let us investigate. So, that's why we had two compared to zero. one ABC investigation. I don't know if you've all heard about the ABC either the news or the ABC investigation. That's what that one was.

Oh yeah. Yeah.

So from accidents we had 21 in May compared to 31 in June. Alarms we answered 38 compared to 43. People coming home from vacations and resetting. So burglary to a home andor business went from 2 to four. Business checks we went from 79 to 108. So we stepped up there. Domestic disturbances went from six to three. People went out of vacation to their problems with them. Drug activity went from 5 to one. Prevented patrols was us being in your neighborhoods, us being at your churches, us being where you need us and want us and see us. Went from 652 to 705. So that's a lot of our school resource officers uh doing what they can to step up and helping us out on patrol. Um we really highly encourage them to get into the neighborhoods, see the kids that they are with every single day. So whether it's the high school SRO, the middle school andor elementary, they're getting in your neighborhoods and seeing the same kids, building that rapport all over again. So that's why we stepped up from 652 to 705. So traffic stops went from 152 to 112. Trespassing went to nine. Now, the big thing about the trespassing is call us. It's going to get reported if you call us. We're stepping up that number from zero to nine because we encourage you to call us. A lot of that is reverting back to the Google fiber, the Spectrum, andor whoever's in your neighborhood. You didn't know that they're supposed to be there. Next thing you know, you're calling about trespassers on your property. Nine times out of 10, whenever I get there, I want to educate on two things. Who can and can't be on your property? and who can because of the easement. We won't beat that or feed that dead horse while we're here, but call us and we'll be more than happy to come out and educate. I presented a lot of problems. Let's present some solutions. Um, once again, going back to feeding that dead horse, lock your cars. Okay, now we've locked them. Now, what else can we do? One of my favorite

things is just take your key fob and go to bed with it. Put it next to your nightstand. If you have multiple key fobs, set them up strategically around the house. Do not turn your lights on if you think there's something out there. Hit your SOS. Hit your emergency if you're wearing a smartwatch. If you have your cell phone, we're coming. We have great coverage right now. Whether it's a school resource officer or one of your five Weddington deputies, we're coming. So, if you think someone's in your car or in your neighbor's car because you're the insomniac in your neighborhood, call us. Get a hold of us. Set off your alarm. That does multiple different things. There's camera systems within a house, whether the interior and or exterior. Those flashing lights for the alarm is going to give us a time stamp. We can go back a little bit. It's going to help us out on our flock camera systems where someone's coming in and out. Little things of that nature is going to really continue to build our case. I'm going to have to get a little doom and gloom on you. There's a lot of people here that have access to a creek, maybe access to a pool. Uh, this is not something that we enjoy talking about, but it it really needs to strike home. If you have a pool, if you're near a creek, get to know your property. Get to know who's around your property. Uh, just on the radio today, we had someone pass away from a drowning. Uh, we've come really close here in Weddington to recently. Even if you don't have small children, even if your neighbor doesn't, um, even if there's not a school near you, please, please, please, please, please be careful. I'm not saying cover it up every night. I'm not saying that you have to put up a remote camera system. I'm just saying be cognizant of what's around you. Boys tend to go to creeks. Girls tend to stay near pools. Um, if you see us out in your woods looking for a missing child, just know we're going to creek and we're going a body of water. Kids love to swim. That's one of the first places that

we're looking. Drone activity. Nope. Haven't seen it. If it's got to be one of ours. If it's not one of ours and you don't see me around, if you don't see one of the other town deputies and or someone else looking like me and you see a drone, call us. Call us immediately. We'll do what we can to get out there and maybe disrupt some service and make sure that they're not doing anything that they shouldn't. Uh once again, um it's beautiful weather out there. Watch out for kids in neighborhoods. Uh watch out for certain things. I know it sounds stupid. Hydrate. If you're out walking, you don't have to carry the water bottle with you, but continue, continue, continue. Even if you're not thirsty, continue to hydrate. I'm going to be out there. If I cool her with I have to. Uh I have absolutely no problem coming out there to assist, but be cognizant of what's around you. I'm going to go out for a 5 10 minute walk with the dog. It's hot out there. Be careful where the dogs are walking and stepping. I know that sounds pretty bad, but we're getting multiple calls about people seeing the dogs walking in this hot road. I know that sounds a little minute, but guess what? We're coming out there to that, too. If you're at Harris Tier and you see a kid locked in a car, call me. I'd love to go out to those. I'm more than happy to come out. That doesn't seem like much, but we've had a couple of those lately.

All right. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Well, thank you. You know, even though you, you know, mentioned these things, Sheriff Kathy told me last week, he said Weddington and Marvin are considered the safest towns in the state of North Carolina. And also, uh, Lieutenant May said that same thing a couple weeks ago. So, I still feel that we have a great great town. It's a safe town. I appreciate what you guys are doing. And uh, and you know, I was mentioning those flock cameras. We're in the process of getting those up now. That's they're marking the pavement and getting those should be in in the next several weeks. So So you'll have those in your in your uh back pocket to use as well.

Excellent. Well, I can't say thank you enough. Uh not only for reaching out, but um you know, we had a vehicle chase today and he did any and everything he could to avoid this area. Uh we ended up catching him in South Carolina. went over there and talked to him for a little bit. And as they are talking to him, I'm overhearing the fact that he knows not to come to Union County. And we really take pride in that because you afford us the ability to do our job. You afford us the ability to support us. And I I know whether it's the sheriff or myself, we say it all the time, just thank you. You're the foot soldiers. You see it, you live it, you breathe it. I I'm just here helping. I can't say thank you enough.

No. And thank you. And and again, Sheriff Kathy, you know, says that kind of thing. It makes you feel good. You know, you know, Weddington, Marvin, safest towns in two safest towns in North Carolina. It means a lot. So, thank you. Oh, it means a lot to us. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Uh consent. Mayor, if I may interrupt for a moment, I have um some reason I have two versions of the agenda in your packet. There is the um the audit contract, but it's not on the consent agenda. And so I just want to make sure that it gets put on the agenda on the consent agenda to approve the 2425 audit contract with Kendra

Gangle um in an amount not to exceed $10,000. It is it was in the packet. It just didn't make it to the con to the to one version of the That's fine. Do we do we need to have a uh amendment to that? Yes. Just in case. I mean I have it on mine but I don't know if everybody else has it on there. So Okay. Yeah. Go ahead and make that amendment. Okay. Um, can I I'll make the amendment add the U audit contract to the agenda. Does it need to be 10D? Yes. Is that appropriate? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, all in favor? Okay. Unanimous. Um, can I get a motion on approving the consent consent agenda as u as presented here? So moved. So moved. Okay. All in favor?

Okay. Well, it's all it's unanimous. Okay. We'll move forward. old business. Um, I'm going to open up public hearing for that. Uh, did we have a sign up for public hearing? Okay. But, uh, I'll go ahead and, uh, um, and ask Greg to go ahead and, uh, comment if you would. Uh, but Debbiey's getting that.

Sure. Thank you, Mayor, uh, members of council. Uh so this is a uh a adoption of a new fee schedule. So fee schedules have to be posted online and there has to be a public hearing anytime you raise or change any fees applicable uh to the town. So typically these fees apply to anything that you would apply for. Uh it's a municipal service but many of our fees are are subdivision related. Uh a summary of this adoption is simply that we're increasing fees primarily on developers for uh the work and time that it takes to process these. Uh the fee schedule uh for example had a previously a flat fee of about $1,600 $1650 for conditional zoning application regardless of content size scope. And the example I've given previously and publicly was Steel Lake, you know, took a year and a half of time.

That's staff time. That's the public's time. That's town council's time for a flat fee of $1,600. Uh we've amended that to incorporate the acreage to at least make the scale of projects um more uh fair and equitable. So like a Arya for example, a project that was recently approved that's eight lots. That's has a lower fee than something that would be 90 lots. So that's a minor change. Permit fees are raised all around. Uh we receive approximately 300 zoning permits a year. Uh we just concluded our uh fiscal year uh for that count and we will now separate um accessory structures like a garage or a shed from pools. So pools take more time. uh they require surveys to be done. They have to be outside of any easements and they need a contractor specifically to show that on a survey. So that's a dedicated line item now so that we can keep track over time of how many pools we get and also require a final survey at the time of completing the project so we can verify that the pool is in the correct location. We were getting you know doodles on a map of where a pool should be and it turned out that it moved over time. uh it never has resulted in any property issues, but we just want to tighten that process up as well. Um, but these these fee schedules are typically incorporated in the budget. So, it's usually just inserted into your packet as kind of a non-escript line item in the budget, and that's where that public comment session would go. But, we want to have an explicit uh public hearing and public comment session for these fees because they are increasing so much.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Before we comment as a council, I'm going to have uh uh for sign up for public u comment or public hearing. Uh Chad, you signed up for a public hearing for this? No. Oh, I'm sorry. There's no other signup. Oh, there's no signups for this. Okay, great. Sorry about that. Um when you gave it to me, I thought it was before this. It's fine. Uh comments.

I have a question. And Leslie, you can probably answer this. How much last year did we collect in fees like this? Zoning and permit fees, we're right at $30,000. Subdivision fees are $11,000. So $40,000 is what we collected. Okay. Do y'all have any idea what this increase could do to that number? Project. Is there a projection? Does it go to 50 60 or is it stay in does it meaningly move?

I I don't think it's material

because my point is that the developer applies to the town. We have Greg and if we get lucky, we have Greg and if we get lucky and hire an assistant, we're going to have considerably more expense than that. So, it appears to me that the citizens of the town are heavily subsidizing the developers getting their projects approved to where my thought is fees should be considerably high. I'm not saying we're going to catch every dollar or get all the stuff, but at least reasonably compensate the town for what the town has to do because planning is a big part of what this town does and oversight. You know, don't count our time or the rest of the staff, just Greg. And if we get the assistant, we need to have the number be reasonably close to what we're laying out. the the subdivision fee number is the one that has the most ability to fluctuate significantly

and so you're by adjusting the per acre and can I if you're going to speak can I get you come to the mic so the subdivision fee is the one fluctuates the most as you said

yeah and it's the it's the highest fee I think that's where you were going from what 1650 to 1500 plus an acreage thing. When you have a large subdivision come in, that number can get high. We have not had anything that hasn't already been platted for the last few years. So, that's why our subdivision numbers have been so low, but those are the numbers that are most flexible or fluctuating. The the permit fees are 150, whatever there's.

Yeah. You don't have enough per year to change that number significantly. It's the size of your subdivisions that are going to going to be the ones that

I'm looking expense that the town really has to work on. Greg's time. I mean, he works a lot of hours and he's the one, you know, him and basically him and his salary, you know, drives a lot of our expense on this and uh trying to get the fees to reasonably catch a significant portion of that is my concept. I just don't know if we're still not moving the needle far enough with these fees. Yeah. I mean, you look at some of these developments, they're 5060 $60 million developments, and we might be charging them three, four, $5,000. It's a rounding error in in their development expense.

The highest revenue should be collected at kind of this construction document phase because you have a sheet, you know, 300 sheets versus one or two sheets that's presented publicly at a public hearing. So, we should collect the most revenue at the back end once it's already been approved by town council and me and the engineers are reviewing, you know, more technical items. Uh, for better or worse, we have not approved that many subdivisions. So, therefore, we're not collecting that kind of revenue. But, as of now, we're in the month of July, so we're in the new fiscal year. We have four subdivisions under construction document review. So, we'll make as much money on that in the next two months as we made all last year.

Okay. That's what where I want to be clear because yeah, there is multiple phases of this this process as it goes through and I'm just trying to make sure the town or the citizens aren't say heavily subsidizing developers. That's my whole point. Just want to make sure we're catching what we should catch for the work that we're putting forward Greg's putting forward.

What do other towns, municipalities do in this regard? I mean, are our fees consistent? Are they commensurate with what other towns do? Are we charging less or are other people charging less? Because I mean, to your point, yes, we need to make sure we're covering the expenses that we're incurring. And on a $50 million project, a $3,000 fee is it's nothing. But but I am curious how how do we compare with you know other municipalities our size or or maybe this is just a procedural regardless of the size the same procedure apply.

So I I did the research looking at the our local area looking at Marvin Wesley Chapel Mineral Springs and Waxaw. Um they we all provide different services and different have different structure of staff. So, it was it's not necessarily apples to apples, but we are generally along the same lines as as what everybody else charges now with this. Um, including the Right. It's it's not it's not that they were that off before. Um, but I think adding in the per acreage, some of those um additions in the fees, I think, was was a lot of the other towns do.

Yeah. So, how many hours does it take you when someone does a permit for a pool, for instance? So, that's So, we have here like a I think a flat fee of $50. So, it shouldn't take more than an hour to review all phases. Uh, usually there that frankly usually the application's incomplete. So, there's the time to say, "Hey, you didn't submit where you're supposed to. These dimensions are wrong. This is the detail." reflect that because essentially people without pools are subsidizing people with pools. But I mean

like I think that I think that whether we match or don't match is not really the point. We need to make the fees cover the expense of one and a half employees if that's what we're trying to do is hire another part-time person to help Greg. We just have to be sensitive to make sure it's it's commiserate with staff time. So and and the fee cannot be higher than the actual cost either. Nowhere near there, right?

Darcy and I were talking when we were saying it's not necessarily comparative to the cost of the project or what neighboring communities are charging. It's using the pool very as a very specific example. Right now we have it set at $50. Does $50 cover the time, effort, energy, and expertise that it takes to get that permit in the door completed and approved? I'll say I can I can efficiently uh do it to cover that fee. I could get there could be a pool application that's that's excellent. I review it, takes seven minutes.

I think you have to look at the average cost. You have pools that cost more and you got pools that cost less. But nobody has a like a pool's gonna start at 40 grand if it's in like you're not spending. But the cost the cost to review the pool doesn't isn't affected by the size of the pool. If we're using the pool as an example, we're also adding a requirement for a certificate of compliance for the pool. Another $50. So it'll be $100 to get the pool in and out in the door and then out as approved. Okay. All right. I mean, if Greg's happy, then you know I I think they look low, but I

I reach I looked at uh I I looked at the county and I looked at I went to Davidson and uh uh Davidson and it's hard to compare sometimes apple to apples. People call things differently and whatnot. So, I felt we were low in in a few places and and I you know I would agree council as it's going that I feel like it needs to be we need and I appreciate tremendously what you guys the research and the time that you guys have have looked into it and I guess Karen I guess it was you I appreciate tremendously that that time and effort. I do still feel that we need to go up a little bit more. Would that be the the consensus with

I just wanted to make sure that it covers their time and energy because otherwise all the taxpayers are paying for developers and residents whenever they want to add anything to their home value, which we don't get. If they start giving me a portion of the sales profit that they're getting from these additions, great. Then we can. But otherwise, they need to at least cover the town's time for the research it takes to say yes or no to these things. I don't know. You have to tell us if 50 bucks is covering it for an example. Or

the just the important thing to consider for some of these fees, we unlike a lot other municipalities, we don't handle, you know, building permits in house. That's done through the county. So that's that's the money maker right there. you can charge a percentage of the project value, but that involves staff time of inspecting it, looking at trades, certifications, um you know, getting cos, all those things because we don't handle those functions. The county does it for those for us. We can't really account for that time or that revenue.

Gotcha. I I looked at uh one of the other municipalities conditional zoning for a new um uh conditional zoning and theirs was ours is 1,500 theirs is 2,000. I mean these are maybe small numbers but there's still a difference. the uh uh appeal of decision of a zoning officer to the board of adjustments and application. There we have 500. Theirs was a thousand twice the amount and the minor subdivision. Um you have $55 per lot and I saw 85 which those small numbers do add up. So, I'm just wondering, you know, are we are we there where we want to be or do we, you know, need to look at it and say, "Hey, you know, let's do a little a little bit more." Uh, what do you guys how do you guys feel about that? I think my feelings are obvious

to to to look to I just wanted to cover his expense and I can't imagine that these do but if they say they do right because they seem awful low to me even though I know I know know the research you guys did um would you guys want to accept this as it is or table it and do a little bit more looking into it and revisit this next month per se? Well there's two ways to look at it. Okay. One is if we approve it today, it goes in effect, right? And you can continue to look at it. Huh? You can continue to look at it after. You can continue to look at it, right?

But at least you've started and gotten somewhere to get us there. We may want to look at re revisit in a few months or whatever and just get an idea. What is this generating? You know, is this doing what we think it's going to do or not? But it's going to take us to even get an idea. I think of that and if it's not then we come back and readress it and say well we got to hit here here here because we're just going underwater and I'm just for the past number of years we have subsidized builders and

I don't think citizens so I'm personally I would say let's go with what's been presented review it in six months and see where we're And that would give us time to look at it well in advance for next year. Okay. We can start tracking our internal time during that time. Okay. Let me ask you this. Would you have council have any objection to those three areas that I saw that could go up? The uh the uh conditional zoning district new $1,500 now go to 2,000. No problem with that.

Okay. It's only minor. The uh board of appeals adjustment down there is 500 go to a thousand. No problem with that. Okay. Just a second. Where I'm sorry looking where you you said board of appeals. Yeah, it's uh closer to the bottom of the page down there. It says appeal of decision of zoning officer to board of adjustment and application. Okay. Okay. You see that down there? I do. Yes. Okay. Um that's 500 now and to a th00and. Okay.

Uh and the and the last one under minor subdivision on the second page uh pre presubal sketch plan for easement lot. No no no I'm sorry. It's the next next line down there. Final plat submittal. It's 55 per lot. Just at least go to 85 per lot. I mean that's just that's small but it would add up for a minor. Are you good with those? Staff has no objection to that. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Uh you caught that, right? Yes. Okay. Then then we'll we'll I'll make a motion that we do the amended fee schedule with those three changes to it. Okay.

Can you just What was the third the third change again that was on the final plat submitt? Yeah, exactly. Under under minor subdivision you wanted to go from what to what? From 55 to 85. It's just minor minor thing. Okay. All right. Uh, you made a uh motion. All in favor to adopt. Okay. It's unanimous. We'll move forward on that. Um, can I get a U? Well, do I need a We still should review it in six months to see how it would really like to see that so we can prepare for next year. We may need to revisit this. Do I need to do a motion for the uh consent uh consistency uh statement? No,

not for the fee schedule. Not not for this. Okay. All right. So, we'll move forward. Um new new business. Uh it's a text amendment 2025-05 section D917E. additional specific requirements for conventional residential development or minor subdivisions and all associated edits. I'm going to um open up for public hearing and uh I'll have Greg go ahead and comment if you would please.

Sure. Thank you uh mayor. So this is effectively a reworking of our um rules that apply to all residential development in town. uh as it's structured today, there are rules that apply to everyone that are um under section D917A. There are additional rules for conservation developments because that um is a trade-off for smaller lots, so they have additional requirements. That's 917B. Uh anything non-residential falls under 917C. um certain uses like daycare, schools, there are certain, you know, very succinct additional rules for those. Those are under 917D. And uh but there's no real rules for strengthening just a subdivision application that we would receive and we're receiving more of for a conventional type development. And we had originally explored just making these rules apply to everybody and put it under what is referenced to D97A. Those rules would apply to anybody who did something new. U but there were some private property concerns with that. For instance, saying that um your property can't have any flood plane on it. You know, it makes it unbuildable. That could reduce or eliminate the value of the property, be considered a regulatory taking. it could affect existing property owners who haven't actually done anything and have had the property for a long time versus where the intention of staff and the council is to have these rules apply just to new subdivisions, just to new projects. And so a new section of code is intended to be created, which would be D917E. So these new subdivisions, these new um types of development, regardless of their conventional or conservation type developments, they have some new rules. So, we're strengthening trying to strengthen our new rules for new developments regardless of their type.

Um, when we explored this, uh, the planning board looked at, um, kind of the definitions of Randall Arts concepts of what open space is and what counts as credit towards open space. So, this uh, text amendment kind of clarifies some of those rules as what counts as credits for open space, which is primary or secondary. basically if it's if it has steep slopes versus if it's truly in a flood plane and unbuildable. Um we looked at that and then one of the major things the um planning subcommittee looked at and then went to the planning board to look at was increasing the open space requirement for developments. Currently it's at 10%. 10% of the land needs to be preserved for these uh conventional types of development. uh we had looked at changing that to 20% which would have been a significant increase and ultimately the planning board did not vote to add that 20%. They kept it at 10% as written. So that would have been the major impact of this development. Uh that was not recommended by the planning board. So there's actually less text amendment that than we originally hoped to have or had planned to have. However, just the consequences of changing that open space requirement and doubling it, the planning board and staff agreed that needs some more time um to discuss and to work out the implications of that. Um so, in effect, this is a restructuring of our code that we hope to tweak throughout the next coming months and add more and more restrictions to new development. But this is a fundamental restructuring of who, you know, what development rules apply to who. So, so may I ask a question? If uh since you're talking about only new development, does um I know you you're mentioning like existing homeowners, residents, you know, you don't want to exclude flood planes and that kind of thing. And so

would this even with a new development constitute a taken taking of uh you know that property even though you want where I'm trying to go with this?

Yeah. as long as you're able to build on it and the land has value, it's not considered a regulatory taking. But if we were to say um some of the extreme examples of saying you can only have 5% or you know one acre of flood plane on your property or something, somebody who already had two, they're already violating that rule and they cannot build on it anymore. But if somebody's building a new development, they're conditional zoning anyway. they have to meet the rules that we've established in order for the town to even, you know, consider it and approve it. So, we have checkpoints in place for new development to make sure that, you know, they're voluntarily agreeing to the conditions that we're placing on it, including these new rules. So, they there can't be a taking because they have a financial incentive to develop the land and there's money in the land.

Okay. So, it can't be a taking. So, no. Okay. That that was my concern for for new development. So this does nothing to address the minimum amount of land that has to be outside the flood plane that we currently have. Uh restruct minor tweaks to the language in regards to that. There's one place that says 9,000, another place that says 10,000 outside the flood plane in our ordinances, which I don't see how that works with anything in Weddington. Right. I think

with no more sewer capacity effectively, how do you how do you permit a lot that only has 10 or 12,000 square feet of land that you could put a septic tank on and a house? Yeah, we we try to consider the septic tank issue for kind of couple reasons, but So, is it getting caught by that? That is part of it. It's it's been a tricky issue to accomplish and I will be the first to admit this doesn't go as far as we want it to yet. Yeah. Um we're we're trying to get there but we're trying to reach consensus with the subcommittee and the planning board. Uh this is a first step into at least structuring where it can go.

You know, I've been the advocate that the 40,000 square feet should be buildable land if we're going to do this and have septic because that's what we have virtually have to have in this town anymore. county's not running anything else. There is a few places here and there which you could make an exception for, you know, if there was sewer provided. But if you don't have sewer, how can we, you know, recognize a lot that is less than 40,000 square feet in an area not subject to typically flood?

That's where I have the problem. Well, that's why we're trying to apply it to new developments. They have to do new development. I'm talking about new development. They should be per our next amendment for appendix 2B. They should have done enough due diligence to where there's no question that every single one of those lots have septic. Yeah. Because the same thing comes with submerged land. If you have somebody with and they want to make the lot 40,000 square feet and 20,000 square feets in the middle of the lake, I have the same problem there.

Yeah, we, you know, as a particularly as a conditional zoneing, there's a lot of um existing lots that the property line runs down the middle of a private pond. We're not going to allow those in a new type of subdivision. We're going to make that be common open space. Yeah. But I'm just they look at it and say, "Well, I can do it." You know what I'm saying? I want to make sure they know they can't do it. That's where I come from. Yeah. We hope so. So, there's no question that you can't count this stuff as part of a lot. Our hope is that uh the next text amendment will address those issues more strongly because they're more clearly as a Yeah. I list it as a checkbox

because you run into septic problems with um you know submerged properties, flood planes in very steep slopes because steep slopes aren't conducive to you know septic either. And I'm just trying to make sure somebody doesn't say oh I can build here and then they're trying to shoehorn some kind of oh I can do a class fire system here and it works right? You know what I'm saying? I'm just trying to make sure we wrap everything around. This is a good start. I just want to see the next part. Fill it in and finish it.

Agreed. I I believe it's it's a start. Definitely not a finish. I think the the best accomplishment from this is we have consensus from our planning board members on what their responsibilities are, what they're looking for, and what they consider acceptable. Okay. And the last thing, you know, we want is, you know, of course this is a little different out there in Texas, but with the the river, but we don't want to risk anybody with flooding or anything here. That's why we need to be strict and and have all this worked out because we don't to, you know, risk residents or citizens, you know, and their safety. Yeah, the rain time well with that comment.

Yeah, exactly. It's pouring rain. But so uh so this is just a start and we're going to continue in the next months to come to to fine-tune this as Tom said. Absolutely. Yeah. We haven't per Tom's directive on some of this buildable land uh questions. I don't believe this solves it yet. We'll continue. Well, that's what the land use plan says and that's where I'm trying to get the two to match. Now I I do have a question. And I know you have uh we're going to be talking a few minutes, but the you have sketch plans still here. Should it be schematic?

Uh yes, I think that I noticed that because this occurred before we had the discussion on the ladder and so the language is per what the planning board had adopted and staff had written. Yes, if if you feel confident that both will be adopted tonight, I think it is acceptable to amend this to schematic to reflect consistency of the documents. Yeah. Well, it's kind of you got a chicken and egg here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh well, you kind of do the approval condition upon if the if the terminology changes, it changes or something to that effect. I'm fine with just putting it as schematic.

Just go ahead and put in schematic. Okay. Okay. We can define that if we need to do an amendment to define that at some point. Yeah. Okay. And and so um you didn't have your mic, but I you said you were fine with it. Yes, I'm fine. Okay. Cool. I know it's in there a couple places. It's also in there, too, Greg. Uh um in in the in the red section here that you have marked up, it's uh the minimum open space. You have it 20% then you have 10% in parenthesis and you have that in a couple places. So which is it 10 or 20? I know you talked about 10. Yeah, it was it was originally do we need to fix fix that? We had requested to be 20 and that was not the recommendation made by the planning board. Yeah.

So that may be a continuity error that it would not change in this. No. And and and I get that. I'm just pointing out that we need need to tweak that right there. Or should that be a conversation for us now? Do we wish to do 20% versus 10%. You know, the county went to 30 30% for the county uh a while back. Um I would be good with with 20%. I would too because we're giving them 50% in the unbuildable area credit they could use. Correct.

Correct. which effectively means it would be 10% if you couldn't use any of the unbuildable. Correct. Right. Um I'd look at it either way. 10% exclude the unbuildable or 20% and allow 50% of you get to the same place. Yeah, it's totally your decision. Uh the the original staff recommendation was 20. The planning board's recommendation was 10. Uh you can choose either option. What do you know what their reasons were?

It's been it's been two months since that meeting. I think just that dramatically impacts the layout and maybe the feasibility of it. It's just something none of us were totally convinced that this was the final version of this document and so we wanted to look at that maybe further, make additional edits. We didn't want to risk adding a 20% without revising the document again, but um it was just easier to leave it at 10 to make sure we didn't have any unintended consequences. Um if it's are written in there, 20 and 10 and it's like, yes, somebody's got to choose. There's been a couple drafts of this. Yes, sir. Right. The one we got has 20 written out and 10 in parentheses.

That's a typo. That's what we got. Several places in both this and the conservation work that were in both of them. Correct. I I would lean toward 20 20% if we if we had to, you know, go in a direction. Um Oh, I would say the 20 is well. I don't know if there's a legal way to say, you know, if we go ahead and pass it at 20 and then the planning board comes back with a very valid reason, as you said, the unintended consequences of that and we go, "Oh, well, yeah, maybe the 10 was what we should have left." If there's a way to go back and and and change it back to 10,

we can revisit, but you know, revisit it, then then yeah, I think that that would be the way it goes. But the way I see it is they gave them 50% of the unbel Oh. I agree basically. I agree with you. Made it in my mind it makes it 5%. That that's why I'm saying let's go I'm good with making it 20. Yeah. And then with the cautisle that if the planning board for whatever reason their subcommittee they discuss it and they go hey we just found this and that's probably not what we want then we've still got a method to go back and and correct it. Yeah. We we could always do that. Okay. And say hey you know we found this just blaring our face.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. It's I'm good with tomorrow. Okay. All right. Um Okay. Before we Is there any other changes? I'd like to get a motion on 20, but are there any other thoughts, concerns about this before we go for a motion to accept this with this to change? If I may just make sure. I'm sorry. I I changed sketch to schematic and I changed the 10 to 20. Correct. Correct. It' be 20 20% in section D917E B1. Thank you. Yes. Correct. Okay. Yes. It was written 20 in parentheses 20.

Yeah, that's what it should be. Yeah. Uh Brandon, I saw that. You look like you were about to say something. Yeah, I think earlier when I identified my conflict, I think that I said 12A. I don't have a conflict with 12A, which means I have an obligation to vote. I have a conflict with 12C, but I didn't want to vote on this and have anyone have there be any confusion. Gotcha. Okay. 12. Okay. Uh All right. Can I get a uh no more discussion on this as as it is except do we have any members of the public who want to speak? Yes. Um there's there's no no one. So, uh, so no one signed up for public motion that we accept,

but I'm I'm going to close public comment. So, just be on the record. Yes. I make a motion to accept the text amendment as amended. Okay. With schematic and 20. Yep. Okay. All All in favor with that? I. Okay. It's unanimous. So, we'll move forward with that. Okay. Thank you guys. Uh, Mayor, you will need the statement of reasonableness and consistency to Yes. Uh yes. And can I get a motion to uh accept the uh uh uh can I get a motion to adopt the consistency statement as presented by staff? So moved.

Okay. All in favor? All right. It's all unanimous. Thank you. All right. Uh so many of Yes. Which one is this one? Uh this is the uh uh discussion consideration of text amendment 2025A appendix 2B submittal requirements. Okay. And I'm going to open public hearing as uh Greg go ahead and take the floor.

Okay. Uh thank you mayor. Uh this is more straightforward. This is a complete uh revocation and replacement of our appendix 2B submittal requirements. This is the checklist that uh both staff and with the understanding of the planning commission we all look at when determining completeness of a project. So there has been much discussion about that topic previously. Uh the subcommittee's solution which is a complete reworking of appendix 2B is to remove our existing uh matrix and replace it with a new one. uh it has approximately 67 items that would need to be checked off either at the schematic plan process which uh Rusty our planning board member gave a presentation on that concept at a previous meeting and then as well as at the final plat process when you're doing the legal document to subdivide the land. So the schematic plan would be required to be submitted to the planning board. uh the planning board as well as staff would need to determine if those items are met per that checklist and that would move on to the town council. The intention of having this new checklist is that we can clearly state that staff and the planning board looked at all 67 of these items and we find that they are here or not here and now you as the town council can have clarity in your vote of whether it's complete or not. Um this

but ideally we wouldn't get it if it weren't there. Correct. Right. the the during the public hearing and the well not the public hearing the public hearing is an additional checkpoint but during the planning board meeting um planning the planning board is understood to be reviewing this checklist specifically to make sure it meets all those items. If there's something deficient, a planning board member would mention that on record and state that they either need to table the item or deny it if something is absent. Gotcha. Okay.

Um before we move forward and we'll close public hearing. Okay. Public hearing is closed. Um Jeff, you look like you were about to say something. No, no, no. It's just u you know, I think anything that would bring clarity to what a completed plan is supposed to be is what we've needed for quite a while and I'm glad to see it coming to fruition. Yeah. No, I totally agree. Um, Brandon or Darcy, anything from you guys, comments? Nothing to add that hadn't already been said. Okay. Um, uh, Tom, no, I'm fine.

Well, I will ask this under um B37. So, identification, delineation of proposed septic systems, including location of uh drain fields, repair areas, and associated infrastructure if applicable. Um that I know this it that's uh that's in there, right? I mean it's sort of in parentheses here versus the others. Is was that like an afterthought type thing?

Uh that was put in that uh format just to highlight that this is a revision of the addition original draft created by the subcommittee. These were originally two items u that address this topic. uh the recommendation of the planning board was to combine those into one uh one column or one point uh with this exact specific language as one of the conditions of approval. So this is to indicate that this is the only item that basically changed from the subcommittee draft to the recommendation provided by the planning board.

Okay. In my oversight and I made a mistake I the public hearing Chad did sign up for a public hearing. I want to open that back up so Chad can come speak. I public hearing's back open. Chad, come on up. I apologize. I I just overlooked that and I knew it from earlier, so my apologies.

Um, good evening. Uh, Chad Emerine, 953 Eagle Road. I wanted to speak about the updates on the requirements. I think the committee did a great job clarifying the terminology and making it even more clear. I do have a concern on what you were just mentioning as far as the septic requirement. I don't understand how we've had many changes in here are more strict in this draft and we've lowered the definition as far as what the way it reads in terms of septic. I right now we require Union County environmental health approval in this current version of the UDO and in previous versions. This update does not state that requirement. Now, it basically describes all the things you need to get Union County approval without saying you need to turn in the approval. We should not change that. That opens up gray areas that we're cleaning up with all the other parts in here. All we need is to do is have Union County septic approval or an NOI form, which is the equivalent documentation if they go through the engineered option permit process and bypass the county. that form turned into the county and serves as the approval letter. Keystone, who was here tonight, recently did this step and they were approved and we know that all 11 lots will work and they were parked and and fits in the approved plan that council approved. If you don't keep that verbiage in there and add the NOI equivalent, then you could open the door to incomplete plans that could impact the lot layout of the neighborhood. Since a developer is doing this work already, they need to turn into the county or the NOI documentation. It's proof the work is done just like um basic storm water calculations. As a council, you need to know this is a buildable layout that of course could shift lot lines slightly, but will fully comply with our UDO. We don't need developers losing time and money as well

as using up the town's resources for revisions, reapprovals. It's an easy step to just have that requirement. It's already in the current UDO in appendix 2. Um, in fact, it like Greg mentioned, it's stated twice essentially in our current checklist. It's been required, never challenged, so it should um have that verbiage of the original version.

Thank you, Chad. Does anyone else we miss for uh public comment or uh public hearing on this before I close it again? Okay. closing public hearing. Thank you, Chad. No, and that's exactly where I was going to go as well. And that that was a concern I had is also is, you know, having the NOI added to that um incorporated into that because I think it gives more detail is to to the to the process. And uh um I know the engineer does an uh EOP, but it then it goes to the county and the state or the state for an NOI, which will come back with with a lot more information on that. And that's what I think uh Chad is saying as well. Um and I I feel that we need more the reason we're doing this is to get more information, not less. So I feel like this this area here primarily is a little bit more watered down than what we intended. So I would love to be able to add that that requirement to this. Any comments?

Um I agree with what you're saying that you know we need to go ahead and nail it down. My only question is is that an amendment we can or verb exchange we can do here? We want to table it, send it back to the committee, the planning board folks to work out the wording and then bring us back a clean package that, you know, has gone through the wickets again. Um, and and and I'm, you know, I'm just asking the question, but I but I agree with nailing this down and making sure the verbiage is specific. Is it proper to take a question from take a question from a planning board member? We ought to close the public information

it's really open the public hearing again. Do I open public hearing again? I'm fine. This is a text amendment. I'm perfectly okay. Uh Bill, can would you come up so we can have you on mic because I I I agree with Jeff. Do we send it back? Do we do this now? Like I agree with concept. I just want to agree with you. Yeah. I was kind of cautiously raising my hand. I really just wanted to add a clarification. That section I I'm going from memory here. It says delineation. Am I correct? Uh versus location. Yes.

Okay. And the thought process was location is here. Delineation is specific layout of where it is.

Okay. And the if applicable would be if it's septic, if it's sewer, it wouldn't apply. So that's what was the intent was to combine those. We added delineation as a specific markings of where it is versus location. That that was the thought behind it, right? And I guess my and my my thought is, you know, with that NOI, it gives you much more detailed information of what that structure is uh as opposed to location and the layout type thing. That would be part of the delineation. At least that was the intent. Maybe it maybe it didn't make it clear enough.

If that was the intent, then it's like can we not just spell it out without having to send it back and so that no one has to question what delineation versus location is? like can you not just add with the NOI or I I'll just say that the the planning board discussed this particular line at length and came to this conclusion that this was the best language if if it needs to be amended you know the planning board is has made their piece and come to agreement that this is the best way they'd like to put it I don't know if it would help to say specific delineation I mean that

again we're trying to get all the stuff that would be required for the NOI and if applicable is if it's septic, if it's sewer, it's it wouldn't be applicable. I think if it wasn't clear to all of us, then maybe the we need to revisit just the way it's written because we want it to be clear so that it is a yes or a no. You know what I'm saying? It's not not that we're disagreeing with the planning board. We just if we didn't understand I agree the way it was written. Right. And I don't I'm not I'm not trying to push this off, but I we want good clear

information in the checklist so that there's no confusion. There's no question. You don't get to some point where someone has an application and they say, "Well, we did this." And it needs to be very clear. And I'm not sure that writing it on the fly right now is going to get the clarity that I I that we want in that checklist. Um, can can it be be accepted as presented with the exception of that item to it be adjusted at the next meeting? I'm just trying to think of getting it in and I'll I'll sit down. Right. No. No. And and and I I agree with that as as well. Um, is that possible that we can we can approve it with the exception of that?

Yeah. And and and then they would but we would have to go through the text amendment process to get it readded. Can we can we not just add like a little bit of verbiage to make it to to add NOI to it to requirement of a and then pass it notice of intent to construct like I feel like we're talking about two separate things. So it and I don't just forgive me if I'm wrong. So, it sounds like the planning board attempt included everything that a developer would need to show to the county to get an approval either through an NOI or through the system and the and the what the council is looking for is we actually want that letter from the county. Correct. Correct. Yes.

Is there a reason that the planning board opted not to include the actual acquisition of the county approval prior as part of this checklist? That's I'm just asking that question. The county is not always and it's typically now not the approval body. It's gone goes through the NF through the state. The state, but it could be stated and or the state they they go through the engineered option. It has to be verbiage for that. Is there Greg? However you want to word it. No, I'm just saying there assume that you would be aware of verbiage that would cover that. I'm just because I'm not dead familiar enough with that to include verbiage. But

we need we need to include the state engineered option. You showed you filed for it and they their engineer does whatever. Right. And I guess my question is we I think our old checklist required approval from the county. Yes. And that is not included anymore. Is there a reason why we removed that acquisition of the ca of the county or state approval from this requirement instead just required the background information? Is that am I making sense?

Well, the the previous version specifically said the county and only the county. So that's operate or county like you know like we changed the fee schedule in three areas but we still passed it. Can we not just add that and then pass it with the addition? If the intention is to make it so the town council is ultimate voting body, you know, understands and recognizes what you're looking for, you can tweak it to have any language you need.

Well, and it's like I agree with Brandon. You if we're having a hard time understanding it, you know, I I want to make it plain and simple for anybody, you know, developer, whoever. So, if we have that that NOI, that EOP, whatever from the state or county, then we we have it here, you know, and there's no Well, I think we're all in agreement. We want the NOI language in there. The problem we're having right now, I think, is this is the language. And that's why at this point, based on what I'm hearing my colleagues talk about, I think we should have her the proper way to table it. Let let the plan the planning board's meeting this month. Hopefully, this will not be a a a big correction, but that way we're not doing this on the fly here right now. And how do we want it to sound?

Then she said that's another text amendment. It'll have to go through the whole table. If we table it and send the whole thing back and just say look at this section, nail down this language about the NOI. We look at it in August and then vote for it and bam, we're we've got everything we need. Is is that going to cause any problems for any future projects that's going on right now? Well, I think a comment was made earlier that even if even if a project was submitted prior to adoption of this checklist, you're going to want them to have adherence to this checklist regardless under the conditional zoning rules. So, it sounds like even delaying this, you're still going to hold everyone to it.

Yeah. Could could you do that? You know, just make sure everybody follows that, you know, as the I'll let them know that that's the town council's opinion. Okay. Okay. Okay. Then then then if you do that then I would be okay with with table. And that way it's like like you said Brandon, it's a clean document. We can make one vote and we're not sitting here in the next 10 minutes trying to Yeah. I I want to make sure we get everything, you know, we don't miss anything. Let me ask one other question. So with that that thought on that I know we've talked a lot about storm water and calculations and whatnot in in past is that pretty well covered in what you have seen and I think we've seen that uh

there was a check mark for it in here I believe um there's so many things in here uh I see uh B42 as preliminary calculations of proposed impervious surface runoff volume and proportionally sized BMP ponds. Yeah, that would cut that make you feel good. That's what you expect, right? Greg, that has been strengthened. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, that's good. Okay. All right. Then then I'm uh I'm good with that. So tableabling it till August

with an instruction to um staff and planning board to um clarify clarify the septic system check box primarily B37. And now again I I think what I'm hearing I'm hearing two separate things. I'm hearing this council wants the approval letter from the state or the county. Correct. one whichever but noi and I think EOP is and that was that was not included in the this document here. So I think that's part of the instruction is to make get that included correct that accurate. Correct. Okay.

So we're the current draft says we want the information. What the council is more explicitly asking is we want the document. We want the approval document. Correct. From count state or county. And my question is, you know, EOP is prior to that and EOP is is filled out then and then E NOI, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, is is without that information on it. So, if we got an NOI, we're covered. Correct. Notice of intent uh would would show that they are they have done their due diligence and they've started the process.

Okay. So, we'd have all the information we're looking for. Okay. All right. Uh can I get get a motion to table it till till next time to August and run this through the planning board? So moved. Okay. Uh all in favor? Okay. It's unanimous. So okay. All right. Uh so now we're up to uh the next items, the discussion of the downtown overlay and and Jeff, I'm going to let you take off with this.

Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, first let me say that I am proud to be bringing this subject up because it's the right thing to do and in my book there's not a time limit on trying to get the right thing done. Um, I want to basically this evening uh I provided some copies of a couple of maps to my fellow council members. I left some out here. uh for the public uh next Tuesday at 5:'lock in this room uh I will be here to discuss this subject with anybody that would like to come out and discuss it with me and I look forward to that opportunity because again I believe this is the right thing to do. So, I am simply going to read this letter for the record and then hope to see folks here next Tuesday and then I will formally bring up my request at our August meeting. So, let me begin. As many of you already know, I will soon be asking the town council to begin the process of amending the current downtown overlay to include the Piva property. When I bring this up initially, it will be to get approval to start the process, which will then run through the planning board and then town council for a final vote. In both instances, there will be public hearings to allow interested residents to express their views. Let me take a little time here to present the information regarding my proposal. I'm including some town maps which I hope will prove useful to you. And if you're watching this online or even if you're here tonight, these will be as part of the record for the meeting. They'll be

available on the town web page for you go to go and take a look at. First, the intent of the downtown overlay was to restrict brick andmortar commercial operations to our town center. Now, we do not have a town center as such. Most folks, I would say, believe that the intersection here of 84 and 16 would be the historic center of town since the original Weddington United Methodist Church building is still located there. But after Weddington Corner Shopping Center was built with the gymnastics center adjacent, the overlay area was drawn around these properties and also includes two additional properties which are currently zoned residential. About 12 years ago, Mr. Pifa approached the town about getting an existing residential lot located across the street from the shopping center reszoned for commercial use. In the end, it was reszoned, but they did not approve all the buildings he originally wanted, but allowed him to build the existing office building. There were no restrictions placed to prevent him from requesting more buildings in the future. Now, I believe it was an oversight for the council that approved this zoning change to not also amend the overlay map. They should have, especially since the overlay contains two parcels zoned as residential. Making this change is the logical thing to do at this point. Mr. Polifa wanted to build two more smaller office buildings on the remainder of his property. But in January of this year by a 2:1 vote,

the council voted down this proposal based primarily on the overlay map. I would point out several facts that I believe strongly support my position. First, please refer to the attached maps for details. And again, if hopefully you got something you can pass around out there. First, the Polifa property is in our town center. The only thing separating it from the overlay is four lanes of asphalt. Second, the property is already zoned commercial. Just like the shopping center located across the street, no reszoning is being proposed. Third, the Palifa property is landlocked. There is no room for further expansion. The Hunter Farm, a conservancy property, is located on one side and Weddington United Method on the other. I believe that my proposal proposal is reasonable based on these simple facts. Just look at the maps. And I would also say look to see what areas are zoned commercial in that big map of Weddington. Finishing up here, every taxpayer in Weddington deserves to be treated fairly. This applies whether you own a single family home in an established neighborhood or you own commercial property located across from our town center. It is only fair to allow Mr. Polifka to have the full and best use of the property he owns here in town. He should be able to make requests in the future that will be

judged on their merits and not rejected because of being on the other side of a street. Any suggestions that my proposal is an attempt to expand commercial property across town is simply not true. Period. As my proposal gets closer to being presented to council, I have scheduled a time at town hall when I will be available to discuss this idea in person with anyone who is interested. This will be on Tuesday the 22nd of July at 5:00 pm. I highly encourage anyone with concerns to drop by, especially all the folks that spoke tonight. I would really enjoy the chance for a one-on-one talk about this. I will be glad to speak to you and I appreciate your time and I look forward to discussing this matter further.

Thanks. Thank you, Jeff. Any comments, discussion on this at this point? Well, this is going to be discussed next meeting. Correct. So, I will be making my formal right. There's no reason for discussion tonight. Correct. Correct. Okay.

Yeah. But it is open if we wanted to, but uh but no um you know something something that's and you know how I say commercial is to to the residents of Weddingington. So, what I would like to have is is you know that in August have open for comment for for all the residents to come out and and comment about this. And I'd also like to for the council to be unified in either direction and I'd like to take a vote whether we go forward. You know,

that's what we're going to have to do because I explained at the at the retreat. The first step is I'm going to make a formal proposal with a presentation in August to get a majority vote to direct staff to draft the language to change this process this process this outline. At that point, it goes to the planning board for their review, their scrutiny, their judgment, public hearing, public comments, and then they will take a vote to either say, "Yeah, Jeff, we think that's a good idea." Or, "No, Jeff, you're full of it." Yeah. And then it will come to us and then we will have another public hearing and then we can discuss it and then we'll take a vote and see where it falls.

Right. No, because it's, you know, I definitely want residents. Absolutely. Input. Absolutely. Either way. And so, uh, so we'll we'll do that. We'll have input, public hearing, and we'll have a vote. Yeah. So, okay. Anything else to be said on on this before we move forward? Okay. Yeah, we so we'll look at it in August. Um discussion of environmentally sensitive area designations. This is

I brought this up because in the land use plan we approved it says that council can designate environmentally sensitive areas that would be basically restricted from development. Now, I'm no environmental expert, but I believe we need to engage a firm that can look at the areas in town that could be environmentally sensitive and recommend them to council. I don't know if it has to go to planning board first or not. I have no idea what the process is, but uh however it be. So we know one what we have and what we should protect. Um could be very sensitive wetlands, could be the eagle nest, you you just name a number of different things that it could be. But unless we do a survey, we don't really have that in hand. So this would start the process to to get that done so we know what we actually have.

If I may, Mayor Prom, what's that? If I may interrupt for a moment, we have um three engineering firms that we are going to move forward into contract negotiation with and one of them is an environmental specialist we thought would be be perfect for this. So, as we as we move forward with the contract negotiations for an on call contract, um I feel like that would be covered.

We can move forward with that. I I think this is justformational purposes to see what we have and see what we may need to do because I worry about the national developers with their blanket ability to do whatever they want to do on wetlands and come back and say we mitigated somewhere else and left us with a mess or took a area with some very sensitive plants and we ended up with them being bold. bulldozed over or whatnot unnecessarily. And if we can protect those things, we ought to.

So, where I previously lived, there was I was on a creek and the the area just above me was a monstrous fern garden that was there and uh had some unique plants in it. And unfortunately, the city decided to put a sewer line right through it and destroyed the whole thing. But there was no protection. in the core says, "Oh, you got this blanket. You can do whatever you want to do." And I don't want that happen to us. You I want it to be we can if there's certain areas that we should protect that we do it. And just so that's where I am. And if you're having, you know, one of these consultants is an expert in the area. I think we ought to find out what it's going to cost us to do this and get it get it moving.

Okay. And do we need to have a vote to where to to get you to look into this or the direction? Do we need to No, we're going to be bringing you contracts from three firms. So, you just add this into what you're kind of looking at. Yeah. And if you all if you all just want to give a if council has consensus this could be a head nod I think on this one that we we we start the process of engaging um an environmental firm but again based lots more to come back to you on scope and price and what have you but at least we start the process of moving forward with this

and you and you don't know until you ask you know and that's my thing with everything you know at least ask and check into it may be something we could do or not but we don't we need to know the figures and even then if they do the work They may say, "Well, you ain't got much here or whatever." Or you do. You know, what we don't know, we don't know. Right. No, you're exactly right. Point. And I'm trying to make this line up with the landing explain. That's the whole point of it. Yeah. And they may they may have um maps that we aren't even aware of that that give a general outline or, you know, lay out the core the core maps and everything. That but then they're probably going to have to do on the grounds research to see what really is there. Yep. Yep. Okay. So, are we good on good on that?

More discussion. Okay. All right. Hit nods on on that one. Okay. All right. So, we're going to move forward for the discussion possible approval of resolution 2025-05 opposing SB205. And as you guys remember last uh was it last month, a month before last, we did a resolution opposing uh s uh HB765

which would be and I know Jeff talked about a good bit and even had Wuma discussion about that which was really really good and and now it's reared its ugly head over into SB 205. You know, I think they eliminated a few things, but they still are doing a lot of damage. And so, uh, right now, as we've discussed, that's it's sort of it's sort of stuck because of public pressure sort of paused in committee, but it still is not dead and still could come out of committee. what I've told even uh had a discussion with um uh there was a discussion it was a uh a meeting with the union GOP this past Thursday with uh representative Dean Art uh uh Mark Brody uh Susanna Wedra and Brian Helms on a panel and uh you know I'm just be honest with you uh Mark Brody he's he's dug in with it and he you know he's he's there and this is this is what should be uh Representative Arp um he's uh he's he's trying to uh put the brakes on it and you know and he's not dug in. He's trying to help us out here. So um so what I would like to do and and and I want to open this for discussion too uh with you guys uh introduce and uh a resolution opposing SB 205 as well. And uh with that being said uh Jeff you want to jump in? Um, you know, yes, we need to pass this resolution. This threat is real. Uh, it has been growing for this is not the first year this has happened. If you go back and look at bills that the legislature has proposed over the last couple of years, they've been trying to sneak things in um kind of under the radar. Uh, but for whatever reason, it seems that this year they are shooting for them and they are they've threw everything in and they are trying to get as much as they can. Um, in addition to us passing this resolution, for the folks that are here in the room,

for the folks that are watching at home, you need to write ARP, you need to write Willis, you need to write Brody, all the legislative folks from from our county here in, you know, Union County, Todd Johnson especially. Yes. Write them. Go, you can go on the legislative web page and see who the sponsor of the bill is. Write them. you they pay you know it's one thing when the mayor tells an elected representative we don't want this

but when they get feedback from the residents you know that carries a lot of weight and so please it's not just us passing this tonight the folks watching the folks here you've got some homework to do too go ahead if this passes it would effectively undo everything we have done.

Yep. in our zoning planning process and we would have virtually no power and developers would basically have their way with our town and I know they took the the the five lots per acre out, but they still came back and said um uh

the yield plan, you know, and so you without going into all the detail, you could have you could end up having five houses per acre with that yield plan if the way they've got it worked. So, they just worked it at a different angle. They've taken away um public input. You know, you folks come here and comment and and we we appreciate that and and and need the input. And and so the other thing you got to remember too, folks, and I believe you told me about this term, Karen, if this passes, then they don't even have to come and ask permission. It's called What's the term? It's called a It's by right. It's an administrative process by right. It's Yeah. It's an administrative becomes an administrative process.

We don't have a say anymore. And so, right. No. And if it doesn't get through passed in 90 days or get through the through the process, it's automatically approved, whatever it is. And so, we could spend on and on talking about the numerous bad parts of this this bill, but uh it's it's just taking it that is devastating for people who who know about Is there a super simple way to get information? Like if through our website legally, like if you say click here for bill blank and then it goes straight to who people need to email. Anything we can do to make it simple for people would be

good. So they don't have to do an extra step of finding whoever they have to contact. Do we have our our delegation on our website? I believe we do. We do. Okay. Phone number and email address, that kind of thing. At least email address. just email address, I believe. So, okay. All right. I'll bring it out front so that and and again, if you haven't been on the NG legislative web page, just very simple. All you got to do is look up county and your and all of our folks pop up and you can click on their name and it'll pull you up a block to start typing to them. Yeah. And I just I just Google it and say, you know, Union County, you know, delegation and all them pop up. So, Okay.

All right. Uh uh can I get a uh a motion to approve the opposition to SB 205? So moved. So moved. Okay. Can uh all all in favor? Okay. It's unanimous and uh we are definitely opposing SB 205 and we'll send that out to all of our all of our delegation. Um okay. Okay. So, I'm going to move forward to a code enforcement report and uh go ahead guys.

Um the weekly report, the latest weekly report is in your packets. We are working diligently to um abate sorry I couldn't think of the word. Um some of the uh perpetual violators. So, we're working to get the the invoices out and get we're gonna have to um contract somebody to clean them up. Okay. All right. Great. Okay. We're good for that. Uh update from the finance officer and tax collector. Leslie, I want to get you to take the mic because I might have a couple questions for you.

You have in your packets the U financial statements for June. that is the last month of the fiscal year. I do want to caution you that they are preliminary statements. There's still a lot of receivables and payables that still have to be posted. So, and I know you had some questions. Okay. Um I want to go back to our um our our what am I trying to say here? our budget proven in our budget and what we did with the uh the uh solid waste collection uh combining it with our our taxes uh with our with our property tax rate. Right.

And uh I want to get you to explain and correct correct me if I'm if I'm wrong. Okay. We did that. First of all, municipalities and again correct me if I'm wrong. municipalities are given a certain amount of money from the state on the amount of tax revenue you you you collect. Um, and sometimes, you know, sometimes you you may be rewarding, I'm going to say it this way, bad behavior from a municipality who who maybe has a exorbitant tax rate versus one who has a lower property tax rate. These guys will get a lot more money than these guys who in in my opinion are are keeping prices down, keeping taxes down. I should say and uh and so these guy it's sort of a backwards type situation. So uh with keeping in what we did was and also um what well what we did we combined the two. So for simplicity and also uh it would would it would uh secure the funding from the state. Otherwise, we were going to take a what?

Do you know how much that hit was if we had not done We we were estimating that we could take a potentially $250,000 hit. Yeah. And the revenues that we collected based on those state collected um utility franchise sales tax that come to us, the county has the option to distribute those based on population or adorum taxes and Union County does it based on taxes. So we get a proportion based on what our taxes are to everybody else in the county. So if we go down, we get less. Correct. So, right. So, so if we just kept them separate, we' have taken $250,000 hit.

You're paying it anyway. So, why not just, you know, combine it over here and we we don't take that hit,

right? We we the if we went strictly revenue neutral in anticipation that not everybody else is going to do that. We predicted that our percentage would go down and so we tried to structure our revenue neutral so that we maintain the same level that we were already getting and by incorporating solid waste ad valorum revenues and those state revenues in total we think we'll have the same revenues we would have had we not adjusted the tax rate. So, so basically as way I guess way I said so we're not doing a tax increase. We're just combining this over to this keeping seeping the same revenue.

Yes. You know what we had before the the the budget is to have the same amount of revenues as we would have had if there was no revaluation. Okay. Thank you. Uh well and also we were finding also that at closing people sold in their homes they were paying taxes due in in a lot of cases. I can't say every time but uh uh the trash collection solid waste was sitting out here and it was getting missed. It was not getting paid. So with our contract with the with uh active uh we were having to take the hit. the town was having to pay their tracks fee because they didn't pay it at closing. Correct.

And so and so that was another reason to combine them together. That way the town the other residents aren't having to pay the tax the trash fee for people that didn't that pay it at closing. Am I correct?

That's correct. And the other piece of that is that by when we had a fee, we had to set the fee to cover the cost. So we were always going to collect essentially more than what the actual cost was. But by incorporating in the tax rate, we're only applying to the actual cost. If we collect more in fees than we spend, we have to put that in reserve and spend it only on solid waste. where if it's in the tax rate, any extra income that may come in can be spent anywhere. So,

Gotcha. Okay. So, so really we're not we're not adding cost to the residents by doing this. We're we're we're we're flat. Correct. Okay. Correct. So, there's no tax increase. Okay. Right. I just want to make sure because I think there was some confusion out there uh that they were jacking up uh our taxes by doing this but it's not correct and I will I will caveat that where excuse me I was coughing so I have a cop drop that is in total individuals may see a difference but it's in town and total got correct okay all right great um thank you so much anybody have any questions for Leslie while she's here.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. To the final numbers. It looks like y'all managed it well. Yes. Um and and we still hear reports that Weddington is one of the bestrun towns and we keep bragging on you, so keep it up. Um update from uh town planner and town administrator.

Uh thank you, mayor. I would just note that uh you know we had the presentation for one uh developer this evening. Uh we anticipate there being a presentation by a second developer at your next meeting. We basically have two active applications for uh subdivisions in town. Um that will be going to the planning board shortly. Uh so keep an eye on that. in regards to public hearings and and public participation. There's two strong active cases uh for future development. Uh I would also note that I don't know what's going on with the housing market, but uh we have multiple requests for the release of bonds by existing subdivisions that have been completed or nearing completion. They're all asking for their bond money at once and it's a large sum of money. Of course, the town council is the only authority to release those funds, but I would anticipate next month there'll be at least several of those applications and, you know, basically withdrawal request or bond requests being presented to you to release those funds. So, just be prepared that uh questions about the status of a subdivision, is it complete, has there been inspections, has Leela been out there recently, has Greg been out there recently, you know, have those those questions ready. There are several bond releases active.

Okay. All right. Great. Can you do you know which subdivisions there like or can you email us or I can email them to you. Heads up. It's half a dozen. It's it's it's a lot. It's basically everything that's been done in the past couple years is all requesting the release of funds. Yeah. Okay. An email would be awesome. That'd be great. Thank you. Um, anything else?

Nothing. Okay. Transportation report. Um, uh, CRPTO continues to move forward. uh conversations about the uh u I77 I'm going to call it expansion the the toll the express lanes uh uh they're looking for they're starting to move forward for looking at outside vendors for that the it's the largest road project North Carolina has ever done uh right now it stands for that 11 miles from downtown past Carowinds to the state line it stands around $3.2 billion for 11 miles of highway. It's a lot of money. And like I said, the state can't can't cover the state only allows uh allocates something like $600 million for a project. Nowhere close to covering that. And in fact, uh there's a push, you know, from transportation to try to get our our our legislators to up that because we can't with the cost of uh highways now. You can't cover that. You know, there's no way 600 million is going to even come close to 3.2 billion. And so uh so so long story short, they're want to uh we're looking at all the things that was done wrong in the north on the north side and and not make those same mistakes even with tolls, the expensive tolls that are being charged up there and not do these same things down here. and uh and I've spoken out against that in in in past months that you know the tolls have to be worked out and and uh have to make it more inviting for folks to to use those lanes because even up the north sometimes they'll the non-toll part people will be backed up and there's nobody over here because this is like you know crazy expensive. So anyway, we're trying to work that out, but that's going into the process of looking for vendors and getting bids

on that kind of thing. And it will probably take seven or eight ten years to build it once it starts. So anyway, long story short, that's that's where it's at. Um, council comments. Uh, anybody want to go first? Ladies first.

Um, I'll be brief. I just wanted to thank Rotary for the flag display that they did for the fourth. that always um looks so nice um and reflects nicely on the town, but really it's it's Rotary. So, thank you to Rotary and thank you to um town c town staff for your work and I had to miss last month's meeting in June and I am blown away with how much has gotten done in the last 60 days. Um, so not only the staff who's been amazing and Greg, um, but our planning board and subcommittees with all the text amendment changes and the code enforcement list, I've never seen that so short since I've started. Um, the fees, I know that was a lot of work. You guys have just done some incredible things and I'm super appreciative to get things heading in a good direction. Yep.

No, thank everybody who came out tonight, stayed till after nine o'clock and probably hopefully missed a thunderstorm. But, uh, I want to thank staff for all their efforts, the planning board, the subcommittee. Yes, we have in the last I'd say 90 to 120 days moved the ball really forward on the on the UDO and got a lot of things fixed that should have been fixed a long time ago. And hopefully in the next 60 to 90 days, we're going to fix a good bit more of it to where this is a tight ship and really appreciate what staff has done. And uh Greg, I know it takes a lot to move all those ordinances through. So I appreciate that. Karen, I always appreciate your advice. And other Karen, thank you for keeping us all straight.

Well, this is going to be repetitive, but thank you to staff. Uh, as you said it earlier, mayor, we've got the best staff of any municipality in this state. I would stack any of you up with anybody, anywhere, anytime, and this town is lucky to have y'all here. Uh, thanks to the planning board. You you guys have done yman's work, Bill, and it's it's looking good. We're finally getting to where we're getting some of these things taken care of. So, please, not just for me, but tell the folks that aren't here how much we appreciate that work because that's tough. Thank you for the folks that are here. Thank you for the folks that are watching and I look forward to next Tuesday afternoon five.

Yep. No, and I want to say thank you too. you know, bill planning board, subcommittee, you know, and staff, you know, you guys have, you know, knocked it out of the park. And we've done a lot in the last six months to a year. And, uh, we've got a lot more to go that we're tightening up the ship here. But whenever we can brag on the staff, we're going to do it. And I want to read a letter here that I was privy to this past week. Uh, it's about Karen Dwey, uh, our our town clerk, uh, town of Weddingington, North Carolina, honored by the North Carolina Association of Municipal Clerks. Karen Dwey, town clerk of the town of Weddington, North Carolina, has been awarded the prestigious designation of North Carolina certified municipal clerk from the North Carolina Association of Clerks along with the school of government of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for achieving its high educational experience and service requirements. As an established member of the North Carolina Association of Municipal Clerks, Miss Dwey was among the class of municipal clerks from North Carolina who received her most recent state designation in 20 2020 and after meeting extensive continuing education requirements has again been awarded the North Carolina certified municipal clerk designation designation through June 2030. The North Carolina Association Association of Municipal Clerks is a professional organization of city, town, and village clerks from across the state dedicated to the continued growth and development of clerks and their municipalities. Established in November 1975, the association, among other things, promotes educational and professional development opportunities for municipal clerks to enhance their knowledge and effectiveness. This is no small task

considering the wide array of duties performed by municipal clerks, which often vary from municipality to municipality. The association partners with the North Carolina uh League of Municipalities, the School of Government of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the International Institute of Municipal Clerks to meet the needs of each individual municipal clerk. The North Carolina Certified Municipal Clerk Program is a five-year designation with requirements for continuing education to sustain and develop the everchanging knowledge of the profession of municipal clerks. The North Carolina Association of Municipal Clerks together with the International Institute of Municipal Clerks strives to promote educational and professional development to enhance the clerk. This certification program was developed with the assistance of the UN uh UNCC school of government at Chapel Hill and is administr uh administrated in cooperation with the school of government. Qualifications of applicants are reviewed and approved by the by the state committee. Certificates are presented at the annual summer conference in August. I want to say thank you Karen. Thank you. Hey guys, good work. So, we're proud of our staff. Just like Jeff said, we have we have the best. So, and and they are always willing to help go beyond to to help us when we need help and that's often and uh and to keep us straight and even our Karen here is keeps us straight. So, thank everyone involved. So, thank you. Leslie, like I said earlier, you know, you keep you keep us rolling with the one of the best run towns in the state. So, thank you. So, with that being uh

that said, anybody else have anything to say before we adjourn? Make a motion we adjourn. All right. All in favor? All right. All right. We're journ. Thank you guys for coming out. You did you didn't tell us about that. You didn't. She's so hungry.