W  TOWN OF WEDDINGTON REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MONDAY SEPTEMBER 23,2024-7:00P.M. WEDDINGTON TOWN HALL 1924 WEDDINGTON ROAD WEDDINCTON,NC28104 AGENDA  1. Call to Order 2. Determination of Quorum  3. Conflict of] Interest Statement: In accordance with state law, it is the duty ofevery Board member to avoid conflicts ofinterest. Does any Board member have any known conflict ofinterest with respect to any matters on the agenda? Ifso, please identify the conflict and refrain from any participation in the  matter involved. 4. Approval of Minutes  A. August 26, 2024 Planning Board Regular Meeting  5. Public Comments: Individuals are allowed 3 minutes to. speak and must only comment on current agenda items. A maximum of 30 minutes is allocated to the Public Comment Period. The time limit may  be extended at the discretion of the Chairman.  6. Old) Business  A. Discussion and Possible Recommendation of an application by ODA Architecture requesting Conditional Zoning Approval for the development ofat two-building office expansion located at  13700 Providence Road.  7. New Business  A. Discussion and Possible Recommendation of an application by Keystone Custom Homes requesting Conditional Zoning Approval for a 12-Lot Subdivision located on Deal Road B. Discussion and Possible Recommendation oft text amendments to the Town ofWeddington ii. Section D-607 Weddington Specific Process Steps for Legislative Decisions.  Unified Development Ordinance i.s Section D-917A.0. Buffering.  8. Update from Town Planner and Report from September Town Council Meeting  9. Board member Comments 10. Adjournment        W  TOWN OF WEDDINGTON REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MONDAY SEPTEMBER 23,2024-7:00P.M. WEDDINGTON TOWN HALL MINUTES PAGE10F8  1. Call to Order  Chairman Manning called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  2. Determination of Quorum  Quorum was determined with Chairman Travis Manning, Board members Manish Mittal, Rusty Setzer, and Bill Deter present. Vice Chair Amanda Jarrell and Board members Nancy Anderson and Chris Faulk were  absent.  Staff Present: Town Planner Greg Gordos, Admin Asst/Deputy Clerk Debbie Coram, Town  Administrator/Clerk Karen Dewey Melissa Emerine, Collin Brock  Visitors: Gayle Butler, Jim Bell, John Allen, Christopher Neve, Mark Momsen, Keith Fenn, Chad Emerine, 3. Conflict of] Interest Statement: In accordance with state law, iti is the duty ofe every Board member to avoid conflicts ofinterest. Does any. Board member have any known conflict ofinterest with respect to any matters on the agenda? Ifso, please identify the conflict and refrain from any participation in the Chairman Manning read the Conflict of] Interest Statement. No Board members had a conflict ofi interest.  matter involved.  4. Approval of Minutes  A. August 26, 2024 Planning Board Regular Meeting  Motion: Second: Vote:  Board member Setzer made ai motion to approve the. August 26, 2024 Planning  Board minutes. Board member Deter  The motion passed with a unanimous vote.  5. Public Comments: Individuals are allowed. 3 minutes to speak and must only comment on current agenda items. A maximum of 30 minutes is allocated to the Public Comment Period. The time limit  may be extended at the discretion ofthe Chairman.    Town of Weddington 09/23/2024 Page2of8  Regular Planning Board Meeting Minutes  Chad Emerine 953 Eagle Road: Mr. Emerine commented on the keystone plan Union county environmental health approval. Location of the road and lights shining into thel homes across the street and offered  suggestions to avoid that. 6. Old Business  A. Discussion and Possible Recommendation of an application by ODA. Architecture requesting Conditional Zoning Approval for the development of a two-building office  expansion located at 13700 Providence Road.  Motion:  Board member Deter made a motion to table the recommendation ofa an application by ODA Architecture requesting Conditional Zoning Approval for the development of a two-building office expansion located at 13700 Providence  Road to the October Planning Board meeting. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.  Second: Vote:  Board member Setzer  7. New Business  A. Discussion and Possible Recommendation of an application by Keystone Custom Homes requesting Conditional Zoning Approval for a 12-Lot Subdivision located on Deal Road Mr. Gordos presented the staffr report: The appliçant is proposing the development ofa 12-lot conventional development subdivision on 17 acres tentatively known as Elysian at Weddington. The subdivision contains a single entrance on Deal Road with a 50' buffer (per UDO) along the thoroughfare. Existing homes along Deal Road can be found to the north and east. Weddington Middle School is directly south of the property. Currently zoned RCD. A small detention point is located within the 10% required open spaçe between school and project site. Cul de sac is about 700 linear feet. The cul-de-sac island will ultimately be decided by NCDOT. A conventional subdivision with 12 lots and only requires one entry and no TIA. The. Applicant is proposing a reduced buffer to 50-feet with supplemental evergreen plantings. This project meets the land use plan and is does not have any plans for sidewalk amenities. Applicant could provide a path but that could potentially end up as a queue for school drop-off for non-residents of the subdivision. This is a traditional septic development with conventional drainage field and repair areas. Union County will do approvals and The applicant Collin Brock with V3 Southeast and Keith Fenn with Keystone Homes presented the project. Mr. Brock reviewed the buffer and the current screening and the planned appropriate  testing. The Town does not review for septic plans.  supplemental plantings.  Board member Deter asked ift there are front-loading garages.  Applicant responded that they are a custom home builder and the client dictates the design. They don't typically do less than two-car garages, but it will be decided by the client. Board member Deter asked if the county approved the location of the septic fields. Applicant responded that their soil scientist placed the fields where they were most conductive to septic. The County was testing the site today and will continue tomorrow. Board member Deter commented on the buffer requirement. He asked if the applicant has looked to Applicant responded that they did consider a 100-foot buffer. They found neither enough frontage nor square footage fora 100-foot buffer. There is currently screening there, and they will add to it.  seei ifa 100-foot buffer could be accommodated    Town of Weddington 09/23/2024 Page3of8  Regular Planning Board Meeting Minutes  Board member Deter asked if the entrance lined up with the house across the street. Applicant responded that 6000 Deal Road is completely offset and does not line up with the  subdivision entrance.  Board member Mittal asked ift there was a plan for a sidewalk.  Applicant responded that they were. keeping with the natural areas like most oft the communities in town. Because oft the proximity to the school, an additional concern is that people outside oft the neighborhood would use the sidewalk or walking path to cut through the neighborhood to avoid the Chairman Manning commented that Weddington Hills has a similar proximity to the school campus The Applicant responded that their concern with a potential cut through is a liability. At this point Chairman Manning asked what assumptions were made with the size of the septic drainage fields. The Applicant responded that they are planning for five bedrooms. Chairman Manning asked ifthat was enough square footage for the system and repair. The applicant confirmed that Union County will dictate if there is enough room for design. Lot lines may have tol be shifted to accommodate the Chairman Manning if the road would be cut in and keep the lots as natural. The applicant responded Board member Deter commented that other applicants have been held to the 100-foot thoroughfare The applicant responded that they are] purposely taking advantage of the lot line and side setback adding to the current 50-foot buffer. Further down Deal Road homes adjacent to this property have Board member Deter commented that the 100-foot buffer is important in case the road gets widened The applicant responded that they have looked at the NCDOT 10-year plan and there isn'ta anything  drop off lines.  and they do have walking trails to schools for kids to get tot the campus.  there is no plan for a trail system.  septic.  that it was the intention to keep as much natural as possible. buffer and the plans show driveways inside the side setback.  no buffer at all.  or another easement is needed. forr road widening in the plans.  Discussion continued around the requirement of100-foot thoroughfare buffer.  Board member Setzer asked ift the applicant could squeeze the thoroughfare buffer from 50 to 75 The applicant responded that homes are about 100 feet off the road. The area is wooded now, and they will leave it wooded. Added with the building setbacks, the buffer between the thoroughfare  feet.  and thel homes will be close to 75 feet.  Motion:  Board member Deter made a motion to not recommend to Town Council because  ofthe buffers.  Board member Mittal stated that the UDO gives the option ofa 50-foot buffer with screening Mr. Gordos stated that the UDO indicates that buffer width may be reduced with additional Board member Setzer stated that it sounds like this meets the letter ofthe UDO.  plantings. This applicant has chosen that option.  screening plantings.    Town of Weddington 09/23/2024 Page 4of8  Regular Planning Board Meeting Minutes  Staff agreed that it does with provided supplemental screening.  Board member Mittal stated that he doesn'ts see ai reason to reject as the UDO states 50 feet as an option. He asked ifthere is a possibility ofi increasing the buffer to make it close to 70 or 75 feet. The applicant responded that maybe on one side otherwise would have to start the entire project Board member Setzer asked about the kind of proposed vegetation in the buffer. The Applicant responded with the orientation oft the site facing true north, they are proposing solid, fast growing evergreens, hollies and the right kind of vegetation that can take the: morning sun and afternoon  over.  shade.  Board member Deter asked if there were parameters in the UDO for plantings. Board member Mittal stated he sees no reason to rejecti it as iti meets the UDO. Chairman Manning stated there is ai motion on the table. There is no second. The motion dies  Motion:  Board member Setzer made a motion to recommend an application by Keystone Custom Homes requesting Conditional Zoning Approval for a 12-Lot Subdivision located on Deal Road for approval with the conditions ofs staff approval oft the The motion passed with 2 votes in favor: Board member Setzer and Mittal and 1  final buffer plantings and to add 10-15 feet to the buffer.  Second: Vote:  Board member Mittal  vote opposed: Board member Deter.  B. Discussion and Possible Recommendation oftext amendments to the' Town of Weddington  Unified Development Ordinance i.s Section D-917A.O. Buffering.  Mr. Gordos presented the staff report. At the September 9, 2024 meeting, the Town Council requested stafft to prepare an amendment modifying the requirements buffering residential development from adjacent properties to a greater degree than those currently existing in code. Specifically, Section D-917A(O) allows a developer to choose between two options ("buffers") when proposing a new development along an existing roadway. The intention is to provide screening, at developer expense, between new construction and the road with visual screening: A buffer at least 100f feet wide of existing woodland providing adequate visual screening throughout the year is required. The buffer width may be reduced to. 50feet ifplantings are While codified as a choice, developers are currently advised that only a 100-foot-wide buffer will be accepted under conditional zoning consideration by Town Council and 50-foot screening is discouraged at application. to provide clarity, reference to "50 feet" would be removed from subsection O. Buffering in the Unified Development Ordinance. Reference to not allowing earthen berms would also be removed, as they have been applied previously (and recently)to  trees and evergreens.  installed to include year-round screening.  other residential subdivisions constructed in the Town of Weddington. Board member Mittal asked ift this creates al hardship.  Mr. Gordos responded that removing the 50-foot buffer option removes some design flexibility. A requirement of 100 feet is not a small requirement that can take useful land away from the    Town of Weddington 09/23/2024 Page 5of8  Regular Planning Board Meeting Minutes  developer. However, the town preference is 100 feet and the burden falls on the applicant to meet  that.  Chairman Manning commented that the landowner also carries the burden. Board member Deter stated that this doesn'te eliminate the 50-foot option. With 50 feet established as the minimum, that's where all proposals go. There is conflict between what the UDO says versus what the Council says. Applicant can request a 50-foot buffer as a conditional Board member Setzer commented that the NCDOT will be taking right ofways out oft the buffer areas as roads are being widened sO a wider buffer would be better in the future. Board member Mittal stated that the 50-foot option is still available to the applicants. Chairman Manning asked ift the tear drop cul de saç requirement can be removed as well. Mr.  zoning request.  Gordos noted the suggestion.  Motion: Second: Vote: option.  Board member Deter made ai motion to recommend a text amendment to remove the last sentence of917A.O(I)b. that reads: "The buffer width may be reduced to 50 feet if plantings are installed toi include year-round screening".  Board member Mittal  The motion passed with a unanimous vote.  Chairman Manning stated for the record that hei is in opposition ofremoving the 50-foot berm  Board members discussed berms.  Board member Deter stated his belief that ifb berms are done correctly, they protect the viewshed. There are references to berms throughout the UDO, taking the language that prohibits them will Board member Setzer commented that from the standpoint of construction, berms cut down on auto noise and berms are typically where developers unload bad soils and rocks cleared from the Board member Mittal stated that berms are not permitted right now. Mr. Gordos responded that currently, berms are not permitted, but staffi is proposing to strike the language. Board member Deter asked when there were berms allowed before ift there were any requirements or descriptions and ifthose need to be included ini the UDO. Mr. Gordos responded that it is preferable not to. With conditional zoning, officials can decide. Board member Deter asked if the applicants define size oft berm on plan. Chairman Manning commented that types of planting should also be on the plan  give the Council options to leave those references in.  development area and that saves on the trucks hauling away.  Mr. Gordos responded that the applicant should.    Town of Weddington 09/23/2024 Page 60 of8  Regular Planning Board Meeting Minutes  Mr. Gordos clarified that the text amendment would remove 917A.O(1)c. "Earthen berms are not aj permitted design approach as they are inherently nonrural and would inappropriately alter the  rural character, even if landscaped"  Motion:  Board member Setzer made a motion to recommend a text amendment to remove 917A.O(1)c. "Earthen berms are not aj permitted design approach as they are inherently nonrural and would inappropriately alter the rural character, even if  landscaped". Board member Mittal  Second: Vote:  The motion passed with a unanimous vote.  ii. Section D-607 Weddington Specific Process Steps for Legislative Decisions. Mr. Gordos presented the staff report: At the September 9, 2024, Town Council meeting, Council requested stafft to prepare an amendment modifying the requirements of applicants who propose a conditional zoning amendment. A Conditional Zoning Application form is required in order to process any conditional zoning project such as a major subdivision (>6 units) or any nonresidential development. On Page 2 of3 ofthis application, it states the following: The. Zoning Administrator shall present any properly completed application to the Planning Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting occurring at least 15 days after the application has been deemed complete and ready for submission to the Planning Board. The Planning Board, by majority vote, may shorten or waive the time provided for receipt for a completed application. The Town of Weddington Planning Board expects a full agenda, staff report, and materials packet for consideration at least five days in advance oft the meeting date in order to review the information presented by the Town Planner. The Town Planner requires additional days to prepare the staffreport and ensure the submitted materials are finalized. While the 15 days required in the application is intended to assist staff with enough time to create ai thorough and complete staff report, the 15 days has also become an expectation of Weddington citizens in preparing to attend Planning Board meetings and knowing what items will be presented well in advance of the meeting date. Rules should be explicitly codified, not only stated on the application. Staff opinion is that the 15 days isn'ta shot clock but supports staffi in complete review oft the application and writing of the staff report. There is also language that gives some discretion to the Planning Board: The Planning Board, by majority vote, may shorten or waive Board members discussed the process steps for conditional zoning legislative decisions. Chairman Manning asked ift this helps staff. Mr. Gordos stated that it clarifies when something should be due. It's not useful for staffifthis is perceived as a shot clock, or mechanism to exclude items. The Zoning Administrator determines completeness. The intention is to provide enough time toj prepare a thorough recommendation to the board. Applications are submitted months before it comes before the Planning Board. Community meeting, report, revisions, etc. Board member Setzer commented that deadlines are not nefarious. Deadlines allow staff time to  the time provided for receipt for a completed application.  Determination of completeness doesn't come at application, but at step 6.  react.    Town of Weddington 09/23/2024 Page7of8  Regular Planning Board Meeting Minutes  Mr. Gordos stated that this was prompted by the Council discussion earlier this month. One of the other actions was limit number of agenda items to be seen by the Planning. That will also Board member Mittal asked about the language giving the Planning Board the option to shorten or waive the time for receipt. Mr. Gordos stated that is how it is currently written. Board Board member Mittal asked how long it takes to verify the application is complete. Mr. Gordos responded that it varies, but this makes it clear that 15 days before the meeting he will be looking  restrict things coming forward.  members Setzer and Mittal agreed that language should be struck at things closely to determine ift the project is ready for the board.  Motion:  Board member Setzer made a motion to recommend a text amendment to Section D-607 Weddington Specific Process Steps for Legislative Decisions, oft the Unified Development Ordinance to include the following language in step 6: The Zoning Administrator shall present any properly completed application to the Planning Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting occurring at least 15 days after the application has been deemed complete and ready for submission to the Planning Board. The-Plamming-Berd.bymsertyaismayshertenorwaivethie  epwdarmspAreswmphaipiww The motion passed with a unanimous vote.  Second: Vote:  Board member Mittal  8. Update from Town Planner and Report from September Town Council Meeting Mr. Gordos gave the update: Council discussed code changes. There will be several over the next few months coming before the Planning Board. One oft the policy changes discussed was to limit number of projects presented to planning board and town council. Recommendation was that not more than 1 major item per meeting. This will take some management by staff. Today's one item of new business and code changes is intended format for major project and code amendments. Old business is another matter. When an application is tabled for more information and held over to old business, that is not considered the one item. There was a very explicit message from the council to limit number of items before the board. The RCD conservation subdivision text amendment the council opted for increasing front and side setbacks. That will have an impact on future proposals. Status of other subdivisions haven't changed. Things are in a holding pattern and those will trickle through. There won't be an agenda that will have 5 applications at Chairman Manning asked ift there was any movement on potential developments inj pipeline. Mr. Gordos responded not to report at this time. Logistically, the queue must be worked out by staff. Board member Setzer asked if the recommendation of 1 major item on agenda was just a recommendation. Mr. Gordos stated that it is not a text amendment, but a decision by council to do that for the future. Board members discussed the policy. They expressed their general disagreement with the policy while agreeing that there should be some limits, one major item on the agenda ai month may be too restrictive and put al burden on staff to manage the queue of projects. They discussed making ai note to the Council that Planning Board doesn'tneed to be limited, they could handle at least 2 projects ai month ifs staffi isn't  once.  burdened.  9. Board member Comments    Town of Weddington 09/23/2024 Page 80 of8  Regular Planning Board Meeting Minutes  Board member Setzer: Thank you for coming out tonight. Iappreciate your showing up and being here, stay Board member Mittal: Thank you everyone. Ihope Council thinks about that policy because that's something that will burden staffwith the surge of developers coming in. We are putting a stop to that. Thank you for working on the UDOI helps clear up the confusion for me and the developers. Board member Deter: Iwant to thank people for coming. Ithink the important thing is that we're not here to do things fast, we're here to do things right. Sometimes that might be two. Sometimes could be more.I think the key focus is key is we' 're doing this long term that's what we gotta focus on. Chairman Manning: I was made aware of an email to council today from some lobbyist group out of Charlotte. Weddington has basically been put on notice that we need to make decisions in our wheelhouse and not things that are state statutes and what other state agencies regulate. I'm sure Greg and Karen can send that email out as well. Igot it from a private person. Weddington has been put on notice. Wei need to keep that in the back of our minds. Specifically, it was about septic systems and what state mandates a developer and homeowner can do with their land versus what a council can say "no we don't like it: to. Nobody has rejected anything but there's a lot ofmisinformation in the public and it's gotten the attention of aseveral large lobby groups in Charlotte that like to sue municipalities. We've already had one major  engaged.  lawsuit we don'tneed another one. 10. Adjournment  Motion: Second: Vote:  Board member Mittal made a motion to adjourn the September 23, 2024 Regular  Planning Board Meeting at 8:09 p.m. Board member Setzer The motion passed with a unanimous vote.  AmPodka2e7