[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6168432,"mediaKeyId","5407141-3bded31fc7ca022d4965646d794d6f2f","parentId",5407141,"title","Covenant Day School seeks rule change to allow sponsorship banners on playground fences; planning staff, board raise language questions","audioSeconds",420,"startMs",2845000,"endMs",3265000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5407141-3bded31fc7ca022d4965646d794d6f2f&start=2845&end=3265","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5407141-3bded31fc7ca022d4965646d794d6f2f/thumbnail_2845000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6168432/Matthews/Union-County/North-Carolina/Covenant-Day-School-seeks-rule-change-to-allow-sponsorship-banners-on-playground-fences-planning-staff-board-raise-language-questions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168432-db31286033f47dde73ffc76fedc06918/orig.mp4?Expires=1775269692&Signature=lpK2mmy86tecy0y~g5AmAiTDfI6bzjVYy7gF~r0~Fp8-A9TbcUlgjNiB-5E2~yp~AbUAOD7xHuXYJvEHDQYwPnASKSLidICA54HwpOrQ~4dRZmC19mrxJAQ5jHEHcIOppZogd3rhTkzBwPLG6BKt-exWAUzoqjB~00NB~kuGMX1bh~wGPn5HW4NY4~KBYuxXOR44rHL0Dkw6AcNMhVTYjTXNuuAlda6wzsV-PktX4x1iIfB1G-8mIhSKjWlR6HlMJ3SQkwud-wcsC9hQXrvEMHDvBiNbSfHeLSXiHjcZsvbrzv7ccMZj3yXAQYB8~aNxJcKgoLq7Y0vLyJeYuMJbng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-15T14:01:57Z","article","Covenant Day School representatives returned to the board to seek a change to the Unified Development Ordinance that would permit sponsorship banners on playground fencing when the fenced area is more than 300 feet from the public right of way.

Planning director Jay Camp said staff identified roughly 15 town properties that might qualify under an allowance of this type — including churches, schools and large institutional sites — and that the town’s current UDO language limits banner size but contains ambiguities about the allowed number and orientation of banners.

Applicant presentation and intent
A school representative told the board the request is narrowly focused and is intended to allow tasteful brand recognition banners for sponsors on fences that are not visible from the public right of way. “It’s really just brand recognition, not…advertising,” the applicant said, showing photos of existing banners at Covenant and examples at other schools. Staff measured Covenant’s playground fence at about 410 feet from the public right of way, placing it beyond the 300‑foot threshold the applicant is requesting.

Planning issues and board comments
The planning board and commissioners raised several questions: the UDO currently states a 12‑square‑foot limit and that signs be inwardly oriented; board members noted the code can be read as allowing an unlimited number of 12‑square‑foot banners (plural) or, alternately, only a single 12‑square‑foot sign. Planning board member(s) recommended clarifying the ordinance to set a numeric limit and to avoid ambiguity.

Staff noted code enforcement sees violations only infrequently (fewer than a dozen in recent years), and commissioners said the town could consider narrowly tailored language to allow inward‑facing recognition banners on large institutional sites while limiting public‑facing advertising.

Outcome and next steps
The public hearing on this UDO text amendment was continued; staff and the planning board recommended revising the ordinance language to remove ambiguity (for example by specifying sign count, placement and orientation) and to return with a clarified draft at the Aug. 11 meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Commissioners Meeting - July 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Covenant Day School asked the town to allow inward‑facing sponsorship banners on playground fencing that sits more than 300 feet from the public right of way; planning staff and the planning board raised ordinance ambiguities about number and size of banners and asked for clearer language; public hearing continued to Aug. 11.","taxTitle","Matthews, Union County, North Carolina","taxId",56171,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6168437,"Town releases hydrologic study for Chipwood Lane dams; FEMA hazard‑mitigation grant eyed",881,8317000,9198000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5407141-3bded31fc7ca022d4965646d794d6f2f&start=8317&end=9198","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5407141-3bded31fc7ca022d4965646d794d6f2f/thumbnail_8317000.jpg","/articles/6168437/Matthews/Union-County/North-Carolina/Town-releases-hydrologic-study-for-Chipwood-Lane-dams-FEMA-hazardmitigation-grant-eyed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168437-f3466d7a5d32d46a27dcfcc5a2622ded/orig.mp4?Expires=1775269692&Signature=GaKfSjataLeyJsAX1SxwhtHLMiSVIbpeZNugtujK428tu437OBODGCD-RrxqpsFtpwIe9qYaCsE-jqCFiWCvAUsKVcHZupMUvCnZZEdiVEIT9vHEFAf-XWeeqSGhgen6AfstJuslTKSl2J3bT2ExqU4x~uaWZoFqqSMcDuNjU11rLqy4nyYjnhtvMapm7Rgfxv6xD6ycAicuwIwINp0FXyldFOcuAFBvJlwvIA08DXyd9Ul3tAlb29aRL~DoVjPqAilt7~ZgLPFppMzuWO6qEArgkjUW9Yy-OsqZU6-jH3UnZjIp0n0FA6mY2U-eiCrCv8QXgeBj4bkHNIkbnOsezw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Town staff told commissioners that a hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) study completed for the Chipwood Lane dam system recommends constructing auxiliary spillways and upgrading culverts to reduce risk of overtopping and to comply with the North Carolina Dam Safety Law.

The study was submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) for review; the town explained it will pursue design and construction options and attempt to secure a federal hazard‑mitigation grant administered via the state. The grant opportunity the town identified is structured as an 80/20 program (FEMA/state), and staff said the state has indicated it would cover the 20% local share in this program, which would leave no local out‑of‑pocket cost if the grant is awarded.

Study findings and estimated costs
The H&H study recommended two concept options: a minimum “spillway” concept and a larger‑capacity option that includes larger culverts and a riser. The minimum design includes a 25‑foot wide auxiliary spillway for the upper pond and resetting of the existing 15‑inch RCP outfalls; construction for both dams under the minimum concept was estimated at about $656,000 (construction cost only). A larger concept that adds a larger culvert system and a five‑foot riser was estimated at roughly $1.2 million for construction. Design fees were estimated at $120,000–$270,000 depending on scope; the combined higher‑end total across both dams could approach $1.5 million including design and construction.

Alternatives and constraints
Staff said the town also considered breaching the dams. Breaching both dams was estimated at about $730,000 and would remove the dams as amenities and eliminate ongoing dam maintenance, but it would change the site and likely require additional environmental review.

Why it matters: safety, compliance and cost
The dams have experienced overtopping events that required activation of emergency action procedures and temporary pumping to protect the structures, staff said. The NCDEQ issued a Notice of Deficiency in September 2024 citing overtopping risk; the H&H study was completed in late June and submitted to NCDEQ for comment. Town staff proposed to advertise an RFQ for engineering design, to hire a grant writer to pursue the FEMA‑administered hazard mitigation grant, and to seek the state’s cooperation in funding the local match.

Timing and next steps
Staff told the board it proposed a two‑year timeline for completing design and construction if grant funding is secured. If the town does not receive grant funds, staff outlined options including pursuing a future grant cycle, using stormwater fund surpluses for partial design, or financing through revenue bonds or general fund allocations. Commissioners asked staff to ensure the study considered upstream and adjacent dams and failure scenarios that could affect the town’s dams.
","An H&H study identified auxiliary spillways and culvert upgrades to address overtopping at two Chipwood Lane dams; construction estimates range from about $656,000 to $1.2 million and staff will seek a FEMA hazard‑mitigation grant that could cover federal and state shares.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6168442,"Resident criticizes UDO change that would alter planning‑board public‑hearing role; town schedules formal review",365,1534000,1899000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5407141-3bded31fc7ca022d4965646d794d6f2f&start=1534&end=1899","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5407141-3bded31fc7ca022d4965646d794d6f2f/thumbnail_1534000.jpg","/articles/6168442/Matthews/Union-County/North-Carolina/Resident-criticizes-UDO-change-that-would-alter-planningboard-publichearing-role-town-schedules-formal-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168442-58c2f5a96c989765088503d6a3a17985/orig.mp4?Expires=1775269692&Signature=UZWOjS0tFzRlgUvSSdZ9t7M8qqJk6u~wQJP-2PtxfyHo9FXtio9~FRLliSW4-sSfa390vfM1gbqywPC0t17U-S~La6qDRgjJCHVLJ~iPul8gOsDfXYcaDmVUAAKxhmjffXfgIASJTtRjIn18JUWgZ5tgAcRCMueJAG1A~1PuuxTMi2eNw5FR1Q-RVp3T4b3047~ZcrROOe-KlTCLjUtOan2h-BGKmdaBuNYtxfmznYkNipLtT13jjR31WSt0H4YNdVMUCMCbvCSOjVpWk2pytyr6IXPD65ufila8jwupfdpndihVdB3ohDvQVf~0mvgculk~bn0KmYaJKGgXD6cw~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Matthews resident told the Board of Commissioners the town should not reduce opportunities for public comment after staff circulated an update to the town’s Unified Development Ordinance that would change how the planning board participates in public hearings.

At the start of the public‑comment period, Alex Freeman urged commissioners to oppose Motion 25‑2025‑3, a UDO amendment scheduled for public hearing on Aug. 11 that revises the planning board’s role in zoning‑map and text‑amendment public hearings. Freeman said the proposed language would remove the requirement that the planning board hold a joint public hearing with the board of commissioners and that it would curtail submission and review timing for public comment and the planning board’s formal recommendation.

Freeman called the revisions “an attempt to give the planning board even more control over zoning changes” and argued that planning board members are appointed rather than elected; he urged commissioners to preserve resident access to hearings and to resist changes that would reduce transparency.

What staff said: Planning director Jay Camp introduced the legislative update and identified the item as Motion 25‑2025‑3 with a public hearing date of Aug. 11. Staff also told the board it had been asked to refine several procedural sections of the UDO; the text under consideration would change wording about the planning board’s review timing and whether that review occurs “before” or “at” the public hearing.

Why it matters: Public‑hearing procedure defines when and how the planning board and the public may comment on rezoning and UDO amendments. Freeman and other public commenters framed the change as a matter of public access and transparency; staff framed it as a technical clarification of review timing and process. The amendments will be heard at a public hearing on Aug. 11 where commissioners will have the opportunity to consider public input and staff recommendation.

Decision: The board opened the public‑comment period and noted Motion 25‑2025‑3 will be presented at the public hearing on Aug. 11 for formal consideration. No amendment was adopted at the July 14 meeting.
","A resident criticized proposed changes to the UDO that would alter planning‑board public‑hearing procedures and remove some explicit public‑comment timing; staff noted the amendment will be presented for public hearing Aug. 11 as Motion 25‑2025‑3.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6168447,"Matthews commissioners continue review of 32‑unit 'missing middle' plan at Lakes Drive",2609,1916000,4525000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5407141-3bded31fc7ca022d4965646d794d6f2f&start=1916&end=4525","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5407141-3bded31fc7ca022d4965646d794d6f2f/thumbnail_1916000.jpg","/articles/6168447/Matthews/Union-County/North-Carolina/Matthews-commissioners-continue-review-of-32unit-missing-middle-plan-at-Lakes-Drive","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168447-1de89c4756010d93e034a05d65c9b07d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775269692&Signature=RGmqHA-pDYGC9xuD6DB1rHkInXiVsccdN6tv4xePX70tcpZqpSb2xwIrPcfZCZmBeJV2-83oH9ICgFhakKb5wJQ3kjCG4BjC9A-W0XSEzEBhnnnxOFRcz65N81fX4ZC~-O1PDqB8U9ZBpqQbeUGVwh-Sn-W-FO0OaB2xYHxE0IHBxxr54i6fdyG5JP4gJaa09JrHEloJQIStDzMp1er29d9uyknzP0pYdnuaUzt8SzwZa8hEQffTZy94bppwRoFa6AdKGTNVlvNtqR72ypQ2HWF9RVXO7RMpZ9uYBAqqYCMCNRElQvQ37x2qtVhovYDqFAh6suAzqEMhhquQyu40-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Developers seeking to rezone part of 12014 Lakes Drive for a 32‑unit residential neighborhood called the Veranda described the proposal as the town’s first “missing middle” project, but commissioners asked for more detail on design, stormwater, buffers and allowable commercial uses and continued the public hearing to Aug. 11.

Town planning staff presented the application as a split zoning request: a portion of the property would remain B1CD and the rear would be rezoned to RBS to allow up to 32 residential units in a mix of townhomes and cottages. Nadine (planning staff) told commissioners the site does not meet the town’s TIA threshold of 50 residential units and that the proposal would be roughly 8.2 units per acre for the rezoned portion.

The developer team said the project mixes 18 townhomes and 14 cottage units clustered around an interior green and a community building. “This would be Matthews’ first missing middle neighborhood,” Laksh Brumbut, speaking for Matthews 4 Lakes LLC, said, adding that the product is intended for sale, not rental. Architect and civil design representatives gave renderings and noted the site slopes toward a creek; they said the taller townhome massing is planned on the lower portion of the site to create a transition to existing single‑family homes.

Why it matters: Commissioners framed the application as a test case for the town’s effort to expand housing choice and “missing middle” products in locations adjacent to commercial parcels. The project would change the use of a property currently designated as employment in the town’s Envision Matthews plan; staff recommended that Living‑2 (compact residential) is also reasonable as a transitional designation for this site.

Key details, discussion and requests
- Units and layout: developer materials submitted a site plan for 32 units (18 townhomes, 14 cottages in quad and duplex groupings) with a shared central green, clubhouse and playground. Reported unit sizes: cottages roughly 1,000–1,200 sq ft; townhomes described as roughly 20x45 with about 800 sq ft per floor and up to three stories. (Developer stated price guidance as “starting point is around $4.50” with a “highest point around $6.50” without clarifying units.)
- Schools: the applicant provided a CMS (Charlotte‑Mecklenburg Schools) impact analysis estimating fewer potential students than an earlier 44‑unit concept (staff noted an earlier estimate of about seven more elementary students for the larger scheme; the applicant removed 12 units in revisions).
- Buffers/landscaping/fence: commissioners and neighbors asked for specific fencing type, buffer and landscape detail between the new development and adjacent single‑family yards; the applicant agreed to provide fence specification and a landscape buffer plan.
- Commercial building to remain: the front parcel’s B1CD zoning and an existing business building would remain; commissioners asked the applicant to limit allowable commercial uses on that building so residents would not later face noisy or intensive uses (applicant agreed to add clarifying notes restricting uses).
- Stormwater and grading: commissioners pressed for a stormwater plan and higher standards than the minimum where possible. The applicant said a post‑construction PCO submission to Mecklenburg County is imminent and that the design will include SCM/ponding and retaining walls to control flow to the downstream creek. Staff confirmed the town will review concept stormwater plans as part of the next submittal.
- Affordability: commissioners asked whether units would be offered at AMI levels. The applicant said units are intended to be market rate, although smaller footprints are intended to reduce price; the applicant offered to consider one or two units at reduced AMI but made no firm commitment.

Board action and next steps
Commissioner Ken McCool moved and Commissioner John Urban seconded a motion to continue the public hearing to Aug. 11, 2025; the motion passed unanimously. The applicant agreed to return next month with requested materials including plain (2‑D) elevations, architectural standards, tree protection/tree survey, stormwater concept plan, fence and buffer details, clarified commercial use list for the remaining B1CD parcel, and sidewalk/connection details.

The town planning staff will post the revised materials and the continued public hearing will be held at the Aug. 11 meeting for further public comment and formal action.
","Developers proposed the \"Veranda\" at 12014 Lakes Drive, a 32‑unit mixed collection of townhomes and cottage units to add missing‑middle housing; commissioners requested more design, buffer, stormwater and commercial‑use detail and continued the public hearing to Aug. 11.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Covenant Day School seeks rule change to allow sponsorship banners on playground fences; planning staff, board raise language questions

Town releases hydrologic study for Chipwood Lane dams; FEMA hazard‑mitigation grant eyed

Resident criticizes UDO change that would alter planning‑board public‑hearing role; town schedules formal review

Matthews commissioners continue review of 32‑unit 'missing middle' plan at Lakes Drive