[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6157492,"mediaKeyId","5465048-5b01711bffc6fd2209b960e0e3a96f99","parentId",5465048,"title","Planning board defers decision on caps for tree‑save mitigation after broad debate","audioSeconds",3002,"startMs",5538000,"endMs",8540000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5465048-5b01711bffc6fd2209b960e0e3a96f99&start=5538&end=8540","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5465048-5b01711bffc6fd2209b960e0e3a96f99/thumbnail_5538000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6157492/Huntersville/Mecklenburg-County/North-Carolina/Planning-board-defers-decision-on-caps-for-treesave-mitigation-after-broad-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6157492-3526c0cd2e4f58ba776efd42f60fb50c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770824516&Signature=R1hsMqoLLhBkTypauO3Aq0MAyjm5mZfkyX-9bzqg1B2S3QaVxt8MrENs4YwaQ~ZRpKQF--qLtP9nnt4JxD~ADb3gbBSOr5hBQJLLmljl3oSe0LpNxh8O5V97BQoiwNMBmMasmfZ1wvXZV5onR6nYjCrDNcoua5o6QR0CgJcPZDMOBWXi~lrwJkCjYrKsJtlYnJnWNCjuY5E5e3gWoGCVtRQ04qMzwkxwbVB8o5Z5cT-tmShnXWW4Sd0T821sYW6lRTLFXCQfM6kmLD08VJBLR1j~C4dqWqtBD7cSlNvtkGbg5bxaz6V1G4~CPbQy9oTda-P2uqn4HJBXCIlFRev~rA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Huntersville, NC","date","2025-07-23T13:12:41Z","article","The Huntersville Planning Board debated proposed changes to the town’s Tree SAVE mitigation rules and ultimately voted unanimously to defer action so staff can refine the approach and address members’ concerns about small sites and implementation details.

Proposal summary: Planning staff presented a draft amendment that would cap the amount of mitigation a developer may use in lieu of preserving existing trees. In the draft discussed at the meeting, residential projects would be required to retain at least 70% of required tree‑save (a 30% cap on mitigation) and commercial projects would have a 50/50 split between preservation and mitigation. The draft also proposed higher compensation for heritage trees (allowing mitigation up to 200% of caliper) and clearer plan submittal requirements.

Why it matters: Staff said the town has received sizable mitigation payments in recent years but has not retained as many mature trees as the 2040 Plan envisioned. The proposed caps were intended to increase retention of mature, large‑caliper trees, which deliver immediate canopy, stormwater and air‑quality benefits compared with newly planted stock.

Board discussion and concerns: Board members voiced differing views. Supporters said the changes would preserve mature canopy and provide the planning department a stronger negotiating position with applicants; opponents expressed concern that caps could push more applicants to conditional rezonings or render some redevelopment economically infeasible on small lots. Several board members asked for more study on how the rule would affect small parcels and redevelopment scenarios and suggested consulting the town arborist to refine definitions and planting‑size guidance.

Funding and planting program: Staff reported the town’s tree‑fund balance had grown substantially and that funds are envisioned for park planting, street trees and public‑facility plantings. Board members asked staff to clarify long‑term planting plans and whether the fund could be used proactively to plant trees rather than offer mitigation as a primary outcome.

Decision to defer: After extensive discussion the board voted to defer TA25‑04 to a later meeting (the board set a return date at or before the next scheduled planning meeting) to give staff time to consider: (1) acreage or project‑size thresholds for the caps so smaller redevelopment parcels are not unduly burdened; (2) additional arborist standards and alternative tree‑saving construction techniques (root‑protection, suspended pavement); and (3) clearer examples and impact analyses.

Next steps: Staff will return with revised language and additional analysis; Planning Board members asked staff to include comparisons to peer municipalities, a recommended small‑site threshold if appropriate, and options for spending the tree fund on public plantings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Board 7-22-2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Board deferred action on a proposed Tree SAVE mitigation amendment after members raised concerns about small‑site impacts and asked staff to refine the proposal.","taxTitle","Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina","taxId",4128,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6157511,"Huntersville planning board backs rezoning at 12300 McCord Road to allow farmhouse cluster",1712,196000,1908000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5465048-5b01711bffc6fd2209b960e0e3a96f99&start=196&end=1908","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5465048-5b01711bffc6fd2209b960e0e3a96f99/thumbnail_196000.jpg","/articles/6157511/Huntersville/Mecklenburg-County/North-Carolina/Huntersville-planning-board-backs-rezoning-at-12300-McCord-Road-to-allow-farmhouse-cluster","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6157511-57d10321bf1e2e589722c3f94f60bd27/orig.mp4?Expires=1770824516&Signature=nVihUIFqFP7t8ISLWmL6wDP6Vd05IYhhwVH-UQz008KXWWUxpAIhRIl~7yFUmIL5rIf5PVGM2hu8-inobYB-bMIozM9gjvGs6nhodEkq9sSpvh~wcRdmxq-2qWWGzOg3BwqDfexTK9K2ycWUjlAb8I~ee-wwTlFN9LrWLpfC1RfFWckMKR1oR2nC4qIJ0u5s4VIHAro7VL33Mg6jzSFYVPk1Yi2CMyHIEpN7RKwbuBNutY19ziM7u9yI36fJO3bS98e7ur2iNUkPshPiyJM2MYVKFfU6fGmq8BFvEKSj1Zjk0XstBibCmvQKOAvV-mROy5KEfEoAGncYRDo1yJu6lw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Huntersville Planning Board on July 22 recommended approval of petition R25‑061 to rezone 12300 McCord Road from General Residential (GR) to Transitional Residential (TR), a change applicants say would allow a future farmhouse cluster of up to six lots. The board’s recommendation advances the application to Town Board final action, scheduled by staff for Aug. 19.

Why it matters: The zoning change would alter permitted uses and density on an 11‑acre property and could enable a farmhouse‑cluster subdivision that is currently not allowed in GR. That would affect nearby single‑family neighborhoods and the property owner’s ability to market and sell the land.

Staff summary and intent: A Planning Department staff member presented the application and entered the staff report into the record, saying the request is “consistent with policies LU 1.1 and 2.1” of the Huntersville 2040 Community Plan and lies within the town core character area and near the I‑77/NC‑115 corridor. Staff noted site‑specific development standards would be required when a specific development plan is later submitted.

Applicant’s intent: Robert De Veil, the property owner, told the board he and his spouse own the 11‑acre parcel and are seeking flexibility to sell it. “We just wanna be able to have option to, like, sell it, make money, get out,” De Veil said. He said two potential builders previously “walked away” after reviewing farmhouse‑cluster rules that require substantial open space, and described the rezoning primarily as a way to make the parcel marketable.

What TR allows that GR does not: Staff explained that TR permits building forms and densities the property’s owners hope will support a farmhouse cluster; the farmhouse cluster form has a maximum of six lots and lower minimum lot sizes than GR. Board members pressed staff on what other uses TR would allow by right — for example, bed‑and‑breakfast inns, family care homes and certain boarding/rooming houses — and the limits on attached housing types. Staff clarified that a general rezoning does not require a site plan and that conditional rezoning would be the path to lock a single use or narrower commitments if the applicant desired.

Board debate and vote: Board members who supported the rezoning said it would be compatible with surrounding densities and would help the owners market the property to buyers who could build a farmhouse cluster. One member argued the application was a “preemptive upzoning” and said rezoning without a specific plan can inappropriately change long‑term land‑use expectations. After discussion the board voted to recommend approval; the chair announced, “The motion carries. 7–1.”

Next steps: The Planning Board’s recommendation advances the petition to the Town Board, which staff said is tentatively scheduled to take final action on Aug. 19. If the Town Board approves, subsequent site plans or conditional rezonings would be required to establish a specific development layout and applicable site standards.

Details from the hearing: Staff noted TR would allow a higher density than GR and that the farmhouse cluster option fits the parcel’s size and frontage requirements. Staff also said an applicant could sell the property to a developer who could submit site plans for any permitted TR use; some uses may trigger additional studies such as traffic impact assessments.

Board members and neighbors: Direct neighbors reported they were not opposed to five or six higher‑end homes, saying they expect those homes to be consistent with nearby values. Board members repeatedly clarified they cannot add conditions to a general rezoning and that conditional rezoning remains an option if the applicant wants a narrower set of permitted uses.

Staff contact and record: Staff recommended approval and recorded the application as R25‑061 for 12300 McCord Road. The Planning Board recommendation will be included in the Town Board packet for the August hearing.","The Huntersville Planning Board on July 22 recommended approval of a general rezoning at 12300 McCord Road from General Residential to Transitional Residential, a change the property owner said will allow a farmhouse cluster of up to six lots and make the parcel easier to market and sell.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6157496,"Planning board backs zoning/subdivision edits to align with state law, set stormwater deadlines and distinct farmhouse‑cluster rules",1122,4412000,5534000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5465048-5b01711bffc6fd2209b960e0e3a96f99&start=4412&end=5534","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5465048-5b01711bffc6fd2209b960e0e3a96f99/thumbnail_4412000.jpg","/articles/6157496/Huntersville/Mecklenburg-County/North-Carolina/Planning-board-backs-zoningsubdivision-edits-to-align-with-state-law-set-stormwater-deadlines-and-distinct-farmhousecluster-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6157496-66b795cee85b2aaab7739066bfc8d4e0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770824516&Signature=PU-QTn2Lw6HgnFqs89YcGB7pkSBrBeKmf65iglf5kHTPeSE-K7ZsTJEFAZbcpIwTZ4pR23diqIiIpv~ek8g9vw7uyG1i03S4v8iKFdgR5Ym2isgBGNR8GhI3VcM0eizy9zjUJZvfiXYcc04m~9t7VW~Dz3F8th32stouim8Q22PCx0zrxny9tb07l4WCtP7ZMU-5sV90mZn2FAUYlZtw0G~tIEKup5iA~52dIH8ZRoHkGf41RENboLjPmKRHueOLQNpoJBHjknu5~f9gosyt0Te2qASBbXMtTWg~OjqYHTeqGHdxQwmdpvvwCuF~ldsgj1jGxFO8cRHKhvrSNKt5PA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of TA25‑08, a combined zoning and subdivision text amendment that incorporates state changes to stormwater regulation, sets timelines for converting temporary stormwater control measures (SCMs) to permanent facilities, distinguishes farmhouse clusters from minor subdivisions, and clarifies several procedural and design standards.

Why it matters: The amendment implements state law changes (SB166) and the state‑adopted terminology for stormwater control measures, adjusts occupancy and site‑improvement rules required before certificates of occupancy, and seeks to protect water quality by requiring timely conversion of temporary stormwater facilities to their permanent form.

State law alignment and occupancy: Staff explained that SB166 codified the term “stormwater control measure” (SCM) and limited local authority to withhold a building permit or certificate of occupancy except on public‑safety grounds. As a result, the amendment removes certain non‑safety occupancy prerequisites (for example, some administrative certifications) and replaces them with enforceable mechanisms such as an owner affidavit and a code‑enforcement follow‑up when landscaping or other non‑safety items are incomplete.

SCM conversion and deadlines: Staff said about 82 sites were under construction and a significant share already needed conversion to permanent SCMs; staff proposed a six‑month sunset from the date an SCM is deemed ready for conversion to complete the conversion and submit as‑built drawings. The change is intended to ensure stormwater systems perform their water‑quality function rather than remain as temporary construction ponds for years.

Other changes: The amendment clarifies berm review (removing an extra Planning Board step when berms meet ordinance standards), prevents scheduling community meetings on the same nights as advertised Planning Board or Town Board meetings to avoid conflicts for board members, limits SCM area inside “urban open space” to 25% unless a rezoning is approved, and makes farmhouse clusters a distinct plan type separate from minor subdivisions because they have different requirements and lot/frontage rules. Staff also proposed showing limits of disturbance on existing‑features plan sheets to protect sensitive areas.

Board questions and discussion: Board members asked how the six‑month conversion period was selected; staff said the recommendation was developed in consultation with county stormwater services. Members expressed interest in stronger code enforcement capacity to ensure compliance and noted that bonding remains a tool to compel completion of improvements.

Vote and next steps: The Planning Board recommended approval unanimously; staff said the amendment would go to Town Board for final action on Aug. 19.","A broad set of zoning and subdivision changes — including aligning local language with SB 166 (stormwater control measures), adding a six‑month deadline to convert temporary stormwater facilities to permanent, separating farmhouse clusters from minor subdivisions, and restricting when community meetings can be scheduled — won unanimous Planning",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6157502,"Planning board approves buffer revisions, sets planting standards for 80‑foot buffers and town‑center edges",1212,3013000,4225000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5465048-5b01711bffc6fd2209b960e0e3a96f99&start=3013&end=4225","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5465048-5b01711bffc6fd2209b960e0e3a96f99/thumbnail_3013000.jpg","/articles/6157502/Huntersville/Mecklenburg-County/North-Carolina/Planning-board-approves-buffer-revisions-sets-planting-standards-for-80foot-buffers-and-towncenter-edges","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6157502-fbad56b855beb3b5ac6ee231f4d0958f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770824516&Signature=PoQdNL5DktR7e5lK9gBedGLDf84kzdSbCvu7lwjYZ4pxJI6Z1q9iVO89WyvwggOhH~5RCpsvEdKkITaYUPrzDEwKnuty61DdkgqvnjtAzbbjlhGdBFDBlV4RrpcweJtPWLHkX23RyhVWmP6RZkJU4nYyOjKFRvvQOPBQSkY4McDcskR9I~GYMg9BFs1aw53xia5nfPeYyZLAkOq85NEaSWIG-eX-oxqSJ7gC6ShNEPpa3G~zVvHixtOKqeU0IPqUcraACS1oVUPFuOOSEKQ8zKQtBX5d7ukDcxRTpS0epTKyfzydyvIzFfiMVjAsa8P7fuPcNsgHaEwvKr2n56Idww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Huntersville Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of TA25‑06, a zoning text amendment that updates buffer definitions and planting standards, including codified planting requirements for existing 80‑foot buffers associated with farmhouse clusters and a new 20‑foot opaque buffer for Town Center edge conditions.

Why it matters: The amendment aims to make buffer requirements more consistent and effective by specifying whether buffers are intended to be opaque or semi‑opaque and by adjusting plant‑count, tree‑size and evergreen percentages so that the ordinances produce the visual and screening effect planners intend.

Staff presentation: A Planning Department staff member entered the report and described problems the amendment addresses: developers and staff had lacked clear planting standards for an 80‑foot buffer required in TR districts; in practice, builders sometimes underbudgeted plantings and the result failed to achieve opaque screening at maturity. Staff said the amendment harmonizes definitions and planting tables so required buffers achieve their intended screening performance.

Key changes: The amendment (1) defines opaque and semi‑opaque buffers and assigns intended buffer types to zoning scenarios; (2) codifies a planting schedule for 80‑foot buffers so a required opaque standard can be achieved at maturity; (3) reduces one major‑subdivision buffer width from 40 to 30 feet while increasing required tree counts and large‑evergreen percentages to produce a more robust semi‑opaque separation; and (4) creates a Town Center Edge Condition buffer requiring a 20‑foot opaque buffer when TC zoning adjoins non‑TC districts with residential or nonresidential uses, with a limited footnote allowing a 10‑foot reduction in certain commercial conditions if a continuous evergreen shrub screen will reach 8 feet at maturity.

Board questions: Members asked why one buffer width was reduced; staff replied the change aligns that buffer with other 30‑foot standards and uses more and larger evergreens to meet semi‑opaque intent. It was also clarified that farmhouse cluster applicants retain the prior option to meet rural character alternatives instead of an 80‑foot vegetated buffer.

Vote and next steps: The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval. Staff said the amendment would go to Town Board for final action on Aug. 19.

Practical effects: The amendment will make the ordinance’s planting requirements more prescriptive in areas where prior practice produced inconsistent results, and will require developers to budget for larger evergreen percentages or altered planting mixes to meet opaque screening at maturity. Staff said the changes were informed by the town arborist and by examples of projects where existing plantings failed to meet opaque screening goals.

Implementation notes: The staff presenter said the town’s engineer reviewed the planting increases and confirmed the changes are not an unreasonable cost burden for development. The amendment also relocates apartment‑buffer standards into Article 7, consolidating buffer language in one place in the ordinance.","Huntersville planners voted unanimously to recommend text amendment TA25‑06, which clarifies opaque and semi‑opaque buffer definitions, codifies planting requirements for 80‑foot farmhouse cluster buffers, reduces certain buffer widths while increasing planting densities, and adds a 20‑foot opaque Town Center edge buffer.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6157507,"Huntersville board recommends ordinance rewrite to clarify duplexes, triplexes, ADUs and related building types",1019,1896000,2915000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5465048-5b01711bffc6fd2209b960e0e3a96f99&start=1896&end=2915","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5465048-5b01711bffc6fd2209b960e0e3a96f99/thumbnail_1896000.jpg","/articles/6157507/Huntersville/Mecklenburg-County/North-Carolina/Huntersville-board-recommends-ordinance-rewrite-to-clarify-duplexes-triplexes-ADUs-and-related-building-types","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6157507-0a3c8cbb7791c479029e05195debfc2f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770824516&Signature=iujyo5Np1l8ge-ZT1fLW8wqyEUI13pZzH0mUFWotTO1uTsUO-Zl8O7hlXM-FchYJFW9JQX6cBpBlWeI55QMl-cBdR0SibJYVpE~B46fdvig~jfJDm4hfeKB5w2-BPvD9i3A7KA5c2w9FheoKn4k6ojfQXVoh8CJk5EMuyKOEum1dwAji7o6GkA0zUnGiKAZHNYYkDknU-DXCZhIzB2W8iptXch9sG9qylADzUc0d1MJNKYFrUfMLJebV4LPUxHaRmestwLi-NsiRCXcInfUZ2Z8la7tAO8ks4tllNDIXHM2Lmz~6haRDxSJZp5wMOGYHqFtibOVsIuObwzekdjFndg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Huntersville Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of a zoning text amendment (TA25‑01) that reorganizes how residential uses and building types are defined and applied in each zoning district. Staff told the board the amendment aims to remove confusion where the ordinance currently treats the same structure as multiple building types.

Why it matters: Staff said overlapping definitions for multifamily home uses and apartment‑house or attached‑house building types have created uncertainty for applicants and staff reviewers. The amendment would separate building‑type definitions, specify which attached dwelling types (duplex, triplex, quadplex, townhome, apartment) are permitted in each district, and clarify density limits tied to those types.

Staff presentation: Lauren, a Planning Department staff member, explained that a single building (for example, a duplex) has been ambiguous in the ordinance because that form can be characterized as an attached house, apartment house or multifamily use, each with differing regulatory requirements. Lauren said the amendment does not propose downzoning and cited General Statutes 160D‑601(d) as guiding that change. She summarized the staff approach: remove building types from the permitted‑use table and adopt a single “residential uses” category with clear building‑type definitions and specific allowances by district.

Key changes: The amendment creates distinct building‑type definitions for duplexes, triplex/quadplex forms and townhomes; specifies how much of a development can include attached units in each district (for example, duplexes up to a stated percentage in TR when done as part of a major subdivision); clarifies that duplexes and triplexes are building‑forms not separate lots; and removes an unimplemented requirement that ADUs be registered with the planning director. Staff also proposed removing a requirement that the same entity own both the primary dwelling and an ADU.

Board discussion: Members asked how the changes would affect major infill projects and whether duplexes would still be constrained to corner lots in some zones; staff clarified that the existing corner‑lot requirement in certain zones remains. A board member asked whether allowing different ownership for ADU structures might have unintended consequences; staff said the owner remains ultimately responsible for site compliance and that the change was largely administrative to reflect practice.

Vote and next steps: The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval. Staff said the measure is scheduled for Town Board final action on Aug. 19.

Details and context: Staff noted this amendment especially resolves the attached‑house definition that currently treats duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes the same as townhomes (which sit on separate lots), a conflict that has posed recording and building‑code problems. The amendment also clarifies ADU allowances to make the ordinance easier to interpret for applicants and reviewers.","A text amendment to untangle overlapping definitions for residential building types — distinguishing duplexes, triplexes/quadplexes and townhomes and clarifying accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules — won unanimous Planning Board support and moves to Town Board action on Aug. 19.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board defers decision on caps for tree‑save mitigation after broad debate

Huntersville planning board backs rezoning at 12300 McCord Road to allow farmhouse cluster

Planning board backs zoning/subdivision edits to align with state law, set stormwater deadlines and distinct farmhouse‑cluster rules

Planning board approves buffer revisions, sets planting standards for 80‑foot buffers and town‑center edges

Huntersville board recommends ordinance rewrite to clarify duplexes, triplexes, ADUs and related building types