Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Riparian topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks Mount Holly council to investigate alleged riparian clearing at Imagery community
Summary
A Mount Holly resident told council he believes recent tree removal in the Imagery neighborhood exceeds permitted activity and asked the city to investigate possible variances and coordinate with state and federal regulators.
A Mount Holly resident asked the City Council on June 9, 2025 to investigate extensive tree clearing along the riparian buffer in the Imagery neighborhood, saying he believes recent cuts may violate local, county and state rules.
At public comment, resident Ned Brantley said the site27s previous board had allowed no variances in the 100-foot riparian buffer but that a new board has permitted what he described as large-scale clearing: he said 21 permits were issued with 29 pending, that an estimated 20 trees per parcel would total roughly 500 trees on those 21 parcels, and that additional clearing on the peninsula could raise the total to as many as 3,000 trees. Brantley said he has asked staff, including Greg Beal, whether variances were issued; he reported that Beal told him he had not granted variances and would provide a letter.
Brantley urged the council to investigate, consult state regulators and other groups, and stop further cutting until the matter is resolved. He referenced potential reporting paths including the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), FERC, the county, and local riverkeeper organizations.
The transcript does not show a council vote or formal direction taken during the meeting; council members did not announce an investigation or a formal referral on the record during the public-comment period. City staff present acknowledged Brantley27s request earlier in the meeting and a staff member (as recorded) told him he would provide a letter clarifying permit status, but the meeting record does not show a follow-up action assigned to a specific department.
Because the statements were made during public comment, they represent allegations and requests for investigation; the council did not make a formal finding at the June 9 meeting.
