Matthews board weighs wider zoning notices, planning-board-first review and tighter public-hearing rules

Matthews staff told the Board of Commissioners on April 28 that modest procedural changes could increase public notice and reduce last‑minute continuances in zoning cases.

Planner Jay outlined three linked proposals: increase mailed notifications from 100 feet toward 500 feet in some cases, ask the Planning Board to review zoning applications before they reach the Town Board, and amend the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) so the Planning Board’s role is clarified. Jay said Indian Trail and Stallings use a 500‑foot mailing radius and that the larger buffer “would help even further” with community engagement.

The board pressed staff on details and consequences. Commissioner Mark Tufano said “a hundred feet or just touching the property is woefully inadequate, especially on these large projects” and urged an approach that uses project size or traffic‑study triggers to vary the notice radius. Commissioner Ken McCool worried that moving review earlier could create “wires getting crossed” if individual commissioners meet developers before Planning Board review. Several commissioners said they want to continue meeting developers early to provide political context to petitioners.

Staff told the board the Planning Board is generally comfortable taking “first shots” at projects because its role is to evaluate consistency with the town’s land‑use plan rather than political testimony. Jay said the UDO change would likely be a one‑ or two‑sentence amendment where the code currently says an application is referred to the Planning Board only “after the close of public hearing.” That language would be adjusted to allow pre‑hearing review by Planning Board, and staff said they would return this summer with draft UDO language and implementation details.

Commissioners also discussed standards for mailed notices. Suggestions included a 500‑foot default radius, with a larger radius for projects that include traffic impact analyses or corridor effects. Several members proposed codifying HOA notice requirements so active HOAs are contacted in addition to mailed notices.

Separately, staff brought proposed changes to board rules of procedure that would standardize public‑hearing practice and recusals. The packet includes two options for whether speakers who already used their allotted time in a public hearing should be allowed to speak again if the hearing is continued. The two options differ only on that point: Option 1 says speakers who used their allotment do not get another allotment if the public hearing is continued; Option 2 allows them to speak again. Commissioners discussed a third path: permit a repeat appearance only when applicants make material changes (for example, a change of land use) and allow the board to vote if the “materiality” test is disputed. Staff said it will bring model language based on the UNC School of Government guidance and the town’s UDO, and that any final amendments would be returned for public hearing this summer.

Why this matters: The changes aim to reduce last‑minute continuances at Town Board meetings and to give Planning Board and staff better time to vet proposals while expanding public notice for neighbors. Commissioners repeatedly asked staff to return with black‑and‑white criteria (for expanding notice, for what constitutes a “material change” and for recusal notice) rather than leaving decisions to a presiding officer’s discretion.

Board direction and next steps: Staff will draft proposed UDO text to allow pre‑hearing Planning Board review, prepare concrete options for variable notice radii (including triggers tied to project size and traffic studies), and circulate model public‑hearing language (including examples of what constitutes a material change). The board asked staff to return during the summer with UDO amendments and a proposed rule 28(E)(2) formulation for public hearing continuances.