Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Development Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wendell board grants rehearing for Weathers Landing after applicant offers major changes
Summary
The Wendell Town Board voted 5–0 to grant a rehearing of the Weathers Landing conditional rezoning after the applicant submitted a set of substantial changes, including a reduction in maximum units and enhanced stormwater and buffering commitments.
The Wendell Town Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to grant a statutory rehearing request from the applicant for the Weathers Landing conditional rezoning, after the applicant submitted changes it said were substantial under UDO section 15.19(g).
Town legal counsel explained that the UDO provides a narrow rehearing process: an applicant may request rehearing within 15 days of a denial and must demonstrate a substantial change in facts, evidence, or conditions. If the board finds such a change, at least four affirmative votes are needed to allow a rehearing. The board voted 5–0 to allow the request to proceed to a new hearing.
In its written application and oral summary, the applicant outlined a set of changes intended to show substantial new facts and conditions. Key commitments in the submittal include: a reduction in the maximum number of residential units from 931 to no more than 800 (a 14 percent decrease), an overall density reduction from about 3.09 units per acre to no more than 2.63 units per acre, a cap of two units per acre for the portion of the site north of Davistown Road, wider buffers greater than 25 feet in key locations adjacent to existing single-family homes, an increase in stormwater retention measures to address the 1-, 10-, 25- and 50-year storm events, and enhanced screening for stormwater measures adjacent to Roseville Road.
Applicant counsel Collier Marsh told the board the changes were intended to respond to community input received during the prior hearing and to rework the project’s layout, product types and infrastructure commitments. Marsh said the reductions in unit counts will materially reduce traffic, school impacts and municipal-service demands and that the team intends to seek additional feedback from neighbors during the rehearing process. The applicant also listed potential further changes that would be evaluated during the redesign process, including relocating or removing some stub-street connections, exploring a 55-and-over product for part of the site, and offering different lot sizes and product mixes depending on feasibility and community input.
Town staff presented the procedural requirements for rehearings and summarized the elements the board must review to decide whether the application demonstrated a substantial change in facts, evidence or conditions. Staff noted the applicant’s submittal was filed within the 15-day window required by the UDO and included written commitments and supporting materials.
Public commenters who had earlier signed up for the meeting emphasized concerns that had been raised repeatedly during prior hearings: impacts on traffic (notably Roseville and Marshburn roads), flooding and runoff into nearby irrigation ponds used by farmers, compatibility with adjacent rural residential and agricultural uses, and visibility of stormwater facilities from Roseville Road. Several residents asked the board to require stronger buffering, fewer units and more rigorous stormwater controls; others urged the board to reject the project entirely. One speaker said, “there’s a big public pushback on all the building that’s happening here,” and another described irrigation and runoff concerns.
Several commissioners said they supported bringing the application back for further public consideration and applicant revisions rather than foreclosing the opportunity to revise the plan. A motion to grant the rehearing was made and carried by a 5–0 vote. The rehearing process will follow the steps in UDO §15.19(g); if the board later determines a rehearing is warranted it will be held similarly to the original hearing and the applicant’s development fee for rehearing will be waived. If the board ultimately denies the application again, the UDO bars filing a similar application for one year after the original denial.
The board did not approve any development changes at tonight’s meeting; it only voted to allow the applicant to bring revised materials and additional evidence to a future public hearing.
