Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weddington council rejects conditional zoning for two-building office expansion on Providence Road
Summary
The Weddington Town Council declined a conditional-zoning request for two 9,000-square-foot office/medical buildings at 13700 Providence Road after residents raised traffic, pedestrian safety and land‑use consistency concerns; the planning board and staff had recommended approval.
The Weddington Town Council voted on and declined a conditional-zoning application for a two‑building office expansion at 13700 Providence Road, a parcel commonly called Perry South, after extended public comment and council discussion.
The proposal, filed by ODA Architecture on behalf of the property owner, would add two 9,000‑square‑foot, two‑story buildings intended for general or medical office use immediately across Providence Road from the town’s downtown overlay. The applicant’s representative, Stephen Overcash of ODA Architecture, told the council the plans “meet all the parking, landscaping, lighting, [and] zoning ordinance” requirements and that the project had been revised to address planning‑board requests.
The matter drew lengthy public comment at the council’s public hearing. Nancy Anderson, speaking as a private citizen and a planning‑board member, said she had “no objections to this property as is proposed” and urged reliance on regulatory agencies for septic and stormwater oversight. Several nearby residents urged denial. Gail Butler said the parcel sits outside the town’s downtown commercial overlay and warned of pedestrian and traffic safety risks on Providence Road; Walton Hogan described the potential for serious collisions. Chad Eman submitted a packet asking the council to deny the application, citing the town’s land‑use plan, concerns that nonresidential development outside the overlay should be limited, and missing submittals such as a Union County septic approval or EOP letter.
Town planner Greg told the council the application had originally included a 40‑foot building height that planning staff and the planning board required be lowered; the applicant reduced the roofline to 35 feet and provided revised site plans. Greg said the applicant had addressed prior parking, landscaping and septic comments and that planning staff and the planning board had forwarded favorable recommendations. An engineer for the applicant, Skyler of DPR Design, said the existing retention pond can be upgraded (including a two‑foot wall and embankment) to detain a 100‑year storm.
Council members debated a central tension: the property’s MX zoning and prior approvals versus the town comprehensive (land‑use) plan and pedestrian safety on Providence Road. Several members said they were uncomfortable approving a use that residents and parts of the land‑use plan did not support. A motion to approve the conditional zoning (noting planning‑board approval and staff’s favorable recommendation) was made on the floor but failed after the council voted.
The council recorded that the request is inconsistent with the town’s comprehensive plan, urged staff to clarify the documentation and level of detail council expects on future submissions (specifically septic, stormwater, pedestrian connectivity and traffic impacts), and noted applicants may return with further revisions or additional information. The council did not approve any land‑use change and took no immediate enforcement action; town staff will document the record and communicate next steps with the applicant.
What happens next: the applicant can revise and reapply or supply missing agency approvals; county septic and state agency signoffs remain gating items for construction.
