Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Keystone conditional zoning after residents warn of stormwater and character impacts
Summary
Weddington Council unanimously approved CZ 2026-01, allowing an 11‑lot conservation subdivision at 3009 Forest Lawn Drive after hearing residents’ concerns about stormwater, tree loss and neighborhood character; staff and the applicant said drainage systems and tree protections were revised to address issues.
Weddington — The Weddington Town Council voted unanimously March 9 to approve ordinance CZ 2026-01, granting conditional zoning to Keystone Custom Homes for an 11‑lot conservation subdivision at 3009 Forest Lawn Drive.
The approval followed more than an hour of public comment and council questions focusing on runoff, neighborhood character and tree preservation. Neighbors told the council they feared additional impervious surfaces would worsen stormwater flowing into an existing retention pond and erode private property. "That storm water is going to be in greater concentration ... and stands to pollute our pond," said Chris Johnson, a Walden Lane resident, describing repeated flooding and soil loss on his lot.
Staff and the applicant described design changes intended to reduce impacts. Town staff said the latest revision lowered the previous 12‑lot plan to 11 lots, relocated a 10,000‑square‑foot neighborhood green to preserve large heritage trees and adopted a yield plan showing roughly 50% permanent conservation land. "The objective of this most recent revision is to preserve as many trees as possible," staff told the council. Applicant Keith said engineers designed an on‑site drainage system that will capture the development’s runoff into a planned pond and that the project should "alleviate" — not increase — the existing off‑site drainage burden.
Council members pressed for specifics. Several asked that heritage trees be given root‑protection zones and physical barriers during construction; the applicant acknowledged utility easements and grading constraints in some locations but said three of four identified heritage trees would be saved. The applicant also pledged to work with neighbors off the record to address remaining concerns.
On access, council and staff discussed a requested second entrance. Developers said a second public entrance likely would not be approved by DOT because of proximity to the rail intersection, but they said they were negotiating with a neighboring landowner (the Hudson family) to provide a gated emergency easement as a contingency.
Council moved to approve the ordinance "as presented here with the conditions and the architectural standards as presented." The motion passed unanimously; council also adopted a statement of reasonableness and consistency with staff and planning‑board recommendations. No roll‑call vote with individual member votes was read into the record.
What happens next: The developer will proceed to finalize plans consistent with the approved conditional zoning, including construction‑period erosion controls and the tree‑protection measures discussed at the meeting. Several residents asked staff to monitor implementation and to require any promised easements or emergency access agreements to be in place before final platting.
