Weddington council picks Revise for ADA website overhaul, greenlights code‑enforcement audit and tighter pre‑planning engineering review

The Weddington Town Council unanimously approved a contract with Revise (Option Two) on April 13 to replace the town website and bring it into ADA compliance, including an AI chatbot feature. Councilmembers repeatedly cited ease of use, pricing stability and staff capacity as reasons for choosing the lower‑cost, smaller‑town option over a larger vendor.

Why it matters: The current site was reported to show outdated UDO versions to developers; staff said federal ADA requirements force a full redesign and the council chose an option that balances compliance features with manageable ongoing costs. Councilmember Tom noted the five‑year pricing cap from Revise and the desire to avoid spending more than the town needs.

Code enforcement audit: Separately, the council authorized staff to pursue an audit of the town’s nuisance and code‑enforcement ordinances to ‘‘give our codes more teeth,’’ Mayor Bell said. Staff estimated the audit will take roughly 20 hours and cost in the mid‑four‑figure range (staff estimate ~ $14,500) and confirmed the work can be funded from the current fiscal year budget. Council asked that any draft ordinance changes be routed through the town attorney before adoption.

Pre‑Planning Board engineering review: Council and staff also agreed to require a schematic‑level engineering review by the town engineer (LeBella) before an item proceeds to the Planning Board. Greg (planning staff) explained the intent: if the council and planning board are going to ask for schematic engineering in the application, the town should require that the town engineer review and provide a written recommendation in advance so the Planning Board sees an engineering conclusion rather than raw, technical packets that the board cannot comfortably evaluate.

Voluntary architectural standards and chickens: Council discussed creating a voluntary architectural 'wish list' to propose to developers during conditional‑zoning negotiations (preferences: side‑entry garages, three‑sided masonry/stone, covered foundations, limited slab homes) while noting North Carolina law limits mandatory regulation of residential aesthetics. On backyard poultry, council discussed reducing a 150‑ft setback for small coops (six hens max, no roosters) to a reasonable distance, and asked staff to draft specific setback and size language and confirm enforcement mechanisms (animal control/nuisance code).

Next steps: Staff will execute the Revise contract and return with an implementation schedule (estimated 6–9 months), prepare the technical language and fee structure for a schematic engineering pre‑review process (including developer‑paid review fees), and hire/commission the nuisance/code audit with attorney review of any recommended ordinance changes.

Ending: The combination of an ADA‑compliant website, a code‑enforcement audit and clearer schematic engineering review is intended to improve transparency, accelerate technically complete applications to Planning Board, and strengthen post‑approval enforcement.