Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the UDO Text Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weddington planning board forwards most UDO edits to council, holds back tree/building-envelope change
Summary
The planning board voted March 23 to recommend updates to Appendix 2B and several Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text changes (D917 series) to the town council, excluding a contentious 'build envelope' tree-save provision for further drafting.
The Weddington Town Planning Board voted March 23 to recommend a package of text changes to the Unified Development Ordinance, sending most proposed edits, including several to Appendix 2B on site-improvement submittals, on to the town council with a favorable recommendation.
The recommended package adds references to A2 permits and public sewer lines in Appendix 2B, clarifies language about delineation of project boundaries and revises yield-plan wording to require compliance with the UDO rather than a specific buildable-area calculation, planning staff said. "Identification and delineation of proposed septic system ... We've added A2 permits or public sewer lines if applicable," staff summarized (Jasine, permit technician and planning assistant).
Members voted to exclude one item from the recommendation: a proposed change to tree-save and replenishment rules that moves from a "buildable area" standard toward a new "build envelope" definition. Board members and developer representatives warned that "building envelope" is an industry term tied to the exterior wall and that grading, road construction and subdivision engineering make a single-lot definition hard to apply to large subdivisions.
"This is not going to translate well to a subdivision because of what grading and storm water and everything that ensues," a member said during debate. Staff and members agreed the wording needs additional work before forwarding to council.
The motion to recommend Appendix 2B edits, excluding the number-five build-envelope item, passed on a voice vote; the board instructed staff to forward the recommended language to the council for consideration.
The recommendation package also included administrative clarifications, removal of an obsolete Appendix 3 plant list (the board agreed to refer planting requirements to the Union County urban forester species list) and several text cleanups intended to make the UDO easier to read for applicants, staff said.
Next steps: staff will transmit the board's favorable recommendation to town council for their review and potential action. The board separately asked staff to schedule a workshop in May to run mock submittals that would help members and applicants apply the revised UDO language in practice.
