Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tables Grandview subdivision warily, citing missing stormwater, sewer and school-impact materials
Summary
The Weddington Planning Board voted 4–2 to table Signature Properties’ conditional zoning application for the 37‑lot Grandview subdivision after staff and public commenters identified missing stormwater calculations, an incomplete tree survey, and unresolved sewer modeling; the applicant says late-day responses from the town engineer addressed key stormwater issues.
The Weddington Town Planning Board voted 4–2 on April 27 to table Signature Properties of the Carolinas LLC’s conditional zoning application for a 37‑lot subdivision known as Grandview at Providence Road and Ray Road.
The board’s action followed public comment from resident Chad AmRhine, who urged tabling until the application includes supporting stormwater calculations for shown SCMs, a full tree survey, and a school-impact report rather than a brief confirmation email. AmRhine also cited a Union County Public Works letter indicating the sketch plan did not pass due to incomplete sewer modeling and warned that final sewer alignments could change easements and stormwater design.
Greg, the town planner, summarized the application as a roughly 77–78 acre conventional subdivision with a single primary entrance on Providence Road and an emergency composite access on Ray Road, noting the submittal shows about 32% open space (exceeding the town’s 20% requirement). He told the board staff had been concerned that a storm‑drain easement (SDE) originally encroached into the 100‑ft thoroughfare buffer; the applicant provided a revised exhibit moving the SDE onto private property to avoid the buffer.
The applicant’s representative said the development team worked with LaBella (town engineer Robert Wilson) on stormwater sizing and that Wilson’s 6:03 p.m. email the day of the meeting stated the updated schematic plan “addressed our concerns regarding the stormwater design” and that LaBella had “no further comments on the schematic plan” and “no objection for approval of the conditional zoning of the project.” The applicant said additional exhibits, including a 3‑D landscape rendering and a tree survey approach performed by Lens Group, were submitted but some pages arrived after the packet deadline.
Board members expressed frustration that key materials arrived on the day of the meeting and debated whether the late LaBella email and supplemental exhibits made the packet sufficiently complete for a forward recommendation to the town council. Concerns raised included the form of the tree survey (heritage mitigation vs. a full survey), explicit building pad/envelope depictions for each lot, and confirmation of two points of ingress/egress where required by the UDO.
A motion to table the application until a complete packet could be provided and reviewed passed by recorded vote: four in favor, two opposed (Scott and Phil opposed). The board discussed scheduling a special meeting or returning the item at the next regular meeting once the remaining details — particularly the sewer modeling and resulting easement locations and a complete tree survey — are supplied.
Next steps: the applicant may supply the missing materials and request a special meeting or return on the next agenda; the town planner indicated the LaBella review and consistent packet organization (including a table of contents and index of sheets) will be important for the board and council review.
