Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weddington planning board recesses Keystone subdivision review after questions on trees, stormwater and Appendix 2B
Summary
The Weddington Town Planning Board recessed consideration of Keystone Custom Homes’ conditional‑zoning application for a 12‑lot conservation subdivision at 3009 Forest Lawn Drive after members said the packet lacked sufficient grading, stormwater and tree‑survey detail to verify compliance with newly adopted Appendix 2B. The board asked staff to send a concise checklist of required materials and reconvene within 10 days.
The Weddington Town Planning Board recessed its review Monday night of Keystone Custom Homes’ application for conditional zoning of a 12‑lot conservation subdivision at 3009 Forest Lawn Drive after board members raised technical questions about grading, stormwater controls, and tree protections.
Greg (town planner) told the board the 16.7‑acre project proposes 12 conservation (RCD) lots with roughly half the property reserved as conservation land, and that the subdivision would connect to the existing sewer trunk line. Staff noted this is the first conditional‑zoning case subject to the town’s newly adopted Appendix 2B standards, and urged the board to flag any items it felt were missing before sending the application to town council.
During the presentation and subsequent review, board members asked for clearer supporting exhibits: a finalized grading plan showing whether pond embankments and lot slopes meet the required 3:1 geometry; a storm‑drain/stormwater routing exhibit showing how runoff from the front hillside and road will be captured and routed to the proposed water‑quality pond; and a complete tree survey and legend that conform to Appendix 2B requirements. One member said the packet’s contour intervals and the redacted set of plans made it difficult to confirm compliance; another asked for notes describing the walking trail’s intended construction so the board could assess root impacts to heritage trees.
The applicant’s representative said the houses and building pads are sited outside floodplain and that the design preserves the majority of the wooded rear. The applicant also said a larger technical set (roughly 30 sheets) exists and offered to provide the additional details the board requested. In response to tree‑preservation concerns the applicant said, “We have no intention of taking these trees down,” and said they would revise the tree legend to correct an error noted during review.
Board members emphasized that, because this will be the first project reviewed under Appendix 2B, they wanted to avoid a situation in which council or neighbors later see construction documents that differ materially from what the board reviewed. ‘‘This is our guinea pig or first case in these new standards,’’ Greg told the board, underscoring the need for clearer documentation.
A board member moved to recess the planning‑board review of Keystone’s application and reconvene after the applicant supplies the requested materials; the motion passed 3–1. The board instructed staff to compile a concise checklist of the specific exhibits and clarifications (grading details, stormwater routing to BMPs, tree survey legend and walking‑trail notes) and to coordinate a reconvened planning‑board session within the 10‑day recess window so the item could remain on the October town‑council schedule if feasible.
What’s next: Staff will send the board’s information request to the applicant, the applicant will supply the additional exhibits, and the planning board will reconvene within the agreed window to complete its review. If the board remains comfortable that Appendix 2B and other UDO requirements are met, the item will go to town council for final conditional‑zoning action.
