Weddington council tables Keystone subdivision after debate over tree loss and green-space placement

Weddington — The Town Council on Feb. 9 tabled consideration of conditional-zoning application CZ2026-1 from Keystone Custom Homes for a conservation subdivision at 3009 Forest Lawn Drive, citing unresolved concerns over tree removal, open-space accounting and the placement of a required neighborhood green.

Town planner Greg opened discussion by summarizing changes the applicant made since the January meeting: the yield plan was recalculated and the proposed subdivision was reduced from 12 lots to 11; a 10,000-square-foot neighborhood green and additional supplemental buffer plantings were added; and staff provided exhibits showing floodway, floodplain and steep-slope exclusions used in the yield math. Greg noted the applicant submitted the technical calculations the council requested and explained the interplay between the town’s UDO and a 2025 code amendment affecting open-space requirements.

Neighbors, however, said the revised materials still understate constrained land and undercount impacts to heritage trees. Resident Chad Emerine said he did not see how the yield plan met R40/RCD requirements and asked the council to deny the application: “Based off of that, I ask that you deny this application,” he said. Several residents and council members pressed the applicant on differences between the January and revised maps, discrepancies in open-space arithmetic, and whether grading for driveways and storm drainage would require removal of trees shown as heritage specimens.

Keystone’s representative defended the revisions and said neighborhood outreach produced no negative feedback. The representative also apologized for a marketing sign that was posted in error and described the green as intentionally placed near the road for visibility and to maintain side-yard setbacks and architectural objectives. “We did not get any negative feedback,” the Keystone representative said in response to resident comments.

Council debate focused on one trade-off: the current plan locates the neighborhood green at the road front, which the applicant said maximizes screening and architectural setbacks, but several council members argued moving the green between lots (for example, between lots three and four) could preserve some large front-yard heritage trees. Council members proposed practical adjustments — shifting house pads, switching garage orientations or asking the applicant to show alternative layouts — to avoid a perceived “clear-cut” effect in the development area.

Rather than vote on the conditional zoning, the council unanimously approved a motion to table CZ2026-1 to the next regular meeting and directed the applicant to return with options showing whether one or more prominent heritage trees can be saved while maintaining the revised lot yield and design conditions. The council also asked that small-group reviews (two council members with staff and the applicant) occur before the next public hearing so alternatives can be vetted in advance.

What happens next: The applicant was asked to present at least one alternative plan that demonstrates saving identified heritage trees (or explain why that is infeasible) and to show the trade-offs, including garage orientation and minor lot shifts, before the council reconvenes the matter. The hearing was tabled; no final zoning action was taken.