The Waxhaw November 10 BOC meeting marked the final session for the three holdover commissioners from the previous board—Commissioners Hall, McMillon, and Wesolek. Their replacements will be sworn in at the December 9th meeting, shifting Waxhaw’s leadership into a new phase. But before departing, the holdovers pressed through one last controversial action: a vote on the parking configuration at the Red Oaks Trail intersection.
A Parking Plan Pushed Through
This issue began at the October 28th meeting, when Commissioner Hall unveiled his own personal parking plan for the Red Oaks Trail area. His proposal attempted to squeeze in additional parking spaces by relying on outdated engineering standards—standards no longer considered safe or compliant. Hall’s approach also dismissed the repeated concerns of local residents who live with the safety implications of that intersection every day.
Before Hall had suddenly decided to dust off his book of obsolete standards and play traffic engineer, the town’s actual traffic engineer had already developed a balanced and professionally sound compromise: a plan that reduced some parking density to address resident safety concerns while still giving nearby businesses reasonable access for customers. Nobody got 100% of what they wanted, which is usually how compromise works—but it was safe, defensible, and well supported.
Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, no commissioner can spring an ordinance-based action without prior public notice unless they secure a two-thirds supermajority. Hall did not have that, which prevented him from forcing a vote on October 28. As a result, the issue carried over to November 10.
At the Waxhaw November 10 BOC meeting, Commissioners McMillon and Wesolek sided with Hall to approve a hybrid plan—part traffic engineer, part Hall’s original personal concept. Commissioner Wedra and Commissioner Daunt opposed the move, standing with the traffic engineer’s professional recommendation rather than a politically improvised one.
Notably, during the meeting the traffic engineer had to explicitly warn the board that Hall’s original proposal failed to meet safety standards and could expose the town to legal liability.
Fortunately, construction on this intersection cannot begin until April. That gives the new board ample opportunity to revisit the decision and likely restore the original compromise crafted by the traffic engineer—one that respects both resident safety and business needs.
Cost to Serve Analysis: Residential Development Still Doesn’t Pay for Itself
Another major item was the long-awaited cost-to-serve analysis presented by Matt Noonkester of City Explained. The town commissioned this study to assess how much tax revenue different types of development actually generate compared to the cost of services they require.
Noonkester stressed an important caveat: the analysis covers only town revenues and expenses. It does not factor in the enormous costs of wastewater expansion and school construction borne by Union County—costs that are required primarily because of residential development.
Even with that limitation, the picture was clear: many residential development patterns in Waxhaw do not cover their own costs. A few unit types showed a slight net positive within the narrow town-only scope, and certain pro-growth voices immediately seized on this as if it were a sweeping validation of high-density development.
But this interpretation ignores basic fiscal reality: Waxhaw taxpayers are also Union County taxpayers.
Once you incorporate the county’s cost burden—especially schools and sewer infrastructure—the fiscal outlook for residential development becomes far worse. This aligns with decades of findings from the UNC School of Government and renowned planner Randall Arendt of Greener Prospects: residential development typically does not pay for itself.
During the meeting, Commissioner Daunt emphasized that Waxhaw cannot operate in a financial bubble. Just because something might appear marginally positive on the town’s balance sheet does not mean it is responsible or sustainable when it pushes massive costs onto county government and taxpayers.
Municipal fiscal health cannot be built on ignoring the costs shifted to our neighbors.
Accusations in the Closing Moments
During the commissioner comment period at the end of the meeting, Commissioner Wesolek made a series of vague and unsubstantiated accusations. She claimed that unnamed “members of the board”—clearly aimed at those of us associated with The Waxhaw Wall—had encouraged supporters to stalk her and create safety concerns.
These accusations were delivered without specifics, evidence, or any substantiation whatsoever. She further claimed police escorts were required to walk her to her car after meetings, portraying herself as a victim while casting baseless aspersions on fellow commissioners and residents alike.
Such theatrics may have been intended to shape a particular narrative on her way out of office, but they do nothing to advance productive, professional governance in Waxhaw.
Looking Ahead
The November 10 meeting closed the chapter on the previous board and its residents-last approach to planning, procedure, and public input. With new commissioners taking office on December 9, Waxhaw will have a leadership style rooted in transparency, professionalism, and respect for expert guidance over personal agendas.
The incoming board will have a chance to correct the rushed Red Oaks Trail decision, reaffirm defensible traffic engineering standards, and apply the cost-to-serve findings with the full regional context in mind.
Waxhaw deserves a board that thinks long-term, listens to residents, and acts with integrity. December 9 marks the start of that new beginning.