In a town already grappling with the impacts of rapid development, last night’s Waxhaw Board of Commissioners (BOC) meeting revealed a troubling display of political bias and ethical concerns. Three of the five commissioners voted to remove two well-qualified candidates from consideration for the Planning Board, with deeper tensions around growth and development at the heart of the controversy.
The BOC’s decision to reject Planning Board Chair Daniel Farris and Military Veteran Christine Winward for advisory roles raises serious ethical, legal, and governance issues. While the official reasons for the rejection remain unclear, the motivations behind these actions seem far from objective—and rooted firmly in a struggle over Waxhaw’s future development.
These applicants were recommended by the Organizational Advisory Board, who are responsible for vetting applicants. The OAB were approved by the BOC as recently as July 2024, but suddenly their recommendations were rejected by Commissioner Wesolek, Commissioner Hall, and Mayor Pro Tem McMillon last night.
The Politics of Overdevelopment
Waxhaw’s rapid growth has become one of the most contentious issues facing the town. Commissioners Wesolek, Hall, and McMillon, who voted against Farris and Winward, have a long history of catering to developers. This has led to criticism that their decisions prioritize the interests of developers over the well-being of the community.
In contrast, Commissioners Daunt and Wedra, who voted to keep Daniel Farris, were elected (despite dark money) in a landslide victory last year after running on a platform of slowing development and ensuring the town’s growth benefits residents, not just developers. The ideological divide between these factions came to a head in this meeting, as Farris, who once opposed Daunt and Wedra, has listened and evolved his views.
Farris’s Experience
Daniel Farris, initially opposed to Daunt and Wedra during last year’s campaign season, has grown in experience and heard a new perspective. As he got to know them and understood their reasoning, Farris began thinking more about cost to serve and the long term impact of residential growth on taxes. Recently, he criticized development projects for failing to meet critical town ordinances, including providing inadequate park land, which shortchanged the town’s long-term interests.
This evolution, while earning Farris respect from those concerned about overdevelopment, irritated the pro-development commissioners. His pushback against developers likely triggered the retaliation seen at last night’s meeting, where Farris was abruptly ousted without proper justification.
Targeting Farris and Winward
The rejection of Christine Winward, a highly qualified veteran, adds to the troubling pattern. While no reason was given for her denial, her qualifications were not in question, raising concerns about the real motivations behind the BOC’s decision.
The lack of transparency in both decisions—especially when Farris had been a diligent and detail-oriented Planning Board Chair—highlights how political vendettas and biases are driving decisions that should be based on merit. When Commissioner Daunt inquired about Farris’s rejection, Commissioner Wesolek attacked him personally, claiming Farris was “intimidating people” and not performing his duties because he “gets too into the weeds”. This attack was clearly aimed at undermining Farris’s credibility, but it instead revealed how his in-depth scrutiny of development projects likely threatened the interests of pro-growth commissioners.
Commissioner Wedra went further by revealing that Wesolek had sent surveillance photos to Farris, of Farris having lunch with Commissioners Daunt and Wedra, along with another Planning Board member. This disturbing act of surveillance shows the lengths to which certain commissioners are willing to go to discredit those who oppose their pro-development agenda.
Ethical and Legal Concerns
The BOC’s actions raise numerous ethical and legal concerns:
- Conflict of Interest: Commissioners Wesolek and her allies have a clear history of siding with developers, making Farris’s removal—just as he begins to oppose those very interests—look like a retaliatory act, rather than an objective decision. This raises questions about conflicts of interest and whether the commissioners are acting in the best interest of the town or in favor of developers.
- Retaliation: Farris’s removal is a clear case of retaliation for his more experienced scrutiny on development. Wesolek’s surveillance of Farris further points to personal vendettas playing a major role in these decisions, which is a serious ethical violation for any public official.
- Lack of Transparency: The denial of both Farris and Winward without a formal explanation reflects a broader lack of transparency in the decision-making process. It suggests that the commissioners who voted against them did so for political reasons rather than legitimate concerns over their qualifications.
- Public Trust Erosion: The BOC’s actions are not just a political maneuver—they threaten the public’s trust in local government. By removing qualified candidates and prioritizing personal and political interests, the commissioners risk alienating the very residents they are supposed to serve.
Development vs. Community Interests
At the core of this controversy lies the question of who Waxhaw’s government is serving: developers or residents. With the town facing rapid growth and development pressures, decisions about how the town expands are critical. Farris’s recent highlighting of areas where developers failed to meet town ordinances—particularly on key issues like park land and public resources—shows a commitment to ensuring development benefits the community.
Yet, his opposition has put him at odds with pro-development commissioners, who seem intent on maintaining control of the town’s future direction by sidelining those who dare to challenge them. With the removal of Farris and Winward, it is clear that the BOC’s decisions are no longer about the best interests of Waxhaw but about securing the interests of those who benefit from continued, unregulated development.
Conclusion
The events of last night’s meeting expose deep ethical concerns and further inflame Waxhaw’s ongoing struggle over its future growth. The removal of Daniel Farris and Christine Winward shows a disregard for merit and public service, driven by personal biases and the influence of pro-development factions on the BOC.
If Waxhaw’s residents hope for a more balanced approach to development—one that prioritizes their needs over those of developers—there must be greater accountability and transparency in the town’s decision-making process. Without it, Waxhaw risks losing its identity to unchecked growth, while those who seek to defend the town’s character and community interests are systematically pushed aside.
Click below to skip to Commissioner Wedra’s comments: