HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_0632187
OPPONENTS TO THE PROJECT:
David Parker, counsel for the opponents, stated the planning board voted 7 to
1 in favor of the project. The issue, Mr. Parker said, was whether or not the devel-
opers had submitted enough evidence and made a sufficient argument in favor of
chaning zoning.
tie addressed nuisance that is stated in the ordinance and also the water quality
of the lake. In this area, Mr. Parker had three concerns: (1) property devaluation,
submitted a letter from Stamey Holland, local appraiser, who stated that it was his
opinion the project would result in devaluation of surrounding properties. (2) The
septic tank plan for the development.
CHAIRMAN TROUTMAN LEFT THE MEETING IN AN EMERGENCY AT 10:00 P.M., RETURNING at 10:10
P.M. VICE CHAIRMAN MURDOCK ASSUMED THE CHAIR FOR THIS PERIOD.
(3) Location of the Heronwood site at the head of the lake. He said a planned
residenital district at this area of the lake was not a good location because the
lake was narrow at that point.
Addressing the opponents to the project and the fact that they are not in the
immediate area of the project, he said the entire area would be affected by the
project and was therefore relevant to this rezoning.
lie said the rezoning would allow a maximum of 415 dwelling units on the proper-
ty, which is not proposed, but it is possible.
He said he thought the question was should the sewage treatment be done private-
ly or under public auspices. In this particular case, he said, with a maximum of
400 units or approximately 800 people, the question before the board is whether they
will allow private parties to handle sewage treatment for this large development or
should it be done publicly. He said this was the critical question.
Addressing his point three, he said that anything done at the proposed site will
have an impact on the rest of the lake.
In summary, he said in looking at the project to see if it conformed to the
requirements of health, safety and welfare, he did not believe that the developers
had sustained that burden. He did not believe the developers had proved that to the
board.
He spoke regarding the petitions before the board who have been opposed to the
project.
The crux of this whole project, he said, was the private treatment of sewage
for this type of development and this type of rezoning effort versus public sewage.
MR. WELCH: did not speak.
MRS. HANSEN: Asked that Mr. Parker speak for her.
JUDY CANNON: She said the project did not only affect Iredell County, but also
affected Catawba County, and there were several people at the hearing from Catawba
County, directly across the lake. The impact of that many homes will have an effect
on public boating safety. Urged the board to vote against the rezoning.