HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93010_0657home community of this type, the construction would take several years. Webb said Crescent
had been building homes at the peninsula since 1991 (800 homes). He said lots in The Pointe
started selling in 1998, and there were now 160 homes. Webb said the character of the proposed
homes would be similar to what was already there. He said Crescent's plan had 135 acres of
open space and pocket parks. He said there would be at least one active five -acre community
neighborhood facility. Webb said the company didn't anticipate utilizing curb and gutter in the
area; however, it would expand the standard road width by five feet to provide bike lanes. He
said the development would have a community well system, along with an elevated storage tank.
Webb said septic systems would also be used with annual inspections. Mr. Webb said Crescent
was not asking to "lock -in" any erosion control requirements at this time.
Robert Bach (Against the Request), said he was a resident of Camp Road (Hager's
Cove/Hobbs Creek area). He reminded the commissioners about the decision of the planning
board. Bach said the Brawley School Road peninsula was probably the largest cul de sac in the
state. He said the residents had two lanes to get in -and -out, and the development would further
hamper emergency services. Bach asked where the run off would go. He said he had concerns
about his well.
Ha rvey-Caroetuer (Against the Reguest)_a resident of Lakeview Shores Loop, said he
was concerned about the community well systems. He said he understood that if a well system
were installed and the "neighbors' lost their water from the lowering of the water tables, the
developer would furnish water for everyone. He questioned what would happen if an act of
terrorism occurred at the nuclear power plant.
Carol Stakely (Against the Request) a resident of Lakeview Shores Loop, questioned the
notification process for the request. Stakely said she thought the request was asking the
commissioners to give up future rights. She mentioned moratoriums, road issues, and
environmental laws that might be enacted in the future. Ms. Stakely also talked about the
development's effect on the aquifer.
Larry Davis (Against the Request), a resident of Kings Cross Lane, said he didn't receive
notification on any of the meetings. Mr. Davis eritized what Crescent referred to as park areas.
Fie said that from what he had seen, the areas were swamp lands. Davis mentioned a past
situation involving Crescent and road pavings. He said Crescent had reneged on an obligation to
pay a portion of costs regarding the paving of a road.
Tate Starrette (Against the Request), a resident of Grasshopper Circle, said his home was
on a very narrow cove. He said 18 lots were proposed for the cove, and the water in the area
was not deep enough to sustain the boat traffic. He said there would be pollution problems.
Nancy Fletcher (Against the Request) a resident of Dye Circle, said the traffic on
McKendry Road was heavy. She said the property set aside for the new school would not help.
Ms. Fletcher said the buses were already full, and the children had to sit four to a seat. She also
complained about the trailers that had to be used by the school children.
Tiffany Erwin (Against the Request), questioned why the request didn't go back before
the planning board. Erwin said that by her calculations, more than a ten percent change had
occurred from the original request. She asked whether or not Crescent had donated property for
the school site.
Chairman Tice said Crescent Resources had donated property to the Iredell-Statesville
School System.
Ervin said the traffic would increase on the day the first tree was cut for the development.
She said the construction vehicles alone would increase the traffic. Ervin said she didn't feel
Crescent would sell the property if the vesting rights were denied, because the property was too
viable.
Commissioner Williams asked Smith to address the ten percent variance.
Smith said the ten percent was a benchmark percentage. He said it really applied to
increasing the request/proposal. Smith said there was no legal requirement to take the request
back to the planning board. In addition, he said there was not a time requirement. Mr. Smith