Board tables Eagle Crest Estates preliminary subdivision after neighbors raise traffic, water and density concerns
Loading...
Summary
A 98‑lot preliminary subdivision for Eagle Crest Estates was tabled after adjacent residents and Goshen officials expressed concerns about traffic, water pressure and septic proximity; the developer agreed to discuss reconfiguration and return to the board.
The Washington County Planning Board tabled preliminary approval Sept. 25 for Eagle Crest Estates, a proposed subdivision on roughly 120 acres that would include 98 lots (94 buildable and four non‑buildable for open space and detention), after substantial public comment from nearby residents and Goshen officials.
The applicant, represented by Blake Murray of Craft & Toll, said the plan proposed lot sizes of about one to 1.886 acres, four points of ingress along Blue Springs Road, and that Fayetteville Water would be the water provider with a booster pump considered to reach higher elevations. Planning staff reported 19 mailed notifications and three requests for more information; one written opposition cited infrastructure and traffic concerns.
Why this matters: Scores of residents and officials from the nearby city of Goshen urged the county to slow the review, saying the proposal’s density exceeds Goshen’s typical lot sizes, that Blue Springs Road and its intersections (including Highway 45) already face congestion and incident risk, and that the area’s water pressure and septic capacity may be insufficient. Goshen officials asked the board to coordinate with the city and with Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department on traffic mitigation, including possible signalization.
Public comment and technical concerns: Speakers cited drainage and runoff to nearby creeks that feed the Illinois River and Beaver Lake, the need for formal traffic studies, the proximity of proposed septic fields to detention ponds and creeks, and private access roads that should remain private. Several speakers asked the board to require a formal traffic study and to reduce the number of access points from Blue Springs Road.
Board and applicant response: The applicant proposed potential redesign options — for example, consolidating access points — and agreed to work with neighbors on reconfiguration. Board members asked the developer to discuss changes and resubmit plans for the next meeting. Staff said a health department review and a formal drainage report will be required during the final large‑scale review.
Action: After hearing public testimony and technical questions, a board member moved to table the preliminary subdivision; the motion passed.
Ending: The developer said it would meet with neighbors and return with revised plans; the board encouraged additional outreach and a clearer traffic/ingress plan before the next hearing.
