Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose 18-townhome proposal at 6 Forks and Anderson Drive, cite traffic, safety and flooding concerns
Summary
Residents said a proposed 18-unit townhome project by Fisher Homes will worsen traffic on a busy corridor, raise safety risks at nearby intersections, and exacerbate localized flooding on Big Branch Creek.
Get email alerts on the Transportation And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
David Ray, a long-time Anderson Forest resident, urged the council to scrutinize a proposed 18-townhouse development near 6 Forks and Anderson Drive by Fisher Homes, saying the project would sit on less than 2 acres and rely on a single access point onto 6 Forks. "The proposed development by Kentucky-based Fisher Homes is to include 18 three-story townhomes," Ray said, adding that the project would sit between Anderson Forest and Oakland Acres and could increase traffic, congestion and flooding.
Ray cited traffic data he provided to the council and said the corridor has seen crashes. He told the council he had supplemental city and NCDOT data submitted after the applicant presentation and said parks-and-recreation staff flagged a greenway alternate route as unsafe because of traffic. Ray said the developer is using "missing middle" provisions in the UDO to seek administrative approval and that similar proposals were previously overturned for safety concerns.
Andrew Tattersall, who also lives on Big Branch Creek, described continuing erosion behind his home and said he had lost several feet of land in recent years. "In the last seven years that I've lived there, I've lost four to six feet of my actual land," he said, and said he faces an estimated $50,000 in private costs to protect his property. Tattersall asked how additional stormwater runoff from new development would be handled and said existing downstream channels already carry water from extensive development upstream.
Speakers urged the council and staff to consider intersection safety, historical denials on similar projects, flood risk and whether the missing-middle administrative process is appropriate given the corridor's safety record. No formal council action or staff response was recorded in the public-comment portion of the transcript.

