Riverwalk residents petition over construction traffic; developer, town say covenants don’t bar use of Cullasaja Drive

Residents near the Riverwalk subdivision pressed the Highlands Board of Commissioners on June 19 about construction traffic using the Cullasaja Drive “back gate,” saying the activity is a safety and nuisance problem for nearby neighborhoods.

At a public-comment segment, resident Gretchen Chitzy said she had gathered roughly 50 signatures for a petition and described recurring problems with speeding and construction vehicles using the back gate that connects Riverwalk to Cullasaja Drive. Chitzy asked whether the developer could be required to stop using that egress for construction traffic.

Developer Dustin Hirschfeld, who identified himself as the current owner and general contractor at Riverwalk, told the board he reviewed the subdivision’s 2005 minutes and the planning-board recommendations. He said the planning board had recommended that “all construction traffic” use the Highway 64 entrance, but that the town did not require that recommendation in the final, recorded documents. Hirschfeld said the recorded restrictive covenants do not bar construction traffic on Cullasaja Drive, and that the town lacks authority to enforce the planning-board recommendation now.

Hirschfeld said his crews would stop using the back gate “as an olive branch,” and that the immediate framing work behind the Chitzys’ house will finish in the coming weeks, which he expects will reduce traffic. He acknowledged other homeowners and subcontractors sometimes use the gate to avoid long delays on Highway 64 and said he could not control how private homeowners use it.

Town Manager Josh Ward and Town Attorney Nick Tosca told the board and speakers their review supports Hirschfeld’s recounting of the permit history: planning-board recommendations were discussed in 2005 but not carried into the recorded preliminary/final plat restrictive covenants. Tosca said the recorded covenants, and not planning-board minutes or recommendations, are the binding documents that “run with the land.” He and Ward advised that restrictive covenants cannot lawfully impose restrictions on third-party roads outside the subdivision and that the town therefore has no legal basis to cite the developer for using Cullasaja Drive.

Board discussion emphasized keeping communications open among residents, developer and staff. Ward and Hirschfeld said they have been in regular contact; Ward said town inspectors have been on site during construction. Commissioners noted the current developer’s steps to reduce gate use and asked staff to continue monitoring and to relay residents’ concerns.

The board took no formal enforcement action; members and staff said they would continue to facilitate communication between neighbors and the developer.

Residents pressed for clarity about whether the planning-board recommendation ever became binding; town staff and the town attorney said it did not because the recommendation was not included in the recorded restrictive covenants. Chitzy said she would continue to work with staff and the developer on the neighborhood’s safety concerns.

The public-comment portion of the meeting and the staff report show the issue remains unresolved administratively rather than legally: town officials said recorded covenants control and enforcement options are limited, while the developer said he would voluntarily limit gate use to reduce neighborhood impacts.