Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Town approves 17‑lot Blythe Landing Residential subdivision; neighbors raised drainage, berm and trail concerns

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Huntersville Town Board unanimously approved petition R24‑16 for a 17‑lot subdivision west of Blythe Landing Park, accepting modifications for cul‑de‑sac length and an amenitized stormwater control measure after staff conditions; nearby residents raised concerns about spillway direction, berm height and trail location.

The Huntersville Town Board voted unanimously May 20 to approve petition R24‑16, Blythe Landing Residential, a proposed 17‑lot subdivision west of Blythe Landing Park that rezones property to NRCD and accepts two modifications including extending allowable cul‑de‑sac length from 350 to 600 feet and accepting an amenitized stormwater control measure (SCM) as open space conditioned on staff clarifications.

Planning staff presented the proposal and told the board the plan includes a pedestrian connection from the end of a cul‑de‑sac into Blythe Landing Park and that the project density fits the Huntersville 2040 Community Plan moderate‑density guidance. Staff recommended approval with clarifications that the applicant agreed to address, and the Planning Board had earlier recommended unanimous approval with similar conditions.

Neighbor Matt Wolfinger, who said he and his wife own property that shares roughly 300 feet of lot line with the proposed development, described three concerns in public comment: the direction of a sand‑filter spillway that he said would increase runoff to his property, a perceived privacy issue from an 11‑foot berm and walking‑path placement that would funnel more pedestrians toward the park's boat‑launch area instead of playground and restroom amenities. "We would like for there to be a commitment that the spillway funnel water away from our property," Wolfinger said. He asked for enhanced landscaping, a hardscape buffer between the berm and his property, and removal of the walking path segment adjacent to his property.

Planning staff and the applicant addressed the concerns during the meeting. Brad Priest (planning staff) said the undisturbed buffer would remain and be required to be opaque, with existing large‑maturing specimen trees to be retained and supplemental evergreen plantings and shrubs to achieve opacity. The applicant's representative, who identified himself as Ryan with the development firm, said the submitted plan is a sketch and that final civil and stormwater design would be refined in CD (construction drawing) review; he said the pond is intended to slow and reduce release rates and that minor horizontal shifts in the SCM location are possible but that large regrading to redirect the natural flow would be difficult.

Staff and the applicant committed to design changes including clarifying building architecture commitments (front porches and recessed garages), a paved path around the SCM, tree‑mitigation per ordinance, and a 6‑foot privacy fence along portions of the property line; staff recommended against a locked gate at the park connection because the 2040 plan encourages neighborhood connectivity. Topographic numbers discussed at the hearing placed the conceptual top of the berm around elevation 779 with adjacent parcel grades near 740–772 in the immediate area; staff said the undisturbed buffer elevations would remain roughly 770–772 and be required to be opaque at final approval.

The board approved the rezoning with conditions and found the project consistent with several Huntersville 2040 plan policies. The motion approving R24‑16 included specific zoning notes (open‑space concept committed on sheet CZ‑302), build‑to line ranges for lots, tree mitigation, architectural clarifications, removal of an additional yard‑restriction modification, commitment to a paved path around the SCM, and resolution of remaining minor staff comments. The motion carried unanimously; the applicant will complete final stormwater and construction drawings and work with staff and adjacent property owners on the remaining design details.