Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews annexation petition for 2.24 acres on Old Airport Road
Summary
City staff presented an annexation petition for 2625 Old Airport Road proposing six single-family lots; staff said lots 1–4 could connect to public utilities while lots 5–6 would require private service due to topography and downstream sewer capacity limits.
Alden, a city staff member, presented an annexation petition for 2625 Old Airport Road at the Concord City Council work session. The petition covers about 2.24 acres and proposes rezoning from Cabarrus County low-density residential to the City of Concord’s residential medium-density designation for a six-lot single-family detached subdivision.
Alden said the applicant, William Parra of RDMS Homes, proposes six lots with a minimum lot size of about 15,000 square feet and a mix of one- and two-story homes with three- and four-bedroom plans. The project is in for sewer review; Alden said Lots 1 through 4 are expected to extend to public utilities while Lots 5 and 6 would “need to be served privately” because of topography and limited downstream gravity sewer capacity at an existing lift station on Forest Lane.
Alden described the land-use process: if council annexes the parcel, the case will go before Planning and Zoning in April and return to council in May for a land-use plan amendment to suburban neighborhood. Adjacent property owners and HOAs were notified and the item was advertised in the Independent Tribune. Alden said staff had not yet received feedback from neighbors.
Council asked staff why lots 5 and 6 would be served privately. Alden said the existing public gravity sewer main within the Old Airport Road right-of-way “is tributary to an existing downstream public sewer lift station in Forest Lane that has limited and or no additional capacity to serve the proposed development.” Alden said the applicant is working with the county about septic capacity for the affected lots.
No formal annexation vote was recorded at the work session; the item is scheduled for future Planning and Zoning and council action.
