Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents split on proposed Birkdale (Birkdale/Birkdale Village) redevelopment during packed public comment period
Summary
Dozens of residents spoke for and against a proposed redevelopment at Birkdale Village, with supporters emphasizing jobs and tax base while critics warned of traffic, loss of character and excessive rental housing. Comments were part of the public comment period and did not represent final board action.
Multiple residents and business leaders used the town’s public-comment period to weigh in on the proposed Birkdale Village redevelopment (referred to in comments as Birkdale/Birkdale Village), with speakers offering sharply contrasting views.
Supporters framed the project as an economic engine. Bill Russell, introduced as president of the Lake Norman Chamber of Commerce, said the property is “the number 1 taxpayer in this town,” called a reported Jamestown $200 million investment “a great investment” and argued the project would provide class‑A office space, hotel and parking that support jobs and amenities. John Foster and other speakers urged the board to approve redevelopment to keep Huntersville competitive and to fix longstanding parking constraints.
Opponents raised traffic, character and housing‑mix concerns. Robert Baer said recent development has added more than 1,500 rental units across several nearby projects and asked whether the town is favoring developers over long‑term homeowners. Audra Collins and others said the town risks losing its family‑friendly, small‑town character and cited traffic congestion on Sanford Road and State routes as reasons to pause large-scale redevelopment. One speaker requested direct engagement with developers.
Several commenters urged the board to ensure any expansion preserves pedestrian access, adequate parking and design sensitivity. Other speakers cited long-term planning documents and state transportation timelines—pointing out that some road widenings are state responsibilities—as part of the context for traffic concerns.
These remarks were public comment, not a formal town action; the board did not take a vote on the project during public comment. Staff and applicants will address project materials in subsequent hearings and formal public hearings, where the board will consider zoning and permit requests.
