Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Lewis Head topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lewis Head Commercial Plaza site plan deferred after resident concerns about water, traffic and stormwater
Summary
The planning commission deferred action on a proposed 10,000-square-foot commercial building at West Roberts Road after residents and commissioners raised questions about septic, water availability and the traffic and stormwater studies; the applicant was asked to return with answers to specific permit and water-availability questions.
The planning commission deferred action on the Lewis Head Commercial Plaza site plan after several commissioners and a nearby resident raised questions about traffic, drainage and utility permits.
Josh, planning staff, presented the site plan for a proposed 10,000-square-foot spec commercial building on a 5.05-acre parcel near State Route 109 and West Roberts Road. The draft site plan showed 37 parking spaces (including ADA spaces), heavy-duty asphalt for service areas, two detention ponds and landscaping buffers. Staff said the site would be served by a septic system and by White House Utilities for water; a nearby fire hydrant was noted on the plan.
During public comment Robert Eanes, a resident who gave his address as 141 West Roberts Road, urged the commission to reconsider approval until more information is provided about where site runoff and drainage would go, noting nearby homes that use wells and springs and the lack of sewer service. Eanes said past promises about addressing runoff and screening had not been met.
Commissioners and staff debated the traffic and stormwater analyses. Commissioners asked whether the traffic counts were up-to-date (the study in the packet used counts from 2020, with COVID adjustments), noted local intersections that were not included in the scope, and asked for clarity on which counting stations were used. Commissioners also raised questions about the stormwater calculations, the apparent modest reductions in peak flows in the design, and whether landscaping berms could interfere with drainage spreaders and increase backup risk.
Staff and the applicant’s representatives said construction plans and drainage calculations had been submitted and were under review by the county engineer. Staff said some required items — specifically a septic permit and a White House Utilities water-availability letter — were not present in the file and staff would defer to the applicant for those items. During the meeting a commissioner moved to defer the site plan to allow the applicant to provide answers to the septic permit and water-availability questions; the motion was seconded and passed.
Staff said next steps will include the applicant returning with the requested documentation and any updated traffic or drainage information; staff emphasized that construction plans and county-engineer approval will be required before any final plat or building permits.
