Committee forwards annexation and rezoning for 61‑lot Crestwater subdivision after residents raise traffic and flood concerns

Hendersonville’s General Committee voted on Sept. 9 to forward to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen a package of items to annex 1765 Avant Lane, hold a public hearing and rezone the 32.8‑acre site for the Crestwater comprehensive development plan, a proposal that would allow about 61 homes.

The committee approved a motion to set a public hearing (Resolution 2025‑32), to recommend annexation (Resolution 2025‑31) and to recommend the rezoning and comprehensive development plan (Ordinance 2025‑18) for consideration by BOMA. Committee members instructed staff to schedule the public hearing; the committee’s positive recommendations will be considered by BOMA at an upcoming meeting.

The decisions followed more than an hour of public comment and a detailed staff briefing in which the applicant outlined a project timeline and site plan. Concerned residents said the development would worsen congestion on Avant Lane and surrounding streets, and could increase flooding risk along Drakes Creek.

“My primary concern is just the impact of traffic congestion that this project may may cause,” said Emily Namm, a resident who identified her address as 1716 Avant Lane. She described Avant Lane as a two‑lane park road with a posted 15 mph limit that she said drivers frequently exceed, and said tailgating and unsafe speeds make it difficult to enter and exit her driveway.

Chris Puckett, another nearby resident, told the committee: “My number 1 concern is traffic.” He said existing events at the adjacent rugby complex already draw heavy parking and off‑site parking onto neighborhood streets and that an additional field could increase weekend congestion.

John Kenley, a resident who attended the Planning Commission hearing, urged the committee to consider whether the town should change long‑held farmland zoning solely to permit a sale. “Why does the town have to change it from a farm … so he can profit?” Kenley asked. He also warned that paving and added impervious surfaces could push runoff into streams where the south end of the lot lane already floods.

The applicant’s representative described the proposed development as a planned residential subdivision in two phases and offered to dedicate parkland to the city and provide a parking area to support the rugby fields. The applicant estimated a total development timeline of about 3½ to 4 years: roughly 18 months to complete zoning/permitting and construction documents, 12–18 months for horizontal site work (utilities, streets, stormwater ponds and grading), and about 24 months for vertical construction of the 61 homes. The developer said initial home construction cadence might be roughly three to four houses per month once vertical work begins and that it takes about 120 days to build one house.

Committee members and staff also discussed the alternative of leaving the property under county jurisdiction. Staff said—without recommending a particular outcome—that if the property develops under county rules it could yield fewer lots in a conventional pattern (roughly 30–40 lots) or a larger number under county cluster rules (the county could allow about 31 to nearly 38 homes under certain cluster options), and that county control could permit driveway patterns and lot configurations that would not meet the city’s planned‑development standards.

Traffic improvements near the site were discussed at length. Residents and a committee member noted a planned traffic signal and bridge work on Stop 30, and staff said that the county and state controls the timing for that larger infrastructure. The applicant and staff told the committee the traffic signal work is a county/federal project that could take multiple years to complete; staff estimated the signal could take more than five years because it requires reviews and external approvals. At the meeting a resident said the state is covering 80% of the cost of that signal and that the county and city were paying 10% each; the resident said the city has paid about $400,000 toward the project to date.

Stormwater and floodplain risks were raised repeatedly. Residents said the south end of the lot lane floods in heavy rain and that much of the existing neighborhood lacks underground drainage. Staff noted that stormwater will be addressed during the construction‑plan and permitting phase, when engineers provide detailed drainage designs, but cautioned that unintended consequences can occur and that final mitigation details will be set at construction‑document review and must meet city standards.

Committee members emphasized the practical difference between municipal and county regulation: in the city the planned‑development process gives the city authority to set architectural standards, limit curb cuts and require setbacks and alleys rather than driveways that open directly onto neighborhood streets; under county zoning those same controls may be weaker or absent. Several committee members said city oversight could achieve a higher design standard but acknowledged that the applicant could withdraw the annexation request if the city assigned a zoning designation different than the applicant’s request.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution 2025‑32 (public hearing on plan of services for annexation at 1765 Avant Lane): committee moved to schedule a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation to BOMA. - Resolution 2025‑31 (annexation of 1765 Avant Lane): committee voted to forward a positive recommendation to BOMA. - Ordinance 2025‑18 (rezoning and approval of the Crestwater comprehensive development plan for approx. 32.8 acres / ~61 homes): committee voted to forward a positive recommendation to BOMA.

What happens next

The General Committee’s positive recommendations will be transmitted to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen for formal public hearings and final action. Committee members and staff noted that many technical issues—traffic signal timing, construction entrances, final stormwater designs and phasing—will be resolved only at the preliminary/final plan and construction‑document stages if the annexation and rezoning proceed.

Community input at the committee hearing focused on traffic and flood risk; the committee’s action sends the items to BOMA with the committee’s favorable recommendation but does not itself authorize construction.