Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harrisburg planning board continues review of 23‑lot Traymore proposal after pressing for stronger tree, buffer and utility protections
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Board continued a conditional‑zoning request for a 23‑lot subdivision (proposed Traymore/Estates at Traymore), asking staff and the developer to return with revised plans that strengthen tree‑preservation protections, widen street‑tree planting areas, and prohibit utilities in the 50‑foot front buffer; the board voted unanimously to continue the item to next month.
Shelly, a town staff presenter, outlined a conditional rezoning application for a roughly 25‑acre parcel south of Rocky River Road that would be rezoned to allow 23 single‑family lots under the town’s RL (residential low) classification. The application includes a site plan and 13 conditions of approval; staff said the applicant proposes about 6.74 acres of open space where the ordinance requires at least 5.24 acres, and offered a payment‑in‑lieu for the required public open space (calculated in the staff report at roughly 0.657 acre).
The plan also proposes a two‑lane divided connector road (town cross section) with a 5‑foot sidewalk on one side and a 10‑foot multi‑use path on the other. Staff noted the connector road appears in the Harrisburg Transportation Plan and that developers are expected to build connectors as neighboring parcels develop. Staff also told the board that some on‑site streams and wetlands may require Army Corps of Engineers permitting if disturbed.
Board members and several nearby residents pushed back on how the project would preserve existing trees and buffers. One resident, Mark Monroe, who gave his address for the record, said the board represents existing residents and urged stronger protections for neighbors worried about buffer loss, drainage and subsequent impacts. Board members repeatedly returned to three linked concerns: (1) whether utilities would be placed through the 50‑foot Type D front buffer and thereby prevent large shade trees from surviving, (2) insufficient width of the town’s standard 4‑foot planting strip for street trees along collectors and local streets, and (3) how tree‑save limits and critical‑root protection would be documented and enforced at the construction plan stage.
A board member who led the discussion said the power company (identified in the record as the utility that provided the relocation plan) had proposed moving three‑phase lines across the street; staff and the developer said they had vetted the utility company’s conceptual relocation and would include construction‑phase details in the next packet. Alan Curley of Taylor Morrison, the applicant, said Taylor Morrison has built multiple projects in Harrisburg and that the design shown reflected the utility company’s plan; he added that construction drawings must be approved, a bond posted, and that the town could draw on the bond to complete the street if the developer failed to build it.
Board members proposed adding conditions that would: prohibit utilities within the 50‑foot southern buffer, require preservation limits and no encroachment into critical root zones where trees are explicitly retained, and increase street‑tree planting area widths (discussion centered on an 8‑foot planting strip on collectors and a 6‑foot minimum on local streets, or alternatively a dedicated landscape easement that would allow larger planting areas behind the sidewalk). Staff told the board these types of modifications could be written into a conditional approval and further refined in construction plans, but that the town’s currently adopted cross section (used by a nearby approved project, Eileen Meadows) uses a 4‑foot planting strip.
The board did not take final action on the rezoning. A motion was made to continue the item so staff and the developer could return with modified conditions and roadway/landscape details (specifically: increased street‑tree planting widths, written language prohibiting utilities inside the 50‑foot buffer, and enhanced tree‑preservation/critical‑root‑zone protections). The motion was seconded and the chair announced the motion passed unanimously. Staff committed to include utility relocation documents and revised cross‑section details in the packet for the next hearing.
What’s next: the board will review the applicant’s updated materials and any refined conditions at the next scheduled meeting; staff said they will include the utility realignment documentation and proposed roadway cross‑section/detailing for board review prior to any recommendation to the Town Council.
