Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press planning staff on Nest Creek flood risk and outdoor storage at Castlehane Road site
Summary
During a public-hearing discussion about a proposed development at 3121 Castlehane Road, commissioners and staff debated flood risks from Nest Creek, the adequacy of a 50-foot buffer and a 20-foot opaque landscape buffer, the claimed 12,000 sq ft of commercial flex space versus the shown ~6,000 sq ft building, and provisions for outdoor contractor storage.
Commissioners and residents raised concerns about flooding and site design for a proposed development at 3121 Castlehane Road during the May 30 agenda-review session.
A commissioner recalled severe flooding along Nest Creek during Hurricane Florence and asked whether the 50-foot buffer shown on the plan and other stormwater measures adequately address the risk. Planning staff said the development was routed for departmental review, that stormwater had not flagged the project as a concern so far, and that staff could follow up ahead of the Monday hearing.
Questions also focused on the proposal's "12,000 square feet" of commercial flex space, which a commissioner said looks like a single-story 100-by-60-foot building (~6,000 sq ft) on the site plan; planning staff confirmed the building is intended to be one story and said they would double-check acreage and plan notes. Commissioners asked whether outdoor contractor storage would be restricted to a fenced area; planning staff said an outdoor storage area is delineated on the plan and there is a condition prohibiting outdoor storage near the flex space east of the Nest Creek tributary, but there is no general condition requiring all contractor materials to be stored indoors.
Planning staff described a 20-foot opaque buffer between the proposed contractor office and the residential subdivision (Haven Place) and noted that outdoor storage is located to the north of the property, farther from the subdivision. No speakers had signed up in opposition during the session, and staff said the applicant had held required neighborhood meetings. The matter was set for further review at the forthcoming public hearing.
