Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Nelson Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lenox council approves Nelson Addition preliminary plan after neighbors raise floodplain and road concerns
Summary
After neighbors urged removal or clearer labeling of proposed future road alignments and raised floodplain and drainage concerns, Lenox council approved the Nelson Addition preliminary plan with staff assurances that amendments and future permits will address the issues.
Lenox City Council approved a preliminary plan for the Nelson Addition after several nearby property owners flagged safety and property-rights concerns and staff described the next steps for floodplain and permitting reviews.
Betsy Hills, who identified herself as an adjacent landowner, told the council she and family members object to map lines showing future roadways and the Long Creek Trail crossing private parcels and FEMA floodplain areas. “Depicting these roadways applies a level of consent and coordination that simply does not exist,” Hills said, and asked the council to remove potential roads from private property or, at minimum, add notes indicating the alignments are conceptual and subject to change.
City staff acknowledged Hills’s concerns and said Planning & Zoning added two notes to the preliminary plan intended to clarify that the comprehensive plan’s road alignments are conceptual. Staff said the developer supplied a letter of credit and that final engineering and flood studies will be required before construction permits are issued. An unidentified staffer noted, “Until the flood study is complete, they physically can’t fill [the floodplain],” and that the floodplain administrator must review any permit proposing fill.
Other residents raised questions about whether Cleveland (County Road 44) is considered an arterial route, how drainage and on-site drain tile will be handled, and whether private streets inside the subdivision would meet city design and emergency-access standards. Staff said private streets would be built to standards suitable for emergency access, utilities beneath private streets would be public (with easements), and developers are obligated to meet building and fire-code requirements when they submit construction documents.
Council discussed adding a condition that streets be constructed to city standards even if they remain private so that a future council could accept them without costly upgrades. Staff replied that such conditions could be negotiated with the developer and added to future documents.
After discussion, a council member moved to approve the preliminary plan; the motion carried. Staff said this approval is a planning-step decision, not a permit to build. Engineering, delineation, flood studies and construction documents must still be submitted and reviewed before any on-the-ground work begins.
The council’s approval means the developer may proceed to the next phase (detailed engineering and permitting); staff said they will continue to work with neighbors and the developer to add clarifying notes and address the signage and drainage concerns the public raised.
