Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development West Caldwell topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Juliet residents press commissioners over proposed West Caldwell development as related rezoning items advance
Summary
Dozens of West Caldwell residents urged the Mount Juliet Board of Commissioners to reject a proposed high‑density development they said would overwhelm neighborhood streets, lack parking and threaten trees and drainage; commissioners did not hear the Charlie’s Place rezoning for lack of a second but approved two related annexation/rezone items on first reading for a separate McFarland-area project.
Residents of West Caldwell filled the public-comment period at the Mount Juliet Board of Commissioners meeting Dec. 8 to oppose proposed high-density development near their neighborhood, citing traffic, parking shortages, blasting and drainage problems.
"We're not gonna get anybody fired. We just want accountability, transparency, and communication," said Rocky Lee, who identified himself as the spokesperson for a neighborhood watchdog group and asked the board to institute annual city‑manager evaluations and require the manager to live inside Mount Juliet. Other speakers gave detailed objections to the development plans.
"I was devastated and sickened to hear a proposed 5‑story apartment building with 220 apartments," said Zach Atwood, a West Caldwell resident since 1966. "220 units ... you figure 2 adults per unit, that's 440 people. 440 people is gonna be driving cars. They've got to park."
Multiple commenters raised technical objections: an unnamed speaker cited a shortfall in required playground area (stating the city standard as 30,800 square feet versus a proposed 3,500) and others said developer plans appear short on parking. Residents worried about blasting damaging yards and trees, and some asked for public sight of a letter from railroad company RJ Corman that residents say is necessary to allow stormwater or parking encroachment into the rail right of way.
City staff responded during the meeting that developers must supply necessary documents to planning staff and that variances to parking or setbacks require planning‑commission or board action. City Manager Kenny Martin told the audience, "It is up to the developer to provide any documents to the planning department. If they're short on parking, that would require variance for which city staff can't give it. It can only be the planning commission and board of commissioners."
The council did not take up the rezoning application known in the packet as "Charlie's Place" (approximately 4.86 acres on West Caldwell) after a motion failed to receive a second. Separately, the board read and advanced two related items on first reading—annexation and rezoning for a roughly 39.34‑acre site at 5025 Old Lebanon Dirt Road (the "Courtyards at McFarland")—after planning staff and the developer described that project as an age‑restricted (senior) mixed‑use community that will include commercial frontage and private residential streets. Jay Easter of Reagan Smith, representing the development team, said staff and the developer will be available to answer questions before later hearings.
Planning staff said the McFarland proposal includes infrastructure work required of the developer, including regrading East Division and dedicating right of way to accommodate future widening and to address identified safety hazards on that corridor.
Commissioners asked staff and the development team to clarify several conditions before second reading, including the exact meaning of a requirement in condition 32 that the commercial component be "completed before the issuance of the 70 fifth residential certificate of occupancy;" the board agreed to revisit that language to clarify whether "completed" means a tenant‑ready certificate of occupancy or a vertical/shell build.
The public comment period and subsequent discussion underscored neighborhood concern about density, traffic and infrastructure funding. The board did not resolve those substantive neighborhood objections at the meeting; several items were advanced for later hearings and second‑reading consideration.
