Taylor Morrison proposes Traymore 2 in Town of Harrisburg; neighbors raise tree, traffic and drainage concerns

Shelly Dehart, assistant planning director for the Town of Harrisburg, opened a neighborhood development meeting and introduced a proposal by Taylor Morrison to annex and conditionally rezone about 25 acres for a single‑family subdivision called Traymore 2.

Alan Hurley, representing Taylor Morrison, told attendees the company is requesting a conditional rezoning to a rural low‑density residential district to allow a maximum of 23 single‑family detached homes on the 25‑acre site. He said lot standards in the proposed plan meet the town’s requirements — roughly 25,000 square feet minimum and about 125 feet of lot width at the front setback — producing a density of about 0.1 homes per acre and leaving roughly 32% of the site as common open space. Hurley described the design as side‑load garages accessed from rear alleys and noted a future connector street identified in the town’s traffic improvement plan.

The presentation prompted questions from several nearby property owners. One resident asked what would happen to the trees along a shared property line; Hurley said, “The goal is to keep as many of those trees as we can,” while noting some trees that are not healthy may need to be removed and that final decisions depend on a survey and site grading. The same resident raised concerns that an internal connector could create additional traffic behind existing houses; the developer and staff said the connector is intended as a future through‑connector in the town plan and will not include driveways for individual lots — homes would be accessed from rear alleys, as in a neighboring subdivision with a similar approval.

Residents asked whether sewer capacity would limit the project. Hurley said regional provider Wasatch administers sewer capacity for Cabarrus County and parts of northern Mecklenburg County, and that while Concord and Kannapolis are close to capacity, Harrisburg currently has available sewer capacity and that sewer availability should not be a rate‑limiting factor for this proposal.

Shue, a neighbor on the call, asked whether stormwater from their sloped property would be directed into the development. The developer explained site stormwater will be collected into a detention pond at the low point of the site for treatment and controlled release; an outfall will slowly return water to the existing draw so post‑development discharge rates are intended to match pre‑development flows.

Several neighbors asked about fences or other buffers to address noise and to prevent animals from moving between properties. The developer said there is no current plan for a perimeter fence but homeowners would likely have the option to install fences on their side of the alley; the team said it will consider additional plantings where practicable.

Shelly Dehart said the presentation PDF and meeting minutes will be posted online and that tonight’s comments will be documented and provided to town staff. She outlined the review path: the applicant will submit detailed subdivision and construction plans for departmental review, the project will be scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Board (meets every third Tuesday) for recommendation, and Town Council will later consider annexation and rezoning at a public hearing with mailed notices to affected properties.

No formal vote or decision was taken at the neighborhood meeting; staff and the developer said they will collect written comments and follow up with attendees by email as the application proceeds through the Planning and Zoning Board and Town Council process.