Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mills River residents urge council to block Big Hills plan for storage units and offsite trail
Summary
Multiple residents of Mills River Crossing North and South told the council that a Big Hills proposal to build commercial storage units and a walking trail outside the subdivisions would violate promises, worsen flooding and traffic, and erode neighborhood safety and quiet; they asked the town to deny the plan and enforce existing requirements.
Dozens of Mills River residents urged the Town Council to halt a developer'9s plan that residents say would convert nearby agricultural land into commercial self-storage and a publicly accessible walking trail that effectively serves the developer'9s proposal.
Residents said Big Hills Construction marketed the adjacent tract as future residential lots and that recent developer filings instead propose a self-storage complex encircled by a walking trail that would be used to satisfy a sidewalk requirement and thereby enable more homes elsewhere in the project. "It's not what any of us wanted. It's not what we were told," said Hector Bolaris, who said he bought his house specifically for a quiet, low-light environment and expressed concern that storage-unit lighting, noise and unfettered public access would degrade his neighborhood.
Multiple speakers described long-running drainage and detention problems in Mills River Crossing North and South. "I found out that I had a drainage issue nine days after bringing my daughter home from the hospital," said Ryan Baker, who said his crawl space flooded and argued the city, county and developer have known about the issue since 2020. Other speakers described flooded crawlspaces, surface runoff, and detention areas they said were installed or inspected incorrectly.
Speakers raised three recurring concerns: (1) safety and traffic impacts from adding 19 homes and a commercial complex to narrow local roads without sidewalks, (2) erosion of gated-community access control if public paths allow unvetted entry, and (3) the burden on homeowners associations to maintain offsite public trails and easements. "The intent of that law is so you have somewhere safe to walk around your neighborhood," said Andrew Goldstein, objecting to a path located a mile from the neighborhoods that would require crossing NC-280.
Residents asked the council to enforce existing development and subdivision codes, require a traffic study and structural inspection of detention and drainage systems, and to block or deny the proposed nonresidential development. Several speakers asked the council to require a separate construction entrance to minimize truck traffic through their streets until the development is complete.
Mayor Shannon Gaunt and other council members said they understood the community'9s concerns but that the town'9s authority has limits, including state-level restrictions on local downzoning. The mayor encouraged residents to seek county and state assistance and said staff will collect the comments and pursue legal and engineering review where feasible.
The council did not take a vote on the specific development at the meeting; residents were told staff and the planning board would continue review processes and that council would consider ordinance or permitting changes where allowed.
The public comment period lasted more than an hour and a half and included several residents who requested additional town enforcement staff to monitor code compliance and to validate as-built plans and drainage engineering.
