Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge caution as council holds public hearing on 20‑lot Essex Drive rezoning
Summary
Chelsea residents raised traffic, emergency‑egress and blasting concerns at a public hearing on a first‑reading rezoning that would convert a 28‑acre parcel on Essex Drive from agricultural to R‑1 for 20 home lots; the developer agreed to conditions including a 30‑foot buffer, a $15,000 road bond and a pledge against blasting. The council will vote in July.
A public hearing at the Chelsea City Council meeting on June 16 focused on a proposed rezoning that would convert about 28 acres on Essex Drive from agricultural (AR) to R‑1 residential to allow a 20‑lot subdivision submitted by High Point Properties.
The developer presented the plan and asked the council to approve a conditional zoning tied to a 20‑lot layout. He described minimum lot widths of 125 feet, seven to eight adjoining lots that would keep a 30‑foot undisturbed buffer next to existing homes, a $15,000 bond to repair any road damage caused during construction and a design restriction prohibiting front‑facing garages. He said house prices would likely start around $600,000. The applicant stated the zoning would be conditional and that, consistent with other counties’ practice, zoning would revert to the prior designation if construction did not begin within one year.
At least four nearby residents and neighborhood representatives spoke in opposition or with questions. Kim Brown, identified as HOA president, read a letter from Brandon and Britney Haygood asking that any approval be explicitly tied to the submitted 20‑lot plan and its conditions and asking the council to clarify whether those conditions would remain binding on a future owner or developer.
Resident Jason Carmack, who said he worked in traffic homicide investigations, told the council he estimated traffic at the Essex Drive/Highway 280 intersection could rise from roughly 1,200 to more than 1,400 vehicles per day if the project proceeds and urged the council not to add homes until intersection safety is addressed. He also asked for stronger assurances against blasting.
Roger Fowler and Heidi Messier described long traffic queues that currently use the subdivision entrance as a turnaround during events and cited a lack of an emergency secondary exit for the neighborhood. Messier asked the council to require a different access point so the new development would not use Forest Parks/Essex Drive as its primary Highway 280 entrance.
The developer reiterated that no blasting would be permitted as a condition of the zoning, while acknowledging that rock hammers might be used if necessary for utilities or basements. He told the council he expected the proposal would add under 10% to current traffic levels at the intersection and again asked that his stated conditions be recorded as part of the conditional zoning.
Council closed the public hearing and the chair said the ordinance will return on the July agenda for a final vote.
Next steps: The council will consider final action on the ordinance at its July meeting; conditions and any explicit legal language tying the approval to the 20‑lot plan were discussed as matters to be reflected in the approval documents.
