By Tom Henderson • Staff Writer • 

Controversial subdivision set for another public hearing

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .<0/p>

Comments

Sandi Colvin

"Councilors’ decision to hold a public hearing didn’t come until 11:30 p.m. Tuesday after a packed agenda. No one was left in the audience by that time in the evening."

We were still there (20 of us whose bedtimes were long past) when the council reached their decision to grant a public hearing. Sleep was a distant 2nd in importance to hearing the decision.

Sandi Colvin

"might be willing to build 10 lots on Northwest Pinehurst Drive-double the number originally proposed-to quell critics who claim their subdivision threatens environmentally sensitive wetlands"

Those additional lots will be moved INTO the sensitive wetlands according to testimony received from Premier's attorney. The original lots on the lower Pinehurst were designated to be low density in order to protect the wetlands from further impact, according to testimony from the developer appearing to be environmentally friendly. Now that the PD is conceding that some of the lots above "may" be in the 100-year flood plain, the fist thing the developer does is impact the wetlands further by squeezing in more density in the sensitive wetland area? I know how that rings with me, you may draw your own conclusions.

If the PD ever decides to update the impact infrastructure has had on Baker Creek through a site-specific FEMA update called a LOMR (which takes 3-6 months according to our FEMA contact), the hydrology report by PBS will be proven accurate and definitive, and I quote from the report: "Peak 1% annual chance (100-year) flow values estimated by this watershed-specific analysis exceeded FEMA's effective flow rates by approximately 65-75%.

The fact that the hydrology report is only based on current conditions along with the proposed development, but doesn't take into consideration the 278 more lots coming soon, a future apartment building and more, should cause great concern for the city and its role in possibly flooding out existing neighborhoods and farm fields. The farm fields in question already flood to a degree every year. Those fields are where the PBS study says the overflow of the existing flood plain will likely go first.

The PD's job is to look ahead 20 years. Are they actually doing that?

A second hydrology report which was due to be completed by the end of May, commissioned by Premier, has yet to be placed into testimony.

Jim

Smoke and mirrors. That’s how government works now a days. It’s all about money. More taxes, more building fees, and more people. It’s all about people like our planning director, city manager and city attorney running over the people that have lived here forever. To much government overreach is not good for the city, state, or the nation. Ask Kate Brown how it’s working for her. The working people of the world are tired of being thrown under the bus for the politics that happen today.

Rotwang

Who would be dumb enough to buy land that floods?

Sandi Colvin

Rotwang - according to the decades old FEMA maps the developer gets to use because of our city's comprehensive codes, it doesn't flood. According to the developer's attorney who said at the last hearing: "And we all know it does not flood", therefore they can build on it and not say a word to any future home buyers.

According to everyone who lives nearby (along with years worth of flooding photos which were submitted as testimony), the basin makes for beautiful lake-front property when it rains 2".

Loop-holes and unwitting buyers.

  • Most viewed
  • Most commented
Web Design and Web Development by Buildable