The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWSMU_MRSV_Ltr_19940830 ..o. O. 011 TELEPHONE '� Ton&n of 31/i ooresiille (704) 663-3800 O `on-'sv`0 NORTH CAROLINA POST OFFICE Box 878 August 30, 1994 MOORESVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA 28115 Mrs. Lisa M. Martin, AICP State of North Carolina - DEHNR Division of Environmental Management - Water Quality Section P. O. Box 29535 Raleigh, NC 27626-9535 Dear Lisa, On August 1 , 1994 the Mooresville Town Board approved the major variance request of Mr. John Nivens for approval of increasing the density of his subdivision from two ( 2) units per acre to 2 . 75 units per acre. In addition, Mr. Nivens was requesting to use curb and gutter in his development which would also limit his density to two units per acre. Mr. Nivens dilemma is that although the state law allows the use of a low density option of 24 % built upon area for single family residential the local ordinance does not allow this option to be utilized. Thus Mr. Nivens request requires a major variance issued by the EMC. You and the staff have reviewed Nivens proposed site plan and spoken with me concerning his request. It was your interpretation that the Town could issue a local "variance" to allow his development. It is my opinion this would be a "use variance" and the Town would be allowing something that is not permitted or allowed under the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Nivens is anxious about his project. He plans to submit formal subdivision plans in September. If you are still of the opinion that his development would fit under the low density option of 24% built upon area, then does the EMC allow interpretations or administrative rulings by the staff that would allow him to proceed without formal approval by the EMC ? If the staff cannot issue an administrative ruling then does his request have to go to the entire EMC Board ? Is additional information required, such as proposed impervious coverage or average impervious building lot ? A appreciate your attention to this matter. As you are aware new regulations require many years of interpretation and modification. I look forward to your correspondence. Sincerely yours, 77' ..-11--a-ta-1-e---/ 44:4 27-7- N. Erskine Smith, Jr. AICP Planning Director cc: John Nivens kill - - I June 7, 1994 Ms. Joanna Pethel Town of Mooresville P.O. Box 878 Mooresville, NC 28115 Dear Joanna: I have compiled the case for obtaining a variance for the watershed rules as follows: I . Current Status Of The Property II. Exact Nature Of The Request III. Environmental Impact IV. Economic And Social Issues V. Other Factors I have basically used this format as a source of information for you in putting together a formal request from the Town of Mooresville. To the best of my knowledge, the information is true and correct and will try to put together additional information that you think helpful. I look forward to working with you on this project. Si e el Jo n . Nivens, President C Corporation DN:kh • CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTY The status of the property is depicted on Map I . Parcel A - A 55 acre tract with 165 lots is vested and constructed. This subdivision is known as Reed Creek and is oriented to low to moderate income families. Parcel B - A 13 acre tract with 67 lots is vested, but not constructed. Parcel C - A 26 acre tract which is not vested and not constructed. NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST The developer would like to merge parcels B and C and develop as a single tract consisting of 113 lots as per the attached subdivision plan. The subdivision would lie within the City of Mooresville (as per an annexation request) and be serviced by the Town of Mooresville • water and sewer. The subdivision would be constructed in accordance with the specification of the Town of Mooresville and accordingly include paved streets and curb and gutter. The request may be viewed as: 1. A request for a variance to allow curb and gutter to be used. OR 2 . A request to vary the allowed density. The allowed density on the 13 acre site is 67 lots as per the vested subdivision plan. The theoretical density allowed under the rules on the 26 acre site is 52 (two to an acre) . If the two sites are developed independently of each other, there will be a total of 119 houses, 67 houses on small lots and 52 houses on large lots. The developer would like to combine the tracts and have a total of 113 houses on medium size lots. This is six houses less than the potential under the existing rules. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I have attached waterflow calculations by DPR Associates comparing what may be expected if the property is developed according to the watershed rules versus what is expected under our proposed plan. DPR utilized information obtained from Ryan Homes as to average building and driveway footprints. Ryan Homes will be the exclusive builder in the subdivision. Their report (see attached) projects an 11. 6% reduction in ten year storm peak flow and a 7 . 4% reduction in volume of runoff for the proposed plan versus what could be constructed within the watershed rules. In order to help obtain these percentages the site plan incorporates a substantial amount of undisturbed area as well as bioengineered channels and constructed wetlands. While the DPR report is very impressive as is the state of the art environmental engineering, the real argument should come down to common sense. It should be better for the environment to construct 113 lots over a 39 acre area, leaving as many trees and natural areas as possible, than clear-cutting 13 acres and loading it with pavement and 67 houses and then spreading out 52 houses over 26 acres for 119 - 6 more houses than the proposed plan. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT The Town of Mooresville has directed substantial resources and infrastructure to attracting industry and has had a large degree of success evidenced by the growth of the industrial parks in the area. The availability of affordable housing is a keynote item in attracting industry. Without it, industry cannot attract employees. It is not practical to develop affordable housing on 1/2 acre lots. The combination of development and land cost makes such an undertaking unfeasible from a developer' s risk and unbankable from a lender's perspective. The maximum lot price a builder can pay and market to lower middle income people is about $19 , 000. If the property is developed as 67 small lots worth $10, 000 each and 52 large lots worth $19 , 000 each the total revenues are $1, 658, 000. This is $489, 000 less than 113 lots at $19, 000 each. This $489 , 000 is the bulk of the total development profit. Without it, you cannot justify the risk of a $1, 500, 000 to 2 , 000, 000 investment for several years. The most dramatic impact of the ability to provide affordable housing cannot be translated into dollars and cents. Ryan Homes has provided a profile of the home buyers in the existing Reed Creek subdivision. In Reed Creek, hairdressers earning $18 , 000 per year have blended with factory workers and office workers to create an outstanding neighborhood, constructed and maintained with pride. One really needs to simply drive around on Sunday afternoon or at night during the holiday season to gain the feel of this atmosphere created with the blend of $90, 000 to $140, 000 homes. OTHER FACTORS There are some other factors which may help gain support for the watershed variance. This development is indeed the continuation of a vested development - Reed Creek. The new development - Meadows at Reed Creek, will utilize the watermain extension and sewer pump station constructed • for Reed Creek. The acquisition of the property was contemplated at the time of constructing Reed Creek but negotiations for the land pushed site plan studies beyond the vesting date. The capacities of these city utilities will be substantially under utilized without more development in the immediate area .