Sunset Cove development plans on hold amidst neighborhood concerns
By Dave Vieser. One day after Cornelius Today published an online article about the July 8 hearing on the Sunset Cove Nantz Road project, the town announced that the public hearing has been postponed indefinitely.
18323 Nantz
Quotable
“The town was notified on June 12 by the Sunset Cove rezoning applicant that they wish to pause their rezoning application until a later, unspecified date to allow more time for coordination with the community and refinement of the plan,” said Senior Town Planner Aaron Tucker.
Background
The original application was filed with the town on Feb. 7. According to town regulations , the application remains active since they have conducted both a community meeting and initial town board presentation.
18311 Nantz
Project applicant Larry Griffin Jr. seeks rezoning for 8.6 acres of prime lakefront property at 18311/18323 Nantz Road to convert two existing single-family homes into an event space for weddings and corporate events to be called Sunset Cove.
The current zoning on the site is general residential and Griffin is asking for conditional zoning, but the proposal has generated concern from neighbors.
The future meeting date will be announced by the town. Whatever date is selected,the meeting will take,place at Town Hall on Catawba Avenue. It will also be live streamed on the town web site: www.cornelius.org.
No Comments
Leave A Comment Cancel reply
Our Partners
Seeing as more than 95% of Nantz, Yachtman, Serenity and Courtside Landing residents have been vehemently opposed to any commercial project on residential property on this penninsula, hopefully the idea is dissolved. The Griffins were not represented (in person but perhaps in proxy) at the last neighborhood meeting and have not had any neighborhood meetings other than the one months ago. Hopefully they are seeing the forest for the trees and succumb to the idea that pulling the project would make them far better neighbors rather than being another representation or the good-old-boy, loophole driven, quasi kleptocracy that has made so many citizens cynical about democracy in what seems to many to be a second “gilded age” where influence is bought by those who can afford it and laws only apply to the people who cannot afford favor. Compromise was suggested in regards to the conditional zoning, which allows for such tomfoolery, but none of the residents seemed to waiver. I have met NO ONE on this road or the adjacent neighborhoods who want this who has no vested interest in the project, stated or otherwise.
It would be a missed opportunity for the public if the entire 12-acre property isn’t transformed into an epic mixed-use development in the future. You could easily fit 100 apartments, at least three high-end lakeside dining spots, and some truly excellent walkable retail. Imagine people going to the beach, dining, and shopping all in one place—without ever having to move their car. And how about an epic bridge over the water, connecting this spot directly to Ramsey Creek Park? The opportunity here is just too good to pass up!
If I had made a ridiculous suggestion such as this one, I would be embarrassed to put my name to it as well!!! Clearly you do not reside in this neighborhood and have no vested interest in its well being and the peaceful enjoyment of this neighborhood. 98% of the residents on Nantz Rd and tributary streets are vehemently opposed to this project for a multitude of reasons! You are entitled to your opinion however I feel very confident that if this project were proposed for your neighborhood, you would have a much different opinion and would not be “anonymous” about it! It’s very easy to hide behind the safety of a computer. Persons with true conviction are unafraid to put their name to it!!! Were you put up to this?
A ridiculous idea would be a ten-story condo tower with 360-degree lake views and a rooftop restaurant. You already have condos and restaurants in your neighborhood.
So. Is the mayor waiting until after the mayoral election to move this forward? Asking for a friend.
I would definitely support a mixed use venue as anonymous described behind Ramsey. It would be a benefit to the entire community, and the homes around there are expensive, beautiful and most have their own private access to the water, so they won’t lose out on anything. Cornelius is extremely stingy with their waterfront. Very pricey and almost all is privately owned. They built 2 small parks, Ramsey has a postage stamp size beach that they gate off most of the time, and charge money to get in the water, sometimes even into the park. They frequently do not allow swimming at all, citing dangerous water levels, but there is no such restriction on the private beaches so the would be swimmers are stuck on dry land watching the boats and floaties of the haves go by. Jetton doesn’t allow even a toe in the water, I was yelled at by a ranger for letting my 2 year old scoop some in a bucket for her sand castle. I would absolutely support something that would be for ALL Cornelius residents and visitors, not just the moneyed. They will be fine, can afford to share a little. They could put in a boardwalk, shopping, then we’d actually be a “beach town” like that magazine called us.
No to Sunset Cove. Yes to Crescent Village.
The temporary pause is 100% politically driven. The town board has heard clearly from the community that there is no support for this rezoning request and realizes approving this just ahead of the election would create risk to their re-election desires. The Griffins know this and can’t push too hard in the short term.
Once elections are complete, the Griffin family will re-engage and try to push this through. At the upcoming public election debates, there will be one simple question asked. Do you support the rezoning request for Sunset Cove? Anything but a no is a yes.
This has been a great example of the community rallying together and pushing back on a rezoning request that serves zero public interest.
The Griffins released a 15 minute podcast style video stating they are pausing for 5 months+ to do more community outreach and make enhancements to their plan. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that elections are right around the corner and this is a a very unpopular topic.
In the video they said they wanted to preserve the property with this event center to generate income so they could afford the property tax. They also said they have donated $40 million to the community. I am confused…are they a wealthy philanthropic family or a family that can’t afford property taxes? You can’t play both sides of that table and take the community for fools.
They stated they wanted to be great neighbors. If that’s true, listen to our feedback. We would much rather you build out that land with single family homes than build a commercial event center.