Overlook at Eastwood
All developments
APPROVED: 11/16/17
View on Map
Case Number: 17SUBDIV1011
Location: Johnson Rd
FF DRO: Yes
Location: Johnson Rd
FF DRO: Yes
FF Watershed: Yes
Proposal: Originally approved for 323 lots but revised to increase the number of lots to 334. Lots are on a down slope to Brush Run.
Proposal: Originally approved for 323 lots but revised to increase the number of lots to 334. Lots are on a down slope to Brush Run.
Case Manager: Jay Luckett
Representative: Bardenwerper, Talbott, & Roberts, PLLC
Developer: Inverness Homes
Design Engineer: Mindel Scott
Owner: The Margaret Kleinert Trust
Representative: Bardenwerper, Talbott, & Roberts, PLLC
Developer: Inverness Homes
Design Engineer: Mindel Scott
Owner: The Margaret Kleinert Trust
Environmental Concerns
Impervious surfaces making storm water flow directly to Brush Run
Increased algae blooms already evident along Brush Run
Siltation and pollutants flowing directly to Brush Run
No tree protection fencing and inadequate siltation fencing
The developer went to LD&T asking for permission to remove their approved second entrance at Johnson Rd. Louisville Keep Your Fork attended and asked the developer to fix/correct specific items prior to being granted the Revised Subdivision Approval. Additionally, we asked the Office of Transportation if there was any traffic impact in regards to removing the second entrance to Johnson Rd.
This letter was the response to our involvement. We were told our evidence and arguments were "improper, highly prejudicial, irrelevant, and most importantly, legally and factually inaccurate, as well as misleading." Ultimately we were accused of "wasting the committee's time, the applicant's time, and now the Planning Commission's time."
A few days later...
The developer acknowledged that removing the entrance would warrant a turn lane to their primary entrance and decided to go ahead with original plan to build the northern entrance to Johnson Rd.
The developer's legal counsel wrote:
"This applicant has a long history of...following the rules"
Maybe they do, but this is what we have seen:
Approved Plans state the signature entrance shall not exceed 6'
Signature entrance exceeds 6'
The developer's legal counsel wrote:
"This applicant has a long history of...following the rules"
Maybe they do, but this is what we have seen:
Illegal encroachment
Notice of Violation from KYTC
