New Mebane townhouse subdivision draws opposition, vote against from planning board

Townhouses not consistent with rural nature of area, residents say

Neighbors on the edge of Mebane’s city limits were out in force Monday night to raise objections to a proposed townhouse development along Lebanon Road, on the northeastern outskirts of the city.

They told the city’s planning board that the townhouse development was inconsistent with the large acreage and homes in what has traditionally been a rural area north of the city.

Greensboro builder Dwight Stone, of D. Stone Builders and his attorney, Mike Fox, laid out the vision for the project, which met a buzz-saw of opposition.

Fox said the 16.45-acre lot at 6600 Lebanon Road, just up the road from Lake Michael, would be a “great site” for the 80 townhouses envisioned in the builder’s plans “that will add to [housing] options for the city.”

[Story continues below maps and architectural rendering of proposed townhouses.]

Fox said the townhouse development is intended to “preserve the rural feel but with more density.”

The two-story homes, with one- or two-car garages, were estimated to be priced from the mid $300,000s to mid $400,000s.

But the architectural renderings of the townhouses were described as “drab, detail-less, unremarkable” and “nondescript” by Tenly Perry-Trautman, who, like many of the protesting neighbors, lives across the street on Doe Run Road.

Her husband, Charlie Trautman,  said that the current owner, who inherited the property from his mother, is an absentee owner with no interest in the how the project affects Mebane or neighboring landowners.

Sally Merryman took issue with the fact that the new subdivision would have no turn lanes along the well-traveled Lebanon Road. Other subdivisions along the same stretch of road have such turn lanes, she said.

Fox explained that those other subdivisions were larger than the 80-unit townhouse subdivision; because of its minimalist size, therefore, the Department of Transportation, Fox said, did not require turn lanes.

Another neighbor, Whit Watson, focused on the lack of a traffic impact study. Again, Fox stressed that because the small size of the development, there was no requirement for a traffic study – neither by DOT nor by the city.

The acreage is so far beyond Mebane’s present municipal limits that it is not even within its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).

Many of the residents made their pleas, conceding that because they do not live within the city limits, they cannot vote in city council elections and thus cannot influence either the council or the planning board that advises the council on planning and zoning issues.

Planning board member Colin Cannell outlined what he considered to be the significant inconsistency between the proposed development and the city’s land use plan, which is an outline of how the city’s future residential and commercial development should develop.

Cannell made a motion to recommend to the city council that the rezoning request be denied, which passed the planning board unanimously.  In addition to Cannell, voting for Cannell’s motion were planning board members David Scott, Keith Hoover, Ed Tulauskas, and Dalton Mack.  Absent were planning board chairman Judy Taylor and members William Chapman, Gale Pettiford, and Susan Semonite.

The city council will take up the rezoning request at its Monday night meeting. This month’s meeting, like last week’s council meeting and this week’s planning board meeting, will be at the Mebane Arts and Community Center, rather than city hall, which is undergoing some sewer line repairs.

- Advertisement -