Graham’s city council spent about an hour of its almost 5½ hour meeting Tuesday night discussing the issue of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and whether to allow them within certain areas of the city, ultimately deciding not to do so.
The proposed ordinance before the council would have automatically allowed one ADU on a lot with 20,000 or more square feet, or about half an acre. Each ADU would have been limited to no more than half the size of the main house, up to a maximum of 1,200 square feet.
During a public hearing Tuesday night, proponents of the concept, such as members of the local board of realtors, urged approval, saying that ADUs would add value for homeowners while providing needed additional housing options in the area. Much focus was on the escalating cost of housing in Alamance County and the lack of affordable options for many families.
The idea that ADUs would be used for elderly parents (so-called “granny flats”) or the other end of the scale – single adults moving home after college – was a frequent concept applauded by proponents of the concept.
The council even heard from neighboring city councilman Ian Baltutis of Burlington, who said ADUs “allow people to age in place.”
But increasing the density of housing through so-called “infill” development, specifically ADUs, was panned by critics.
Former Graham mayor Jennifer Talley weighed in to oppose the concept. ADUs, she said, “cost the city, but provide no new revenue for the city.”
Talley also opined that ADUs would “alter neighborhood character.”
That theme was echoed by current city council members. Council member Bonnie Whitaker said that ADUs would “change the entire look of a neighborhood.”
Whitaker and other members of the council have been frequent critics of what they consider to be overly dense developments that previous councils had allowed in Graham. “I don’t like dense housing,” she said, adding that she did not like the idea of “squeezing” in more houses. She also said that doing so would not benefit the city.
Councilman Bobby Chin also worried about the work-arounds that people might find to abuse the concept. “People will find ways to circumvent” the new ordinance, he warned.
Chin said he preferred to keep the current system which would allow residents to seek individual approval of an ADU on a case-by-case basis, rather than establishing an automatic right to having ADUs on larger lots across the city.
Mayor Chelsea Dickey said the proposed ADU ordinance was “a step in the right direction.”
Councilman Ricky Hall said the primary benefit was for real estate agents to make more money.
Councilman Jim Young was ambivalent. “I’m still kind of up in the air,” he said, ultimately concluding that he couldn’t “approve the way [the proposed ordinance] is right now.”
Conversation among Young and Whitaker gravitated toward Chin’s concept of allowing ADUs on an “as needed basis,” in Young’s term, or a “case-by-case basis,” in Whitaker’s.
After a nearly hour-long public hearing and council discussion, Whitaker made a motion to deny the proposed ordinance, which passed 4-1. Whitaker, Chin, Hall, and Young voted for the disapproval motion; Dickey was opposed.
