A long-simmering rezoning controversy seemingly came to a close on Tuesday night as Graham’s city council voted unanimously against a rezoning requested by an Ohio developer for what would have been Graham’s first gated community.
Developer Michael Watson’s third set of plans for White Rock Estates, near the corner of Hanford Road and West Moore Street, had won over planning board members who had unanimously recommended against an earlier plan, but the city council was a tougher sale.
Watkins had already trimmed his proposal from 16 cottage homes and 10 larger, ranch-style single-family homes on about 10 acres, cutting one each in the proposal approved by planning board and considered by the city council this week.
Still 15 cottages and nine ranch-style single-family homes were viewed as “too dense” by several public speakers and city council members.
Watkins had planned to leave a pond and a considerable amount of existing wooded area as open space, but the resulting residential portions of the subdivision would have small lots. Cottage homes would be 900 to 1,200 square feet, the range-style homes larger at 1,200 to 2,500.
[Story continues below layout and illustrations of planned homes for the development.]
He said the plan was to “nestle houses into the existing topography,” in order to “preserve the pond and around the pond and the scenic features that are there.”
“We want to preserve the beauty and essence of that property as much as possible,” he told the city council.
Watkins stressed the $12 million investment represented by the construction of the 24 homes, emphasizing that his company had been attracted to Graham because it is a “growth community.”
Watkins steadfastly refused to speculate on the likely price point of the homes to the council this week because of changing market conditions, saying only that they were intended for homeowners looking for an “adult active lifestyle.” However, at an earlier meeting, he had told the planning board homes would be about $350,000.
He and his engineer, Burlington-based Chad Huffine, also emphasized that with regard to the density objections, the 10-acre site, as presently zoned (R-18), could justify about 18 houses, if the pond were filled in. Instead, by leaving the pond and much of the wooded surroundings around the proposed two roads – one each into the cottage section and another into the ranch-style sections – cut the lot sizes down to about 3,000 square feet.
[Note: Huffine is a Graham resident who also serves on the Graham planning board, but he had recused himself from all planning board deliberations on Watkins’ proposed White Rock development.]
[Story continues below special subscription offer.]
MORE GRAHAM NEWS, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT NEWS THAN YOU’LL FIND ANYWHERE ELSE!
NOT ONLY FOR GRAHAM, BUT ALSO BURLINGTON, MEBANE, AND ELON, AS WELL AS IN RURAL, UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY. SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Watkins said that the houses would have carports or single-family garages, and he assured the council that the driveway portion in front of the houses would accommodate two cars.
Page Cook, who lives near the proposed subdivision, said, “some change is great, some is not,” putting the proposed development in the “not” category.
Another neighbor, Elaine Fox, said “traffic [in the area] is ridiculous” and would be made worse by so many additional homes. She acknowledged that the “homes are cute and pretty,” but said there were “too many” of them.
Graham resident Carolina Laur said that the proposed subdivision “does not fit” the property.
Greg Sanders, who lives across the street from the proposed entrance into the subdivision, said if the council approved the subdivision plan, it would set a “dangerous precedent,” in terms of allowing future developers to squeeze more and more homes on less and less land, as long as they left other portions of the parcel with trees, water features, or other aspects.
Ivey Archer, the granddaughter of Mildred Huey whose family had owned the land, said that the proposed subdivision would “fundamentally change the character of this neighborhood.”
Mrs. Huey, 93, who lives next to the property, asked to speak from her seat on the back row in the audience, pleading against the proposed development.
Mrs. Huey’s daughter, Debra Huey Boone, who sold the property to Watkins and now lives in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, had told the planning board in May that she opposed the development because of its “intensity and incompatibility” with other nearby homes.
Watkins told the city council that if “people were not wanting [the land] to be developed, the property should not have been sold.”
Occasional reference was made Tuesday night, as it had been at the planning board’s earlier meetings, about a supposed deed restriction in the sale of the property.
Much interpretation surrounded the apparent requirement that it allowed the buyer to build a [single] home of no less than 2,500 square feet.
The deed to the property outlines five restrictions, including: “The [buyer’s] dwelling shall be no less and 2,500 square feet.” [Editor’s Note: the “and 2,500 square feet” may be a typo that should have read “than 2,500 square feet.]
Watkins insisted that his attorneys had assured him that the company’s proposed subdivision complies with the deed. “We feel we are satisfying requirements of the deed,” he told the city council.
Council’s decision
After about an hour of a public hearing where the developer, his engineer, as well as residents weighed in, individual council members echoed many of the issues that had been raised by Graham residents.
Council member Bonnie Whitaker said she had a “lot of concerns,” citing traffic, the uncertainly regarding the deed restriction, as well as the private pump station. (Some residents had voiced concerns about whether it would have an odor and whether the city might at some point have to take it over.)
“I don’t like cramming a lot of cottages on this land,” Whitaker concluded, adding, “The area is wrong for it.”
Councilman Bobby Chin underscored Whitaker’s initial opposition. “You’re squeezing more homes” in that were intended by the current zoning, Chin said. He added his concern about the potential precedent it would set for other developers who would come before the city council in the future.
Mayor pro tem Ricky Hall underscored the concern that the city might ultimately have to take over operation and maintenance of the pump station.
Councilman Jim Young posited, “At what point do we [listen to the existing citizens in that area].”
For her part, mayor Chelsea Dickey expressed concerns about parking, pointing to one subdivision an earlier council approved (Riley’s Meadow) where cars sticking out from driveways end up blocking the sidewalks.
Whitaker ultimately made the motion to deny the rezoning, which passed unanimously, 5-0.
See earlier coverage of planning board deliberations (in May and September) and developer’s revised plan (in August):
September 17:https://alamancenews.com/graham-planning-board-reverses-opposition-to-citys-first-gated-community/
