An Ohio developer’s revisions contained in a third set of plans for White Rock Estates, near the corner of Hanford Road and West Moore Street – intended as Graham’s first gated community – won over planning board members who had unanimously recommended against an earlier plan.
The earlier approach, reviewed by the city’s planning board in May, would have had 16 cottages and 10 larger, ranch-style single-family homes on about 10 acres. The portrayal of the cottages had evolved since the planning board first considered the development in April, when some of the houses were referred to as “tiny homes.” But developer Michael Watkins told the planning board in May that the houses would not be “on wheels,” but would have foundations.
The planning board ultimately recommended unanimously, 4-0, against the developer’s rezoning request in May that would have allowed more dense development than the property currently has.
The newest plans, which were considered by the planning board this week, trimmed the total number of units by two – one in the cottage section of the development and one in the larger, ranch-style single-family homes, to 15 and 9, respectively. It keeps the gated aspect for the development but reduces the number of entrances from two to one.
Controversy previously surrounded whether the developer had obtained an easement from one neighboring couple, John and Joan Webster, in order to make the second entrance sweep through a 5,000-square-foot corner of their property. The newest plans omit that second entrance across the Websters’ property altogether, although the plans still brought opposition from John Webster during the planning board’s consideration. Webster complained about the drop in water pressure, which he attributed to other construction going on nearby. “There too much development in that area,” he told the planning board.
[Story continues below special subscription offer.]
MORE GRAHAM NEWS THAN YOU’LL FIND ANYWHERE ELSE! SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
When the city council’s August agenda included the developer’s revised plans, the council concluded that since the plans had changed from those reviewed and voted on by the planning board, the review process should begin anew, with both the city’s technical review committee (TRC) and planning board re-starting the review process altogether.
Watkins had described the community to the planning board as a “premier” development of “affordable micro homes.” Indeed, he told the planning board he intended to move into the development himself.
In his original description to the planning board, which he repeated this week, he said that the smaller homes, deemed cottages, would have 900 to 1,200 square feet, while the larger, custom-built ranch homes would have 1,200 to 2,500 square feet.
Watkins emphasized the “significant changes” that had been made to the plans, by reducing the number of homes, cutting the entrances from two to one, and adding on-street parking at several areas, primarily in two cul-de-sacs.
[Story continues below layout of the subdivision and examples of potential home styles.]
At the May planning board meeting, various neighbors and the former owner of the property, Debra Huey Boone, targeted what they considered to be a “high-density development.” Her mother, Mildred Huey, 93, who lives on one side adjacent to the proposed subdivision, continued to object to the developer’s plans, saying this week it “does not fit this piece of property.”
Another neighbor, Page Cook, said this new development would “kill the value of my house.”
But planning board members concluded this week that Watkins had adequately addressed the “density” argument, with both vice chairman John Wooten and Elizabeth Kirkpatrick saying they were satisfied on that score.
Wooten wondered aloud about the continuing objections from neighbors, but chairman Dean Ward emphasized that the planning board’s focus needed to be on whether the subdivision met technical requirements of the city’s zoning ordinances. Political considerations, such as neighborhood opposition, was an issue for the city council, not the planning board, he said.
Graham planning board member Chad Huffine had asked to be recused from this week’s discussion – as he had been in both April and May – so that he could appear on the other side of the dais as the engineer for the project being proposed by Michael Watkins of Troy, Ohio.
Huffine noted that the roads would remain private, which was necessitated by the plans to have the gated dimension to the entrance. A pump station will also be private. Minimum lot sizes are 3,000 square feet.
As to traffic concerns, Ward said he had lived nearby on Moore Street since 1990. “Traffic is bad,” he said, “and it’s only going to get worse.”
Two changes were recommended by the planning board. Chairman Ward recommended a opaque fence with a minimum height of eight feet around the perimeter of the entire lot where it abuts existing properties and homes in order to provide existing neighbors with privacy; he also said the fence around the pump station should be of the same variety.
Ward also included a specification for a turnaround prior to the gated entrance, so that cars without permission or authority to enter could more easily turn around to exit the property.
With those proposed changes, the planning board passed along the rezoning request to Graham’s city council with its unanimous blessing, 5-0. Voting in favor were Ward, Wooten, Kirkpatrick, Tony Bailey, and Richard Shevlin.
