Differences surface over whether city wants larger residential proposal or to save the Hanover Road area for future industrial development
When father-son developers David and Brennan Wyatt went before Graham’s planning board earlier this fall to describe their planned townhouse development off Hanover Road near Jeffreys Street, they were met with a buzzsaw of opposition – from neighbors, and ultimately, from the planning board itself, which voted unanimously, 5-0, against recommending the rezoning.
The 4.7-acre lot has dual zoning designations currently: about half if zoned for light industrial use, the other half for general residential.
When the rezoning initially came before Graham’s city council on November 12, the developers asked for a delay, in hopes of tweaking the project to improve its reception among neighbors and, hopefully, win a city council endorsement.
But when the revised plan came before the council Tuesday night, the opposition continued, even if not quite as vociferously.
The Wyatts had made at least a half-dozen changes since their planning board appearance: reducing the number of townhouses from 53 to 41; widening the buffers between their project and existing neighbors (from 10 feet to 25 feet); adding a privacy fence along the property lines with neighbors who request one; adding a few guest parking spaces (7 rather than 5) and putting them in the center of the development; eliminating a proposed dog park; and doubling the amount of open space (from 5,000 to 11,000 square feet), even though none is required by the city’s ordinance.
They were met with skeptical questioning from two council members, in particular, and some neighbors whose opposition tugged in different directions, sometimes from the same speaker.
Some wanted to keep the industrial character of the area, saying that Graham doesn’t have many areas still available for industrial development. At other times, they argued in favor of an even larger residential project encompassing other properties adjacent or near the 4.7-acre lot that was the actual subject of the rezoning hearing.
“Graham is challenged,” said councilman Bobby Chin, “by not having enough industrial areas.” Chin added, “If we become a bedroom community,” Chin warned, “taxes will be dependent on residential property taxes (rather than industrial taxes).”
Alternatively, Chin argued that the developer could approach other property owners in the area to make a larger project, either one with an entirely residential character or perhaps a mixed-use approach, with some businesses included.
“Have you considered approaching other land owners,” Chin asked, “to see if you could expand the project?” Chin even suggested that the developers could offer occupancy of the townhouses as a sweetener to attract interest from such landowners in such an expanded project.
Story continues below special subscription offer.]
MORE LOCAL NEWS THAN YOU’LL FIND ANYWHERE ELSE. SUBSCRIBE NOW. GIVE OR GET A SUBSCRIPTION FOR JUST $50 FOR ONE YEAR. (Within Alamance County, that price includes both unlimited online access as well as print copy by mail.)
The 4.7-acre tract that was the subject for the public hearing is part of a narrow tract of land just north of the railroad tracks, most of which hasn’t seen any residential, business, or industrial development in decades. Many of the properties have mobile home parks or individual mobile homes.
The property is currently “split zoned,” with about half as general residential and half as industrial.
Some speakers expressed skepticism that the company could sell its townhouses for “$265,000 to the low $300,000s” that was outlined as a possible price point.
Mayor recuses herself
After introducing the agenda item when it came up under public hearings to be held by the city council, mayor Jennifer Talley said that she and her husband owned property “in the neighborhood” of the proposed rezoning, although not immediately adjacent to the property, and for that reason, she asked to be recused from the discussion and vote about the rezoning.
Talley left the meeting chambers, not to return until after the remaining four members had concluded their deliberations on the rezoning, ultimately voting it down on a 3-1 vote.
Council members Chin, Bonnie Whitaker, and Joey Parsons voted for Chin’s motion to deny the rezoning, as incompatible with surrounding zoning, which was opposed by mayor pro tem Ricky Hall, who had conducted the hearing in the mayor’s absence.
Mayor’s husband takes to podium to express concerns
While Graham mayor Jennifer Talley recused herself from the discussion and vote on the proposed rezoning because she and her husband jointly own property in the neighborhood, her husband, Chuck Talley, took to the podium Tuesday night to register his concerns about the proposal.
Prior to Chuck Talley’s remarks, however, Graham city attorney Bob Ward responded to a question from The Alamance News about the propriety of Chuck Talley’s commenting on the subject matter, since the mayor had recused herself on the same topic and they jointly own the properties.
“There is nothing in the statute that says [a] husband or spouse who has an interest could not speak on this issue,” said Ward.
Chuck Talley described himself Tuesday night as “the owner of 1007 and 1019 Jeffreys Street,” the latter of which he said is a landlocked parcel zoned light industrial, adding that a small portion of his property is zoned residential.
[Story continues below photos of public hearing speakers.]
The site of the proposed rezoning “has been on the market since September 2021” and is currently listed for sale at $60,000 an acre on an online commercial real estate website, Talley said. “It hasn’t been tried that long yet anyway” as a potential site for a light industrial project, Chuck Talley pointed out Tuesday night.
Talley said the proposed site for the townhouses is not compatible with the city’s long-range land use plans, which say that the “front of homes should not all be driveway,” Talley continued. This proposal would have the front of the homes be “predominantly concrete,” he told the council.
“It’s not fair thinking there’s some perk in it for me, because right now, there’s not,” Chuck Talley said of his property along Jeffreys Street. “I do think there’s a problem with the traffic issue. . . It’s also not fair to the rest of the residents there.”
The council also heard from property owners John Thompson, Billy Stallings, and Steve Moser expressing concerns about the project and/or wanting the developers to include their parcels in a larger residential project.
The council also heard from property owner Peggy Teer, who had opposed the project at the planning board meeting in October, but said she was now comfortable with what the developers were proposing, as they had modified the project and cut the number of townhouses.
