Planning board members say proposed subdivision is too dense, with too many loose ends
Graham’s planning board wasn’t impressed with the final plans for the city’s first gated community, White Rock Estates, which would have 16 cottages and 10 larger, ranch-style single-family homes.
The board ultimately recommended unanimously, 4-0, against the developer’s rezoning request that would have allowed more dense development than the property currently has.
Planning board member Chad Huffine asked to be recused from the discussion 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. Planning board chairman Dean Ward and member Tony Bailey were absent.
[Story continues below special subscription offer.]
FOR THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE LOCAL NEWS, SUBSCRIBE TO THE ALAMANCE NEWS:
The rezoning request for 10 acres at the corner of Hanford Road and Moore Street had too many loose ends, in the view of most of the four planning board members who considered the proposal.
Watkins described the community as a “premier” development of “affordable micro homes.” Indeed, he told the planning board he intended to move into the development himself.
[Story continues below photo and illustrations.]
The portrayal of the cottages had evolved since the planning board first considered the development last month, when they were referred to as “tiny homes.” But Watkins said that the houses would not be “on wheels,” but would have foundations.
The smaller homes, deemed cottages, would have 900-1,200 square feet, while the larger, custom-built ranch homes would have 1,200 to 2,500 square feet.
Two details arose repeatedly during the planning board’s consideration.
Debra Huey Boone, who sold the property to Watkins, is the daughter of 92-year-old Mildred Huey, who lives on an adjacent property. Boone, who now lives in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, returned to Graham to voice her opposition to the proposal because of its “intensity and incompatibility” with other nearby homes.
Discussion also included a stipulation in the deed that Boone included when the property was conveyed to Watkins. Interpretations varied, but it appeared to indicate that only a single or as many as three 2,500-squre-foot homes could be built on the property.
Boone said that the 26 homes represented a “high-density development.” She said that this property and others “once lost to high-density development, are gone forever.”
However, Cameron West, the city’s planner, told the board that the seemingly inconsistent issue of the developer’s plans versus the deed for the property he had acquired was a private issue, which could be litigated between the former property owner and the current one.
But the other detail that continued to plague Watkins was the additional space needed for a road into the subdivision.
While he displayed a “letter of intent to purchase supplemental square footage” with John and Joan Webster, whose property is adjacent, no final agreement had yet been reached. The Websters also attended the meeting.
The developer needs approximately 5,351 square feet of the Websters’ property in order to provide sufficient entry, according to the intent to purchase document Watkins showed the planning board.
[Story continues below illustration of the additional acreage needed for the drive into the subdivision; see yellow highlighted area.]
But some planning board members suggested that they really should not have even needed to consider the rezoning request unless and until the supplemental property had actually been acquired.
Meanwhile, one resident, Jeff Benes, was particularly harsh in assessing the developer’s attitude and motives. “He could care less about Graham,” Benes said, noting that the developer currently lives in Ohio.
Benes termed the development “little more than a trailer park” with “trailer park cracker boxes.”
He urged the planning board to protect Graham residents “from money-grabbing developers.”
Benes further said Watkins had been “dishonest” and “deceitful” in his presentations to the planning board both this month and last month, portraying that easements had been obtained when, in fact, they had not.
Benes also chastised Huffine’s involvement in the project. “Recusal or not, [he] has a serious conflict of interest,” Benes alleged.
Much of the board’s reluctance was summarized by planning board member Michael Benesch, “It’s hard to move forward without land for the street,” he said, referring to the additional property needed from the Websters for the entry.
Planning board member James Stockert also questioned the sewer pump station that would be needed for the project. “I’ve never met one that didn’t smell,” Stockert said.
Planning board member Elizabeth Kirkpatrick said the development was “a bit too dense. . . [with] too much [development] on too little space.” She added, “I’m not sure this is the right place, or the right time for this development” She also termed it a “big red flag” that not all the details for easements had not been worked out prior to the planning board’s consideration.
Stockert ultimately made the motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request to the city council, which will consider it at its June 9 meeting. Voting for Stockert’s motion for disapproval were vice chairman John Wooten (who had presided in Ward’s absence), Benesch, Kirkpatrick, and Stockert.
