Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I have 6.30. I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order. If you would take just a moment and please silence any personal devices, phones, PDAs, whatever you might have. All right. Take a roll call. Confirmation of quorum. Mr. Bailey? Huffine?

Here.

Finesh? Here. Chair Ward? Here. John Wooten's here. Mr. Stocker? Here. And Ms. Kirkpatrick?

Here.

All right. We do have a quorum. Would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you for being with us tonight. If you would give attention to the overview of the board, our general meeting rules, how we conduct the meeting. This is for your information and to help make this meeting run as smoothly as possible. The City of Graham Planning and Zoning Board is an advisory board to the Graham City Council. It considers and makes recommendations to the Council regarding any requests for changes to zoning assignments, and as such, City Council is the final arbiter of approval or disapproval. Meetings are conducted according to the written published agenda. Individuals who wish to speak concerning any of the requests to be considered will be given opportunity during the public comment period for each item. Please signify by raised hand your desire to speak, and the meeting moderator, typically the board chair or vice chair in the chair's absence, will recognize you. Please come to the podium, state your name and address, and voice your comment. The time limit for comments is three minutes, but may be extended by the moderator to allow questions from the board. Please maintain a respectful and civil demeanor with all comments and responses to questions. The meeting moderator will signal when an individual's time has expired and will call for the next commenter. If an individual does not respect the time limit, speaks out from the audience without being recognized by the moderator, or is disrespectful of the board, they will be subject to removal from the meeting. Once the public comment period has been closed by the moderator, Further comment from the audience will be deemed out of order, and individuals not respecting this will be subject to removal. Now, Cameron, as I mentioned just a moment ago, with respect to the published agenda, item number five, page one, that should read regular meeting minutes, not special. So just that one correction. Does anybody else have a correction on that agenda? Okay, thank you. All right, we'll move to the approval of the regular meeting minutes for the last meeting, April 21, 2026. Does anybody have any questions or comments, any corrections to the minutes? I would entertain a moment that we accept and approve these minutes. So moved. Do I hear a second?

Second.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. And it passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. Item number six, old business. I understand. Do we want to take care of the recusal before or after you state what's up?

I don't think it really matters. I think it would have to come from Mr. Huff on himself if he's ready to kind of lay out for you all his status for, I guess, his request for recusal. So if he wants to go ahead and say that he can, I can vote on it.

Go ahead. Mr. Wooten, I am working specifically for this project as a consulting engineer. And because of that involvement with the project, I would ask that the board entertain a motion to recuse me from this so that I can assist the customer in presenting the information to the planning board.

Okay. Thank you. I would make a motion that Mr. Huffine be recused for consideration of this item. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? All right, that passes. Thank you. Huffine, if you would. And be it noted too, we still do have a quorum at this point. Cameron, if you'll go ahead.

Thank you vice chair would not appreciate it and the concise manner of that as well. So as you all know, this is a request for a to reason 10.05 acres of property from our 18 low density residential to see our conditional residential for the purpose of constructing 16. And I believe the developer will about this as well they're not referring to him as tiny homes anymore. um more or less closer to the cottages based on what was received today and what you all can find in your updated packet with conditions and plans and i think the 10 custom-built homes separated by the pond site and connecting the two sides via walking path are still in play The cottage home section of the development will be served by private roads and the custom home section will be served by public roads. Both sections intend to connect to public water and sewer. The development will have a 10 foot wide Type D landscaping buffer surrounding the development and proposed existing vegetation if possible. As stated on the plans, the updated set of plans also I believe shows a more in-depth buffer on the Western portion of the lot on that was discussed last time neighboring one of the property owners that we can look at on the plans as well and they may bring up to. Let's see the applicant has requested conditions regarding minimum lot sizes and setbacks for both the colleges and custom-built homes. But these measurements can be found on the site plan in front of you all applicants also provided. An updated affidavit I mean your package showing the intent to purchase land in order to provide access into the development. If the project is approved. I believe they removed all affidavits associated with water and sewer or utilities going through lots as they found another way to run it through inside the right-of-way and then through their internal development.

Let's see.

The entirety of the lot falls within the suburban residential future land use zone. The future land use plan mentions the principal uses in this zone are predominantly detached single-family homes and that new neighborhoods may include a range of duplexes, townhomes, and small multifamily dwellings of 12 units or less. The future land use plan also states that the appropriate density inside of the zone is three to six dwelling units per acre. The current lot layout of, I believe it drops down to 26 homes, would fall just shy of the three to six dwelling units per acre. But with there being a riparian buffer and pond on the lot, some of the area is considered to be quote unquote undevelopable. So the lot coverage and total area of roads and sidewalks come out to around 4.59 acres. And this acreage would allow for 27.54 lots to be developed based on the six dwelling units per acre with some additional room to increase that number based upon open space not inside the riparian buffer zone. And that's kind of just a generic rundown of some of the stuff that we talked about last month and some updated this time. I imagine the applicant will have a little bit more in-depth on potential changes based on last month's meeting. And I can try and help out with some of that insight as well. So that's all that I have. All right. Thank you.

Do I hear a motion to open the public hearing for this public comment for this item?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to open up the public hearing to comment on this issue.

Thank you. Do I hear a second? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? OK. Public comment is open. And I'm going to ask the requester to come to the front. Please state your name and address and take it from there, sir.

OK. Good afternoon. My name is Michael Watkins. I'm the CEO of Walker Properties. And I'd like to present to you today some updates that we've made to the plans from the last time we were here a month ago. And there was a request. I would also like to request to have my civil engineering consultant join me as well. And I'd like to also start with a video that we played at the last meeting. It was a request, I think, by the planning board to replay that video. So we'd like to start with that. And then we'll go into a brief presentation.

WACA Properties is pleased to introduce White Rock Estates in Graham, North Carolina. White Rock Estates will be a private gated upscale micro community that will feature small to medium sized homes secluded and situated on 10 acres with wooded lots. The homes will be mostly single level with some multi-level units with elevator and stair lift provisions. The community will feature two separate but connected sections, one featuring custom cottage homes from 900 to 1,200 square feet, and the other section featuring custom ranch homes from 1,200 to 2,500 square feet. The community will be featuring an open pergola, fire pit, open seating, and swings along with walking trails with golf cart provisions throughout the property and around the one-plus-acre pond, with waterfall and fountain features including resident fishing privileges. White Rock Estates will be Graham's premier adult active lifestyle living community designed with thoughtful modern home designs and personalization options focused on accessibility and safety, low-maintenance living, health, wellness, social and recreational amenities, and features. White Rock Estates will be an affordable micro-community with micro-sized homes and an environment that's packed with exclusive features and amenities designed for active and peaceful lifestyle living coming fall 2026. More to come soon from Waka Properties on White Rock Estates in Graham, North Carolina.

Thank you. I think there was a request to see that, so thanks a lot, Cameron, for showing that. No problem. If you will bring up a presentation, I'd like to ask Chad to join me up.

Please state your name and address. My name is Chad Huffine, civil engineer for the project at 505 East Davis Street in Burlington.

And I didn't state my address. It's 940 Dickerson Drive in Troy, Ohio. But I've spent 45 years in corporate America living outside of North Carolina. North Carolina is my home in Raleigh, and I'm in the process of transitioning back to North Carolina. Okay, I'd like to start with a brief overview of a couple items. We're going to talk about the project concept and the intent overall. And we kind of shared that by replaying the video, so I won't get into that level of detail unless it's required. An update on our site plan, overall site plan, and we'll point out some of the features relative to that. What Mr. Hoffine will go through, the density overview, the utility plan, And I'll come back and talk a little bit about the brief, about the home style overview and the project timing, and we'll open up for Q&A. Again, our vision for White Rock Estates is really simple. We're looking at an affordable price community that's based on the home size and the lot sizes. And one of the principal elements here is affordability. We plan for the community to be a private gated upscale looking community, as you can see in the video, trying to represent that. The homes will be secluded and situated on wooded lots. Our plan is to do selective cut. We're going to try to preserve as many of the mature trees as we possibly can. We're also going to pay homage to the natural topography of the property. In other words, we're not going to strip it out. We're going to try to preserve as much of the natural topography as planned. We're featuring small to medium-sized homes, custom-built cottages anywhere from 900, 1,200 square feet. And we're also looking at custom-built ranch homes. So we're talking about stick-built homes on foundations. It would be featuring open pergola, open seating, swings throughout the property, fire pit, walking trail, waterfall and fountain features for the enjoyability of the property throughout the property and around the one acre pond, plus fishing privileges for the residents of the community. We also will be looking at sustainability from an energy and efficiency standpoint, and also from a safety and accessibility standpoint. Low maintenance type health and wellness amenities, as you saw with the walking trails, with the seating, with the swings. Social and recreational features. We're looking at modern home designs that are with personalized options. So they'll be featuring mostly single family homes, but there'll be a few multi-level homes as well that will kind of fit in with the natural contour of the topography of the property. We will offer elevator and stair lift provisions if those are desired by the homeowners. And other safety and friendly features such as walk-in tubs, showers, and those sorts of amenities. And the community be self-managed from an HMO standpoint. Next slide, please. So we have the community divided into two sections. One, what we call the East Lake section, which will exhibit the custom home, and there'll be custom-built ranch homes. And then the West Lake section, which is custom built cottage homes. We think it's a perfect opportunity because the property is located less than two miles off of the interstate. So great accessibility and is sitting in a tremendous location. Next slide, please. I'll point out a couple of features here. I know this is kind of hard to see, but we're featuring 26 units. You know, we've got added clear side of you for the entry into the subdivision and we also have it showing in item be where the the private streets will be gated coming into the community we wanted to to have that upscale looking feel and feature to it. We've added extra buffer vegetation along the backside of the property there to help provide some visibility in greenery there. Also, number D, down along the whole boundary of the cottage side. We also added, there was some comments at the last meeting about parking. We've taken a couple of units out and we've added eight additional spaces for parking. There's a mailbox cluster there at the parking area. Then in G, we're showing the sidewalks throughout the property and a walking trail throughout the property on both sides. If you come over the H on the entry off of Moore, Also there will be gated coming into the community on the custom ranch home side, as well as extra vegetation along the property line there to help provide a buffer between the Webster's property and the homes on that side. As well as we have... I know we don't like calling it a dog park, but the place for the puppies to go and people that have pets from a dog standpoint. And we're also showing the walking trail there. So a total of 26 units. Those are the square footages that we're showing for all of the lots that we currently have segmented. And it's showing a nice enlargement there of the entry off of Moore Street there in Hague.

And just for a point of clarification, I want to point out, um, whenever the staff report was being read, there was mention of public right of ways for the custom built. Um, but it does appear based on their plan set that both the streets for the cottages and, um, uh, the single family home sections are going to be private. So they're going to be all maintained by the developer in the HOA. I just want to put that out there.

Thank you. Um, that's Mr. Hoffman to come cover the density overview.

And before I do that, I'll speak a little bit to updates to the plan, specific to the previous meetings, comments, and messages we received from the speakers during the public hearing and input from the board members. To echo again what Cameron said, and based on Mr. Stockert's input from last meeting, the entire street network will be private streets. And that would allow for the presence of gates at both locations, which helps further the idea that Mr. Watkins has for the neighborhood. In doing so, that puts the public utilities inside of public utility easements so that the neighborhood is serviced by City of Graham water and City of Graham sewer. in response to the routing of the sewer specific to conversations last month the uh area below lot number nine south of nine if you if you see to the uh to the left of that exhibit water and sewer there's a pump station now placed in that area south of lot nine so that becomes a pump station that forces the sewer back up to moore street keeping the uh Water and sewer infrastructure self-contained. I think there was a terminology clarification we want to make for cottage homes versus tiny homes. I'll just repeat what Michael said earlier. The concept of tiny is smaller, 900 to 1,200 square feet. So that terminology was changed to cottage. These are not movable homes. Tiny homes that you see advertised on social media or smaller loft-type vehicles on wheels, these are all going to be built by the builders group, custom-built homes, custom plans, stick-built on permanent foundation, both sides of the project. It just happens to be that on the west side, there are smaller homes, and on the east side, there are a little bit larger homes. The topography on the east side lends itself to having a broader footprint So each house has a better view of the lake from that side. Whereas on the west side, the homes are taller in nature and they have to wedge themselves into the topography on that side of the project. So the architecture of each home specific to the west side is integrated into the topography so that you have a smaller footprint on the ground and necessarily a smaller home. I think that addresses most of the input from last meeting. additions to the plan specific to parking. We placed a visitor-type parking area south of the project. It allows for eight spaces. At that same location is the neighborhood cluster mailbox unit for that half of the project. On the east side of the project, as you go around the east side of the cul-de-sac, there will be another cluster mailbox located adjacent to the cul-de-sac sidewalk. Working your way south out of the, we'll call it the east side or the larger homes, there is a stormwater control measure proposed at the backs of those lots where the hand is circling now to treat stormwater for that side of the project specific to its impervious surface for quality and quantity control. On the west side of the project, just above the parking space where the hand is located now there's another stormwater control measure that will serve the purpose of stormwater quality control and quantity control for the west side with citizen comment from last meeting an additional buffer was added to the western boundary in the cottage area That will be an evergreen two-row. At best, initial plantings will be about six to eight feet high. We've had this conversation in previous meetings of how to plant those to create a visual buffer. And at the request of one of the citizens from the last meeting, that was added to this drawing as well. We have respect for both entrances with adequate site distance. We've set the gates back from the Moore Street right-of-way to allow for a visiting truck to be accommodated without access to the gate. The gates will be equipped with Knox box items as requested by the technical review so that emergency vehicles have access to the neighborhood. So with that, I'll stop on the site plan and we'll entertain any questions that you may have specific to the site plan and the specifics of the engineering.

Mr. Huffines, Mr. Chairman, can I ask? Go ahead. In regards to parking, it's suggested by the map that all eight parking spots are at the end of that road, which would cause quite a hike, if you will, for the owner of the home closest to Moore Street. The other idea that I've I don't know if it could be worked in is if they could have half the parking up at the upper end and the other half at the lower end, give everybody a little easier access to their home. And then my other question about parking is if they have visitors, where are they going to park? And most people own more than one car. So I was just wondering where are you going to put all these cars? I'm sure you're not going to have parking on the street.

That's correct. So in response to your questions, each home site is accommodating two cars. The streets are narrow and will be posted no parking. So that's the reason for the additional visitor parking. There are two factors that create a situation where the parking is located south of the majority of the homes. That area is, of most of the topography, fairly level. So as you come in from Moore Street on the western side, you come in and down a very steep slope. So we're trying to avoid, number one, the cross slope of the parking lot. However, breaking up the eight spaces into two four-space lots is possible because there is horizontal distance to do that. So we could certainly go back and look at that before the city council meets.

I think that might be a good idea to see if you could work that out. Did I hear you correctly on, is there on-site parking for that? Each home has a place to park two cars on that small lot with the house.

Is that going to be one car garage and then one in the driveway or two car garage? How is that accomplished?

The parking is separate from any garage with the home. So it'd be two parking spaces, irregardless of whether or not the home has a garage or not.

Other questions? Go ahead.

Mr. Huffon, I know we're in early stages, but has anyone talked to the DOT about feasibility for the sewer main? Because right now, the way that it's running, you're running under guard rails all the way down the street with a short shoulder.

So for illustration, that's where the engineer placed the force main. It will have to be accommodated with DOT in some fashion.

And DOT did look at the updated driveway entrance as well because previously they were coming in at the connector area and they thumbs up that. So just want to throw that out there.

Yes. This is a floodplain area. Around the pond, sir. Just around the pond. Just around the pond. And how far below East Moore Street or Moore Street are you? What will the topography be? Will the houses actually sit?

Depending on where you measure, it's about 20 feet.

20 feet.

Now, all of the homes will be situated above those elevations, below Moore Street, but above where the water level is. would be located. Part of our requirement for the submittal for this hearing was to provide a basic flood analysis of what would happen to the homes during the 10, 25, 50, and 100-year storms as a requirement from city staff. So early on, we addressed those floodwater elevations relative to the foundation elevations of the homes and infrastructure. And all of those items will be above that elevation by at least two feet. Under your floodplain. Yes, sir.

Well, with that in mind, if you have the houses built at that height, but you do have this 25, 50, 100-year flood occur, evacuation, if you're in the home, is the road going to be below that particular age?

No, sir. So on the west side, let's look at the row of lots on the west side of the pond, but on the east side of the... Main Street, the backs of those lots will be two feet or more above the predicted 100-year flood line. Thank you. So that every elevation, you're welcome.

Sewer pump station. Yes, sir. Tell me about it because I never met one that didn't smell bad. Yes, sir.

So any, if I'm not mistaken, and Cameron may or may not know, but in the city of Graham, we have odor control requirements for those as well. You have one, I'm sorry. Odor control requirement for pump stations as well.

You have the requirements, but if you go down to 1700 Cooper, it don't work.

I haven't heard of any, as Mr. Huffine is, I don't think there's anything inside of our development ordinance that speaks to any requirements for sewer pump stations or inside of the code of ordinance either, so.

He's going to maintain that, the HOA? Yes, sir. DRT is not recommending any road improvements on Moore Street? No, sir.

Okay.

Not at this time. They have reviewed this in its entirety leading up to the first public hearing. They will also sit on the technical reviews for any subsequent plans and middles, and they'll have input if it's necessary.

Mr. Huffines, would there be any fencing around the lake area at all?

Only around the stormwater control measures. Around the pond, it's accessible to all of the neighbors.

What kind of stormwater is that going to be? Is it?

So currently we're proposing devices called bioretention cells, BIO retention, and those are grass-covered depressions that act as a filter. The water goes in the surface and ponds up on top of a grassed area, a foot or two, and then it percolates through a layer of mulch, clay, and topsoil-type material. which then goes through an underdrain system and then back into the environment, which not only controls the quantity flow, but also in some fashion cleans the water slightly as a quality measure as well.

So this won't be a big hole in the ground?

No, it's not a hole in the ground with a pond. During the construction phase, if we're able to go forward with construction, they will be the locations of the temporary sediment traps, which will house the stormwater runoff and muddy water during construction. Those are then cleaned out and converted to a bioretention cell so that the finished product is a depressed green lawn.

You say you're going to have that fenced.

Yes, sir.

Is there any intention to use that as a recreational area?

No, it's typically best to stay off of that area because the material that's placed in that is placed in a loose fashion so that over time it doesn't consolidate so much and then take away the benefit of the stormwater work.

Do we have any other questions regarding site layout at this point?

Yeah, only one left, and that was security lighting. Say it again, please. Security lighting.

So we'll work with Duke Power to do street lighting, and beyond that, it will be like every other neighborhood. There's nothing in addition proposed at this time other than the typical Duke Power street lighting, Cobra Heads if necessary, and then probably lighted signage at the entrance.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

You're welcome.

Any easements requirement from the neighbors? Yes, sir. The Webster's on the location at the- Could you go back to the presentation? The Webster's and Mr. Watkins have agreed in principle to enter into an agreement to buy some additional properties to accommodate the road. And that is the only piece required or yet to be finished.

It has been agreed to in principle.

Yes, sir.

Any other questions at this point? Do you have any further words on your presentation?

No further comments other than Uh, at our first hearing there, there were some, uh, comments relative to, uh, the, the, the size of the homes and particularly the gentleman that lived on the corner. Um, and, uh, one thing that I will say with that is, is that we're planning 900 square feet to 1200 square foot on the cottage side. And the comment was it didn't want to see those homes. So we added that extra buffer vegetation. And the other thing is the home that's directly across the street from that gentleman is 900 square feet, 980. The one diagonal to it is 900 square feet. So we're not doing anything out of character relative to what's already there and established in the general vicinity. That's all the comments that I have, unless there's any more questions. And Cameron, we do have a full set of drawings here for you. Thank you very much for your time.

I'd like to open this up to the audience. Does anyone like to comment? Dennis, if you would, come up to the podium. State your name and address, please.

I have a handout.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

If you would go to the podium, please, so the microphone will pick you up. I don't have public comment. And before you do, state your name and address, please.

Jeff Bennis, 4207 East Gilbert Street in Graham.

Thank you, sir.

I don't have public comment, but I do have a presentation to make. And I'd like to request of this board to allow me adequate time to make my presentation. I won't take the 25 minutes that the developer has used, but I need a little bit more than three minutes. Otherwise, you're going to be shortchanged on what I've got to present. Can I please request five, five and a half minutes? Go ahead, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're speaking about the proposal at the intersection of Hanford Road and Moore Street. How many of the board members have actually went to visit this site to go over there and take a look at it? Has anyone? You've all gone down the road and took a look at it, okay? That's great. I'm glad you did that, all right? I visited the site twice. I went down there. I wanted to see what was going on, right? And I went down there and I want to see for myself. As you did, I drove down that driveway off of Moore Street into the woods, and I came upon two homes near that lake. And I will tell you something, I thought I died and went and entered the Garden of Eden. It's just beautiful down there. The entire area is quiet, has a picturesque pond, very well maintained. It's obvious that the homeowners care very much for the property and the surrounding area, right? This developer proposes to destroy that unique quality of this area by building 27, I'm gonna call them mini homes because that's what they are, and 10 larger size homes. Mrs. Huey has lived on that land for over 60 years, okay? And our developer lives in Ohio, right? That's what's happening here, right? Let me tell you about Mrs. Huey, who owns the adjacent property, and she's the mother of Debbie, who sold the property, developer. She's lived on a property for 60 years. She was on the committee that put together the first Arts Around the Square project. She also, with two other persons, put together the Graham Museum. She's invested in this community. She loves where she lives, and she doesn't want it to be destroyed. The developer lives in Ohio. He could care less about Graham, all right? And I say that respectfully. Why is this planning board even considering putting this development, which can at best be described as a trailer park, okay? The community is counting on this board to protect us from money grabbing developers whose only interest is making a profit. and nothing of the established and surrounding community. I'm not even sure why the board, how it even got through the planning office, to be honest with you. But if this moral cause doesn't move you, there's some hard stops that you just can't avoid. The planning board must not endorse or rezone that property for the following reasons. When Mr. Watkins first spoke to Ms. Debbie, who's here today, He advised he wanted to buy the property to build his own home on the property for himself. One single home. And she said, you know what? One home on this property would be pretty good. We agree with that, okay? Days before the signing of the deed transfer and sale, Mr. Watkins changed his mind to Miss Debbie. And he said, instead of one home, I'd like three homes, okay? And she thought about it for a while, and she says, you know what? Three homes, it's 10 acres. That fits the area. We can live with that, okay? But she put in the deed and the transfer documents that the three homes must be no smaller than 2,500 square feet. That's what she requested, and that's what was signed, and that's a legal document. I don't know why we're talking about 27 homes now. What happened to the three homes at 2,500 square feet, which Debbie, Miss Debbie, was okay with, and Miss Huey, they're kind of a pair, right? All right. He was dishonest in speaking to Miss Debbie, and he's being deceitful tonight, and I'll explain why, okay? During the last meeting, Mr. Watkins was told by this committee that he should meet with Mrs. Huey and had to get an agreement to cut across her property for sewer and water. He said he had an agreement in the last meeting. He didn't know that Mrs. Huey was in the back of the room. When all was said and done, she came up and she says, no way over my dead body. So he deceived the board in saying that. You got to know who you're working with. Okay. So there was a little bit of a concern about that. All right. The committee asked Mr. Watkins to go back and talk to Ms. Huey and maybe we can work this out. Right. He didn't do what the board asked him to do. All right. He just kind of blew you guys off. What he did do was he sent the daughter an email. Would you please go talk to your mom? Well, apparently that's no longer needed because they're doing some other thing with the pump thing, right? But he didn't do what you asked him to do, all right? Once again, that hurts his credibility as to being an honest broker, okay? I understand Mr. Watkins needs a 60-foot easement for a road and he only has agreement for 30 right now. Is that right, Cameron? Does he need 60 feet for that road that goes down? He only got 30 right now?

So there's an existing easement that serves the property back there. Right. And I think that is the additional what was highlighted previously. That's 30 feet. They showed the easement is 30 feet. The roadway that is shown on the sets of plans is 40 feet or 50 feet. Yes, sir. So an additional, I guess, 20, whatever is required is what is shown on. This is what is going to be granted between them and the Webster's.

So he still needs that.

That's correct. Yes, sir.

All right. He doesn't have that right now. You can't put in the community if you don't have the right road. He didn't bring that up. I'm bringing it up to you. He doesn't have what he needs. Mr. Watkins has softened the naming of the mini homes to be called affordable cottages. It sounds softer, but it doesn't change anything. These structures are still trailer park cracker boxes. I walked off this room today. This is a 1,200 square foot room. He's talking 900 to 1,200. So that's the size of this room or smaller. Last month, it was 600. What happened to the 600? The state of North Carolina says a mini home is 400. So what's he going to build? He's not bringing all this up. He's deceiving you as he speaks. Okay? It appears to me that Mr. Watkins will say anything to make this project a go for his profits to be deposited in his bank in Ohio. Not Graham, Ohio. Okay?

All right.

A member of this planning board is consulting to the developer, recusal or not, I understand he's recused. Recusal or not, this represents a serious conflict of interest and undermines the integrity of the planning board process. One of your own is sitting right here. Something wrong with that picture, all right? And a lot of the community members see that. It's wrong. Nobody on the planning board should have any interest in any projects going on in the city where they will personally gain, and he is personally gaining by this, all right? Even though he's recusing himself, he's one of you, okay?

All right.

We talked about Mr. Adams, all right? There's a 10-foot easement. Mr. Adams doesn't want to be looking into the kitchen of another home, even though it's 900 square feet or even 1,200 square feet, all right? It's infringing on his environment there, okay? I understand there's a request by the developer to be granted first right of refusal for future additional land purchases, which means expansion of this mini home development. I don't know if it's the road or not, or other property there, I don't know. But I don't trust anything that's going on here. And he just deceived you, Norman, 15 minutes ago, when he said he's got an agreement with the Websters on purchasing additional land, all right? I've spoken with Mrs. Webster, Mr. Webster wasn't available. She signed an agreement that she has the option of selling him the land. But she said, and she's here tonight, she can speak for herself, they had no intention on doing that. So we have an agreement. We don't have an agreement. There's deception going on here. This project fails all requirements. It should have stopped in the city planning office before it even got here. Let's talk for a minute just about traffic, all right? The traffic at Hanford Road and Moore Street is busy, all right? Because of the other two developments that went in there, Hanford Landing and the other one down there, all right? One of the neighbors there, when someone tries to pull into that Hanford Landing, that traffic backs up a quarter mile. He's laughing because he sees it. And these people that are in the room today live it. Quarter mile, more traffic. And now we're talking about putting in 27 homes, which originally was supposed to be three 2,500 square foot homes. The handout I gave you shows some of the impact of traffic, right? You got some serious traffic accidents there, all right? This developer has demonstrated, all right? Not hearsay, he's demonstrated that he can't be trusted. Why would the city wanna do business with someone you can't trust, okay? The planning board must shut this program down tonight for the benefit of the community. We count on you guys to take care of the community, all right? This project is ludicrous. and it's not in compliance with the legal reasons stated. There's a deed that says he can't do this, all right? It's a legal document, and he signed it. How'd we go from three homes to 27? Well, maybe he thought no one would notice, okay? The developer does not have the best interest of Graham in this plan. His best, first number one interest, number one goal is his profits, his profits. And beautiful presentation. I mean, those homes he showed up there were gorgeous, right? I just pulled off the internet cottages in many homes. You see what they look like? He doesn't have to build those. Those are just artist renditions. If that's what he's going to build, I'll buy one and put them on my property. But what you're going to get is what I presented right there, all right? The generic mini home, all right? Please, please protect our community from profit-driven developers. If you send this to the city council with any sort of endorsement, I'm going to tell you exactly what they're going to say. Because I heard this from the development that went in on Gilbreth and Ivy Street. Well, the planning board approved it. There's nothing we can do about it. That's the weight you carry with your decision. So please, please make the decision in the best interest of the community. Thanks for the extra time.

Before you go, anybody have any questions for Mr. Benes? Questions?

No. I have a question for Mr. Benes. Would you want this project to go across the street from your house? You've got a lot of land back there. Would you like that? Just think about it. You don't have to answer that. You don't have to answer that. Just food for thought.

If you have questions, you need to direct them to the moderator. Okay. And he will.

I can't, I was going to say, I can't answer that question. Right. Yeah.

Okay. All right. And I didn't, I didn't really want an answer, but I want you to think about it. Where do you live and what do you want across the street from you? Thank you very much.

All right. Comments from anyone else, please. Please come to the podium. State your name and address.

Good evening. My name is Deborah Huey Boone. I am the former owner of this piece of property in question. I live in 911 Wood Street, North Myrtle Beach, but I grew up in Graham and it's my hometown. I want to thank you for letting me speak as the former owner of this piece of property. I'm As I said and Jeff said, my family has a lot of investment in Graham. I can remember selling barbecue sandwiches at the very first Arts Around the Square standing in front of the soldier and Miss Sarah Ryan getting me and my mother digging dirt and weeds out of the back of the old fire station when she decided we needed an arts council. I do care about this community. So I just want to be clear, I'm not opposed to responsible development because growth is inevitable. There are a lot of people who want to live here and there's a good reason they do because it's a beautiful area of the country. But what does concern me is the intensity and the incompatibility of the proposed rezoning and the long-term consequences that it could create for the surrounding neighborhood. This property has historically served as a natural green space and a transitional buffer within this part of the town. It is one of the few remaining undeveloped areas that still supports wildlife, mature trees, natural drainage, and open space. In fact, this morning I was walking down the hall in my mom's house and stopped dead because there were two deer standing in her backyard. But once this type of land is lost to high density development, it's gone forever and we all lose. So I do ask the board to consider the following important impacts of the change. The homes on Hanford and Moore Road were built with a certain character, and certainly the newer homes that are there is a beautiful new home right off of Moore Street. And obviously, if you've been down my mom's driveway, you've seen her house and you have seen Paige's house, Mrs. Cook. The proposed high-density cottage development is not consistent with the surrounding properties. You know, Hanford Road has always been one of the prettiest roads in Graham, and all the lots have nice, significant land surrounding them. It's been a lot of people who have taken those older homes and done a lot of work to refurbish them and make them more valuable. But when density increases beyond what the surrounding infrastructure and design were intended to support, We experience increased congestion, more noise, reduced privacy, strain on the shared infrastructure, and a loss of visual green space. Because people invest in their homes not just for the house itself, but for the surrounding environment. And this diminishes the desirability of all the adjacent properties to this environment. Moore Street, I don't live here, but I've been driving my mom around for the last five days. It is heavily trafficked, as has been mentioned, and at times it is currently almost impossible to exit out my mother's driveway. To increase the number of homes of 27 pouring onto that road, And as you mentioned, everybody has at least two cars. And if they have a child, they're going to have three. And their childs have friends. Well, that's five. And pretty soon, we just have a lot of traffic in a very small space. Not to mention the safety issue of getting rapid response in emergency situations. My mother is currently 92 years old, and EMS has been to her house more than once. A couple of years ago, the former Mayor Talley gave me a call and She actually wanted some of this acreage to build a fire station because she said there's an adequate fire protection for the neighborhood and with all the development. off of Rogers Road, she was very concerned that there would not be adequate response or time for response, so she wanted to put a fire station. I said, well, you know, I don't consider myself eligible to get out of my mother's will by putting fire trucks behind her house, so I said no to that project. This property also functions as a very important urban green space. In A city environment, undeveloped land like this provides habitat for birds and native wildlife. The stormwater absorption, tree canopy and temperature reduction, clean air, a natural beauty, and an ecological balance. When Moore Street was put in, it changed the topography of that land significantly and And in rainstorms, as the stormwater was mentioned, even to this day, because of that change in the land, there is a great deal of water that washes into that pond, stops up the dam, and causes that pond to almost overflow the dam, which is the road access into my mother's house. And I can imagine that if you remove the barrier of the vegetation that is currently there that protects the runoff, that that stormwater is going to be even more significant into that pond. There will be an incredible amount of... permeable land that is lost. We will replace it with rooftops, driveways, utilities, lighting, and a lot of concentrated human activity there. The result displaces the wildlife. It reduces one of the few remaining natural sanctuaries in this area. And as areas grow, preserving strategic green spaces becomes increasingly important. You know, I mentioned that I live in Myrtle Beach and one of our challenges there is we have allowed so much development that flooding is happening every time we have a major storm because all the live oaks, which absorb 250 gallons of water a day, are being pushed over by development and now people's homes are flooding and the environment is suffering. Again, once this is gone, it's gone forever. The original intent of this property when my parents bought it was that it would house about eight or nine beautiful large estate homes. And when I did sell it, Jeff's numbers are a little bit off, but originally my husband and I put restrictions when we advertised this property for sale that there would be three homes at 2,500 square feet. And the day before the property closed, Mr. Watkins threatened to back out if we did not remove that three-house restriction. And we said, okay, well, we can see that you could probably get five or six houses on this property with no problem whatsoever. So we said, fine, we would remove that and left that the guarantor, and I have a copy of the deed if you'd like to see it, is restricted to a 2,500-square-foot home. So imagine my shock when my mother told me that 2,700 homes were going on the acreage that I had sold, and I apologize to all the neighbors for doing this because had I known, I would not have sold it. You know, stewardship and reasonable use of land is the purview of the zoning board, but it also changes the character and impact of the land and the neighborhood. And the ownership change of properties, certainly people can do what they want to with their land. But the Planning and Zoning Board is here to protect that. We wouldn't want a trailer park. You wouldn't allow a Walmart to go there. This was our 18 property, and now the zoning request opens it up for a lot more than just tiny houses. So I do respectfully ask that you reconsider and do consider keeping the zoning as it is and not allow so many homes on so little space. It's entirely too much. Too much. Thank you very much.

Any questions? Questions? All right. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Please come to the podium, sir. State your name and address.

My name is Robert Sanders, and I live at 1225 Hanford Road. First of all, the little rental, the little house that was referred to as 980 square feet is about the only rental house nearby on Hanford Road. But If you take the size of the lot and we took, John, your property, we could put 22 cottages on it. If we took Dean's property, we could put 82 on his property. And if we took your neighbor's, the Brown's property, we could put 195 on his. So in your community, in just those three lots, we could put close to 300 cottages. So to me, you know, with the property next door that has just recently been rezoned, density was a real issue, and I think it still is here. having that many homes in the area on those smaller lots. The developer has said several times before in the meeting and again today, he talks about affordability. And I think it was Dean that asked him last time how much these were going to sell for. And as I recall, he said around $300,000. Even if it's a 900, that was talking about a 600-square-foot cottage. If you take a 900-square-foot, that's $330 a square foot, and that's not even worth a garage. These pictures don't indicate any kind of a garage. You can go across the creek into Hanley Ridge, which is, an address of Graham, but it's actually in Burlington. And you can get a 1,416 square foot condo for $249,000, which is 176 square foot. So I question this idea of affordability and bringing affordability to Graham. In conclusion, the last thing is if every time a developer comes and requests a change, it's kind of like playing a ball game, and in the middle of the game, the referee changes the rules. This land has an R18, which sets aside how large it's going to be and what it's going to be. And if it's going to be changed every time someone asks, you might as well live in the county. And as all of you know, right now in the county, there's a big uproar because they want to put 400 on 440 acres. They want to put 541 homes. If we move that to Graham and put cottages on it, we could put 6,600 homes on it. So I think we have to be a little bit more careful and not change the rules in the middle of the game. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Anyone else? Mr. Boney?

Yes.

State your name and address, please, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom Boney with Alamance News, 114 West Elm Street in Graham. I wanted to ask first on the early slides that were showing the illustrations of the potential homes, whether those are in fact homes that Mr. Watkins has built anywhere or are they simply stock photos?

Is that your only question?

Yes, sir. I think so.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this time? Watkins, would you like to come back to the podium and answer that question, please?

Sure. Michael Watkins, 940 Dickerson Drive, Troy, Ohio. And again, I'm in the process of relocating back home. This is home for me. I do want to address the question, and I will address the question. But I've never had my personal integrity question. And that's a little disheartening for me, but I'll take it. Yes, these homes have been built. These homes are designs from builders that operate on my team. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Chad Huffine, project engineer. I typically try to address facts and numbers. So I just want to give a little insight to the density question. This property is currently zoned R18. It's 10 acres, 10.05 acres. So at R18, the density results in about 24 homes. We proposed 26. At the beginning of the presentation, I think Cameron made a reference to about four acres. We heard the citizens talk about green space preservation. We talk about trees and we talk about the environment, and that's exactly what a cluster type neighborhood academically tries to do. We take the best of what we can use. We tread lightly where we go. The whole premise of this neighborhood is architecturally integrating the homes into the natural topography. The density is relatively equal whether the zoning is changed or not. The zoning change request before you specifically asks that a similar number of homes be constructed in a more efficient way on higher ground in a way to preserve the green spaces and the natural areas that both sides of this presentation want to see preserved. We've addressed technically all of the questions that I think staff has asked us in the technical review portion. We've addressed the concerns over public streets, private streets, the aesthetics, the builder team, the intent of creating a destination for Graham that the citizens can be proud of. Those are the things that I can comment on specifically and that are technical items. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

I do have a question. Yes, sir. For the sake of two homes, 24 versus 26, why are we sitting here discussing a conditional rezoning versus keeping it the way it is?

The specific dimensional requirements in an R18 lot versus a conditionally rezoned lot that we propose are allow the lot size to be smaller and the balance of the land be placed into common space that is owned by the homeowners association or that is left in riparian buffers or undisturbed stream areas. The dimensional setbacks, the lot widths and depths are specific to each zoning category. As part of the conditional zoning request, we tabulate each one of the lots' specific dimensions, specific areas, and setbacks. The balance of the land that is unused is left as green space or community property.

Question that comes to mind, Mr. Huffine. You're asking for specific changes to that zoning What could you put on that property with no changes to the zoning?

If it was currently R18?

What is the current zoning on that? R18?

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

What Mr. Huffman stated is correct. That is a minimum 18,000 square foot lot size.

What could you put on that property without changing the zoning?

Okay. Okay. I'm gonna answer it with a little bit of an illustration. In memory, we have a cluster neighborhood that has lots on a road that are tight to the road with margins behind the lots of larger green spaces. Or we have a typical view of the zoning map that shows lots and blocks and a very rectangular or geometrical design to it. The net land area in each lot, in an R18 zoning would be 18,000 square feet minimum. So as our job as designers would be to access as many 1800 or 18,000 square foot lots as we could with whatever road network we could achieve. That is done in the conditional zoning presentation in a more efficient way with smaller lots and less road frontage. Did I answer the question?

No.

Okay.

How many of those 18,000 square foot lots could you get into this property?

We would have to design that and bring an alternate design to you.

You mean you haven't done that already?

No, sir. We would not do that unless we were asked to.

Thank you. That answers the question. Any other questions for Mr. Huffheim?

Tom Boney, Alamance News again. This one actually is more to Cameron or to staff. One of the dimensions that seems to be new in this development is the gated nature of the community. I'm just trying to think, do we have any other gated communities in Graham in the city limits?

One that came to discussion last month was not really in this form or fashion of gate, but in the Hanford Landing development, there was a gate that was required to be installed, and I can pull it up for you as well.

Is that the one to separate the two?

The townhomes right here. On Nina Drive, they requested the developer, the property owners here requested that this access not go through. Right. And these are public streets as well.

But if I recall correctly, there's some flexibility for emergency vehicles. That is correct.

And that flexibility would also be taken into consideration with these, as we do for any commercial or industrial manufacturer as well. FIRE requires them to have specific requirements for access. how that gate opens and operate some, uh, the new technology has it's where it opens via fire truck horn. Um, some have Knox box where a key is, um, inside of there and they can open it as well.

But as best I'm counting, this is in essence, the first one, I mean, just in terms of its uniqueness, um,

there's at least one apartment complex i can think of that says it's gated but the gate seems to always be open yes but um i don't know of another single family development i think you're probably right and i couldn't you know put my hand on the bible and swear to that either but um i think as for the gate the function would be functional through the technical review committee and whatever they were installed would uh exceed or amount to the fire code requirements for access inside of there thank you that is correct that

That gate on Neenah Drive is not for normal ingress.

That's correct. It's for emergency services access only. So that's the only one that I could, single family residential that I could really point towards. But the apartment complex is a good one as well.

Yes, ma'am. Please come to the podium. And state your name and address, please.

I'm Ruth Sanders, and I live at 1225 Hanford Road also. And I just have one question. I don't really know who to address it to, but does Graham not have an attorney? I guess I don't understand the fact that something can be in a deed, which is a legal document. and just be completely ignored. And so does the attorney, does Graham not have an attorney or somebody that could look at this? Because I thought it looks to me like you could be setting up for a lawsuit or something else. I mean, this just to me looks wrong to not go by what the deed says. That's our question. That's all I know.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this issue, please? Mr. Benes?

Jeff Benes on Gilbert Street. I don't want to overstay my welcome, but I do have to respond to Mr. Huffine's very courteous, fancy window dressing about the layout. You can't get around the fact that 27 homes are gonna be put in those woods.

But just for correction, for accuracy sake, everyone, currently it's 26. Oh, 26. 26, if I read that right, 26.

Okay, I was rounding up, sorry. So 26 homes are gonna replace all of those trees, all right? I don't know how many trees are there now, but there won't be many trees left. 26 homes, roads, everything that goes along with it, right? All those trees are going to be gone. You won't see a deer around there. You won't see the raccoons anymore. That whole thing is just going to be destroyed. Let's not window dress it by saying we'll do the best we can and we'll protect the green spaces. You're not protecting any green spaces by putting in 26 homes and those roads. Fact is a fact. Let's just call it like it is. Thank you.

Anyone else? Watkins.

Michael Watkins, 940 Dickinson Drive, Troy, Ohio. We have had several conversations with council. And our belief is we are meeting the intent of the deed. which states that there'll be at least 2,500 square foot home. We're going to have several 2,500 square foot homes and particularly to the grantee and that would be me. So I will have a home in the community as well. Thank you.

I promise this is the last time I come up. all right, Jeff Bennis at Gilbert Street, all right? The deed doesn't say several homes, the deed says 2,500 square homes, not one, not six, not nine, all right? All the homes have to be 2,500 square feet. That's what the deed says, all right? So there's a little twist in that in his response, right? The deed doesn't say, you know, some homes, most homes, all homes have to be 2,500 square feet. So if the zoning stayed the same and the homes he's going to build is 2,500 square foot homes, we wouldn't even be discussing this. Just follow the deed that you signed. Follow the rules, right? The reason we're getting into a little contest here is that he's not following the agreement that he signed. Just follow the agreement. Thank you.

Anyone else at this point?

Chairman, I just can't read it this far. How wide are the roads?

So Street C down here on the eastern side is a 50-foot private right-of-way. And Street A on the western side is a 40-foot private right-of-way. Back of curb looks like 20 feet on the western side and 31 foot back of corner, 20 foot wide streets on the western side, 26 foot wide streets on the eastern side. Is that correct, Mr. Huffheim?

Yes.

That's what I'm reading right here. Please come to the podium.

I think that's an older version. This is the one that I was sent today. We understand that. That's what I brought your record set. So these streets are proposed as 25 feet back to back. We've talked with fire marshal during the TRC review. The right of way are proposed at 40 feet. Both of them are private.

Mr. Huffine. Excuse me. No problem. The two-carred. driveway. Yes, sir. Will that clear the sidewalks or will it be parking on the sidewalk?

So one of the primary initial design constraints we internally held was to provide at least 20 feet from the backside of any sidewalk to the front facade of any proposed structure so that at a minimum we have 20 feet of clear space so we don't have any pedestrian vehicle interference when the vehicle's on private property. Thank you. Thank you.

Questions? I have a question.

Please come to the podium. State your name and address, please, sir.

My name's Albus Webster. I live at 365 West Moore Street. Yes, sir. I've been talking to Michael since March about the right of way across my property. I'd like to know exactly how much right of way space that he's going to need. Can somebody give me that answer? Answer that question? You first said 60? Is that right?

Sorry? Anyone can answer that question?

I was waiting for, I guess, posed to me. So honestly, from what I can see, I'm sorry, yes, sir? You have a question? Oh, okay. From what I can see on the sets of plans is that what is being requested here is a 50-foot private right-of-way. and I believe there's a 30-foot-wide easement that currently runs through your property into this property, and that is the additional area that he is requesting to satisfy the areas outside of that parameters of the easement. Due to it being a private drive now, before there was the proposal of it being a public right-of-way, which would have been purchased via fee simple, but in this instance, it could kind of all fit inside of that easement.

There's a problem with that right-of-way. It does not go all the way to Moore Street. It stops at our neighbor's property. So he's going to have to zigzag around that property to get to that right of way. So I want to know how it's going to work out.

I understand that. But what we have been provided here essentially shows that the discussion has been had with you all to acquire this area. And if that cannot be done and this project could not suffice out here, I think that is more or less a discussion. Excuse me if I'm overstepping my words here. But that is a discussion between you and the developer on whether or not what parameters are being sold and what area is being taken into consideration.

OK. I wish the city of Graham would respect the trees more than they do. I tell my neighbors I'm gonna have, I got four acres adjoined to my property, my house is on. I tell my neighbors I'm gonna have a tree museum one day.

Mr. Bennis, you done made a promise.

Every time someone says something like that, I gotta clarify it, right? You know who I am? Yes, sir. Jeff Bennis on Gilbert Street. All right, there is no agreement between to sell that land. There's an intent, and there's an option, all right? So let's make sure that's clear. There's no agreement, and it's not in concrete. If they want to, they can sell that land, if they want to. But they've already talked to their attorney, and their attorney says, that is not a binding contract. If they don't want to sell that land, they don't have to. And that was told to me by the Websters. So... I'm correcting Mr. Cameron who said, oh, I guess there's an agreement in place. There's no agreement in place. There's an intent to purchase, but that's their option. They don't have to do that. So there's nothing guaranteed that they will sell that land to them. Just clarifying the record.

All right. Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.

Michael Watkins, 940 Dickerson Drive, Detroit, Ohio. Cameron, if you could bring up the slide in the presentation. I think it's like towards, yeah, right here. So there's been no deceit. This is clearly a letter of intent to purchase that we've gone back and forth with the Websters for almost two weeks now on an intent to purchase. The area in red is the current easement for the road to gain access to the property that I purchased. The area in yellow is the calculated area that is needed to get the proper width of the street to come in and it is off the other neighbor's property. As the road that comes in, it does come in at a slight angle, as you can see that. So total, there is about 3,636 square feet or a little less that's currently needed that will be part of the purchase agreement. And this is what was in the information that was sent to the Webster's and discussed with the Webster's.

Thank you. Mr. Watkins.

Yes, sir.

Based on what I'm reading, the letter of intent is, in fact, a letter of intent. So he has not agreed officially to sell you that piece of property. Is that correct?

That's correct. And that's why it says it's a letter of intent.

I totally understand that. Yes, sir. And then my next point would be it's really hard for our planning and zoning to move forward with any of this if you don't have access to that property?

Well, the idea was that for the time frame that we had to come back to get an agreement, have a discussion and get an agreement with the Webster's to purchase a small amount of property that was needed. I have had discussions with the Webster about purchasing the entire four almost five acres, that this would be. But the immediate intention was to get the proper amount of square footage that was needed to get the road in.

I understand that. But my point being, the word was agreement. And you don't have that yet. You have an intent, but you don't have an agreement.

Yes, we have. That's correct, sir. We have an agreement for an intent to purchase. Okay. Yes, sir. Okay. Thanks, sir.

One more time. Does anyone else have any other comments? It's seeing none. I'm going to entertain a motion that we close the public hearing at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we close the comments from the public hearing.

Do I hear a second? I second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Please excuse me for just a moment while I. All right, Mr. Finesh, let me just start with you. Thoughts, comments?

I've got. a lot of disturbing thoughts. I like projects to go like they should and the presentations were made effectively. However, it's hard to move forward with any kind of planning and we're basically spinning our wheels until we know if we can actually get access to that property or not. And I haven't seen that. The other is we are a planning and zoning board. Under the zoning part of our job is the requirements and the technicalities and the layout and all of that, which has been presented, like I said, very well. But the planning part, we're here to design and intend to implement a desirable plan that achieves both satisfaction and credibility with the citizens of Graham. And I don't see how we can even do that under these conditions.

It just... Can you specify those conditions, please?

Just finish up with the conditions. Is that what you said?

Specifically, what are the conditions you're referring to?

Well, the conditions that I was looking at is basically the green space, the impact to the area, and then the parking. That issue, it really got me. With the road and the amount of cars, you know, I guess one of the citizens spoke out and said there was no signs of garages or anything on the property or anywhere to park them. And then I'm really torn with the parking part of this area. That's my main concern.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. I agree with Mr. Banesh. in all that he said. I have my own concerns regarding the sewer pump station. Like I said, I've been around them a lot and I've never met one that didn't smell. And that will cover the whole area, not just this development, but that particular area. And I'm concerned about a gated community in this area and the road traffic. And I lived in a gated community in Durham I understand sometimes that gate doesn't open and traffic starts backing up. And so I do have some concerns about that. I would really like to see a plan as it's currently zoned with the R18. And that's where I'm coming from.

I echo the concerns brought before me. I would like to just share for everyone here what the deed actually says, since we keep referring to a deed and no one has yet to read said deed. I'm just going to read you the short snippet. So the deed itself obviously lists the area surveying boundaries, which I am not going to read to you. But I'm going to read to you the end of this. This above described property is conveyed subject to the following. Number one, the grantee's dwelling shall be no less and 2,500 square feet. And then it continues forward with easements, which I will not read to you. So I am a wee bit concerned there with, I think, what the intent was of the individual that sold the property. I do echo what was said, however, that with R-18 easements, there is an allowable building area. So I don't think that we can prevent them in the future from building. I think that there is a potential for development there. And that is something that we recognize. But I echo the concerns here. One of my larger concerns is that on Moore Street, this would essentially be between Hanford and Moore Street, the third development in the area and the traffic control, especially in that intersection. To me, I know the DOT has said it's okay, but does not match what is being in that area at this point. But

I have a number of concerns. First of all, probably the primary concern is the lack of the easement. It's not solid at this point. There is an agreement there to consider it. There's still a possibility that it won't happen. Hasn't happened yet. The documents aren't signed. That's a big red flag to me. I am concerned also as well about the traffic on Moore Road and Hanford Road, the impact that's going to have. The other concern is I think the presentation was very good. The need for housing like this in Graham is critical at this point. I'm just not sure that this is the right place at the right time for it. Speaking of, if we had no opposition from the neighborhood, I would say it's a bit too dense for the area that you're trying to build on, even though it falls within the allowable limits. It seems to me that you're trying to put a little bit too much on too little space. And I'm not sure that's really the best use of that piece of land. I would agree with you, Ms. Kirkpatrick, I would prefer to see it remain R18. And even taking all of that out of consideration, everything else, at this point, without an agreement on the easement for access to the property, kind of a non-starter, by estimation. Does anyone else have any other comments?

Mr. Chairman, I concur with the R18. I don't see why we should change the zoning in this area. The developer wanted to resubmit or withdraw this possibly to come up with a different design. That's totally up to him. Otherwise, I I can't see that we can move forward on it at all until he gets some kind of agreement, if he does get one, for access.

So I'm looking at a possibility. Do we want to table this for another month to allow him to work out that agreement?

I don't believe we can table it because we've already tabled it once, and I believe it goes to the council in 60 days or so.

Not necessarily. So that 60-day requirement is there. But that would only be if City Council were to determine that they would rather hear the item than have you all hear it again. So, I mean, that is up to the City Council's decision as to whether or not they would elevate it from you all to them. I mean, I think it would be beneficial to maybe even ask the property owner if he was wanting to table it for another month or if he wanted to take his chances at City Council based on what he has. um you know just from listening i mean a lot of the access stuff is i believe i mentioned you know last month is um you know these we've had developments that are contingent upon these you know parameters there was one for um on hanover that was contingent upon the sewer extension through an easement through another piece of property that was essentially if it can't happen the project's not going to happen but that doesn't i guess kill it in its tracks it could happen in the next year or two or something along those lines and there are parameters inside of the um development ordinance that do allow for you all as the planning board to examine properties that have been approved via conditional rezoning in One or two years time, if no significant development has been made on the project to make a request to city council to revert it back to its original zoning. So there are some, you know, aspects on your side of things. You know, if you were comfortable moving forward that it is contingent upon it, or like I said, however y'all want to, there is some ways to backtrack or like I said, it can give him a little bit more time to get what he needs done, but ultimately it's up to y'all. But I think property owner might, you know, he might not want to table it. I'm not sure.

The other alternative would be to disapprove it. Whatever you want. Send it over, deny it.

Yeah, I think you would recommend.

And send it to the city council. All right.

I think if they would be open to tabling again to try and I guess it's like what are they tabling it for are they tabling it just for the purpose of acquiring that area of easement or are they wanting to come back with an R18 development you know if that's two things that they're not really wanting to do and rather take their chances at city council then you kind of move forward with how you all would proceed based upon the understanding that those two things aren't going to be presented to you so that would be up to y'all's decision.

comments or share comment period is closed well when we finish this discussion any any

Cameron, if we were to deny the conditional use, they could go on with the R18 regardless, right?

That is correct.

And they could go to city council.

Yeah, and they could go to city council too. So I mean, if we deny it and they stick with the R18, that doesn't go in front of anybody. That stays in front of staff side. And that's about the only thing that I'll really point out.

The other question, the other big thing in my mind is that the deed,

From what I've gathered and I've listened and I've heard and I was waiting for somebody to ask me the question on city and staff's stance on it is it's private property. Those two deeds are between two private property entities. If they want to go to court against each other in regards to what was stated inside the deed, that's not really our area to get involved in. So that's been our stance with administration and legal side here. So we have attorneys that have spoke on this topic. This is not something that we've just kind of pushed to the side, but just kind of waiting for the opportunity to bring it up. But I was just kind of waiting, I guess, for the opportunity.

If we approve this project, there's still a possibility that the two persons, two parties could go to court.

That's true. It's the same thing as if I were to build my fence on your side of your property, me and you would be the litigators in that or not litigators, but the parties that are arguing amongst it and the city, we get caught all the time, but it's private property concerns. There's no way we can insert our foot in there and say, we can't do this. We're not looking at it from the private property side of the legal side of things, but more or less does it fit with our, you know, consistently with our future land use plan, all this other stuff. And, you know, if it does turn to find out that they have to demo all those homes because of a legal battle, That's, you know, kind of on their end. I know there's probably some construction costs that might come with it with the removal of trees and everything, but, you know, we just can't get too much involved.

Comments as to how we want to make a motion or if you have any other discussion, any other thoughts at this point? I'm open to a motion.

I'm going to move that we deny the conditional residential rezoning request and send it on to City Council from here. Is that correct, Cameron? Yes, sir.

Do I hear a second?

I'll second that.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, I like sign. All right. Thank you, everyone. Appreciate your presence this evening. Public comment is closed at this point.

SPEAKER 2. Not a comment.

Is it regarding the item that we just voted down?

SPEAKER 2. Yes, but it's a general question.

Public comment on that is closed, sir. All right. If you want to wait, I can try and answer it after the meeting, if you'd like. SPEAKER 2. Oh. When's the next city council?

So I'll answer that easily. You'll get, well, I guess y'all didn't get noticed last time, but if you are within the parameters, you will get noticed when the next city council meeting is. It's the following second Tuesday of June is when it will be held at six o'clock here again. So regularly scheduled meeting time for the city council. So that will be, yes, June 9th is correct. Thank you. So June 9th, six o'clock back here.

And that agenda will be published on the city's website. So you'll be able to see that beforehand. It's published a week ahead of time. I'm open to a motion to ask Mr. Huffine to rejoin us, please.

I make a motion to ask Mr. Huffine to rejoin us.

Second.

All in favor, please say aye. Aye. OK. Is that your question, Mr. Huffine? Yeah. I'm slow, but I'm old. I get there eventually. Thank you very much, folks, for coming. We appreciate it. We're going to continue with agenda item seven, public comment on non-agenda items. Public comment on non-agenda items. If anyone is here that would like to speak on a non-agenda item, we'd be happy to hear you at this point. And I'll take that as a no.

Staff comments.

All right, staff comment, please. Oh, Mr. Boney.

Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Boney with the Alamance News. Oh, we know that. Yes, sir. Clear out.

Clear out. Can we have the folks, if you'd like to speak to each other, would you mind going out in the lobby, please?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In this particular case, I'm speaking as a landowner and addressing you all in your capacity as the Board of Adjustment. We had filed an appeal of the... Historic Resources Commission designation of the park across the street, and we filed that within the 30-day period, but I notice it is not on your agenda for tonight, and I was wondering if anyone is aware of when that might come before the Board of Adjustment part of your board.

Cameron, can you address that, please? I don't know really how much I can address outside of this is not the Board of Adjustment at the moment. I know the city has an X amount of time frame to certify the record from the meeting and associated with the appeal, and that time frame has not yet passed. That is what the stance of the city is currently, and it's legal and administrative teams.

And what is that time frame? 30 days to certify the record, I believe it was. Well, like I say, we filed that appeal within the 30 days.

I understand that. And if you have any questions in particular to the processes of the appeal, I would suggest that you bring it up with the attorney, not in front of Board of Adjustment members that will potentially hear this appeal when it does come up. So I don't know if this is the exact forum to pose these questions. I'm happy to answer those in a more professional way. private sense.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to be clear that we wanted to be sure that we have tried to follow what we understand to be the procedures for appeal and meeting the time frame specified in the city's ordinance, and yet we don't see any action or scheduling of the appeal for the Board of Adjustment.

Yes, sir. I understand what you're saying, and I think Cameron's response speaks for itself.

All right.

Thank you. Thank you. Item number eight, staff comment.

I don't think I really have too much. I don't know how much attention was paid to the previous City Council meeting, but the land use plan has been approved with heavily almost all of y'all's comments that were associated with the extensive review. There was a lot of praise that came from you all from members of the public, City Council alike. So again, thank you all for your time and effort associated with that. Project group is updating all of the documentation to reflect everything that we kind of work towards those months. So that will be coming back in essentially in an approved state in a document that will be published online. And I can let you know when all that stuff's available. The accessory dwelling unit, Text amendment was denied. So there's no aspects of accessory dwelling units coming into the development ordinance. There was discussion of case by case basis, which was likely via conditional rezoning for properties. So if there's an uptick of conditional rezoning for normal single family lots, that is probably the reason for it. So we will take those as they come. I think that's all I have. And again, I just thank you all for your time here tonight. I know you are volunteers, and it's much appreciated.

It seemed like the only thing that was changed in the land use plan was the removal of one phrase.

Yeah, I think it was for the rail transit. I can't remember exactly what the terminology was. Yes, transload facilities. Thank you. Awesome. Everything else stood. Yeah, y'all did a wonderful job. I think, like I said, the hard work that was put into it, the many hours we sat in this room and went through it definitely set right with the city council. So they took y'all's information and words and said that.

That note of thanks and appreciation that I read, that still stands.

Yeah.

Double down on that sucker.

There you go. I've received a couple from members of the public, too. I believe, you know, Ms. Karen Chen sent something, and there was another individual that I can't quite remember, but there's been old people that have come through my inbox. You know, just thank you all for y'all's time.

Any other comments? Yes, sir.

I just have one question that was initiated by citizen input, specifically asking questions about access off of 54 on to, I believe it was Woody Drive and crossing town branch, getting into the apartments to the east. I had some conversations with folks that are a lot more technically adept at addressing planning on that side of the town. And one of the suggestions was that somehow an initiative be presented either by us or by a citizen to ask the city to study either an alternative route, vehicular route, from the Whittemore area behind Amoco and behind the ABC store, either a vehicular route to the south or to study the crossing of Town Branch adjacent to the Amoco. It's the BP now. And I can't remember the name of the road. Help me out if it's...

I mean, am I kind of in the right... Here's Whittemore right here, Woody. There's the ramp. I'm trying to figure out... Town Branch is kind of in this area.

So if you can just go right to the... I-40, 54 interchange, and then go south to the next stoplight.

Right here at Woody Drive. It's at Woody.

Okay, so it's at Woody where Woody crosses 54.

That's where the lowest area is. Was this with the flooding in this area? Yes.

Yeah, so the conversation was during one of our meetings, and then it was carried over into some just general questions outside of the meetings. The information given back to me is that somehow if we can ask the city to ask council or however the structure is to study the alternatives of number one, vertically changing the intersection at 54 or creating another vehicular exit up around Whittemore and connecting it to the south. And I guess it'd be the south and east. So can a request come from the board that, to ask the staff or to ask council to look at that alternative based on citizen input? I think that's the question I'm asking because someone has asked me to study it. Ask me to have the city study it.

If you don't mind, I'll kind of jump in. I mean, I think it is sufficient to It might not be something that you all direct staff to, but more or less, if you all are in agreement with this statement from Mr. Huffine, it's essentially a collective letter or request on behalf of the planning board that is then forwarded as an agenda item on city council, where a planning board member would come and attend and speak on behalf and thus allow city council to make their decision on if they want to go about, you know, that request or not, or how they would like to do it. Is that kind of in line with.

Well, comment on, On that, I've been approached by several people that live in that area down there. Some guy said to me, he said, why don't they build a bridge? I said, well, there's a problem there. Build a bridge, how are you going to get to your property while they're building the bridge? So there needs to be another access point somewhere to get in and out of that property for two reasons. One, mainly for the possibility of a 100-year flood. The other is if they were to build an access road into there at the current place, they have to have another access to get out. I bet I've had

30 or 40 conversations to that yeah i think it could even be you know something that comes from member members of the public that is then brought to planning board that is vouched by planning board that is then forwarded by members of the public planning board to city council to show overwhelming support of not just you all as a planning board but members of the city and the planning board kind of in the same wavelength of understanding one of the residents wanted to uh

present a letter with signatures.

Yeah, I think that would be good. And I mean, if you all feel that you would rather it, I mean, because they could immediately send it in front of us to city council. But if you all would like to hear it first, you can tell them to direct it towards you all because you all feel strongly about this as well. And again, this is y'all as a whole. I don't know if it's, you know, if y'all as a collective wanted that to come in front of you all, it certainly could. And then you rubber stamp planning boards kind of approval or understanding of it as well. And then it goes in front of city council with backing of you all and X amount of people who've signed off on the petition as well. Or you as private property owners slash planning board members could sign off on it as well and send it straight to city council.

I think that's more of the question I'm asking. The citizens have already spoken to me and now evidently Mike's saying he's been approached several times. I'm just trying to figure out the most efficient way to get it done because citizens are telling us things that they hope that we can convey.

So how about we have a letter drawn up with that specific specific language on it and have them sign it and present it.

I think you want to keep it out of my side as much as possible. Well, I guess you can give it to me, the signature, the letter to me, and it goes to city council, but not ask staff to do anything because that's, there's been, and that's the whole like text amendment thing of like, they don't want staff to be presenting a lot of these things without public backing or planning board backing. So, you know, if y'all privately, publicly as planning board members sign off on that petition, you know, Michael Banesh, planning board member, you know, I think it holds the same weight as you all kind of agreeing on it in this form or fashion as well. Sounds good. You don't have to waste a month with it coming in front of you all and then going to city council if you just kind of work outside of it and then forward it to city council, give it to Aaron or Megan and have them put it on the agenda and let city council read it and decide what they want to do with it. They'll either keep it on the agenda for a public hearing or another item to determine or force, or not force, but I guess guide staff to look into it and figure out what we need to do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hope. I just got the assignment.

I got the assignment.

I think that's probably the best way to do it, just to keep it short and sweet, and I think direct line of access.

Okay.

But as long as it gets in... Let's see. Next one is the 9th. They typically won't stuff in the Friday... like the 29th would probably be the deadline when Renee wants items. So, I mean, I don't know if you can get it in by next week to get it in June, but I think that's the timeframe you're looking at is trying to get it into Aaron by that kind of area of next Friday.

Yeah, no, it's so hard to measure.

I understand. Any other comments from the board? I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Chairman, I'll make it a motion that we adjourn.

Do I hear a second? Second.