Density
Overview: Increasingly the residential projects that are submitted to the Wake Forest Planning Department are for rows of townhouses, several apartment buildings or a combination of the two because the owners or would-be owners of the land have to maximize the number of dwellings to make a profit after the land purchase and the total development costs.
They can be assured of future buyers/renters because on average something over seven people move into Wake Forest every day, buying and/or renting the newly-built homes and apartments.
If our mental picture of Wake Forest is North Main Street with its old college faculty houses or Traditions with its winding streets lined with pines, we are fooling ourselves.
Reality is the not-yet-complete Holding Village with 11 or 12 apartment buildings and streets lined with townhouses where well over 1,000 people could live. Or it is the former Schrader-Hannifin site at the intersection of Capital Boulevard and Wake Union Church Road where there will be some commercial, 300 apartments and 89 townhouses, again a future home for about 1,000 people.
Do we want that same density throughout town? Or just at intersections and lining major roads? What does that influx of people mean to the character of the town? Why is our current Uniform Development Ordinance skewed toward greater density? Why is the current town board voting for it?
Question: What is your stance on density in Wake Forest?
Tom Ballman
Density is certainly a hot button topic. So much so, I believe there is a lack of distinction from the current elected officials over density in the Town. I believe density is important with a shrinking finite (land) resource, but value individual property ownership as reigning supreme over density, as it has shown historically to be a vital component to wealth creation at the individual and household levels. These types of multi-family developments could come in the form of condominiums, for instance.
However, many of the approved multi-family developments in recent years have come in the form of rental units. This may appear as providing a bridge towards housing affordability, yet another hot button topic.
With no opportunity for wealth creation through ownership, this path trends towards less integration to our community and a ‘sense of place’ that has attracted so many to the Town. We are and continue to be a stable makeup of families and empty nesters, mind you.
In some cases, these multifamily developments were approved in place of commercially zoned lands. It is incredibly difficult to gain back commercial zoning once those designated lands are lost to residential uses. This trend has far greater implications to a community that is growing so rapidly. It also plays a role in an unsavory viewpoint of the current land development processes.
By providing a balanced and pragmatic view towards discretionary rezoning cases proposed by the development community, this discerning eye towards density through the legislative process will strive towards creating an expectation that projects in the future integrates with and adds value to the existing community. A litmus test for the development to prove as these cases are essentially asking for lands to be re-zoned to suit their vision and oftentimes, may overlook the impacts to the existing community in the here and now.
I certainly do not feel a lot of the approved multifamily developments in recent years met that criterion of integration and voted accordingly when presented with that opportunity on the Planning Board. One of the tipping points for running for Commissioner stemmed from the Boards decision to approve “Burlington Mills Road Residential, SP-22-36, as an example.”
Ingenuity and integration are major factors in my decision making when it comes to density in the Town, and yes, Holding Village certainly serves as a model for much of that.
###
Ben Clapsaddle
This Town has been changing and growing since Calvin Jones purchased 615 acres from Davis Battle in 1820. And we will continue to adapt and grow in the coming years. To maintain our Town’s character and why all of us moved here, we must plan strategically and grow smartly.
We must ensure developers and builders meet the standards set in our Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Deviations from the UDO must be the exception not the rule. Every project and development must include protection of green space, natural streams and waterways, inclusion of sidewalks and multi-use paths and the protection of our tree canopy.
The Wake Forest Community Plan designates the Mixed Residential and Transit-Supportive Residential zoned areas of the Town. These areas will/may have a higher density of homes and mixed housing types and can help meet the growing demand for housing in the Town. But we shouldn’t just have massive complexes on slabs of asphalt that don’t integrate into the character of our Town. Nor do we need to reduce the housing shortage for the entire County or State within our Town limits.
###
Faith Cross
The most frequent comment I hear as a candidate as I speak to residents is “Where is the forest in Wake Forest?” It sounds trite, but it addresses the major concern with development and increasing density we are experiencing. Urbanization can be defined as the concentration of human populations into discrete areas and the process through which cities grow. This is what is happening here in Wake Forest, and yet the vast majority of residents did not move here because it is urban, or because they wanted to live in a city, but because it is suburban, quiet, bucolic.
With all the recent approvals of apartments, townhomes and generally higher density development, we are losing our small town charm. Our Unified Development Ordinance- an urban planning tool- is a regulatory document that is supposed to reflect the goals and vision of our community plan, yet it seems to be guiding the development we are experiencing towards urbanization. It is a document that can be modified, and it must be. It needs to be used to protect the existing neighborhoods and character of the town. It should be a tool in the hands of the board members to protect us.
The reasoning that increased rental units and higher density creates affordable housing does not ring true when a 1 bedroom, 800 square foot apartment rents for $1485 a month. The additional reasoning of clustering development at major intersections and roadways to create walkable areas is also proving to be false when what it has created is increasing car traffic as we do not have the infrastructure in place to support these urban goals. Imposing an urban stamp on what has fundamentally been a suburban, bedroom community of Raleigh is proving to be extremely problematic.
I am not supportive of this increasing density. I am for taking a deep dive into what we can do to slow growth and focus on building up safety, security and necessary infrastructure. Language needs to be added to the UDO that protects existing neighborhoods as new high density developments are built. Occupancy rates need to meet minimum thresholds in surrounding developments before we allow new construction to begin. We need to be partnering with our schools as growth impacts their capacities. Our elderly residents also need to be taken into consideration in regards to the costs of living here and transportation. The Community Plan calls for “smart, sustainable growth strategies” yet that is not what residents are experiencing. We need to course correct to reflect what residents want, using the tools at hand to do so.
###
Joe Kimray
I believe in promoting intelligent, logical growth – and, through that, finding common sense solutions for how we approach density.
Any high density development must provide its residents the ability to walk to amenities (shops, restaurants, markets, etc.). This will also help alleviate traffic on our roads – as these residents will not be using their vehicles as often as those in more rural or single-family housing areas.
This is being accomplished at Grove 98, multiple townhome developments Downtown (such as Retreat at Renaissance), and the townhomes at Gateway Commons – as well as the future Wake Union Church Road development.
As a member of the Planning Board, I voted against recommending approval for projects such as: Devon Square, Kinsley, and the Averette Road Subdivison (among others). Each brought high density without true walkable amenities, with which I didn’t agree.
Every once in a while, a project may come up that is an exception to this belief. They are usually few and far between, and should be considered on an individual basis to determine if it’s the best use of land in that part of town.
Balanced approaches are necessary as we continue to grow our community the correct way. I look forward to providing common sense solutions that offer an intelligent, logical approach to growth as one of your next Town Commissioners.
###
Jim Thompson
When it comes to greater density, we have to be mindful about where future transit opportunities will be. In order to support the growth that is naturally occurring and manage the ultimate traffic that will come from additional residents, we must consider development near those proposed transit stations. Additionally, if we are following the community plan, those high density developments need to be self-sustaining and have places where residents can shop and play and potentially even work. Or at least have access to broadband where they can potentially work where they live, play and shop. The one challenge is that we have to use these developments as opportunities to improve our connectivity with increased streets and sidewalks. Residents throughout town need regular access to our parks and greenways and our downtown core for shopping and relaxing, thus maintaining our small town charm.
###
Adam Wright
Do we want that same density throughout town? Or just at intersections and lining major roads?
Answer: Our vision for density in Wake Forest aligns with the guidelines set by our new land use map. It’s clear from this map that we aim to concentrate higher density developments primarily at major intersections and along major roads. This approach helps us preserve the unique character of our town while accommodating growth. Our most intense zoning, designated as transit-oriented, is specifically reserved for these key locations near our urban cores.
What does that influx of people mean to the character of the town?
Answer: The influx of people brings both opportunities and challenges to the character of our town. As outlined on the opening page of our new Uniform Development Ordinance (UDO), our overarching goal is to grow while preserving our small-town charm. Achieving this delicate balance requires adherence to our Community Plan and the new land use map. By doing so, we can ensure that the arrival of new residents enhances our community without compromising its distinctive character.
Why is our current Uniform Development Ordinance skewed toward greater density?
Answer: It’s important to clarify that our UDO is not inherently skewed toward greater density. Instead, the UDO functions as a framework for regulating development, while the land use map serves as our guide for density distribution. As previously mentioned, the map identifies areas of increased density primarily at major intersections and urban cores. This approach allows us to maintain control over our town’s overall character while accommodating the growth we are experiencing.
Why is the current town board voting for it?
Answer: Traditional single-family homes have become increasingly unaffordable for many, and townhomes have emerged as a more accessible option for starter houses and workforce housing. Developers are responding to this market shift. While I have not supported many of these rezonings, when I have, I’ve strived to negotiate for more affordable housing or community benefits that align with our town’s needs. A lot of the votes I took on these developments, I knew I didn’t have the votes to stop the development, or we were not even debating the development itself. Wellington Park is one example of this – we were debating whether the residents received moving assistance, or they were evicted and did not.
What is your stance on density in Wake Forest?
Answer: My stance on density in Wake Forest centers around adhering to the guidelines set forth in our new land use map. However, given our ongoing challenges with the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT), I approach new development cautiously. I believe that this period, marked by high interest rates and a slowing market, presents an opportunity to prioritize infrastructure upgrades to accommodate our growth. This endeavor necessitates strong advocacy with the NCDOT, demanding oversight of their projects, and possibly seeking federal assistance to ensure our infrastructure can handle our expanding population effectively.
###
