Tuesday night the neighbors along and near South Allen Road won at the planning board level as they quietly but forcefully described why they do not want seven attached townhouses built in the southwest corner where Elm Avenue meets South Allen.
A second item on the board’s agenda, a request to rezone 100 acres owned by George Mackie for single-family lots and approve the master plan, was postponed at the request of the owner and his developer, Bob Zumwalt with the John R. McAdams Company. Zumwalt asked for the delay “because of a few problems that need to be resolved with the sale of the property.” It will be heard in April along with the request for annexation.
The South Allen neighbors had help from planning board members and some town commissioners. Planning board member Thad Juszczak questioned Assistant Planning Director Charlie Yokley about the planning staff analysis which said: “The proposed Elm Avenue Townes fit in with the context of the surrounding area.” Juszczak referred to the policies for older neighborhoods in the Community Plan, saying that on three sides (north, south and east) of the two lots under consideration, the neighborhood consists of single-family homes while only on one side, the west, are there townhouses in the Avondale development. He also questioned whether the townhouses, planned to front on Elm, should have access on South Allen, and he referred to the three single-family houses built on South Allen as part of the Avondale project at the request of the developer and required by the town board.
“We’ve had this discussion before,” Commissioner Margaret Stinnett said. “I think we would be doing a disservice to the citizens who live in this neighborhood when it has been a single-family neighborhood, one of the oldest neighborhoods in town, with a very narrow road. This is one we need to think hard about.”
Mark Iafrate, president of Elm Avenue Homes, the developer, said he had followed the guiding principles in the Community Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance for infill projects. He said the design for the buildings “exceeds design standards” with brick and stone, and would be a “positive project” for South Allen.
The townhouses are planned for two small lots, 0.69 acre combined. One lot is vacant and the other has a small house where Iafrate has a demolition permit to raze it. “Are you saying a single-family home could not be built on those lots?” Planning board Chairman Bob Hill asked Iafrate. He was also asked about buffering on the property, and Commissioner Brian Pate asked about the significance of the density change from the general residential zoning to the residential mixed use conditional district Iafrate is requesting.
There is a petition against the requested rezoning, and Iafrate seemed a bit surprised at that. “Not one person in that (neighborhood) meeting stood up and opposed it.”
The opponents started appearing at the podium, beginning with Justin Graney, a young man whose house at 136 South Allen would abut the rear garages, parking lot and dumpster enclosure. He presented his letter formally stating his opposition to the project with the petition at the end. “It has been signed by everyone in that general area,” Graney, who told the board he works in public safety and does not want to sell his house but is worried about his ability to do so if he changes his mind. “Everyone benefits from a town that is thriving and developing,” Graney said, and part of that is a town’s policies and desires “to protect older middle-class neighborhoods like ours.”
When Juszczak mentioned the demolition permit and said he was “pondering the likelihood that anyone would build a home there, Graney said he would “much rather have an empty lot rather than towering townhouses with a lighted parking lot.” He added that a man who owns the Avondale townhouse next to the lots in question had signed the protest petition because he does not want to see the pine trees cut down.
Attorney John Rich spoke about the neighborhood. “You’ve got an active healthy neighborhood with nice homes” and without rental homes or “abused” homes. If the town leaves it alone, “you won’t harm anything.” There may be a time in the future to make a change. He also asked the commissioners to “take judicial notice of the rezoning and proceedings for the Avondale development” and promised to send them the material in town records before they act on the request in two week. He spoke about the town’s heritage, “and part of that is existing neighborhoods.”
Commissioner Jim Thompson asked what is the difference in houses built in general residential districts and the mixed use districts, and Yokley said the houses in mixed use are closer to the street.
George Macon followed Rich to the podium and said he had spent his life in Wake Forest, serving as a volunteer fireman for 26 ½ years, planting the bushes and bulbs on North Main Street and patrolling the street at least twice a night. “I’m called the cop on the street.” If the townhouses are built, Macon said the headlights as cars exit the parking lot will shine directly into his kitchen. “I live on the highest hill in this town.”
The theme about the height of the hill combined with the probable height of the townhouses, 30 to 35 or 40 feet, was continued by Dietrich Koch who lives just beyond Graney. The townhouses would be on the highest point in town, he said. “They would loom over everythingelse on the street. When you consider the general appearance of the street [the townhouses would be] very much out of character, a Disneyland structure, very odd looking.”
Richard Blake, Macon’s next-door neighbor, talked about the traffic which comes up Elm Avenue from South Franklin and goes north on South Allen to the traffic signal on Wait, using the route as a shortcut. And he said he was told when Avondale was built there would be no onstreet parking. Now there are always 10 to 12 cars parked onboth sides of the street.
When the hearing was closed, planning board members began saying they could not support the rezoning request. “I have to lean toward the neighbors,” Ed Gary said. “I think the townhouses will benefit somebody and will disadvantage some people and I know who those people are. I don’t think we should disadvantage the people who live here,” Juszczak said. Chuck Moseley commended the people who have maintained their homes well through the years, and Hill said the town should provide protection for people who have made a long-term investment in their homes and neighborhood.
The vote to deny the request was unanimous, all seven voting yes. Members Stephen DeRosa and Colleen Sharpe were absent.
The planning board’s decision will be considered by the town commissioners when they meet at 7 p.m. on March 15.
