Council tables conditional-use permit for 7950 Main St. (Adair Walk) after public parking and stream-buffer concerns

The City of Woodstock mayor and council on April 28 tabled consideration of a conditional-use permit (CUP) and related variances for 7950 Main Street — a 1.12-acre parcel the applicant markets as Adair Walk — after extended staff presentation, applicant remarks and six public speakers opposed to the plan. The motion to table passed 5–0 with one absence (Councilmember Potts).

Staff presentation: Mr. Dunn of the community development team summarized the application as conditional-use permit case 8524 (CUP and eight variances). The parcel is zoned DTRO with a future-land-use designation of urban village; the applicant originally proposed nine single-family homes with three accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and multiple private alleys, later submitting an updated site plan with eight units and retaining three ADUs. Dunn said the site is constrained by a stream that runs along the Main Street frontage and sharper topography; the applicant proposes to pipe the stream, which would require state approval and would remove the combined local/state stream buffers currently totaling about 75 feet.

Staff and Planning Commission recommendations: Staff and the Downtown Planning Commission recommended partial approval of the CUP and variances but recommended denial of two requests: (1) a reduction in the width of storm and drainage easements (city-required 20 feet to be reduced to 10 feet) and (2) a variance to provide fewer than the minimum parking spaces. Staff added conditions that would: limit the development to the code-required density (eight units), preclude short-term rentals, limit ADUs to two rather than the three proposed, require paving of the Short Street extension and add traffic-calming measures, and designate the site's interior open space as private.

Applicant position: Dr. Eric Richards, the property owner and applicant, told council he has owned the lot since 2018 and described three options: sell the lot for a custom single-family home; develop under a negotiated development agreement with the city; or have the city acquire the parcel and install the road. Richards said the site has limited development value without piping the stream, and he said he would not proceed with the project without a development agreement that addressed costs and risks. He described an estimated city purchase price of about $1 million and a separate approximate $600,000 road cost if the city were to acquire and build the connection.

Public opposition and concerns: Six speakers in opposition — residents who live on Short Street, Henderson Street and adjacent Mason/Maine properties — raised these themes: insufficient on-site parking and likely overflow onto Short Street and Henderson; safety issues at the steep Henderson/Main Street intersection; impacts of additional traffic on a narrow, residential Short Street; precedent concerns about detached ADUs being treated like primary units; and the fairness of granting variances when other property owners had earlier worked around stream buffers at their own expense. Several opponents asked council to require adequate on-site parking and to avoid shifting parking burdens to neighboring streets.

Council response and next steps: Multiple council members said the central issue for them was the applicant's statement that he would not proceed without a development agreement or the city acquiring the parcel. Several members expressed no appetite for a development agreement that would commit city funds to pipe the stream and build the road; one council member said the public interest bar for a development agreement had not been met. Given that posture, Councilmember Aik moved to table the item; Councilmember Wolff seconded. Councilmembers noted the public's concern about parking and drainage and asked that those issues be addressed if the applicant returns with a different proposal. The motion to table carried 5–0 with Councilmember Potts absent.

Ending: The CUP and variances remain on the table. Councilmembers said they would consider further filings if the applicant revises the plan or pursues alternative arrangements (sale, city acquisition or a different development proposal). No final approvals or permits were issued at the April 28 meeting.