Wendell board approves rezoning for 8 townhomes after tense public hearing; vote 3–2

Wendell — After a two‑hour public hearing and extensive public comment, the Wendell Town Board voted 3–2 to rezone a small parcel at the corner of Wendell Falls Parkway and Cook Street to a Downtown Mixed Use Conditional District, allowing a developer to build eight townhome units.

Planner presentation and proposed conditions

Planning staff introduced Conditional District 2402 and said the applicant proposed eight townhomes, rear‑loaded garages accessed from an internal alley, and a set of nine zoning conditions offered by the developer. The conditions included a 15‑foot landscape buffer with a 6‑foot stained wood privacy fence along the western lot line, a three‑story height limit, fiber‑cement siding (vinyl not permitted), at least one window per floor on end units, 20×20 garages sized to park two vehicles, and an exemption from the town’s 0.5 connectivity index because of the site’s infill location. Staff reported the plan shows roughly 1,500 square feet of on‑site open space and that the developer requested a fee in lieu to satisfy the remaining required open‑space obligation; the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) allows fee‑in‑lieu payments in some circumstances.

Public comment: traffic, compatibility and open space

Residents who live adjacent to the site called the lot too small for the proposed development and raised multiple concerns about traffic, parking spillover on Cook Street, impacts to the character of the historic corridor and stormwater.

Bradley Barham, who lives “catty‑corner” to the parcel, said the neighborhood consists of historic homes and argued that the three‑story townhomes would “stand out like a sore thumb” next to existing houses. He warned that many residents would park on Cook Street rather than use tight garages, increasing daily congestion.

Several speakers raised stormwater and drainage questions; a resident said he had witnessed sewage backups on Cook Street during heavy rains and asked whether the proposed development could exacerbate flooding. Planning staff and town staff replied that the small site does not meet current state thresholds for standalone stormwater permitting or erosion‑control permits but noted the town has separately prioritized stormwater improvements in the corridor tied to a planned traffic signal project.

Applicant response and planning board recommendation

Louis Hardy, an engineer with RDU Consulting representing the applicant, said the property’s future use is consistent with the town’s comprehensive plan place type, which envisions denser, mixed‑use development near the downtown core. Parker Jones of Cook Street Partners, the owner/developer, said the house on the parcel was dilapidated and not feasible to repair and that the proposed project had been designed to meet the town’s UDO and market realities. Jones told the board the fee‑in‑lieu payment would be a substantial cash payment to the town for parks or other public projects.

The planning board had recommended denial at its December meeting by a 6–1 vote; staff noted that the planning board’s role is advisory and that the UDO and state law guide the board’s final authority.

Board vote and conditions

After board discussion, a motion to approve the rezoning request (with the developer’s offered conditions) passed on a 3–2 vote. The board’s vote was verbal on the record (motion, discussion, roll call) and resulted in approval with the conditions listed on the applicant’s site plan; staff will return with any required contract or ordinance language for adoption and collect the fee‑in‑lieu payment if the developer proceeds.

Why this matters

The decision implements a type of infill housing the town’s comprehensive plan encourages in the downtown fringe while also highlighting tensions many small towns face: balancing downtown economic vitality and walkability with neighborhood character, traffic, parking and infrastructure capacity.

What the board required or clarified

The record shows the approved conditions limit siding materials, require rear‑loaded garages, a 15‑foot buffer with a 6‑foot fence along the western property line, a maximum three‑story building height, and the applicant’s agreement to pay a fee in lieu for on‑site open space the plan does not provide.