Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press developer on rental caps, density and design for Towns at Cramerton plan
Summary
At a March 2 meeting, Cramerton commissioners reviewed a revised site plan for the Towns at Cramerton after a November rezoning denial, raising concerns about rental caps, corporate ownership of rentals and how townhomes and single‑family lots would be configured; no vote was taken.
The Cramerton Board of Commissioners reviewed a revised site plan for the Towns at Cramerton on March 2, 2023, pressing the developer on rental caps, density and how new homes would fit the town’s character.
The updated plan was presented following the Board’s November 2022 denial of a rezoning request; Assistant Town Manager Josh Watkins told the commissioners the developer had returned with changes intended to address the Board’s concerns. The developer’s representative said they could add homeowner association covenants but “we cannot know the intention of a buyer,” and therefore any cap on rentals is limited in what it can guarantee.
Why it matters: Commissioners framed the discussion around long‑term homeownership and neighborhood stability. Commissioner Kincaid said some recent neighborhoods are “now approaching 40% corporate owned rentals,” a trend he said risks pricing out individual buyers and altering community character. Commissioners also questioned whether townhouses or single‑family homes should face New Hope Road and how creek constraints affect lot sizes.
During the exchange, Commissioner Atkinson raised sight‑line and placement concerns along New Hope Road and asked whether single‑family units could be located on that frontage; the developer cited a creek that constrains buildable lot depth and visibility, and said landscaping could screen townhouses from the road. Commissioners Helms and Ramsey urged the project be designed to maintain Cramerton’s architectural character and to keep density and traffic impacts within the community’s vision.
No formal action or vote occurred. The Board asked the developer to consider the Board’s preferences on where single‑family units and townhouses should be sited, and to clarify whether HOA covenants or other restrictions could be used to discourage concentrated corporate ownership. The plan will return to the Board for further review.
Next steps: The developer is expected to revise the site plan per the Board’s feedback and resubmit it for a future meeting; no dates were set at the March 2 session.
