Council denies reduction in group-home separation; Cottonade neighbors applaud

Fayetteville — The City Council narrowly voted 4-3 on Nov. 25 to deny a special-use permit request that would have reduced the required separation distance between group homes for a proposed facility at 6302 Cool Shade in the Cottonade neighborhood.

The proposal — described in the application variously as a small-group home, multi-unit assisted living and independent living/rooming housing — drew nearly two dozen residents to the podium during a lengthy public hearing. Speakers from the Cottonade neighborhood told council they feared increased traffic, limited parking at a nearby school-bus stop, unclear staffing and supervision plans and potential effects on property values.

"We want to keep Cottonade as single-family dwelling," Deb Barton, president of the Cottonade Community Watch Association, told the council, and turned in petitions she said included more than 100 signatures opposing the permit. Stephanie LaFrance, who said she has lived in Cottonade since 1972, told council, "This is ridiculous — the area that she wants to put this in is so small, there is no way it can accommodate a home with several people in it." Several residents asked council to apply the city’s existing buffer requirements rather than grant an exception.

Applicant Kendra Conyers, who described the planned use as independent rooming/board for veterans, said the intent was to house a small number of capable tenants and to pursue licensing "because I chose to take the higher road." She told council the plan would house "four" tenants in a roommate-style arrangement and that the operator would do two daily check-ins and supply meals, saying the operation was more like off-campus roommate housing than a 24-hour care facility.

Council Member Benavente moved to disapprove the special-use permit, citing insufficient evidence to meet the code’s findings about compatibility, safety and impacts on property values. "I move to disapprove the special use permit for the reduction of the separation requirement between group homes as depicted on the attached site plan," Benavente said during his motion. Council Member Greene seconded. The motion carried by voice vote with a numerical result stated in the meeting as 4-3; one council member was noted as absent or unable to vote.

Council members who supported denial said the application lacked specificity on crucial items — number of staff, training and oversight, hours of operation and the exact population to be served — making it impossible to conclude the use would not materially endanger public health or safety or be compatible with the neighborhood. Council members who opposed denial argued for the city’s duty to provide options for affordable housing for veterans and questioned whether an existing buffer policy should automatically block the application.

The denial preserves the current separation standard in the development code for now. The staff record shows multiple neighboring residents presented statements and photographic materials to council; staff and the city attorney noted that the applicant may pursue other routes (including adjusting the proposal or applying for another permit) but that, based on the evidence presented that night, the council concluded the special-use findings were not met.

The meeting record indicates the decision was a formal council action taken after the public hearing and deliberation; the item will remain in the city’s public record for follow-up or future filings by the applicant.