Applicant withdraws annexation and rezoning petition for Guilford College Road after extensive public opposition

Jamestown — The applicant for annexation and conditional rezoning of 1903, 1905 and 1915 Guilford College Road withdrew its petition during the Town Council’s June 25 public hearing after extensive public comment and council scrutiny.

Town staff opened the hearing by summarizing the request: annex three contiguous parcels and rezone them from single-family residential to a conditional multifamily/townhome district that would allow up to 99 townhomes on roughly 18.704 acres (about 5.3 units per acre). Staff outlined proposed conditions including a required 1.87 acres of open space, a 1.12-acre tree-conservation area (which may overlap open space), two site entrances on Chadwick Drive, a 5-foot sidewalk along Guilford College Road, maximum two-story building heights, and multiple provisions tied to watershed and public-water availability. Staff noted that the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and state reviewers had provided input and that the town’s planning board had voted unanimously on April 8 to recommend denial, finding the proposal inconsistent with Jamestown’s Envision Jamestown comprehensive plan.

The property owners and project representative spoke to the council. Will Ragsdale, who identified himself as the owner of Jamestown Equestrian Center, said he would prefer to keep the equestrian operation but had an interested buyer. Brad Yoder, speaking for the applicants, asked for a continuance to allow more time to address questions and to work with staff and council on plan details.

Residents opposed the rezoning at length. Speakers representing neighborhoods and individual households cited density, traffic and safety on the short, two-block Chadwick Drive and at the Guilford College Road intersection, stormwater and watershed concerns given the parcel’s location in the Randleman Lake general watershed, potential impacts to private wells, loss of tree cover and compatibility with the town’s guiding principles. James Bowman said the plan “does not fit — it’s too dense,” and others urged the council to “follow the planning board’s recommendation and the comprehensive plan.” Applause punctuated many public comments.

Councilmembers questioned whether a continuance would produce substantive changes beyond product materials and aesthetic upgrades. Council cited statutory duties under North Carolina law to determine whether a rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and reasonable for the community. With that discussion under way and a motion to deny pending, the applicant asked to withdraw the annexation and rezoning application; the clerk confirmed the withdrawal and the council recessed for 10 minutes.

Key project details discussed at the hearing included the applicant’s proposal for 99 townhomes, a requested reduction from previous sidewalk expectations (a 5-foot sidewalk was proposed on Guilford College Road rather than the 8-foot multi-use path identified in the bicycle-pedestrian plan), and several conditional items (burm and landscape buffering, a biotic/bathymetric study to protect a neighbor’s pond, and a requirement that the source of public water be determined by the developer in consultation with state public-water standards). The planning board had expressed concerns that the proposal was inconsistent with the “Suburban residential” future land-use classification that calls for lower-intensity attached residential development.

The applicant’s withdrawal preserves the owner’s right to bring back a changed proposal at a future date; no annexation or rezoning vote occurred. The council will not act further on this petition unless and until the applicant re-submits a revised application.

Meeting note: the public hearing record includes a large volume of resident testimony focusing on traffic, density, watershed/runoff and compatibility with Jamestown’s comprehensive plan.