Graham council tables rezoning for proposed 29‑unit townhome development off Ivey Road

The City of Graham Council on Jan. 14 tabled a request to rezone 6.27 acres at 901 and 905 E. Gilbreath Street from R‑18 (Low‑Density Residential) to C‑R (Conditional Residential) to allow up to 29 townhomes, after weeks of staff review and a public hearing that drew multiple residents raising concerns about parking, stormwater and traffic.

Assistant City Manager Aaron Holland presented the staff report, noting the property lies inside the city’s Suburban Residential future land‑use zone and that the Planning Board recommended approval 5‑0 with conditions such as a preserved area behind single‑family homes on Ivey Road, an evergreen buffer and berming on the southeastern property line, required stormwater controls, and a maximum of 29 units. The staff report said the applicant proposed private roadways and on‑site stormwater management and had provided owner commitments in the packet.

Attorney Amanda Hodierne, representing the applicant, outlined the site commitments offered by the petitioner, including guest parking, internal/frontage sidewalks, perimeter buffering and an 8‑foot evergreen buffer on the southeastern property line. Hodierne asked the Council for guidance on whether streets should be public or private and emphasized the project had gone through TRC and Planning Board review. “It sounds like the Council wanted them to go back and look at parking but…we have met the parking requirement and public roadway requirement for width,” she said, urging the Council to be clear about any new expectations.

Mayor Jennifer Talley and other councilors pressed the applicant on parking and safety. Talley said she receives frequent complaints from residents of Riley’s Meadow about on‑street parking and asked whether homes could be set back to allow more driveway parking. Civil engineer Frank Cantrell (POD Engineering) said berms would be created during initial grading and that the project provided two parking spaces per unit to meet the City ordinance; he estimated about 290 daily trips. On the question of traffic study requirements, Hodierne said NCDOT reviewed the driveway spacing and did not require a traffic study for 29 units.

Several nearby property owners voiced opposition during the public hearing. Linda Jones, who owns an adjacent industrial property, asked whether the proposed retention pond could flood nearby buildings and how mosquito issues would be addressed. Carson Coe raised concerns about sewer and water runoff, parking and loss of view; Brian King said he worried the project would increase traffic and asked about berm height; Tom Boney of the Alamance News questioned why the Council appeared to be adding conditions when the proposal met existing ordinance standards.

Hodierne and Cantrell responded that stormwater must meet state and local standards and that the planned pond was a dry pond designed to dissipate water and not remain wet, and that berms and plantings would be used to address runoff and privacy. Hodierne also cautioned that conditional zoning is typically offered by the applicant and that suddenly applying new, project‑specific standards without notice could undermine predictability for developers.

After extended discussion about options to add parking (wider driveways, removing a sidewalk on one side, or reducing unit count), Council Member Bonnie Whitaker moved to table the rezoning to the Feb. 11, 2025 meeting to allow the developer to return with a revised site plan; Mayor Pro Tem Ricky Hall seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Next steps: the applicant offered to revise the site plan and return on Feb. 11. The Council did not take final action on rezoning; the item remains scheduled for further consideration.