Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Graham council rejects proposed accessory dwelling unit text amendment, 4-1
Summary
After a public hearing with competing testimony, the Graham City Council voted 4-1 to deny a proposed amendment to allow ADUs as written; proponents cited affordable housing needs while opponents raised neighborhood character concerns.
Graham, N.C. — The Graham City Council voted 4-1 on May 12 to deny a proposed amendment to the city’s Development Ordinance that would have expanded rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Assistant City Manager Aaron Holland told the council the Planning Board recommended lowering the maximum ADU size from 1,600 to 1,200 square feet, requiring a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and allowing ADUs to use existing private utility connections where capacity allows. Dozens of citizens and stakeholders spoke during the continued public hearing.
Supporters including Maria Clapp of the Burlington Alamance County Association of Realtors and builder representative Nathan Pittenger said ADUs could help with the area’s housing shortage and allow families to care for aging relatives. Opponents, including Jeff Benes and Jennifer Talley, warned that ADUs could change neighborhood character and urged the council to wait for state-level guidance.
Mayor Chelsea Dickey said the measure was not a full solution but urged action to expand housing options, noting that “people needed to make $54,000 annually just to afford market rent” and that the land use plan listed Graham’s median household income at about $45,000. Council Member Bonnie Whitaker led the motion to deny the text amendment, saying she was concerned ADUs could become rentals or short-term rentals that alter neighborhoods.
The motion to deny the proposed amendment passed 4-1; Mayor Dickey cast the lone dissenting vote. The council closed the public hearing before taking the vote. No alternate ADU policy was approved that evening; staff may bring future revisions or case-by-case requests back to the council.
