Skip to content
The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Community
  • Schools
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Obituaries
  • Sports
  • Mill
  • Flora
  • Print Archive
  • About
Menu

Charterwood back on the table, neighbors concerned

Posted on June 21, 2012 by Susan Dickson

By Susan Dickson
Staff Writer

CHAPEL HILL – Following a January vote that seemed to signify the end of discussion on the Charterwood project, the mixed-use development proposed for 1641 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard was back before the Chapel Hill Town Council on Monday.

The six-building 278,000-square-foot project is proposed to include up to 154 residential units – nine townhomes and 145 apartments – and up to 73,000 square feet of office and retail space on 9.3 acres of a 15.7-acre property at 1641 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., just south of Weaver Dairy Road.

In January, the council voted 5-3 to approve the project, but because neighbors had submitted a valid protest petition, supermajority approval was required, and the rezoning needed was thus not approved. However, the developer, WCA Partners LLC, has redrawn the lines of the rezoning request such that the protest petition is no longer valid.

According to Lacy Reaves, an attorney for the developer, the buffer areas between the project’s buildings and nearby homes were mistakenly included in the initial rezoning application, and when the buffers were removed from the request the petition was no longer valid. Under state law, when a protest petition signed by owners of at least 5 percent of the property within 100 feet of a proposed rezoning is filed, approval by a three-quarters majority is required, rather than a simple majority.

A number of residents of Northwoods V, which neighbors the property, have expressed opposition to the project, citing concerns about buffers, building heights and flooding. On Monday, neighbors continued to state their concerns with the project.

Robin Currin, an attorney representing a number of Northwood V residents, argued that the rezoning was effectively denied when it did not receive supermajority approval, which would mean that under town ordinances the project could not come back to the town for another year.

“There is no difference between failing to get the correct number of votes and a denial,” she said.

“It’s our position that this application is back too early, and if it is approved it will be done in violation of that ordinance, and it will be subject to legal challenge.”

According to town staff, no action was taken on the rezoning since it did not receive enough votes for either approval or denial, so the waiting period would not apply.

Currin also noted that the LLC applying for the rezoning was in dissolution, according to the Secretary of State, preventing the business from entering into new projects. However, as of Tuesday, WCA Partners had been reinstated, according to the Secretary of State website.

Martha Bell, a resident of Northwoods V, questioned the need for the project.

“Why does our community need to take every piece of undeveloped land in our town and put something on it?” she said. “I understand the need for a tax base, I understand the need to be respectful of those who choose to purchase development property, but … we have so many condos and townhouses, office buildings and apartments that are open, vacant, advertising for buyers, in receivership. Why do we need another?”

Aaron Nelson, president of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said the community needs development to grow the tax base and create jobs, and that in order for the growing community not to sprawl, multi-story development must be placed within existing infrastructure.

“Currently, we drive outside of our market to buy our goods,” he said. “We’re a basketball town where you can’t buy a basketball.”

“We think this is the right project in the right location at the right time,” he added.

Council members asked for more information on the legal points raised by Currin.

“I think this is a mess,” council member Laurin Easthom said. “We need a lot of clarification.”

Easthom, who previously voted against the development alongside council members Lee Storrow and Ed Harrison, said she also had concerns regarding the project’s stormwater mitigation.

“What we surely don’t want to do is take, I think, much risk at all, if any, in setting a precedent and have then some lawyer stand up before us at the next [development proposal] and say, ‘Well, you clearly have set this precedent,’ and find ourselves having to defend that,” council member Matt Czajkowski said.

The council will revisit the proposal next week.

Web Archive

© 2025 The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme