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

Community House plans debated

Posted on March 24, 2011 by Staff
PHOTO BY KIRK ROSS. Council members look on as architect Josh Gurlitz describes the IFC plans.

By Kirk Ross
Staff Writer

CHAPEL HILL — The public hearing on the Inter-Faith Council’s proposed Community House opened Monday night to a packed house, as IFC supporters and those opposed to a the facility’s location filled not just the main meeting room of Chapel Hill Town Hall but an overflow room and the town employee break room.

Residents of neighborhoods around the proposed location near the intersection of Homestead Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard sported “A Better Site” stickers, while Community House backers wore buttons with the address “1315 MLK” above a rendering of its front door.

The evening opened with a presentation of the IFC plans, which call for a two-story 16,250-square-foot building, proposed for a 1.8-acre university-owned parcel. UNC is providing the property at virtually no cost.

Housing would be located on the second floor, which would include a dormitory with beds for 20 residents and smaller rooms to be shared by either two or four men, with a total of 32 beds. The IFC also wants to make a downstairs meeting area useable as an emergency shelter for up to 17 men.

IFC’s presentation was followed by a presentation by residents near the site who have used the website abettersite.org to rally neighbors against the location. The group’s main concern is that the new facility combined with other nearby facilities places an unfair burden on their neighborhood.

Several speakers Monday night said that with Freedom House, a substance-abuse recovery center, and IFC’s Project Homestart, a transitional shelter for women and families, nearby, it is too much to ask neighborhoods like Parkside, Rainbow Heights, North Forest Hills and others to take on another facility. Other chief concerns included Community House’s proximity to Homestead Park and several preschools and the inclusion of the 17 emergency beds, which they said would allow intoxicated men to stay at the facility.

IFC supporters reiterated that Community House’s main role will be as transitional housing to get homeless men back on their feet. Chris Moran, IFC’s executive director, said the organization wants to see another emergency shelter in the area and would likely use the 17 cots on hazardous weather nights.

Council members acknowledged that the emergency beds were a sticking point.

Council member Matt Czajkowski said if the IFC could find a way to drop them from their plans “there would be rejoicing throughout the community.” He also said he was concerned about the proximity of the facility to Homestead Park.

Council member Donna Bell said one possibility would be for the emergency shelter to expire at some point to give neighbors some certainty and IFC and others greater urgency in finding an alternative.

A majority of council members also agreed that a mechanism for maintaining a Good Neighbor Plan worked out with representatives of local neighborhoods and law enforcement be written into the facility’s special-use permit.

The council agreed to resume the public hearing on the matter on May 9.

1 thought on “Community House plans debated”

  1. Mark Peters says:
    March 24, 2011 at 10:59 am

    http://www.abettersite.org/ has the presentation from neighbors. There is also a link to the video of the hearing which is available as of this morning.

    Citizen testimony starts at around 1:37:00 in the video.

    Key points not covered in the article:

    -White flag night clients are permitted to be drunk and high in this facility adjacent to 2 preschools

    -White flag night clients are not required to have state issued ID

    -New News: Sex offenders CAN LEGALLY STAY on white flag nights NEXT TO 2 PRESCHOOLS as indicated by Jamie Markham who spoke from the UNC school of government to clarify the law (was testifying as an expert and not for either side)

    -Sex offenders CANNOT be served in the longer term transitional program. Up to 3 sex offenders have resided in the current shelter atthe same time according to Deputy Upchurch, who registers and visits to confirm registration. This denies services to those who most need it – the site should have been chosen away from schools and parks.

    -Major conflict of interest issues were presented with evidence (see page 81 and end of main body of presentation )

    -Public land was searched with private criteria, which is unprecedented for a “private developer”.

    -$2.3M is the currently committed and requested taxpayer funding for this project.

Comments are closed.

Web Archive

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