By LAURA UHLMANSIEK
Staff Reporter
Residents who live on large single-family home lots in Concord are opposing rezoning proposals that would allow the construction of multiple-family units in their midst.
Two developers, Metro-D Properties and the Real Estate Acquisition and De-velopment Co., have submitted a rezoning request for two separate lots near Hagemann Road and Tesson Ferry Road. Metro-D Properties proposes to build 20 attached-housing units on 2.9 acres and Real Estate Acquisition proposes to build 30 attached units and two detached units on 9.1 acres.
Residents who live near the proposed sites have fought both proposals, saying the developments are too dense for the area, would cause erosion problems on their property and would increase traffic on Hagemann Road, which they say is already dangerous.
The Planning Commission on Sept. 12 voted 7-1 to recommend approval of Real Estate Aquisition’s request to change the zoning of its site, located at the northwest corner of Mooney Lane and Hagemann Road and the south side of Butler Hill Road.
Real Estate Acquisition had requested a zoning change from the NU Non-Urban District to the R-3 10,000-Square-Foot Residence District with a Planned En-vironment Unit, or PEU, for single- and multiple-family residences.
The developer proposed to build 1,550-square-foot units, which would have a starting prices ranging from $250,000 to $300,000, and traffic from the development would exit onto Hagemann Road.
However, the Planning Commission stated that multiple-family or attached units were inappropriate for that site and recommended that the County Council only approve the site for 22 detached single-family homes.
“In this area are single-family residences on larger lots with access to Butler Hill Road, Hagemann Road, or Mooney Lane. With perhaps the exceptions of the Summerhedge subdivision, the rural character of the area remains very much intact. … At this time, the Commission finds no reason that the current subject site should be granted a zoning district which is more dense than the R-2 15,000-Square-Foot-Residence District,” according to the Planning Commission report.
After the County Council received the recommendation, the developer filed a notice of appeal against the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Joe Layton, president of Real Estate Acquisition, told the Call that the Planning Commission’s recommendation for 22 single-family homes is too few.
“It’s not economically feasible to do the job, and it’s not fair to the homeowners that own the property there (who want to sell the property to the developer),” Layton said.
Nearby residents have raised much opposition to the development. At the Planning Commission’s public hearing May 9, 14 people spoke against the rezoning request, raising concerns about the smaller lot sizes, a potential decrease in property values, multiple-family units and the proposed density, stormwater and erosion.
By a show of hands, eight people were in favor of the proposal and 60 were opposed.
Both proposed developments are surrounded by several single-family homes on large lots, ranging from 5.3 units per acre to single lots of four acres. There are only two other multiple-family complexes nearby, including Duchesne Parque and the Villas at Ivy Summit, which is under construction.
Concord resident David Seibel has written several letters to the Planning Commission in protest of the Real Estate Aquisition’s request.
“Mooney Lane is a neighborhood of single-family homes on three-plus acre lots,” stated David Seibel in a letter to the Planning Commission. “The residents of Mooney Lane understand that development may happen, but we do not wish that development to be so dense as to destroy the character of our neighborhood. Taking a three-plus acre lot size down to 10,000 square feet will do just that.”
Donald Bojrad stated in a letter to the Planning Commission that his property sits at the bottom of a steep run that is downhill of the development and already receives most of the stormwater runoff from Hagemann Road.
“Downstream from this proposed project, is my two-acre pond,” Bojrad stated. “I have fought silting and muddy water for years. … This proposed project with its small storm water detention pond, aggressive surface coverage of the land with roads and buildings, steep incline, and no green space for the watershed put all of this in jeopardy.”
Metro-D Properties’ proposal also has faced protests from residents who live near the site.
At the public hearing Aug. 8, 11 people spoke in opposition to the rezoning re-quest, citing concerns about overdevelopment of the site, multiple-family units, negative impacts to property values, traffic and the dangerous nature of Hagemann Road. By a show of hands, five people were in favor of the development and 67 were opposed.
The Planning Commission at the Sept. 12 meeting had voted 8-0 to recommend denial of Metro-D Properties’ request to change the zoning of the site at the south and west sides of Hagemann Road at Tesson Ferry Road.
The company had requested a zoning change from NU Non-Urban District to the R-5 6,000-Square-Foot Residence Dis-trict to build 1,600- to 2,000-square-foot units, with a starting price of $280,000.
The preliminary site development plan shows seven two-unit buildings and two three-unit buildings along a drive with a single entrance off Hagemann Road.
“This far exceeds the densities of surrounding development. Based on the surrounding zoning and development pattern, the Commission is of the opinion that the R-5 6,000-Square-Foot Residence District is inappropriate at this location,” stated the commission report.
After the County Council received the recommendation, John King, an attorney for Metro-D Properties, asked that the rezoning request be withdrawn without prejudice at the Oct. 11 meeting.
By withdrawing the request without prejudice, the developer will be able to resubmit another rezoning request for that same property.
“Hopefully we can do what the people around us and what the commission is concerned about and move forward,” King told the Call.
