news-record.com

NEWS

Council appoves College Hill rezoning

Wednesday, April 7, 2010
(Updated 8:58 am)

GREENSBORO — Despite tense neighborhood opposition, the City Council unanimously voted to allow a 219-apartment student housing development on Spring Garden Street.

Ohio-based Edwards Communities is expected to build apartments at the Newman Machine Co. property, near the western end of downtown.

Residents of nearby College Hill fought the development proposal, arguing that it would inundate the diverse neighborhood with students and cars. Dozens showed up at the council meeting Tuesday, donning large “Save College Hill” buttons.

“You hate as a council member to disappoint anybody, but this will be good for this neighborhood,” said Councilman Zack Matheny, who was booed by the opposition in the audience.

Edwards operates student apartments in six states. The Greensboro plans call for nearly 700 beds.

Nearby property owners have opposed the plan since last year. They argued that the large complex is not the right fit for the historic neighborhood. Neighbor after neighbor told the City Council on Tuesday night that College Hill could do better than what Edwards was offering.

“It’s too big. You know it’s too big, and we can do better,” said Melanie Bassett, who lives on Spring Garden next to the Newman Machine Co. “We can stop and think about all this student housing and get a plan for the neighborhoods — all the neighborhoods around UNCG — that are being affected by this willy-nilly, piecemeal development.”

The developers adjusted the project to make it more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, including decreasing the height of some buildings and adding fences and landscaping.

The developer plans to remove leaking underground storage tanks from the property.

“The redevelopment of this property for student area would appear to make good sense, and the contamination which has occurred there over the years would be remediated by the developer,” said attorney Henry Isaacson, who represented the developer. “As a community, our goal should be to revitalize this property and not allow it to sit vacant and become a serious problem for everyone and everything around it.”

Some council members argued that the apartments would be a better fit for the neighborhood than the current, industrial uses for the site.

The council approved the development 8-0, with Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan abstaining because her husband represented the opposition in the case.

Staff writer Dioni L. Wise contributed to this report.

Contact Amanda Lehmert at 373-7075 or amanda.lehmert@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

Nelson Kepley

Photo Caption: Tim Lindeman holds a painting of the home on Walker Avenue in which he lives as he speaks opposing the construction of student housing in the College Hill neighborhood.

City Council Insider

News and notes from the City Council meeting.

The council voted unanimously to support a resolution in favor of Susie’s Law, which aims to increase penalties for animal cruelty.

Roberta Wall, who cared for Susie before she found a permanent home, said the dog’s abuser should face a stiffer punishment.

Lashawn Whitehead, 21, was sentenced in March to probation for felony animal cruelty, and six to eight months in prison for setting personal property — Susie — on fire.

 Wall said justice was not served in Susie’s case.

 “It should not be OK to abuse an animal,” she said. “They have no voice. Somehow, Susie was given a voice, and we need to learn to save others.”

— Amanda Lehmert and Dioni L. Wise
 

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

timflowers

April 6, 2010 - 9:48 pm EDT

I'd pick an apartment complex over a contaminated industrial site any day. Sometimes neighborhoods want to hold out for the ideal development, but that ideal development might never be built. You have to go with the best plan when it is presented, otherwise that contaminated industrial site could remain for decades.

bobberpopper

April 6, 2010 - 10:01 pm EDT

Come on people it all about money

Bvand

April 6, 2010 - 10:18 pm EDT

I was skeptical but gotta admit--they are redeveloping an area that is a brownfield, beside a dead whorehouse, in a rough patch of their neighborhood. I'd prefer the pretty development to the alternatives; besides, the only folks that have money to spend on housing in this town are college kids.

pirate2000

April 6, 2010 - 10:34 pm EDT

Isaacson is such a tool. He's done a fine job representing well developed properties. Unfinished, abandoned, cheaply constructed town home communities- Portrait Homes. Unfinished, piecemeal shopping centers- Battleground Oaks @Horsepen Creek. When's that cell tower going to be moved, Henry?? Huh?? Promises/ words were uttered from your mouth stating that the blighted eyesore at corner would be improved- well over 5 years ago. Look at it today. Not exactly the promising, beautiful gateway into the City of Greensboro. Your word at tonight's meeting means nothing!

teef

April 7, 2010 - 4:33 am EDT

as a longtime resident/frequenter of the college hill district.. i gotta say that i don't think this is nearly as big of a deal as people are making it seem to be.. the bottom line here is that the college hill district is A COLLEGE NEIGHBORHOOD.. and all these older homeowners who are pissed about property values need to wake up and realize that they are simply outnumbered and outvoiced.. college hill is a college neighborhood, and anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves.. sure, you may have a spiffy 500,000 dollar house, but look where it is.. you gotta go with the flow.. student housing in this neighborhood is obvious.. its surprising we don't already have multiple developments on that side of campus.. college hill has and always will be a place where young adults do things that piss off the older folks.. if you don't like it, DON'T BUY A HOUSE THERE

n_rdrm2008

April 7, 2010 - 6:39 am EDT

if built as college housing, with parking to accomdate residents, and guests, make street parking by permit, ONLY, around it, and it have it's own security, it may not bother others. Hopefully, school in ten or more years will still need this.

Risright

April 7, 2010 - 9:02 am EDT

The fact that the Council voted unanimously indicates the "Save College Hill "crowd was way off base in their opposition. Congrats to the Council for having a back bone and moving Greensboro forward. I think they call that leadership!

DrRosenRosen

April 7, 2010 - 1:01 pm EDT

So, by your thinking, anytime the council is in 100% agreement on something, that means they are right? The REAL fact is, NO ONE on the council lives in College Hill and therefore will not be effected by this. This isn't moving Greensboro forward...it's putting TOO MANY people into an area whose infrastructure is already busting at the seams. It's the sheer size of this thing that people oppose. Backing an outside development company instead of listening to the people that you represent should NOT be called leadership. It should be called pathetic.

newkid

April 7, 2010 - 9:18 am EDT

Why even have an election? The Greensboro city council doesn't represent VOTERS, they represent DEVELOPERS.

logicfairy

April 7, 2010 - 9:36 am EDT

or have a comprehensive plan, since any developer who throws money at them gets the plan changed to their liking. This city council lacks long-term thinking.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search