Forest Hills votes to remain 'residential'

By Rose Hooper

A contingency of residents applauded the efforts, while another group - those supporting commercial development - voiced their disappointment.

Mayor Jim Davis and board member Joe Rossano were absent from the meeting, but their votes would not have affected a change. The mayor votes only in the case of a tie; even if Rossano had opposed the vote, it would have carried with a three-fourths majority.

The motion voted upon was to approve the village's draft zoning ordinance, specifically with amendments eliminating a commercial district and any chance of James Hooper developing the Cox Center on 13 acres now zoned for single-family residential construction.

"I'm disappointed, of course," said Hooper, who brought an architect, real estate appraiser and surveyor with him Monday to speak in favor of his "quality planned development."

"But," Hooper was quick to point out, "I still have options."

He would not elaborate on the options he was considering following the council's decision.

Hooper asked the three members present to delay their vote until the full council was present, but member Jim Wallace said, "We've studied this intently for six months. We've got to get on with it now since our moratorium runs out next month."

Don't yield to the "fear factor," resident Janie Prentice said. "We don't know the whole picture of Mr. Hooper's development, so maybe we are more scared of what we don't know. Let's take some time to understand it."

Hooper's architect, Tom Ritter of Franklin, stressed, "It's not going to be the 'Hot Spot' (gas station) that people think it is... all lit up at night. We plan to use the latest technology of low-positioning sodium pole lights with 1-foot candles, as well as a landscaped buffer of trees."

Delaying the vote won't accomplish anything, said board member Dick Iobst. Besides, he told the audience, Davis, who was in Michigan, had requested the issue be brought to a vote Monday.

Larry Kolenbrander, chairman of the planning board, requested the council adopt the original ordinance submitted by the planning board, which included commercial and multi-family development with varing levels of criteria for construction.

"Those provisions maintained the village's control over development through a review process," said Kolenbrander. "Your piecemeal re-working of that ordinance reflects the council's own self interest."

"We can't stop growth," said former Mayor Irene Hooper, who supported Kolenbrander's position.

Resident Con Chiger countered, "We don't need more growth. I came here 17 years ago because it was a peaceful little area... well, it's not that anymore."

"I speak to you as one who has lived here the longest - 37 years. We understood we incorporated to preserve our residential neighborhood," Ruth Shuler said. "Already we have problems with the noise and traffic from Valhalla (apartment complex)... Mr. Hooper's development would only exasperate it.

"Growth would bring the need for police protection, garbage services, water and sewer - who is going to pay for it? We need to stay residential," Shuler continued. "Our goals, as defined by Chairman John Adams in 1998, were to prevent development of uncontrolled, high-density housing and to encourage development of single-family housing that enhances property values and a sense of community in the village," said Charles Rush, who served on a committee to study problems associated with the development of apartments around the village. "We expected this to be the Golden Rule for development in our village."

Agreeing with Rush's sentiment, Carl Iobst told the council, "We have seen the failures of other communities that have chosen not to act to restrain the forces of chaos and greed. Do not make the same mistake... The hour is becoming late. Stay the course of the original purpose for the incorporation of Forest Hills. Show a courage to face the future."

At the April 29 hearing on the proposed zoning ordinances, some present questioned whether it was mandatory for a township to designate a commercial area. Resident Mary Iobst reported that both David Lawrence and David Owens of the Institute of Government said, "There is no flat requirement that such a district be provided."

Whether a zoning ordinance must permit commercial use depends on the nature of the town, according to Lawrence and Owens, who said there are a number of incorporated towns in North Carolina that are essentially all residential.

"There is no requirement that they change that essential nature simply because they adopt a zoning ordinance," Mary Iobst said, quoting Lawrence.

Back to Archive: 06/20/02.