Project stumbles on cheap housing

A Town Council review of a proposed development project Monday night once again centered on affordable housing.

Developer Joe Patterson shared with the council his desire to convert 213 E. Franklin St., now a 35-unit apartment complex, into eight condominiums.

The proposal has received little opposition thus far and has support from many town boards, including the Historic District Commission and the Downtown Economic Development Corporation.

In addition, its proposed neighbors — a Presbyterian church and a sorority — support Patterson’s plan.

But Patterson’s application for a special-use permit snagged on a last-minute change in the amount he would have to pay in lieu of providing affordable housing.

Town staff is now directing Patterson to pay $84,000 as opposed to the about $60,000 he had scheduled to pay.

“We find this 11th-hour shift in position unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable,” Patterson told the council. He emphasized that current town law merely encourages him to develop 15 percent of his project as affordable housing — defined as quarters provided for those making 80 percent or less of the area’s median income.

Patterson said he discussed methods of providing affordable housing with Robert Dowling, executive director of the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, before planning the project.

But eventually he decided to offer the trust enough money to subsidize a home in the Northside neighborhood, located off Rosemary Street, which Dowling estimated costs between $60,000 and $70,000.

Town staff upped that figure because 15 percent of eight units is slightly more than one unit.

While no policy that applies to Patterson’s case indicates whether or not to round the number, Town Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper said that in similar cases, the council has not rounded.

“The council is very clear that when it comes to the affordable payment, you’re not interested in rounding,” she said.

Not rounding raises the payment to a level Patterson found upsetting.

Several council members expressed sympathy with Patterson’s plight.

“Two days before we come to the end of this process, the numbers changed on you,” council member Dorothy Verkerk said. “I can see why … Mr. Patterson’s frustrated.”

Town Manager Cal Horton said there was a simple explanation for the late about-face:

“The short answer is we discovered the error in the last review.”

But council member Sally Greene said the entire issue stemmed from the lack of a clear guideline.

“If we had an ordinance in place that would reply to a multiunit building like this, we wouldn’t be in this dilemma right now,” she said.

Given another opportunity to speak at the close of the hearing, Patterson addressed this point.

“All we can do, from a legal point of view, without a law that doesn’t exist yet, or a law that doesn’t apply to us applied to us, is what we’re doing,” he said.

“We actually went the extra mile. We tried to go out and say, ‘Rob, what can we do to make everybody happy?’ And we’re kind of being hit with a stick for it.”

The council decided to revisit the application as soon as possible.

Contact the City Editor at citydesk@unc.edu.