The Chapel Hill Town Council will consider a redevelopment project along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard at its meeting on Wednesday.
The proposed 1200 MLK project is the redevelopment of the existing Tar Heel Mobile Home Park and the non-operational Marathon Service Station, on the east side of Martin Luther King Boulevard, across from the Northfield Drive intersection. The project is proposing to redevelop the existing gas station site with a new, larger 5,700 square foot facility along with a 100,000 square foot self-storage building.
The site consists of two parcels, totaling 13.9 acres, with the old Marathon Service Station at the front of the site and approximately 73 existing mobile home units at the rear.
The non-operational Marathon Service Station off Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Chapel Hill. (Photo via News & Observer/ Tammy Grubb)
Project officials have said the new gas station and storage facility would ensure a profit so the developer can keep the mobile home park open.
If the project’s requested rezoning is denied, though, developers have told the council that they would close the mobile home park.
“The landowner has said that if they can’t do the self-storage then they will kick everyone off the property,” Chapel Hill Mayor Pam Hemminger said. “That would mean 73 families would be told that they have to leave and most of their homes aren’t transportable.”
The Chapel Hill Town Council delayed the final reading of the 1200 MLK project in February after not reaching the two-thirds majority needed for the proposal to pass.
Members of the town council agreed the project didn’t align with the town’s land use goals, and voiced concerns about traffic safety and environmental impacts. Ultimately, Hemminger said their votes came down to whether they thought the project was the best way to protect residents in the park.
“The council was caught between those two parameters,” Hemminger said. “This is not a good land use plan, yet we want affordable housing, we want people to be able to live in our community – we don’t want to push people out. So, this balancing act is really a struggle.”
The developer, Stackhouse Properties, said the existing plan would preserve the 73 existing homes in the park for at least 15 years while simultaneously limiting rent increases. The 16 homes located where the storage facility would be built would be relocated on-site. Stackhouse Properties bought the 13.9-acre Tar Heel Mobile Court in 2019.
The Chapel Hill Town Council will return for a second project reading at its meeting on Wednesday, where it will only need a majority vote to approve the proposal.
Lead photo via the Daily Tar Heel.
Chapelboro.com does not charge subscription fees. You can support local journalism and our mission to serve the community. Contribute today – every single dollar matters.
There are so many things wrong with this redevelopment project. I support the Council members who are not falling for this threat. We can’t rely on this person making the threats to protect the residents.
It is the Council’s job to anticipate problems like this. So get busy Town Council and figure this one out.
give us what we want or we’re kicking everyone out. They sound lovely.
I didn’t think we negotiated with terrorists! If it’s not in line with the town’s future growth plans and “not a good land use plan”, then wtf are we doing here? They (Stackhouse properties) have owned the property for 2 years or less…they should have known their plan does not coincide with the town’s plans, but instead want to change the zoning, and are holding the most vulnerable people of our community HOSTAGE! I do not believe them when they say there will be room for the mobile homes AND 106k square feet of buildings (that’s just the inside dimensions too because parking lots & landscaping would also have to be added.
This project is very near sighted! Look at the trend of the automotive industry…its moving towards electric! 5-10 years from now, will we look back and agree that we needed the biggest gas station the town has ever seen?!? Don’t give in to the terrorists demands! They are attempting to blame the town for the future eviction of these residents, when they are the actual threat!
Where is my original comment??
I respectfully disagree with Ms. Hemminger. The parameters of this “deal” are not pitting 73 families against a new property owner’s grab for the green dollars. I believe it is a broad, but subtle, asking the town to sacrifice its philosophy, values, and goals when it comes to supporting the mantra of “affordable housing.” We’ve lived in this community since 1995, repeatedly watching developers’ requests for property exceptions be approved by our council despite neighborhood disagreement. Where or when will the final line be drawn? Certainly not around the “mixed use” developments. We watch as more buildings termed “luxury apartment homes” (either for students or others) rise into the Chapel Hill skyline. One wonders how many of these new accommodations are sold or rented, much less deemed to be “affordable housing.” An alternative plan to help the community with our tax base, plus balance the affordability issue is for this company, and others, to look northward to the developments off Exit 266 on I40W. Rather than letting the mobile home park be sacrificed, why not negotiate with Stackhouse to clean up the current acreage, repair the homes needing repair, refine the landscaping and leave traffic patterns as they are. Then use the northern land for the proposed gas station/storage facility. Would that not make Stackhouse a truly better community citizen, while allowing our town to maintain some semblance of order to our planning focus? I know I’m being naïve in this “community service” sort of idea. But CH has changed over these past decades. After watching other protests in our town to proclaim its diversity and sensitivity for all its citizens, I’d like to believe “hope spring eternal here.” Carry the day not only for investment returns. Respect and understand the challenges some have simply to live in the community where they work. %(*^^*&! (expletive deleted) to those who ask for a such high sacrifice – not “just 73” families, but something deeper.