KANNAPOLIS — In a split vote that elicited concerns from residents in the neighborhood, the council voted to permanently close one block of Central Avenue, from D Street to Dale Earnhardt Boulevard, despite the fact that a proposal for any development is not yet on the books.

Kannapolis Director of Planning Richard Smith told the council that the developer informed the property owner, Insite/Kannapolis Land Partners, it “would prefer to have the street closed first,” but Smith initially said he was unsure what the proposed development will be.

The section of street that will be closed includes about a dozen homes that have historic value as former mill homes, and Smith said the developer “is considering moving the homes” rather than demolishing them, but that is not a formal agreement. Anyone purchasing the homes would have to pay for the move and have a property to which to move a house.

Dana Coulter, who lives on Chestnut Avenue, one of the horseshoe streets that wraps around Central Avenue, said she had seen the signs on the street “didn’t say if this was a permanent or temporary closing and right now there is nothing on the GIS maps showing any proposed development so we didn’t know what we were facing.”

“I believe the proposal is for 60 townhomes, but since nothing has been filed, I can’t be sure,” Coulter added. “How can you vote to close the road when you don’t know what is going to go there? And closing this section of Central Avenue will mean the only entrance and egress is Chestnut and Vance. Have you done a traffic study to determine the impact on the neighborhood? It does not seem you have done any due diligence on this.”

Travis Roseboro, who lives on Central Avenue, moved to Kannapolis from Charlotte for the “small town feel” he said he saw in Kannapolis.

“If I wanted to be in Charlotte, I would have just stayed,” he said. Both he and Coulter added that they don’t see the benefit to the city, since it will be just the addition of residential taxes.

“It isn’t like this is going to be a big financial boon for the city,” said Coulter, who also noted that she loves her 100-year-old mill home, but that in the last four years, her taxes have increased by 74 percent, and she is worried that many who live in the historic homes are going to end up unable to afford their taxes.

“It’s bad enough that renters are getting pushed out, but to think homeowners may have to sell because they can’t afford the tax bill is heartbreaking,” said Roseboro.

Smith did say he received confirmation that those who are currently renting homes in the stretch that the developer purchased have been notified their leases are expiring and he believes they have until June to find other housing.

Smith said the request for closure is for redesign “to make this a more permanent project,” and he said the developer has discussed creating a rear access or alleyway for the townhomes. He also said he believes the plan is for the townhomes to be owner-occupied rather than rental property.

“The development agreement will probably happen in April, and it will come back before you then for sewer and water,” Smith told the council, but he added that townhomes fit in the current zoning and should be approved.

There was little discussion of the request to close the road, but council member Doug Wilson said he didn’t understand why the road needs to be closed now.

“This is what the developer would prefer,” said Smith.

“The is going to be a big detriment to the neighborhood if we close this road,” said council member Ryan Dayvault. “It’s not a bad neighborhood by any means. I can’t support closing their street. And I’d like us to hold on to those historic homes.”

Beyond the dozen or so houses along this section of Central Avenue are 58 homes that were part of the Cannon Mills homes. In 1907, the company initially approved construction of 50 homes on Chestnut Street, and many of those houses remain. Dayvault said he is not OK with the idea of having those destroyed, and asked Smith if the developer had made mention of where they would move the houses if they are actually moved, but Smith said no.

Closing the road means the city has essentially abandoned the road and the developer would be responsible for paying for removal of the actual pavement. The city has the right to retain any utility easements, though that was not discussed.

Coulter also raised another question. She wondered if a developer would have to purchase the land under the road from the city, given that it clearly has value. But according to city officials, closing a road means the city is abandoning the road, and the property reverts to the owners of the property once it is abandoned.

However, according to N.C. state regulations 160A-299, the decision can be appealed in the next 30 days. The statute states, “Any person aggrieved by the closing of any street or alley, including the Department of Transportation if the street or alley is under its authority and control, may appeal the council’s order to the General Court of Justice within 30 days after its adoption. In appeals of streets closed under this section, all facts and issues shall be heard and decided by a judge sitting without a jury. In addition to determining whether procedural requirements were complied with, the court shall determine whether, on the record as presented to the city council, the council’s decision to close the street was in accordance with the statutory standards of subsection (a) of this section and any other applicable requirements of local law or ordinance.”

According to the N.C. Department of Transportation, “most streets or alleys that are closed are dead-end, unimproved rights-of-way that provide access only to the property owners who want the street closed.” In this case, Central Avenue is a main thoroughfare in the city.

While none of the neighbors have indicated an intention to appeal the decision, Coulter said she is looking for options, because “as a homeowner and neighbor, our taxes pay for the road, its maintenance, the sidewalks, and we have a vested interest, and I haven’t agreed to just give away land to a developer.”

Dayvault, Wilson and Mayor Pro Tim Dianne Berry voted against the request but were overridden by the other four council members. Council member Jean Dixon made the motion to approve the closure and council member Darrell Jackson seconded the motion, and Mayor Darrell Hinnant and council member Tom Kinkaid all voted in favor, but none of the four had any additional comments.

“It’s a four-to-three world,” said Wilson after the meeting. “As I said, I don’t understand why the road has to be closed, and why now?” He said he understands that technically it is legal to go ahead and vote to close the street, but it does not make sense to him.

“I’m not saying the owner shouldn’t sell the properties,” said Dayvault. “They’re certainly entitled to do that, but why not sell the houses individually, and help others become homeowners? I just will never support this.”