Rezoning Denied For Proposed 115-Unit Apartment Complex In Selma
SELMA, N.C. — A 115-unit affordable housing development that had stirred weeks of debate was formally rejected Friday after the Selma Town Council voted 4–1 to deny a rezoning request for the proposed Waterbury Gardens complex. The only vote in favor of the project came from Councilman William Overby.
The decision came during a special-called meeting on Nov. 21, where council members revisited the project for the third time in two months. TWG Development Associates of Indianapolis had sought approval to build five three-story apartment buildings on an 11.7-acre tract along Outlet Center Drive near U.S. 70 Business.
Developers Pitch $30 Million Investment
Representatives for TWG told the council the project would bring a $30 million investment to Selma and provide much-needed affordable housing for workers in the area, including retail employees at Eastfield. The company said target tenants would include first-year teachers, nurses, and new police officers — occupations with starting salaries ranging from about $48,000 to $55,000.
“Nice housing options are essential for the community to thrive,” a representative said.
Mayor Raises Concerns About Wages, Density
Mayor Byron McAllister pushed back on the developers’ argument, saying the core issue was not the need for cheaper housing but the need for better pay for workers.
“Instead of figuring out a way to build cheaper housing, maybe we should figure out a way to pay them a wage they deserve,” McAllister said.
He also cited concerns about the town’s ability to absorb additional growth, noting that recently approved townhomes, apartments, and single-family houses already represent a 10% increase over Selma’s current population of roughly 7,000.
“We are not prepared for it,” he said, pointing to ongoing infrastructure challenges. “Details are important. You can shout from a rooftop and Facebook, but when you look at the details, what do you find?”
Council Split but Ultimately Rejects Proposal
Councilmember Susan P. Watson said she wrestled with how to vote, noting the need for balanced growth. Mayor Pro Tem Joe Scarboro said any new development must match the town’s ability to provide adequate police coverage and infrastructure.
“People want to move to Selma because of ‘no planning’ in other areas,” Scarboro said, urging moderation and caution.
The Waterbury Gardens project was first discussed in October but was tabled over concerns about whether an 8-inch water line that dead-ends near the site could adequately serve the complex. After TWG presented options to improve water pressure at a Nov. 12 public hearing, the council tabled the decision again to allow time for further review.
Along with infrastructure issues, other concerns were raised about increased traffic on the already congested Outlet Center Drive and whether police resources would be stretched thin. Developers said the complex would include security cameras but no on-site private security.
Developers May Look to Smithfield
TWG Development Associates is reportedly considering a site in the Smithfield town limits, near Magnolia Drive and Venture Drive, for a similar multifamily housing project.
Discover more from JoCo Report
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ TWG Development Associates, LOOK – if you think people who make 48K-55K qualify for low income housing, you better higher-up yourselves some better qualified MBAs!! Then get your talking points straight!! First these news articles stated that you were building “low-income” housing! Then you received extra time to figure out how to scam Selma’s City Council, on how you could provide water and sewage for your “tenement” oops, sorry I meant investment… Now you’re calling it “affordable” housing, and seems all the sudden you only want tenants that got cash, and not government housing. To many lines of BS! Please pick up your toys, and leave the sandbox. You’re probably a bunch of foreign “GLOBALIZED”, or worse DAMN YANKEE Northern Carpet Bagger’s!! Sure Smithfield might listen to your BS, seems they don’t really care much about the city anymore. I am extremely thrilled that Selma turned out for their citizens! Hear that Johnston County????
We all might want to check this meeting out
Please read the notice @ the County website!!
https://www.johnstonnc.gov/content.cfm?id=1911
For Immediate Release: November 20, 2025
Smithfield, N.C. – Johnston County Planning Board to Review Draft Unified Development Ordinance on December 2
Johnston County is rewriting its development rules, and here’s one chance to see them. The County Planning Board will hear a presentation on a draft Unified Development Ordinance during a special meeting on Tuesday, December 2. The meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. in the auditorium of the Johnston County Agricultural Center, 2736 N.C. 210, Smithfield.
Broadly speaking, the draft ordinance aims to promote safe and orderly growth, keep development consistent with the County’s new comprehensive land-use plan, and ensure that public services, including water and sewer, can support new homes and businesses. The draft sets rules for all land use and development in areas under County planning control. It does not apply to Johnston’s towns or their planning jurisdictions.
Etc…..
By the way they finally got the 210 bridge open……
Hope to see you all there!!
Congratulations, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Scarboro!
Could this be a case of NIMBY?
The old “ bring investment” talking point. Investment is NOT the same as revenue. Investing in a building only benefits the builder. It fires not mean benefit to the location of the building.
Selma is a small town full of antiques… along with illegals and crackheads literally everywhere
Illegals I agree but crack heads everywhere is another story
I thank the mayor for taking a stand he’s trying to bring the town up low income housing is not a come up
Hi,
This is a pivotal decision that will undoubtedly shape Selma’s growth and character for years to come. The concerns about infrastructure strain and neighborhood density are valid and common in many growing towns. However, the denial of a 115-unit complex also raises tough questions about how to practically address the pressing need for more housing supply at various price points. It’s a classic and difficult balancing act for any community.
Did the planning board or council members who voted for denial offer any specific, actionable conditions or alternative proposals (e.g., a smaller unit count, different design, or a commitment to parallel infrastructure upgrades) that could have made the project acceptable, or was the opposition fundamentally against any high-density development on that site?