Dear Editor:
I would like to clearly say “I Love Living in Wake Forest!” My family and I have been a part of this community for 30 years. We have raised two wonderful children here and are invested in the success of this town. I am saddened by the amount of “uncontrolled” development that is occurring in our town. Anyone sitting in traffic daily in the US-1 Corridor knows what I am talking about. My current concern is around the proposed changes to the 1999 PUD that will affect the old Wake Forest Golf Course and Wake Forest’s watershed area.
We specifically built our house in the Country Club Downs subdivision because of the low intensity zoning that protected the Open Space and the future of Wake County’s water supply. Our neighborhood and others were consistently built covering as little impervious surface as possible while providing adequate ground water absorption.
Now years of well-planned land use to protect the water supply may now be changing to please a landowner! This is not raw land that can support the amount of development that Joyner and Toll Brothers are proposing. How can rezoning occur when this land is not conducive to such an intensive use? How can our Town go back on promises IN WRITING that state that this land would either remain a Golf Course or Open Space? Are the commitments made by our town to those who build here not sacred?
I urge the Town of Wake Forest to keep the Wake Forest Golf Club PUD intact. The massive Toll Brothers project doesn’t reflect the quality of land management that our past leadership has demanded. This Property is too precious to the Town of Wake Forest and its future. This development is not the right fit. Please keep your word, pay it forward and let this land remain intact for future generations to enjoy the beauty and greenery that is the Wake Forest that we love!
Donna Iapalucci
Wake Forest
Dear Editor,
We need to preserve the Wake Forest golf course for the health of our watershed and environment. There is a proposed development by Toll brothers that is going to put 350-400 homes in water supply areas that would forever change the character of our town and its beautiful Northwestern gateway. It is not the right fit for the Town of Wake Forest, nor the neighborhoods contiguous and proximate on either side of Capital. These neighborhoods were designed to provide ecosystem protections such as meeting impervious surface requirements and sit on larger lots to allow maximal groundwater penetration and protection of the watershed. We have several “real” ponds that act as natural water containment systems. Not to mention all the wildlife that have built their homes here in the ponds, trees, and open space. The Town has every right to refuse this massive development and keep the existing PUD in place to protect this land and drinking water supply, if they do not, no area in Wake Forest is ‘sacred” or safe from this unrelenting development for financial gain. Keep the promise and do not change the PUD! We moved here specifically because of the open space and greenery (forest!). Remember, a PUD agreement follows the LAND and not the owner. We cannot stop growth in our area but we can be responsible for the environment and accountable for the sequela of our growth.
Gina Micchia
Wake Forest
8 Responses
How exactly can the town get around the fact that there is a PUD? Why is the town trying to eliminate the requirements of the PUD? Is that even legal?
Mary – The PUD follows the land & its strength was tested in 2009 when previous owner Joel Young sued the town when they refused to consider a similar development. This is a watershed area historically and traditionally R40 watershed. It’s not an urban area made for RZ 10 high density zoning. With that said, it’s up to town commissioners to uphold the PUD & we hope they will – not sure if I come up as just Wanda – but rhis Wanda Mukherjee, I have been invloved in protecting the Golf Course/Open Space for 15 years. There is a use for this land but not a high density development next to a high traffic area.
I wouldn’t think that the town has the authority to not follow a PUD. Isn’t it registered with the State of NC?
Isn’t it interesting that these comments occur in the same edition that the editor decided to go after a candidate for office in this town laments the unbridled growth being permitted by current administration officials?
This was written by Edwin M. Goodwin.
What’s so interesting about Mr. Gordan? Is it a conspiracy to KEEP a legally bunding PUD intact. Let me give you some insight into why exactly this is NOT a conspiracy at least on part of Carol Pelosi. She is a Democrat. E Carrol Joyner is ALSO a Democrat. Typically DEMOCRATS are for saving the environment. Republicsns typically are STAuNCH lsnd rights activists- damn the torpedoes types if you will.
Now I don’t know which party the ladies who wrote these letters are but they did not coordinate with Carol Pelosi- frankly we are unsure where she stands.
But it does go to show you that Money talks and … well you know the rest.
Mr Joyner used his connections at BbT now Truist to buy 159 acres for $325,000 and his wealth allowed him to sit on this PUD for 10 years without a single improvement.
The two ladies who wrote these letters probably couldn’t get their phone calls returned in 2011 when the neighborhoods tried to buy it. Had we the people attached to the land, who bought our homes in this watershed had been afforded the same opportunity Mr Joyner got and others like him – Wske Forest wpuld have a protected watershed complete with environmentally sensitive greens for the community to enjoy.
So please stop carrying water for this land baron. His goal is to make money – now he mught think its very elegant to donate that money to things he chooses to support.
Perhaps instead of selling to Toll Brothers he could do the truly egalitarian thing and donate it to the town like Joyner Park – for the right price of course.
Amen!!!
I apologize for all the typos! In my previous post!