The Wake Forest Town Board will not appeal Judge Paul Ridgeway’s Nov. 25 ruling that reversed the board’s vote last August to deny a special use permit for 99 townhouses on the north side of the N.C. 98 bypass.
“The Board defended its decision to deny the Special Use Permit to the Siena Townhome project in good faith and put up a strong defense of the Town’s position. Given the Court’s order however, the Board has decided not to appeal the order at this time,” Eric Vernon, the town’s attorney, said this week in an email.
Vernon also said the commissioners will not have to vote on the special use permit to the Ninety Eight Associates, the group of Raleigh businessmen planning the project. “The Court Order to issue the SUP is al that is needed.”
If the commissioners do change their minds, they have until Dec. 29 to file an appeal with the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
The resolution of this case leaves only two suits filed against the Town of Wake Forest. Bob Johnson, who owns The Cotton Company and other downtown properties, says he has deeds proving he owns the open space between the block of buildings containing The Cotton Company and B&W Hardware. The town says it is a dedicated portion of Owen Avenue and improved it during the White Street Streetscape project by paving it and making other changes.
The case had gone to trial but before a jury was seated the presiding judge fell ill and could not continue. There have been discussions about a new court date. At this time, attorney Charles George with Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton says it will probably be next spring, perhaps between March and June.
The second pending case asks that a Wake County Superior Court judge or jury reverse the Wake Forest Town Board’s July decision to rezone land along Copper Beech Lane for the Tryon subdivision. Wake Forest attorney Nathaniel C. Parker filed the suit on Sept. 15 on behalf of Frank McCoy.
McCoy and his wife own property just to the south of the Tryon property abutting two areas that were rezoned but labelled as for future development because of the difficulty of access across wetlands. Part of the suit says that the McCoys might be required to provide connections to those tracts when they develop theirs, thereby losing some lots and reducing their value of their property.
The suit also questions the timing, the lack of some statements and other parts of the decision.
McCoy was one of the speakers during the public hearing on June 3, citing the “alarming loss of wetland, primarily through development” in the state. He talked about the impact the clearing and building would have: the loss of large trees, the loss of habitat for woodpeckers, hawks, turtles and black snakes who live there.
The rezoning was contentious. Neighbors across Wait Avenue to the south have refused to sell easements to Tryon’s developer, Tryon WF from Knightdale. In June when the public hearing was held, Tryon WF had access to sewer service for only the first phase of the subdivision; the developer cannot fill any wetlands until he has a permit for sewer for the remaining phases.
The master plan that four of the five commissioners voted for – Commissioner Margaret Stinnett voted no — had been changed since the public hearing when several neighbors talked about the runoff and water problems they have experienced in the past. The approved plan had 11 fewer single-family house lots, a reduction from 279 to 268; wider lots within the Smith Creek watershed where runoff will be diverted away from the watershed; slightly increased open space and slightly decreased density. The number of townhouses, 136, remained the same.
“Technically, the Tryon case is two separate cases but the fact situation is the same in both,” Eric Vernon, the town’s attorney said in an email this week. The Gazette will sort out the two cases when a trial date is set.
To read all the Gazette articles about the Tryon rezoning, search for “Tryon” in the website.
