The aftermath of last week’s planning board meeting where the members voted seven to two to recommend a 40-unit townhouse project on North Main Street has been rude, threatening emails sent to the five Wake Forest town commissioners, a name-calling series of comments on the Wake Forest Gazette’s article in last week’s issue about the planning board meeting, and one self-casualty: Thomas Smith has resigned his seat on the planning board
The level of public animosity and vitriol is as high or higher than the editor has seen in over 20 years of town hall reporting, though she was doing something else during the years when one commissioner and the town attorney almost exchanged blows during a meeting.
Smith, who voted against the motion to recommend the townhouse project to the town board, posted comments on the Gazette’s article. He was involved in the negotiations between Daniel Safreit, owner of the historic house next to the land where the townhouses are proposed, and David Williams Jr.
In an email Monday, April 9, Williams wrote, “We did meet with Thomas Smith and Dan Safriet, the owner of the Battle Purnell House, on November 22 8am (sic) at the Forks Cafeteria. During the meeting we discussed several options we had explored during our process of developing our plans for the property. In the meeting Dan Safriet asked if we would be willing to increase the buffer adjoining his property and install a fence in the buffer. Since the meeting we have increased the size of the buffer from 10’ to 20’ and added a fence to the plan. Further discussions have been where the fence location will be in the buffer which we stated in the planning board we would be willing to work with the town on a compromise on the specific location in the buffer.” Williams added that the original design was for townhouses, but they delayed submitting the plan to the town to evaluate the feasibility of single-family houses.
Brendie Vega, the assistant director of the town’s community development department, said Monday in an email, “It is completely legal for a Planning Board member to meet with applicants or residents, or any other interested parties prior to a LEGISLATIVE hearing.” The public hearing April 3 before the planning and town boards was a legislative hearing. Vega also confirmed that Smith has resigned.
Smith had emailed the Gazette to say he wanted to explain his stand and was told he could submit a letter to the editor, which he never did.
The town commissioners will consider the rezoning request and master plan for the townhouses when they meet next week, Tuesday, April 17, at 7 p.m.
It was Commissioner Anne Reeve who said the commissioners are “still getting lots of rude, threatening emails; a few phone calls. We are also getting pro-project emails.”
7 Responses
Longtime resident here living in the surrounding area and I am in favor of this project. That house has to go. I have had several friends attempting to sell their houses over the years and that house has created issues every time.
The rudeness of residents toward the Planning Board Members and Commissioners stems from the fact that those residents feel their voices are not being heard, These residents might be frustrated that the traffic has greatly increased. Over the past five years and the roads are not expanding.
Having followed what goes on in town for the past 11 years I can understand why those residents are rude. I will pinpoint several instances where projects where denied for no apparent reason like the Adams property on Forestville and Burlington Mill in 2011 for a C store/gas station or the 6 townhomes on Elm and S. Franklin a few years ago. Neither supposedly fit. The Adams property was zoned for such use but for some reason was not approved. The Sheetz on Rogers Rd was approved. No difference between the two on the surface. The 6 townhomes clashes with the existing neighborhood; it clashed with the townhomes of Avondale apparently. On the surface I see no difference between that project and the one in the story above other than the fact it was a lot less townhomes.
Wake Forest WAS a sleppy little town – 20 years ago! Why would anyone object to these townhomes replacing the eyesore that is now there? Your objections are NIMBY… Shame on you…
This comment 100%. The opponents made it clear when they talked about “their” streets and “their” sidewalks.
The ironic thing is that every single argument they have against this development was applicable to their very neighborhood when it came in. Substandard materials (vinyl siding), tiny lots, absolutely terrible “feel” of the houses.
I would like for WakeForest to stay the sleep little town Ii moved to in 1956.
with no town houses ever
One must ask: why is Mr. Smith so infatuated with this project that he joined the planning Board specifically for this one issue alone and then Quit the instant he didn’t get his way? It just doesn’t make sense. He must be up to something nefarious.
Ms Joan Sailor,
Don’t let the facts get in the way of your inaccurate comments.
I resigned from the PB because the process is broken and the PB and WF Commisoners are tone deaf to the concerns of WF residents about unchecked development and traffic.. I chose not to be part of a broken process.
For the record-
I am pro-growth for WF in a thoughtful and mutually beneficial way for both the town and developer and I voted in favor of several other Rezoning applications.
WF is still a good place to live. That’s why people want to move here and also why housing is needed.
I agree with those observations saying this delapidated property is an eyesore. I don’t agree that 40 townhomes should be slammed in that sized lot.
Pretty simple.
Nothing “nefarious” about it.
Why wasn’t anyone up in arms about getting something done about the dilapidated property which was in this terrible condition for years? Nefarious?