Why I Oppose Approval of the Fuquay Varina ETJ Expansion Application

The below document was sent to me by James Lore.  Please take the time to read this as it is a well written and thought out presentation of the many issues with the Fuquay ETJ expansion.


Why I Oppose Approval of the Fuquay Varina ETJ Expansion Application
R. James Lore, Attorney at law

1. The Town of Fuquay Varina’s application cannot meet the requirements
of the County’s Land Use Plan.
Wake County’s Land Use Plan states that an ETJ expansion request should
“only be granted for areas anticipated to be substantially developed and annexed
within ten (10) years.”

     Prior to 2011, ETJ status was intended as a transitional state from full county to full municipal control, allowing the municipality time to extend the required set of services to that area, and then the city or town could involuntary annex that area if voluntary annexation was not requested. However, in 2011 the law changed and cities and towns can no longer involuntarily annex property. It is therefore impossible for the Town of Fuquay Varina (hereinafter referred to as “Town”) to satisfy the current criteria in the Wake County Land Use Plan. We believe that the County should postpone any action regarding the Town’s current request until there is an update of the Wake County Land Use Plan.

2. Because a city or town can no longer involuntarily annex land, if the ETJ Expansion application from the Town is approved, citizens living in this new ETJ have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
The Wake County Land Use Plan states that an ETJ expansion request should “only be granted for areas anticipated to be substantially developed and annexed within ten (10) years.” Not wanting to wait for an update of the Wake County Land Use Plan, the Town leadership has decided, on their own, that it is OK to “reinterpret” the current approved standard for ETJ expansion. Without any authorization, the Town says the standard highlighted above only requires that the Town be ready and willing to accept voluntary annexation applications in the future.
Here is the problem. Right now, everyone living in the proposed ETJ has direct access, with their vote, to you, our County Commissioners. You are the elected officials who develop the land use standards for our land, including the rules for businesses on our land, zoning, livestock, etc. County staff then enforces those ordinances. When land is taken into an ETJ, the landowner becomes subject to the rules that are established by the Town’s council, not the County. As landowners in the County, we will not have direct access to the Town Council with our vote. We cannot support them if we agree with their decisions and we cannot vote against them when we do not. We are in limbo, and because there is no longer any involuntary annexation some of us may be in limbo forever. Do you think that is not possible? There are landowners who were taken into ETJ areas by the Town 36 years ago, and in other areas 16 years ago, who are still in this ETJlimbo!!

1  In its current ETJ expansion application, Fuquay admits that only 34% of the ETJ area added
16 years ago was annexed while not disclosing what percentage of the area added 34 years ago
was annexed.

Practically speaking, the population of the affected area would be permanently deprived of their right to vote for those who govern their land use.

3. And there is a constitutional issue here.
There is language in the North Carolina Constitution referred to as the Equal Protection Clause. You can see the specific citations in the footnote, but basically this clause guarantees that all North Carolina citizens have equal voting rights.

2  Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution provides in relevant part that “[n]o
person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.” North Carolina’s Equal Protection
Clause affords broader protections to its citizens in the voting rights context than the U.S.
Constitution’s equal protection provisions. See Stephenson v. Bartlett, 562 S.E.2d 377, 393-95
& n.6 (N.C. 2002); Blankenship v. Bartlett, 681 S.E.2d 759, 763 (N.C. 2009). Irrespective of its
federal counterpart, North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause protects the right to
“substantially equal voting power.” Stephenson, 562 S.E.2d at 394. “It is well settled in this
State that the right to vote on equal terms is a fundamental right.” Id. at 393 (internal quotation
marks omitted).There is nothing “equal” about the “terms” on which North Carolinians
absorbed into a municipal ETJ can vote for a governing town council.
North Carolina’s Constitution also commands that “all elections shall be free”—a provision that
has no counterpart in the federal constitution. Elections to the governing town council are not
“free” when only its citizens within an ETJ are precluded from voting by state statute.

It seems pretty clear that citizens who are taken into an ETJ without annexation in their future do not, and really cannot, be “equal” under our own State Constitution! They lose the right to vote for the elected officials who make the decisions about their land.

4.      The Town does not have a track record of responsible planning and land
The Town has a history of irresponsible management of land development within its current jurisdiction, which in turn has significantly contributed to some of the worst traffic congestion in Wake County.
Examples we can easily point to include:

  • Serious traffic problems at the intersection of Sunset Lake Road
    and Main St.
  • Serious traffic problems around the Walmart shopping center

     Providing municipal services to an area allows for increased density of development. In other words, a new subdivision with Town water and sewer services can have many more houses on the same amount of land than if the subdivision offers well and septic. The Town is enthusiastic about this increased density in the proposed ETJ expansion areas, while at the same time acknowledging that there are no funds available for the widening of the secondary roads in these areas.
The Town is also trying to artificially expand its ETJ by using a narrow corridor along Highway 401, adding to future traffic woes where traffic capacity is already limited. Using such a narrow road corridor as a means to extend primary corporate limits and municipal jurisdiction was specifically disapproved by the Legislature for annexations in 2011 and implicitly disapproved for proposed ETJ expansions.

N.C.Gen.Stat. 160A-58.51(1) [“A connecting corridor consisting solely of the length of a street
or street right-of-way may not be used to establish contiguity.”]

     I suggest that if the Town is truly interested in practicing prudent land use planning, it should focus its planning on the development of centralized, high-density population nodes in the core of its primary Town limits. This would allow for the concurrent planning for mass transportation, smartly placed retail hubs as well as adequate greenspace. This is a much more reasonable approach compared to their current model, which decentralizes development through haphazard, satellite annexation of high density residential projects located in areas where secondary roads are already overloaded with traffic.

 Fuquay new development map from the town’s website:

5. The Town’s plan to develop and enforce their land use ordinances in the
ETJ is not transparent.
The transition of land use ordinances from county to municipal control requires careful, honest planning so that the citizens who are substantially impacted can prepare to use their land as they do now, plan for a transition to a different set of rules, or move. Unfortunately, the Town has yet to disclose the final details of their proposed new ordinances for this area, including ordinances that effect land use for home-based businesses, livestock, pets, etc.
It is ironic, and really concerning, that the Town asks for citizen support but offers no solid proof that our current land uses will be allowed to continue. In fact, using their only example as stated in one of the public meetings, while they will try to grandfather existing land uses, including the number of allowed animals, they also admitted that as animals die they cannot be replaced until the number of animals drops to the Town’s allowed number, whatever that will be. According to the Town, grandfathering only lasts for the life of the preexisting animals. That is not how most of us think about grandfathering. Then, after assuring those in attendance at this particular meeting that every effort would be made to conform the Town’s animal ordinances to the current County ordinances, the Town quietly released their draft ordinances for livestock and poultry. It is very concerning to those who have read this proposal to find that the Town
planners propose, for example, that the number of chickens that can be owned by a landowner in the ETJ would be limited to 10 and fencing for non-domestic animals must be set back 8 feet from an owner’s property line. No logic, no rationale.

6. The Town mistakenly relies on expansion requests allowed for other cities
to support its request. However, there is no comparison in scope and
process between other applications and this one.
The Town cites the recent approvals of the ETJ expansion applications for Holly Springs and Garner as support for their current application. However, those approvals should have no bearing on the application proposed by this town. Those applications were dramatically smaller in scope and also required some revisions prior to approval.
It should also be noted that the development of their proposals started very differently than the one I am commenting on here. Their applications were developed in a very “bottom up” way, with a lot of interaction with their proposed broader communities about what is important, their common goals and their shared vision for the future. In contrast, the Town used a very insider-based, “top down” approach with no substantive communication with the proposed broader community and no recusal of those Town officials whose families or businesses will benefit from the effects of the expansion of the ETJ.
This open communication is still not welcomed! Even in their so-called public hearings, comments and discussion were absolutely not allowed – their meeting “rules” specifically forbade comments!! Attempts by citizens to comment were met with a police escort to the door. This unprecedented unwillingness to allow anyone from the public to do anything other than to ask a clarifying question about their ETJ application shows the heavy-handedness with which we can expect to be treated if the ETJ application is approved. The public hearing process that was used by the Town should clearly be deemed as insufficient to satisfy G. S. 160A-360, which entitles the affected landowners to be able to “participate in a public hearing”. Their requirement that the public comment only in writing, with no information about how those comments will be addressed or shared with the broader community, is clearly a process designed to suppress, not encourage, public input.

7. The Town has a poor history of integrating appropriate landscaping into
developments it allows.
The Town’s flawed landscaping policy has allowed unnecessary clear cutting of old growth trees on newly developed property just to save developers money. Most recently this occurred on an 80-acre tract that the Town satellite- annexed on Hilltop Needmore Road for the Stone Creek subdivision. The Town should have a heritage tree program that truly protects old growth trees. The reality is just the opposite. The Town allows the clear cutting of old growth trees while receiving little meaningful planting in return.


     Obviously, for all the reasons above I stand opposed to the Town’s ETJ expansion application. Those who have been waiting for 16 to 36 years deserve to have their situations settled well before the Town can even consider submitting an application to you for an additional land grab. I thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you and hope that you will reach out if you would like to further discuss any of these points.

What You Can Do to Help Defeat Fuquay’s Expansion of its Jurisdiction Over You and Your Property

The Wake County Commissioners, and not the Town of Fuquay Varina, determine whether the Town’s ETJ expansion application is granted, in whole or in part, or denied. They need to hear from us! Please focus your efforts to block or modify this ETJ expansion application by communicating your views to the Wake County officials listed below and by attending the meetings with Wake County officials that will begin in January, 2019.

Where to File Your Objections or Suggestions Regarding the Town of Fuquay Varina’s ETJ Expansion Application

Timothy W. Maloney, PLA, ASLA
Wake County Government
Planning Development & Inspections

919.856.6678 office
P.O. Box 550
Raleigh, NC  27602

Commissioner Sig Hutchinson
2704 Snowy Meadow Court
Raleigh, NC 27614
Wake County: 919-856-5575
Email: Sig.Hutchinson@wakegov.com

Commissioner Matt Calabria
Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
Wake County: 919-856-5576
Email: Matt.Calabria@wakegov.com

Commissioner Jessica Holmes, Chair
Wake County: 919-856-5579
Email: Jessica.Holmes@wakegov.com

Commissioner Susan Evans
2016 W. Sterling Place
Apex, NC 27502
Wake County: 919-856-5574
Email: Susan.Evans@wakegov.com

Commissioner James West
2401 Sanderford Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
Wake County: 919-856-5573
Phone: 919-856-5573
Fax: 919-856-5699
Email: james.west@wakegov.com

Commissioner Greg Ford, Vice Chair
10609 Firwood Lane
Raleigh, NC 27614
Wake County: 919-856-5566
Email: Greg.Ford@wakegov.com

Commissioner Vickie Adamson
1313 Shadyside Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
Wake County: 919-856-5577
Email: Vickie.Adamson@wakegov.com

to Email all Wake County Commisioners simultaneously use


7 thoughts on “Why I Oppose Approval of the Fuquay Varina ETJ Expansion Application

  1. Thank you for your efforts. I agree that being swallowed up by an ETJ expension has no benefits for the targeted citizen. I think town of Fuquay is aware of that, hence the hostile treatment of citizen comments. Very good points you’re making about voting rights being affected.


  2. This is an excellent write up and addresses every issue I have expressed over time to the FV Town Commissioners with regard to annexations and rezonings. It does a much better job in citing existing law, etc., than I’ve been able to do; and points out that the Town chooses to totally ignore citizens comment. I intend to follow up with Wake County Commissioners with a “by the numbers” idea that supports everything Mr. Lore has pointed to in his write up.
    Thanks for this well done write up.


  3. Thank you for your cogent, researched, and well founded arguments. Commissioners will hear from me, like they did several years ago about paving crater-pocked Fanny Brown Road). If I had wanted to live in Fuquay, I’d have moved there. Don’t force their greedy, ill-formed plans on me!


  4. I AGREE with the above mentioned arguments in STOPPING Fuquay Varina from obtaining residents by an ETJ extension. There has been multiple housing developments cropping up on Johnson Pond Rd. leading to caused excess problems with traffic. Every time a farmer passes, the property is gobbled up for new housing. I’ve seen new water fire hydrants placed along State Rd. 1010, and Johnson Pond Rd. providing the NEW or existing developments with water. I have an APEX ADDRESS and am in the SWIFT CREEK TOWNSHIP. I prefer to keep my track of land under my ownership as it presently shown.


  5. After receiving the Letter I’m sure everyone else received from Bryan Coates regarding the Jan 30 and Feb 20 Wake County Planning, Development & Inspections meetings, I have put together the following to send to Mr. Coates for consideration. I plan to make the February 20 meeting since I am in Area 4 (or 5) – Olde Waverly Subdivision – the map that was attached on back of his letter was hard to decipher.

    I also plan on sending it to our recently elected representative (Matt Calabria) also prior to the meeting. I also want to invite Mr. Calabria to come to Fuquay Varina and drive the roads at NIGHT and during rush hour on his own (some time other than riding in the Christmas Parade right behind the Mayor’s lead car).

    Before I send this memo and Table to him though, I would appreciate any thoughts and feedback as to the “appropriateness” of the writing. I have tried to keep it factual and subjective. Here is my e-mail text and a “by the numbers” chart.

    “TO: Bryan Coates, Planner III

    FROM: William Wilkison


    Thank you for your Notice on Subject. I hope to attend one of the February meetings to speak before the Planning Board to elaborate on the following objection.

    I am NOT opposed to carefully planned and controlled community growth and expansion.
    I AM strongly opposed to the approval of the Subject request due to a track record of poor planning, poor approval process, and poor implementation (among other things).

    Over the past several years the Town has demonstrated a record of very careless Annexations and Rezonings, willfully ignoring pleas of existing citizenry to develop supporting infrastructure either before or at least in tandem with the explosive growth of 8,000 new homes and at least 16,000 cars to an already overburdened traffic, lighting, and safety infrastructure.

    The resulting traffic nightmares, inadequate lighting, potential for crime, dangers, flooding impact, and a myriad of other consequences that compromise quality of life for existing residents is unacceptable as it now exists, let alone handing the Town another 23,000 acres to continue this rampant and uncontrolled “growth” plan at the expense of existing citizenry.

    This 23,000 acre land grab will place current outlying areas only within the ETJ (not within town limits, which I don’t want anyway), thus giving residents NO VOTING RIGHTS over rulings, regulations, laws, etc. voted by Town Commissioners who seem to largely ignore the pleas of citizens at their ‘Town Hearings’.

    Instead of writing on regarding the many flaws in the Towns expansions to date, I have attached a “By the Numbers” table which reads right to left, and attempts to quantify what has been done, and what the impact has been (or will be).

    PLEASE, DO NOT approve (I realize this is up to Wake County Board of Commissioners vote) this SUBJECT request as it currently stands.

    If it IS approved, PLEASE build in adequate safeguards that regulates rate of annexations and rezonings supported by ensured (defined and paid for) infrastructure support and construction;
    AND, provides for a mechanism for VOTING RIGHTS of non town citizens in the ETJ so that their voices can be heard BY VOTE on regulations the Town votes for this ETJ.

    In the interim, should you have questions or comment, I can be reached at contacts below.


    William Wilkison
    7917 Twin Pines Way
    Fuquay Varina, NC 27526

    I was unable to attach a .pdf table – is there a way to post this on this page?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s