Council denies proposal to close Willow Street right of way after contested hearing

Raleigh City Council on Sept. 2 denied a petition to close Willow Street (STC‑012025), voting 5–3 to reject the proposal after a contested public hearing. Supporters, including Ryan Reed, the owner of 701 Edmond Street, told council the street no longer serves a public function after Conn Elementary’s campus changes and Wake County Schools signed the petition supporting closure. Reed argued closing the roughly 0.16‑acre right of way would improve school safety, reduce municipal maintenance costs and not deprive neighbors of reasonable access because adjacent owners would receive 22 feet of land each. The applicant’s staff presentation by Amanda Jones of the Transportation Department described the closure area as about 0.16 acre, dedicated in 1920, and noted a 15‑foot Duke easement must be maintained. Staff recommended the city seek consideration for the right of way; an appraisal before council valued the entire strip at $163,000. Opposition came from Andrea Merkel, who said her family’s home at 619 Edmond Street relies on Willow Street as the only vehicle access and that splitting the right of way would leave her without a UDO‑compliant driveway. Merkel and her husband testified they have maintained the unpaved strip themselves and estimated at least $30,000 in minimum costs to alter curb, gutter and a utility pole to create a compliant access; they said Wake County Schools’ signature did not reflect the closure’s impact on their property. Council members debated whether the statutory standard to close a public right of way is that it "is not contrary to the public interest" or that it must provide a public benefit. Staff told council the statutory test is whether the closure is not contrary to the public interest and whether no property owner would be deprived of reasonable ingress and egress. Transportation staff confirmed the appraisal is recent and could be considered by council but that council may choose to require no compensation if it finds the public interest is met. Several council members said the case was not ready for a final vote given unresolved questions about compensation, driveway impacts and differing committee-level guidance; nonetheless, a motion to deny the closure passed. Council did not alter staff conditions; the denial means the right of way remains city property and maintenance responsibilities remain with the city unless otherwise resolved. Action taken: motion to deny the street closure (STC‑012025) carried, 5 in favor of denial and 3 opposed. The council record shows no subsequent referral or follow-up task assigned at the hearing.