Wendell board rejects annexation and rezoning for Weathers Landing after hours of testimony

The Wendell Town Board voted 2–3 Monday night to deny a developer’s request to annex and rezone about 304.06 acres to create the Weathers Landing subdivision, a project that would have added roughly 760 single‑family homes and 170 townhomes.

Town planning staff recommended approval, saying the proposal largely fits the town’s Blueprint 2030 map and provides public benefits including a 10‑acre public park and more than a mile of greenway. The applicant, Lennar Homes, and its consultants defended the plan at the public hearing and described additional conditions intended to address neighbors’ concerns.

The denial came after about four hours of presentations and public comment. Town planner Brian Coats reviewed the rezoning petition and the draft conditional district, saying the developer proposes an average density of about "3 units per acre" and that the project would provide zoning conditions and infrastructure improvements including turn lanes, sidewalks, and greenway connections. Attorney Collier Marsh, representing the applicant, said the proposal was “right in the middle” of the plan’s density range and highlighted commitments to a 10‑acre town park, a roughly one‑mile greenway and extensive open space.

Stormwater was a central technical topic. Kelly Garcia, stormwater engineer with McAdams, described the project’s proposed controls and said, "The post development stormwater discharge peak flow rate for the property shall not exceed pre development peak flow rates for the 1 year, 10 year, and 25 year storm events at points of discharge where runoff leaves the property." Garcia told the board the applicant is proposing enhanced facilities including an constructed wetland and detention sized to provide 25‑year detention in many of the primary stormwater control measures, and that the facilities would be subject to maintenance agreements and town inspections.

Traffic engineers said a broad traffic impact analysis examined 23 intersections and included anticipated growth and nearby developments. Nate Beauchwind of McAdams said the study was conservative and that the developer will be required to build a number of turn lanes and to conduct signal‑warrant analyses; he noted NCDOT could require installation sooner if warrants are met. The developer also offered to pay for many off‑site improvements; in staff materials Lennar estimated roughly $6.3 million in off‑site improvements and about $8.4 million in on‑site streets, along with utility extension costs.

Dozens of residents spoke in opposition during the public comment period, citing stormwater runoff and potential impacts on adjacent farms and irrigation ponds, increased traffic on Roseville Road and Davistown Road, the town’s ability to absorb more residents and services such as schools, police and emergency response, and the project’s density and compatibility with adjacent large‑lot neighborhoods. Speakers also urged protection of Robertson Mill Pond Preserve and questioned whether proposed stormwater measures would prevent hydrologic impacts to downstream farms. Several neighboring landowners and farm operators said the site drains to ponds they use for irrigation.

Supporters — including some landowners who are selling parcels to the developer — said the plan includes substantial public benefits, preserves a large amount of open space and would deliver a turnkey, town‑maintained 10‑acre park. Julie Weathers, one of the property owners, said the plan "preserves a lot of open space and has a green stormwater infrastructure" and that Lennar was chosen as the buyer after a careful selection process.

After public comment and more discussion among commissioners, the board took a roll call-style vote by show of hands on a motion to approve the annexation and rezone with the conditions recommended by staff (including several red‑lined additions spoken for by staff during the hearing). The motion failed, 2–3. The applicant had also requested approval of a development agreement tied to the rezoning; staff noted that, if the rezoning were not approved, the development‑agreement hearing would not proceed.

The vote does not prohibit the landowners from selling the property or the applicant from revising and resubmitting a proposal; it does, however, halt the town approval pathway for the current conditional district and annexation request. The town planner told the board the properties remain in Wake County until and unless a future annexation is approved.

The public hearing and board discussion highlighted the technical tradeoffs the board must weigh: staff recommended approval with conditions and the applicant promised added infrastructure; neighbors and downstream users pressed for stronger assurances about runoff, buffer widths and long‑term maintenance. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to neighbors’ concerns and to the project’s public benefits, but split on whether the current plan sufficiently addressed long‑term risks and compatibility with adjacent land uses.

The board did not set a date for further action on this property. If the applicant returns with a new application, additional technical analyses, revised commitments, or a narrower scope, the matter would come back through staff review and the public hearing process.