Garner council reopens hearing on 257‑unit Yergan Road apartments, continues case to Dec. 16

Blue Heron Asset Management asked the Garner Town Council on Nov. 18 to approve a special‑use permit for 257 apartment units in three four‑story buildings on 10.7 acres along U.S. 70, but council members paused a final decision and continued the quasi‑judicial hearing to Dec. 16.

The applicant’s team told the council the proposed development totals 295,689 square feet and that technical review committee (TRC) conditions — including lot recombination, a mail kiosk before the first certificate of occupancy, frontage lighting, a fee‑in‑lieu for parkland per unit, engineering approvals, and nitrogen offset payments — would be met. Worth Mills, attorney for the applicant, stated that “Blue Heron has met its burden of proof” and asked council to accept evidence from the prior Aug. 19 hearing and new materials into the record; council members agreed to include those documents.

Why it matters: Council members were split over whether the project satisfies the town’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) special‑use criteria and whether permitting 257 apartments on property zoned CMX is consistent with Garner’s long‑range Garner Forward plan. Council members who opposed a quick approval cited elements of the comprehensive plan — including natural‑environment protections, tree‑canopy preservation, and the desire for commercial uses along the corridor — as reasons to withhold final action.

What the council heard: Town staff and applicant experts presented technical findings. Nick Topelski, the town’s development review manager, summarized TRC comments that the plan is consistent with the UDO provided listed conditions are met. Applicant witnesses included traffic and appraisal reports and architectural materials; the applicant’s counsel pointed to precedent and the UDO language to argue the council’s discretion is limited in special‑use hearings.

Council debate and objections: Several council members expressed frustration that the property, in a commercial‑mixed‑use (CMX) corridor, contains little or no on‑site commercial space. Councilmember Dellinger read from the town documents and argued the proposal is “inconsistent with page 31, quality of life,” and raised concerns about natural‑environment mitigation and tree canopy preservation. Mayor Gupton and others also said they believed the proposal did not align with the town’s long‑range plan, though some members said legal precedent limits the council’s ability to require on‑site commercial uses during a quasi‑judicial special‑use review.

Applicant response: Applicant counsel and project witnesses said they provided traffic and appraisal studies, design materials, and TRC conditions to address performance standards. Counsel noted that adding required commercial space would reduce residential units and parking viability; he urged the council to rely on expert evidence and the UDO as written.

Next steps: Because no motion that carried the council to an approved or denied outcome was adopted, the council voted 5–0 to continue the public hearing to Dec. 16 to allow more time for legal advice and to recall or question expert witnesses. The hearing will reconvene that date for further record development and a formal council decision.

Provenance: The request and staff summary are described in the TRC presentation and applicant materials received into the record during the Nov. 18 meeting. Staff: Nick Topelski; applicant counsel: Worth Mills; applicant representatives and experts were present and identified in the hearing record.