Garner delays decision on Timber Drive East mixed‑use project amid tax‑exemption and accessibility concerns

Council continued a quasi‑judicial public hearing on the Timber Drive East Mixed Use special use permit (SUP SP23‑03) to June 16 after hours of presentations and questioning about tax‑exemption risks and building accessibility.

Planner Joe Linsky told the council the application covers a roughly 42‑acre portion of the E District at White Oak Road and Timber Drive East, and includes 300 multifamily units and about 95,000 square feet of commercial space. "I'm here tonight to present SCPS 2303, Timber Drive East Mixed Use," Linsky said in introducing staff's review of open space, stormwater ponds, buffering and parking counts. Staff confirmed parking, tree canopy and stormwater features meet UDO standards and that prior neighborhood meetings had low attendance.

Applicant counsel Toby Coleman and Chartwell Property Group representatives presented the development as the first mixed‑use phase of the town's E District and noted previously approved economic incentives tied to local investment. "We are thrilled to be here tonight," Coleman said, describing cooperation with staff and a previously passed business incentive grant. The applicant told council the broader E District investment — including the Wake Med campus — would generate public benefits the developer said included at least $105 million in capital investment and an estimated 1,250 jobs tied to this and nearby projects.

Appraiser Rich Kirkland, tendered as an expert, told council his analysis found no negative effect on nearby property values and said the project could enhance the adjacent White Oak Shopping Center. "It's our professional opinion this would have no impact on the adjoining property values other than possibly an enhancement to White Oak Shopping Center," Kirkland testified.

Despite staff support and expert testimony, council members focused on two central concerns: whether future owners could obtain a property‑tax exemption (the so‑called Blue Ridge loop issue) and whether the project should be required to include elevators in residential buildings so upper floors remain accessible. Several council members said a later owner seeking a tax exemption could undermine the town’s revenue assumptions and the value of the incentive package; town counsel and applicant counsel discussed legal options for addressing the risk. Town attorney Terry Jones said some approaches are untested in court and may be difficult to guarantee by zoning condition alone. Applicant counsel said the developer is prepared to include a no‑exemption commitment in the economic development/incentive agreement and suggested a term (up to 30 years) could be used to limit future exemptions.

After extended discussion about whether to attach a condition to the SUP or to secure the commitment through the incentive agreement, a council member moved to continue the hearing to June 16 and direct staff, the town attorney and applicant counsel to draft language addressing a no‑exemption commitment (or equivalent contractual term) and to add a condition requiring elevators in the multifamily buildings regardless of final story height. The motion carried unanimously.

What happens next: staff and counsel will draft the proposed SUP conditions and language for the economic development agreement and return to council on June 16 with that text and any recommended amendments. The hearing remains open for new evidence limited to the proposed conditions per quasi‑judicial procedures.