Zebulun commissioners deny two voluntary annexation petitions after public‑safety and capacity concerns

ZEBULUN — The Zebulun Board of Commissioners voted May 4 to deny two separate voluntary annexation petitions after extended staff presentations and questioning about the town’s ability to provide police, fire and public works services as growth continues.

The first petition, for a roughly 102–109‑acre parcel identified in town materials as the “phase and tract” (Wake County PINs 1795123608 and 1795038323), was presented by planning staff and represented by Collier Marsh of Parker Poe. Staff said the property is entitled to R‑2 development and is adjacent to Zebulun’s corporate limits. The town’s fiscal analysis estimated a net positive annual impact at build‑out of about $280,000. “The town does have the ability to provide the necessary services here,” Collier Marsh told the board, while urging approval of the annexation petition.

But several commissioners said they remained unconvinced that the town could add the new development on top of existing and expected growth without stretching emergency services. “We have our elders that live in this community and it’s already a time crunch to get to them,” Commissioner Adams said during debate. Fire and police chiefs answered technical questions about response times and staffing: the department’s response‑time goal is four minutes and current travel times to the area are generally around three minutes, but officials said performance is measured at the 90th percentile. Following discussion, a motion to approve the ordinance failed, and the board then voted to deny the annexation.

The second petition covered two parcels on Temple Johnson Road (Wake County PINs 2705526808 and 2705620848), proposed by Meridian Properties Group and represented by attorney Andy Pettish. Staff described the parcel as zoned for downtown‑periphery mixed uses and provided a separate fiscal assessment consistent with the town’s comprehensive plan. Wawa and other nearby projects were noted in later discussion as part of the area’s growth trajectory. Police and fire chiefs said services could be phased with development but commissioners again expressed concern about cumulative service demands and timing. The board moved to deny that annexation as well.

Neither denial prevents private development under current county entitlements; town staff noted that a denied annexation leaves development options in place under existing zoning and that revenues would instead be collected by the county or adjacent jurisdiction. Town staff said the annexation petitions had met statutory filing requirements but that the board’s evaluation under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and local service considerations led to the denials.

What’s next: Staff told the board owners and developers may proceed under current entitlements outside town limits; the town will continue to monitor growth and its effects on service capacity. No new annexation approvals were adopted during the meeting.