BREAKING: Superior Court Judge Rules Against Raleigh Country Club’s Effort to Stop Townhome Community (for now)
Subscribe to our Substack to be the first to get these breaking news updates.
On June 16, Judge Bryan Collins issued a preliminary ruling on the Raleigh Country Club’s appeal of a proposed 16-unit townhouse community. He ruled that RCC did not meet its pleading burden because it wrongly appealed as a property owner and not a tenant. RCC is the owner of the property in question and is not a party to this action and is barred by the Statute of Limitations from being a party. Therefore, the Raleigh BOA should have dismissed RCC’s appeal on its face. In plain language, this simply means the incorrect party challenged the City’s administrative approval of the proposed 16-unit townhouse community.
This is a preliminary decision. Next, the attorneys for both parties will negotiate the language of a draft final order memorializing the Judge’s decision. Once that happens, the Judge will review the proposed order, and could revise the proposed order before ultimately signing it. Once the final order is signed and filed, either party can then file an appeal to the NC Court of Appeals.
The key language of the Judge’s decision is that now the correct party (which is the owner of the golf course as opposed to the tenant) can no longer challenge the staff approval of the proposed 16-unit townhouse community because the deadline to file an appeal is expired. This decision does not impact the pending litigation challenging Raleigh’s Missing Middle Reforms that the Raleigh Country Club also filed, but it does make it more difficult to challenge the administrative approval of the townhome community.
A similar situation continues playing out with the Hayes Barton Townhome project. As you may recall from prior RaleighForward posts, the developer of the 18-unit townhome project lost the appeal of its preliminary subdivision plan filed by the neighbors. However, Judge Collins (note: same judge is involved in the Raleigh Country Club Case) issued a narrow decision explicitly stating that the plan only violated the transitional protective yard requirement. In other words, it complied with every other applicable Raleigh UDO requirement. Per the Judge’s Order, the developer re-submitted a revised plan that addressed the single UDO issue. That plan was then approved by the City again. Not surprisingly, the Hayes Barton neighbors filed another appeal of the revised townhome plan on May 2, 2025. That appeal is likely to be heard by the Raleigh Board of Adjustment this summer.
What all this continues to demonstrate is how well-funded litigation can impair the implementation of important policy reforms like Raleigh’s Missing Middle ordinances. While winning these administrative appeals for specific Missing Middle projects is important, the more important and still unresolved issue hanging over Raleigh’s effort to legalize Missing Middle housing are the two lawsuits challenging the validity of all of Raleigh’s Missing Middle reforms. Until those cases are decided, Missing Middle housing will remain “missing” in Raleigh.
RaleighForward continues following the Missing Middle litigation and will provide updates as developments occur.
Read our comprehensive coverage of Missing Middle in Raleigh here.