An attorney representing Brandy Creek residents in their de-annexation bid from the Roanoke Rapids city limits says he does not believe the city’s road concerns should delay adoption of a resolution on the matter to be sent to state legislators.

At its work session Tuesday, city council agreed the city attorney should discuss the road matter with the residents’ attorney because should the area be de-annexed, the road will still belong to the city, which is concerned about liability issues with owning a road not in its limits.

In an email to City Manager Paul Sabiston, Peter Gilbert, a community development attorney fellow with the UNC Center for Civil Rights explains the center’s take on the matter.

“As to the issues relating to Maria Avenue, the reason the roadway was not included in the de-annexation request is that the bulk of the property on Maria, nine out of 11 parcels or about 80 percent of the frontage (most now owned by Rock River Falls, LLC) will remain in the City of Roanoke Rapids with the owners paying municipal taxes and receiving city services.

“It is therefore logical and fair that the city continue to maintain it. In addition, it should be noted that all of the parcels de-annexed will still be part of the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.”

Gilbert said while the center and the residents appreciate the discussions of the de-annexation, “We do not believe these concerns should delay consideration or adoption of the resolution. As you know, it has been over five years since the residents of Brandy Creek/ Wallace Fork were unfairly annexed.

“The community has been organizing and working for several years to remedy this injustice, and if the city fails to act now, it will be another year before this matter can be finally resolved. On behalf of the community, I urge the council to not to delay this matter and to adopt the resolution endorsing the de-annexation at the meeting next week.”

In an email response to Gilbert, Sabiston asks, “Is it your request that the City de-annex the private parcels and the road (or roads) right-of-ways, too?  Or are you suggesting that the City not de-annex the road (or roads) and continue to maintain such roads?  Neither one of those scenarios is very attractive to the City.

“If we do not have taxpayers served by the road (or roads) why would we want to maintain it? The question came up last night as to whether the residents via some form of HOA (homeowners association) or related entity would be willing to take ownership of the roadways (maybe not including Maria Ave.?) since those roadways are apparently under our ownership. This is a central issue and I do not see the City Council moving forward without a clear resolution to this road issue.”

Gilbert said in his followup email that while he and the Brandy Creek residents understand the council’s obligation of due diligence, there is no justification for further delay to remedying what he calls the unfair annexation of the community.

“As you know, there are only three roads involved here: Wallace Fork Road, Maria Avenue and Brandy Creek Drive. As a preliminary matter, based on our review of N.C. DOT maps, the portion of Wallace Fork Road adjacent to the properties to be de-annexed is a state road maintained by the DOT (State Road 1692), and thus unaffected by de-annexation.

“With regard to Maria Avenue and Brandy Creek Road, more than half the parcels and over three-fourths of the frontage along those roads will remain part of Roanoke Rapids following de-annexation and will continue to serve numerous municipal taxpayers and properties inside the city limits. It is therefore equitable and appropriate for the city to continue to maintain these roads. In fact, it is its obligation to those taxpayers to do so.”

In closing the email, Gilbert says, “The residents of Brandy Creek/Wallace Fork have been working for years to combat the continuing impacts of the annexation of their community. This issue can be easily rectified by the legislature this session, with minimal effort by or impact on the City. We urge the council to quickly adopt a resolution endorsing the de-annexation.”