The developer behind 170 homes on the old country club property is simultaneously appealing an administrative ruling and requesting street variances. Town staff says one of the cases should not even be heard.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the Wake Forest Board of Adjustment has four voting members. The Board has five regular members: Chair William Hedrick, Vice-Chair Rick Porter, Kenneth H. Christie, Mark S. Williams, and Brad Walker. Howard Katowitz serves as an alternate member. The article has been updated to reflect the correct membership.
Wake Forest’s Board of Adjustment convenes Thursday, April 16 at 6:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Board Chambers for a public hearing that could reshape the future of the 125-acre former Wake Forest Golf and Country Club property off Capital Boulevard. The hearing involves two linked cases, both filed by attorney Hunter B. Winstead of Morningstar Law Group on behalf of Mungo Homes of North Carolina, Inc. Mungo is the contract purchaser and intended developer of 170 single-family homes on the site.
Advertisement
The property owners are Green Timber Foundation and Dry Timber LLC, care of Carroll Joyner of Youngsville. Specifically, the property sits at 1180 and 1200 Club Villas Drive, fronting US-1 between the Purnell Road and Jenkins Road intersections. It is bordered by Hawkshead to the north, the Wake Forest Country Club Subdivision and Clubhouse Villas to the south, Fairway Villas to the east, and Country Club Downs and Canonbie to the west.
The development plan, designated SD-24-04 and engineered by The John R. McAdams Company, proposes 170 detached single-family lots on land that has sat vacant with abandoned recreation facilities since the golf course closed in 2007. Mungo has branded the community “Legacy Greens” and describes it as a high-end product: homes ranging from 2,500 to over 4,000 square feet on lots from a quarter-acre to just under an acre, with fiber cement siding, stone and masonry accents, and three-car garages. Notably, the property’s current GR3 zoning would allow up to 373 homes by right. Mungo is proposing less than half that density.
This is not the first fight over this property. In 2022, a rezoning application for roughly 300 homes drew organized protests from surrounding neighborhoods. The Board of Commissioners denied that rezoning in 2023. The current 170-lot plan does not require a rezoning because single-family detached homes are permitted by right in the GR3 district.
The 576-page agenda packet contains two staff reports and hundreds of pages of exhibits. These include the original 1999 Special Use Permit, the 2023 amendment, the full Administrator Interpretation letter, and the applicant’s legal arguments. Here is what is at stake.
The Appeal Before the Wake Forest Board of Adjustment (BOA-26-01)
The first and more consequential case is an appeal of Planning Director Jennifer Currin’s administrative interpretation, issued January 16, 2026. At its core, this appeal asks a deceptively simple but legally loaded question: which set of definitions governs what the developer can and cannot do in the designated open space on this property?
Understanding the backstory is essential to following this dispute.
In 1999, the Town approved Special Use Permit SU-99-02 for a Planned Unit Development covering approximately 166 acres of the Wake Forest Golf and Country Club property. Initially, that permit authorized 30 townhomes adjacent to the operating golf course. It also designated the remaining acreage, roughly 147 acres, as open space. Then in May 2023, the Board of Commissioners amended the SUP to reduce the PUD from 166 acres to 40. As a result, approximately 125 acres were released from the permit. Those acres reverted to their base General Residential 3 zoning under the Falls Lake Watershed overlay.
This is where the fight starts.
When the 125 acres left the PUD, no master plan was approved for redevelopment. The current Unified Development Ordinance, adopted in 2013 and last amended in July 2022, defines “development” broadly. (The UDO and its role in how Wake Forest manages growth is something Wake Forest Matters has examined in depth.) (For background on how the UDO shapes development standards and who pays for growth, see Are Wake Forest Residents Subsidizing Growth?) That definition includes draining, damming, or dredging water bodies, along with excavation, grading, filling, and clearing of land. Meanwhile, it defines “open space” as areas set aside and protected from development.
Under those definitions, staff determined that the developer cannot drain the ponds on the property. Additionally, the developer cannot grade within the SUP-designated open space or count that open space toward the new subdivision’s requirements.
The Developer’s Vested Rights Argument
The developer, through Winstead, argues that those definitions did not exist in 1999 when the Special Use Permit was originally approved. The 1999 zoning ordinance, by contrast, defined “open space” more loosely. It limited open space to conservation, recreation, and agricultural uses but did not prohibit all human-caused activities.
Consequently, the developer contends that applying the 2013/2022 UDO definitions to a 1999 permit violates the vested rights protections in NCGS Section 160D-108(c). Also, the appeal cites the NC Court of Appeals holding in Hewett v. County of Brunswick, which found a local board cannot retroactively apply new ordinance provisions to a previously issued special use permit.
Furthermore, the developer points out that the Town’s own 2023 staff report stated that “the minimum standards outlined in the Zoning ordinance in effect at the time the PUD and SUP were approved in 1999 must still be met.” The developer reads that as the Town conceding the 1999 rules control.
Staff’s Response
However, staff disagrees. Currin’s report draws a sharp distinction: the 40 acres remaining inside the PUD are governed by the 1999 rules, but the 125 acres that were removed have no approved site plan and no vested rights. Therefore, they must comply with the current UDO. Staff’s analysis lays this out across 14 numbered findings.
The Timeliness Problem
Before the Board even reaches the merits, staff recommends the appeal be thrown out entirely. The UDO requires that an appeal be filed within 30 days of the written administrative decision.
Staff’s report documents that the developer was told repeatedly, beginning in 2023 and continuing through 2024 and 2025, that development would not be permitted in the SUP open space. Notably, staff told the developer that draining ponds constituted prohibited development. Despite those repeated notifications, the formal appeal was not filed until February 23, 2026. That date falls well beyond the 30-day window from any of those earlier determinations.
As a result, staff’s first recommendation is that the Board of Adjustment find the appeal invalid and decline to hear the case. If the Board chooses to hear it anyway, staff recommends upholding the Planning Director’s determination.
The Variance Requests Before the Board of Adjustment (BOA-25-06)
The second case is a pair of variance requests from UDO Sections 6.5.1.C and 6.5.1.E. These sections set the maximum block length (800 feet) and maximum cul-de-sac length (400 feet) in the GR3 zoning district. Development Services Manager Patrick Reidy is the case manager.
Why the Roads Don’t Fit
The property is bisected north to south by Horse Creek and its wetlands. Roughly midway through, a tributary branches east with three ponds along it. Because of stream buffers, floodplain designations, and the SUP open space surrounding these features, the buildable road corridors are severely constrained. In addition, the existing surrounding subdivisions provide only one road stub into the property: Simpson Court, from the Clubhouse Villas neighborhood.
Variance 1, Simpson Court Extension (Street G): The developer proposes extending the existing 250-foot Simpson Court by approximately 1,466 feet. That would bring the total to 1,716 feet and serve 21 lots. The request is for a maximum of 1,750 feet. Without the variance, staff finds only two lots could be developed on that section.
Variance 2, Street F: The developer proposes a new 1,228-foot road running south from the main internal road between two ponds to serve 18 lots. The request is for a maximum of 1,250 feet. Without this variance, no lots could be developed south of the ponds because the road simply cannot reach past the pond buffers within the 400-foot limit.
Staff’s Analysis: Real Hardship, But Questions Remain
Staff’s analysis on both variances acknowledges that the hardship is real and not self-created. Horse Creek, the lack of connecting street stubs, and the environmental constraints genuinely prevent the developer from meeting the standards. Yet staff repeatedly notes that “the applicant could choose to provide a shorter block and cul-de-sac to try and be closer to compliance with the regulations.”
Advertisement
Importantly, staff does not recommend approval or denial. Instead, the report presents the four statutory findings of fact and leaves the decision to the Board.
The Four-Fifths Vote Threshold
Under NC law, a variance requires a concurring vote of four-fifths of the Board. Currently, the Board has five regular members: Chair William Hedrick, Vice-Chair Rick Porter, Kenneth H. Christie, Mark S. Williams, and Brad Walker. Alternate member Howard Katowitz may vote if a regular member is absent. Since four-fifths of five is 4.0, at least four members must vote in favor for either variance to pass. In other words, a single no vote kills it.
Who Is Behind This Development
Mungo Homes is a Columbia, South Carolina-based national homebuilder operating across the Southeast. Specifically, they are the contract purchaser and developer of the former Wake Forest Country Club property.
The property is held by two entities. Dry Timber, LLC is a North Carolina limited liability company formed in January 2021. According to NC Secretary of State filings, the registered agent is E. Carroll Joyner of Youngsville. Green Timber Foundation is a 501(c)(3) private foundation formed in 2022 that the IRS describes as a Joyner family nonprofit. It primarily funds Bible teaching programs and holds nearly $2 million in assets.
Morningstar Law Group is a Raleigh firm ranked nationally by Chambers USA in real estate and land use law. Attorney Hunter Winstead is handling both cases before the Board of Adjustment. The engineering firm is The John R. McAdams Company, one of the largest civil engineering firms in the Triangle.
What to Watch at the Wake Forest Board of Adjustment Thursday
On the appeal: Watch whether the Board agrees with staff that the appeal is untimely and refuses to hear it. If it does proceed, the legal question is narrow but the stakes are high. Do the 1999 ordinance definitions or the 2022 UDO definitions govern what constitutes “development” in the SUP open space? If the developer wins, it potentially opens the door to draining the ponds and grading within previously protected areas. If staff prevails, those 24.99 acres of SUP open space remain untouchable.
On the variances: The hardship argument is strong on paper. Horse Creek, the ponds, the stream buffers, and the lack of street stubs are all real physical constraints. The developer can also point out that 170 lots is already less than half the 373 homes the GR3 zoning would allow by right. However, the Board should still press on whether the specific lot layout is generating the need for roads that exceed maximum standards when a different configuration might not. Staff’s repeated observation that the applicant “could choose” shorter roads closer to compliance is a signal worth reading carefully.
On the math: At least four of the Board’s five regular members must vote yes for either variance to pass. One dissent is fatal.
How to Participate in the Board of Adjustment Hearing
The public hearing is Thursday, April 16 at 6:00 p.m. at Wake Forest Town Hall Board Chambers, second floor, 301 S. Brooks Street. The deadline to register to speak in person is 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting via the Town’s Public Meetings Portal. The meeting will also be broadcast live on WFTV 10 and streamed online.
For questions about the appeal, contact Planning Director Jennifer Currin. For questions about the variances, contact Development Services Manager Patrick Reidy. Deputy Town Clerk Ella Dowtin handles meeting logistics. All can be reached through the Town of Wake Forest Planning Department.
If you live in Clubhouse Villas, Country Club Downs, Canonbie, Fairway Villas, Riverstone, Hawkshead, or anywhere near Club Villas Drive, this hearing directly affects your roads, your schools, and your water. Thursday night is when you make that known.
Wake Forest Matters covers municipal government, land use, and accountability in Wake Forest and northern Wake County. Tips: wakeforestmatters.com.
Tom Baker IV is the publisher of Wake Forest Matters, Wake Forest's only independent local newsroom. A Wake Forest native, Navy veteran, and intelligence professional, Tom launched Wake Forest Matters to bring serious accountability journalism to his hometown. Tips and story ideas: publisher@wakeforestmatters.com
Tom Baker IV is the publisher of Wake Forest Matters, Wake Forest's only independent local newsroom. A Wake Forest native, Navy veteran, and intelligence professional, Tom launched Wake Forest Matters to bring serious accountability journalism to his hometown. Tips and story ideas: publisher@wakeforestmatters.com
Pingback: Wake Forest Water Restrictions 2026: Kill Your Lawn