Blog

April 28, 2026
©Abby Black

The North Carolina General Assembly entered their short session April 21, 2026. Among the numerous bills under consideration at this time, Senate Bill 214 is currently highlighted by citizens and legislators for ethical issues.

Franklin County discloses on their county website that they have pursued access to Kerr Lake water since 2017 in anticipation of a significant population boom and increased water utility needs. Currently, Franklin County sources water from the City of Henderson, the Town of Louisburg, and the City of Raleigh. Franklin County attests that those sources will not address the County’s future water requirements. In August 2025, Franklin County signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the US Army Corp of Engineers for a water reallocation study.(1)

In a North Carolina General Assembly Conference Committee substitute on April 22, Section 5 of Senate Bill 214 permits the Franklin County Board of Commissioners to exercise annexation and condemnation power over real property in neighboring Halifax, Vance, and Warren Counties without the consent or approval of those counties’ Board of Commissioners.(2) Representative Winslow of District 7 stated during House floor debate on April 22, 2026 that the bill allows Franklin County to pursue annexations only in the name of water access.(3)

In an official statement on April 27, Representative Winslow stated that 20 years of “good faith negotiations between Franklin County and Henderson have yielded little progress on securing adequate additional water at reasonable rates,” adding that negotiations included the City of Henderson charging Franklin County water utility recipients rates “nearly four times higher” than residents in Henderson are charged in their utility bills.

Moreover, Representative Wilson asserts that S214 “does not authorize” Franklin County to acquire the City of Henderson’s water treatment plant, and that Section 5 is “strictly for constructing a raw water line from Kerr Lake.”(4)

While the above is the intention behind Section 5, it is not actually spelled out in Section 5, and that makes all the difference in interpretation of the law.

Understandably, the predominant concern amongst other North Carolina state legislators and local municipalities is that Section 5 will set a precedent. The list of counties from which Franklin may acquire land may be expanded, or the legislature may grant other counties in North Carolina similar powers over their neighbors.

The question arises: Does Section 5 of S214 nullify county sovereignty over lands within their own borders?

On April 28, 2026, a Conference Committee report disclosed that members of the House and Senate agreed to resolve their differences and delete Section 5 in its entirety.(5)

Let’s talk about it.

April 24, 2026
©Abby Black

I’m hearing a lot of discussion about how the Town of Wake Forest is working with legislators to restore downzoning authority to municipalities. Let’s talk about it.

The downzoning prohibition was made law upon passage of Senate Bill 382: Disaster Relief-3/Budget/Various Law Changes in 2024. It means that municipalities cannot decrease residency on a piece of land; for example, Wake Forest downzoning an area from General Residential 5 (5 homes per acre) to General Residential 3 (3 homes per acre).

The intention behind the prohibition was to protect western North Carolina property owners whose homes and belongings were washed away in Hurricane Helene floodwaters from municipalities that might designate their property as open space or for resource harvesting. Instead, municipalities need to request the property owners’ consent to the zoning change.

Because the ban affected all counties, Wake Forest suspended our Draft UDO until the Town is certain it won’t violate the law. Instead, the Town has been rezoning in a “piece meal” fashion, section by section instead of in broad sweeps, as the Town attains property owner consent. This law does not keep property owners from pursuing a zoning change on their own volition.

The argument against the downzoning prohibition is that it hamstrings municipalities from exercising development standards by requiring officials to responsibly reach out to each individual property owner. If a property owner says no, then the government can only work around the property.

In short, I hold the opinion that downzoning is not only a blow to eminent domain, but that property owners are empowered by the downzoning ban because municipalities have to receive consent from property owners to change the residency of the property.

What do you think? Let’s talk about it.