Parkside appeal heard in Raleigh

On May 19, attorneys representing Black Dog Realty and the heirs of George Pack made their respective cases before the N.C. Court of Appeals in Raleigh, reprising their arguments concerning a disputed piece of land that’s at the heart of the high-profile Parkside controversy.

Last August, Buncombe County Superior Court Judge Marlene Hyatt ruled in favor of the Pack heirs’ claim that the 0.2-acre sliver of property that Buncombe County had sold to developer Stewart Coleman in 2006 was off limits for private use. According to the heirs, the deed for the property that Pack donated to Buncombe County in 1901 includes a stipulation that it be preserved for public use. Coleman appealed that decision.

During the May 19 hearing, the attorneys were given 30 minutes apiece to make their cases, and both legal teams appeared to have stuck to their original talking points.

“The point we made was that this property has been held in the public domain since 1901,” Asheville attorney Joe Ferikes, who represents the Pack heirs, told Xpress. “The deeds were recorded, and the property was transferred to the county to be used only for public purposes. And the actual use of this property since that time has actually been just that.”

The 2006 sale to Coleman for his proposed Parkside condominium project violated the intention of Pack’s donation, Ferikes told Xpress. “You can’t just violate the terms of the dedication by conveying the property to a private party for private purposes.”

Pat Kelly, the Charlotte-based attorney representing Black Dog Realty, says that position results from a misreading of the deed. The property transfer, Kelly contends, was a fee-simple, absolute transfer of interest—“essentially, a full and complete ownership without conditions or restrictions.”

“Which means,” Kelly told Xpress, “The county has basically the right to do anything they want with that property.”

Furthermore, says Kelly, a history of use as a public area is not the same as officially dedicating the property as a park.

A panel of three judges heard the case, though a decision is not expected for several months. In the case of a split vote, the loser automatically has the right to appeal to the state Supreme Court. If the decision is unanimous, the loser must file for appeal, and the Supreme Court may refuse to hear the case.


Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.