HOLLY SPRINGS - Town council members faced a familiar question at their last meeting: Would they bend town rules to accommodate a developer that failed to fully research the town code?

Three cases in the last year yielded different decisions, and each caused the council to ask whether it was setting a precedent or extending a helping hand.

In the most recent example, Royal Oaks Building Group asked permission to use vinyl siding on its townhomes, a material forbidden by town rules for high-density apartments and townhomes.

"It's not your fault or mine that they didn't realize vinyl was not an acceptable material," said Tom Spaulding, a planner representing Royal Oaks.

Royal Oaks took over development of Forest Springs, a mix of townhomes and houses, and began building new homes in March.

Spaulding said the company had already put vinyl siding on some of the project's townhomes. Some of the project's houses include vinyl siding, which in this case town rules allow for single-family units.

Use of the material would boost a previously stalled project, Spaulding said. Vinyl can cost several thousand dollars less per unit than other popular sidings such as HardiPlank, which is a cement-based material.

And, Spaulding argued, the developer deserved credit for fixing erosion and sewer problems at the site. Royal Oaks is also adding a pool and pool house to the plan.

Three members of the town's planning board urged caution. Tom Hughes, a planning board member, argued that the town's rules didn't leave room for an exception.

"I hope the words 'dangerous precedent' at least got your attention," Hughes told the council. The town's code allows exceptions to be granted when the rule poses an "unusual or unnecessary hardship" or when the builder wants to use an innovative construction method, he said.

"If we continue to allow the economy ... as a precedent for hardship, we're going to be inundated," Hughes continued.

The council voted 3-2 to allow the exception, with Mayor Pro Tem Tim Sack and Councilman Jimmy Cobb dissenting.

"I'm just not comfortable with it," Cobb said in an interview. "I don't particularly think it's a good precedent to allow it."

Council members Chet VanFossen and Linda Williams said it would be illogical to forbid vinyl on the townhomes when town rules allow it on houses in the same subdivision.

"I do hate vinyl siding," VanFossen said. "But some people will buy it."

He wasn't worried about setting a precedent, he said, because the town wouldn't see the same circumstances again.

Pleas for exceptions

Other developers have used arguments similar to Royal Oaks' with mixed success.

In October, Doug Ledson said he had misinterpreted town code and failed to anticipate more than $500,000 in impact fees. He asked to be excused from $400,000 of the fees, saying a 115-unit apartment complex project was on the line.

He couldn't sway enough town council members; they voted 3-2 to deny his request.

As Williams said at the time: "I'd love to see this project go. We also need to pay our bills in the town," she said. "You knew what these fees were."

A month later, the council excused two developers from a $160,000 commitment to widen a road, instead charging a $42,000 fee. The investors, David Orringer and Paul Brewer, said they learned of the cost after they had committed to the project, and they called the rule to widen the road an unfair burden.

Sack was wary at first of the precedent the town would set with an exception. But he relented, saying that the town had at least gotten the developer to pay the fee.