Resident asks Fuquay Varina for help over neighbor fence and removed drainage easement; town cites pending court action

A Fuquay Varina resident, Danaraj Vijayasundaram of 5049 Chase Hill Way, used the public comment period on March 24 to request town assistance after a neighbor allegedly installed a fence that violated the town's setback standard and removed a recorded 20-foot private drainage easement.

Vijayasundaram said he hired a licensed surveyor who documented the fence setback noncompliance and that he has been pursuing administrative follow-up since December 2025. He told the board he also initiated litigation and obtained a preliminary injunction pending further court action; he asked the town to send a violation notice or supporting documentation that he could present to the Superior Court. "I even hired a licensed surveyor... which clearly captures the noncompliance of the proximity of the fence," he told the board.

Town Attorney (name not provided) responded that the Land Development Ordinance differentiates storm drainage easements in public rights-of-way (which the town regulates) from private storm drainage easements that remain a private-party responsibility. He told the resident that while the superior-court route is appropriate and staff is tracking the matter, the town generally does not enforce private-easement disputes between neighbors. The attorney also noted staff is reviewing the town's 3-inch fence-setback standard; while that review is pending before the Planning Board, staff advised pausing enforcement to avoid applying a standard that might soon change.

Mayor Harris said the town would maintain neutrality while the court process runs its course and declined the resident's request for a town-authored letter endorsing the allegation, noting the private nature of the dispute and the pending Superior Court action. The Superior Court schedule mentioned by the resident included a March 15 deadline originally and then a court-granted extension with an update due March 27 and potential further hearing on March 30.

The board took no formal action; the matter remains primarily between the private property owners and the courts while staff completes its ordinance review.