Tryon objects to information requests in annexation lawsuit
Published 4:03 pm Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Town of Tryon has responded to the lawsuit against the town&squo;s annexation, answering petitioners&squo; first set of interrogatories and requests for more information.
The town objected to most of the petitioners&squo; questions and requests for documents.
Petitioners asked 28 questions and submitted eight requests for documents to the town. The town responded in a general objection clause that it objects to the discovery requests &dquo;to the extent that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant or not designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.&dquo;
The town also said the discovery requests were vague, ambiguous and misleading and that some seek documents or information that are protected under attorney-client privilege.
The petitioners asked the town to identify all persons and/or businesses involved in preparing the annexation report and the method used to determine which parcels to include. They also asked the town to identify all the residential, commercial and vacant lots in the area and what persons or businesses the town approached about extending water and sewer lines.
The town submitted a list of parcels and each parcel&39;s classification of usage, including split parcels, as well as annexation maps and a list of which parcels pay town taxes and which do not.
The town was sued earlier this year over its decision to involuntarily annex about 640 acres with about 400 residents in the Gillette Woods, Harmon Field and Country Club Road areas of Tryon Township.
A citizen&squo;s group, Citizens Against Forced Annexation (CAFA), sued the town, seeking to block the annexation.
The group had previously sued the town regarding an earlier annexation proposal that included much of the Lynn area as well as some portions of the current annexation area. The town rescinded the previous annexation and proceeded with the current annexation.
The next Polk County Civil Superior Court date is scheduled for Feb. 2, 2009, but it is currently unclear if the town&squo;s case will be heard on that date.