At the Sept. 4 public-comment period, three residents and a teacher urged the Board of County Commissioners to oppose an upcoming rezoning application for about 78 acres along NC Highway 86, saying the proposed 48-home development threatens Stroud’s Creek and the learning environment at nearby Eno River Academy.

Why it matters: The creek is a tributary to the Eno River and is used by the school for year‑round student creek studies and outdoor classrooms. Speakers said the proposal includes ‘‘50‑plus septic fields’’ and warned of potential contamination and runoff during construction.

Public comments: Rebecca Gallogly said she lives in a small neighborhood of 14 homes in northern Hillsborough that shares a property line with the proposed development. She told commissioners she received notice of an application to rezone 78 acres for a 48‑home development and that the property borders Stroud’s Creek, “which is a major tributary to the Eno River and protected watershed.” She said Eno River Academy students use the creek “as a significant learning tool” and said she would be “heartbroken to have any sewage from the proposed 50‑plus septic fields… leaking into this creek causing contamination.”

Kathy Owens described long-term agricultural use of her adjacent property and said the developer had characterized her pasture as ‘‘vacant land,’’ which she said was misleading because the land is actively farmed and houses a historically significant barn. She testified that neighbors rely on deer and other game as food sources and expressed concern about wildlife displacement and impacts to rural character.

Christine Prady, a STEM teacher at Eno River Academy, said the school uses the surrounding land for nature-based education, including stream studies with the Eno River Association and trails built by students. She said the campus’s riparian buffers keep Stroud’s Creek “extraordinarily healthy” and that the school had hoped to acquire the adjacent land to protect it for future expansion and outdoor learning.

Discussion vs. decision: These remarks were part of the public-comment period. The rezoning application had been filed for future consideration; no formal vote or staff recommendation was made at the Sept. 4 meeting on this rezoning. The speakers said they had already received notice of an upcoming application and were urging the board and staff to consider environmental and rural‑character impacts during the formal review.

What the speakers asked commissioners to do: Speakers asked the board to protect agricultural land, preserve riparian buffers near Stroud’s Creek, and consider impacts on the school’s outdoor learning resources when the rezoning application is reviewed. They asked staff and commissioners not to treat active farmland as ‘‘vacant’’ land in public records.

Next steps: The rezoning application will appear on future agendas for formal review, when staff reports, environmental assessments and notices will be provided and public hearings held. At Sept. 4, commissioners did not respond substantively during the public-comment period, noting that staff will likely take up details in the formal review process.

Context: Speakers said the property is adjacent to Eno River Academy and highlighted the school’s outdoor classroom, regular stream monitoring with the Eno River Association and the community’s rural lifestyle. No staff analysis, application materials, or developer representatives presented at this Sept. 4 public‑comment period.