The Pittsboro Board of Commissioners on Monday denied a conditional rezoning request for 102 Park Drive after residents and nearby property owners expressed concerns about traffic, access and local flooding.

Planning staff introduced the request as an application to rezone a parcel from R‑12 (medium‑density residential) to OICZ (office and institutional, conditional). The applicant proposed a reduced set of potential uses, including limited office, medical, bed‑and‑breakfast and a farmers market; staff said the parcel is currently designated medium‑density residential in the town’s land‑use maps.

Residents near Park Drive said the neighborhood already experiences speeding, lacks sidewalks and regularly floods. Anna Davidson, who identified herself as a resident of Oakwood Drive, said neighbors had organized a petition and urged the board to “strongly consider slowing down this application process and really putting civic planning at the forefront.” Paul Neville, a Park Drive resident, told the board he pays flood‑insurance premiums and said increased impervious surface would worsen flooding in the neighborhood.

The applicant’s representatives said commercial access would be routed through the adjacent Alpha Center site and described a vegetated buffer greater than 100 feet between the proposed building area and Park Drive. They also said most nonresidential traffic would be expected to use Hillsborough Street (N.C. 15501) rather than Park Drive, and that the proposed layout avoids a stream crossing.

After public comment and planning staff review, Commissioner Shipp moved to find the request inconsistent with the town’s land use plan and to deny the rezoning. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Baldwin and carried unanimously.

Planning staff had noted the parcel would need a future land‑use designation amendment (to mixed‑use town center) to be consistent with the applicant’s request. The board’s denial preserves the R‑12 designation and leaves the parcel under the current residential map designation.

The denial does not prohibit the owner from filing revised applications later; board members discussed that future land‑use plan work underway may influence future rezoning requests.