Iredell commissioners continue Flower House Loop rezoning after residents and planning board raise concerns

The Iredell County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday continued a public hearing on a request to rezone roughly 12.92 acres along Flower House Loop from Residential Agricultural (RA) to General Business (GB), giving staff, the applicant and residents more time to confer and gather information.

The rezoning, filed for owners Andrew and Christy Phillips and represented by applicant Eric Thompson of Equity Commercial Properties, would allow subdivision into multiple lots for office/flex/warehouse uses. Staff said the parcels lie within the county’s 2045 Horizon Plan corridor commercial designation and are highly accessible to major thoroughfares; the planning board recommended denial, mostly because it was a straight GB request rather than a conditional rezoning.

“This is gonna be a realignment with Houston Road. . . The goal or intent would be to subdivide with the county to 2 to 4 acre lots,” applicant Eric Thompson said, describing an intent to market smaller commercial lots similar to existing businesses on Flower House Loop.

Neighbors told commissioners the site sits amid established single-family housing and said a conventional GB rezoning could allow uses they find incompatible. Cathy Haller, 523 Flowerhouse Loop, said, “It’s way on the other side of 77 Bridge. It’s not where we are. All those storage units and all that other commercial stuff they put in, the Frito Lay and everything, we have 10, 12, 13 houses that are all together, and that land is in the middle.”

Christine Smith, 520 Flower House Loop, added that Flower House Loop road geometry and existing traffic would not support higher-intensity commercial uses: “There’s no way that that street is gonna . . . have enough traffic for that. Our street is not built for a business.” Elena Smith, who operates a dog boarding business at 552 Flower House Loop, asked what GB zoning would do to nearby property values and said her small business could be affected.

Staff and the applicant acknowledged the planning board’s concerns. Matthew Todd (staff) described buffering and screening requirements that would apply if developed and noted that city sewer and water exist nearby along the back property line. Todd also explained procedural limits: if the applicant withdraws before a board vote, they must wait 180 days to reapply; if the board denies the request, it cannot be refiled in the same form for two years (one year for a substantially different request).

Vice Chair Nieder moved to continue the public hearing to the board’s June 17 meeting to allow additional information gathering and conversation among staff, the applicant and residents; the motion carried.

The continuation preserves the public record and allows citizens to submit comments to planning staff ahead of the next hearing. Commissioners and staff emphasized that a conventional GB rezoning is judged against all permitted GB uses, not just the applicant’s stated intent, and that any future development would need to meet county site-plan, landscaping, buffering and subdivision requirements.