NASH COUNTY, N.C. — The Nash County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 6 voted to approve a revised sketch plan for Williams Grove Subdivision Phase 7, allowing a 24-lot phase that reconfigures roads to avoid a prior proposed crossing of a jurisdictional wetland and riparian buffer. The decision came over recommendations from the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and the Planning Board, which had recommended denial of the current design.

Planning Director Adam Tyson briefed the board that the resubmitted plan replaces an earlier alignment that would have extended Juniper Road across a wetland and riparian buffer. The revised design proposes a connection from Ava Drive to the north, uses a 10-foot buffer strip between the subject property and an adjacent parcel, and includes a 10-foot pavement stub at Lot 12 intended to break up a long block length. The TRC and planning board reviewed earlier iterations and recommended denial of the current configuration because they found the 10-foot buffer strip with an access easement overly complicated, believed the 10-foot pavement would not meet the UDO requirement for a stub road, and said the plan risked circumventing the UDO’s maximum cul-de-sac length limit of 1,200 feet.

At the public hearing, several residents raised environmental and quality-of-life concerns. Nancy Westbrake asked about potential flooding, septic locations, and environmental review; staff replied that the property is not in an identified FEMA flood plain but acknowledged the southern portions are wetter and that septic locations would be determined later during per-lot health department review. Resident Nayella McLaren said the buffer line helps protect property values and the neighborhood’s character, and asked how removing or altering the buffer would affect the watershed and residents’ quality of life. Developer Cecil Williams Jr. said he adjusted the plan to address an adjacent landowner’s objections and argued the road alignment chosen would put houses at the higher elevation with drainage directed away from homes, though he acknowledged the change might reduce the number of buildable lots.

TRC staff told commissioners the 10-foot stub would likely not qualify as the required stub-road length and that the buffer with an access easement was an unnecessary complexity. The developer argued the county’s maximum block-length limit is too short and asked the board to grant flexibility. Commissioners debated whether the board should adjudicate design-level choices when a residential conditional rezoning carries the subdivision sketch plan to the commissioners’ review; staff explained the board had previously asked residential rezonings be handled as conditional rezonings so commissioners would see sketch-plan level detail.

Two formal motions followed. Commissioner Leggett moved to deny the conditional rezoning (cZ241001) based on TRC and planning board recommendations; the board voted to deny that motion by a recorded hand count (5–2 to deny). Following that, another motion was made and seconded to approve the sketch plan and associated plan consistency and development conditions; that approval passed 5–2. (The transcript records the final approval as 5–2 but does not list individual yea/nay votes by name.)

Ending: The board’s approval permits the developer to pursue the 24-lot phase under the approved sketch plan; engineering-level details such as septic-site locations will be determined during later permitting and health-department review. Staff noted alternatives that might reduce environmental impacts and expressed preference for designs that more clearly meet UDO stub-road and block-length requirements.