Beaufort County planning commission fails to endorse Pulte Homes rezoning for Jennings Road

The Beaufort County Planning Commission on the evening it met declined to recommend County Council approval of a zoning map amendment for 86.16 acres at 98 Joanie Jennings Road, a site across from Battery Creek High School in the Burton area. The applicant sought to change the property’s zoning from T2 Rural to a mix of T3 Hamlet Neighborhood and T4 Hamlet Center under the county’s place‑type overlay; a motion to recommend approval with conditions failed on a commission vote.

Staff and the applicant said the developer revised the plan after an earlier hearing and submitted a draft development agreement. County planning staff recommended approval only if the applicant worked with County Council through a development agreement to “best determine the needs for affordable housing in the area,” and reiterated that no development agreement should alter the adopted district standards. Rob Merrick of Pulte Homes told commissioners the company had “worked diligently to work with [staff] to make sure we provide a plan that works well within the community” and said the draft development agreement was built using council and community feedback.

The meeting’s public comment and commissioner discussion centered on infrastructure and housing affordability. Jesse White, South Coast director for the Coastal Conservation League, told commissioners his organization’s “primary concern is just the the lack of, infrastructure generally in this area and the cumulative impacts of development that has already been approved but not yet built out or not yet occupied.” Other residents cited traffic congestion near schools, wildlife displacement and the loss of tree cover.

Commissioners pressed the developer on affordable housing numbers. Merrick and the applicant team said the proposed deed‑restricted workforce/affordable component was one part of a three‑part community package that also would include first‑time homebuyer assistance and a repair fund, and that staff and council would continue negotiations. Commissioners said the affordable component—described during the hearing as under 4 percent of a 244‑unit hypothetical buildout—was too small and asked the applicant to seek a higher share. County staff noted relevant service providers (school district, water and sewer authority) had been notified and that a traffic impact analysis identified required mitigation at one intersection.

After questioning and a motion to recommend approval conditioned on stronger affordable‑housing commitments and prohibition on altering district standards, the commission voted; commissioners opposing the motion outnumbered supporters and the motion failed. The planning commission’s recommendation means the proposal would go to County Council without a favorable planning commission endorsement.

What’s next: County Council will receive the applicant’s rezoning application and the planning commission record. The applicant indicated it will continue negotiations with County Council on a development agreement; staff told the commission that any final development agreement would be negotiated and approved by council and could include enforceable obligations such as deed restrictions.