Carteret County commissioners deny rezoning request for Laurel Road parcel after widespread public opposition

The Carteret County Board of Commissioners on Monday denied a request to rezone a 15.62‑acre parcel on Laurel Road from R15M (single‑family residential) to B1CC (general business, conditional), after residents, local advocates and several commissioners raised concerns about flooding, runoff and what they called potential “spot zoning.”

The planning department presented the application for property owner Leslie Hawes, represented by applicant Jeff Pilcher. Greg Hartman, interim planning director, said the conditional zoning would have limited uses to mini‑storage buildings, storage for overnight recreational vehicles and campers, a contractor’s office and a boat storage yard; the applicant also agreed to a 20‑foot vegetative buffer around residential districts, double the county minimum. Hartman told the board the planning commission voted 6–0 on June 9 to recommend approval after the applicant reduced proposed storage buildings from 38 to 18 and provided a septic denial letter and soil report.

Opponents—dozens of Laurel Road and North River residents who gathered at the meeting—said the parcel sits in a low‑lying area and that raising building pads would increase runoff onto neighboring properties. Residents submitted a petition opposing the rezoning and described repeated flooding along Laurel and Merriman roads. Trey Rivenbark, who described his work in land management and stormwater, said the parcel sits near six‑foot elevations while properties farther east fall to about four feet or less and that raising several acres for building pads could worsen drainage for downstream neighbors. Kelly Garvey, executive director of Lighthouse Environmental Partners, said community flood‑resilience planning is underway in the area and urged the county to consider that work before changing zoning for the parcel.

Applicant Jeff Pilcher said soil testing showed the site would not support septic systems and that conditional commercial uses appeared the least intrusive option; he also said he agreed to a larger vegetative buffer. Several residents, including Tabby Nance and Juanita George, told commissioners they view the request as spot zoning that would erode the rural, residential character of Laurel Road.

Commissioner Waldrop moved to deny the rezoning; Commissioner Shands seconded the motion. Commissioners cited the danger of spot zoning and incompatibility with surrounding land uses when adopting a statement of inconsistency with the county land‑use plan and with neighboring properties. The board did not place a roll‑call tally in the public record during the voice vote; the motion carried and the rezoning request was denied.

The planning commission’s record, included in the application packet, shows staff recommended approval based on the applicant’s revised plan and the offered conditions. Commissioners who opposed the rezoning said the community’s sustained public comment swayed their votes. The applicant told the board he had not yet purchased the parcel.

Next steps: the denial preserves the property’s R15M zoning. The applicant may revise or withdraw the request; any future rezoning request would require renewed review by planning staff, public notice and another hearing before the planning commission and the board.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article are drawn from the meeting record and include planning staff, the applicant and public speakers who identified themselves at the podium.