Pender County planning board reviews draft 'Pender 2050' future land use map; residents raise concerns about Penderlea, flooding and zoning

The Pender County Planning Board met in a work session in June to review a draft future land use map for the county’s comprehensive-plan update, presented as the “Pender 2050” draft, and to take public comment on the map’s categories, implementation and likely effects.

Planning staff told the board the draft is in community engagement window No. 2 (running April 28–June 6) and described new future-land-use categories meant to concentrate growth in places such as Hampstead and Rocky Point while discouraging development in flood-prone and environmentally sensitive areas. Planning staff said the next steps are to collect public feedback, prepare a final draft for a planning-board recommendation in August, and then seek approval from the Coastal Resources Commission and the Pender County Board of Commissioners before the map is implemented.

Why it matters: the map is intended to guide where Pender County prefers different kinds of development over the coming decades — for example, where higher-density centers, neighborhood-scale services and industrial or heavy-commercial areas should be encouraged — and staff and board members said the map will inform future zoning and infrastructure decisions.

The presentation and board discussion Planning staff summarized the draft’s main components: revised future-land-use categories, an expanded industrial/economic-development area along U.S. Highway 421, focused growth areas around Hampstead and south of Highway 210, a new “rural crossroads” category to distinguish small highway intersections from higher-intensity neighborhood mixed-use centers, and a conservation toolkit that suggests farmland-preservation and tree-preservation actions.

Staff said the rural crossroads label is intended for existing small-intersection commercial clusters such as Maple Hill, Willard and the 421 corridor, and that the county will use design guidance and buffering to keep new development compatible with nearby residences. "We created this future land use category called rural crossroads," planning staff said during the presentation.

Residents and board members pressed staff on several recurring points: how the map interacts with existing zoning; whether approved but not-yet-built projects retain vested rights; the difference between the policy map and the county’s zoning map; how the county will limit development in flood-prone areas; and whether the plan achieves a better balance between commercial and residential tax bases.

Public comment and local concerns A resident who identified concerns about Penderlea said the community felt left out of a selection process and asked how communities were chosen for development focus. "We're on the National Register for Historic Places, and they're not," the resident said, adding that many neighbors said they were not aware of the process and that they oppose publishing certain notices in out-of-county papers rather than local outlets.

Other public commenters and board members raised these concerns: - Classification changes: Several residents said converting land from a rural-agriculture (RA) designation to rural neighborhood or rural crossroads could raise taxes and accelerate non-agricultural development. - Vested approvals and timing: Board members asked how projects already approved but not built would be treated; staff said vested rights remain if projects have not expired but each situation would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. - Infrastructure and sewer: Board members noted that growth follows sewer lines, and they asked whether the map’s higher-density categories along 210 and near Rocky Point account for likely sewer extensions or private treatment plants. - Stormwater: Multiple speakers urged stronger stormwater and drainage protections; staff pointed to recommended actions in the plan such as developing stormwater master plans and considering standards beyond state minimums.

Policy, zoning and implementation clarifications Staff emphasized that the draft map is a policy (guidance) document, not a zoning map. That means the map is intended to inform future zoning decisions rather than immediately change property zoning or create new legal rights. Planning staff told the board the county could use zoning tools — conditional rezonings, PD districts and incentives — to steer development toward goals described in the plan, such as conservation subdivisions, tree preservation and smaller, shared parking in rural crossroads.

Staff also described the planned public engagement and schedule: the county will collect comments through the end of the engagement window, hold a steering-committee meeting to review feedback, publish a final draft, ask the planning board for a recommendation (anticipated in August), then submit the document to the Coastal Resources Commission and the Board of Commissioners for final action. Staff also reminded residents of upcoming public meetings, including a Bergall session at the Commissioners Chambers (805 S. Walker St.) from 5 to 8 p.m. the following night.

Votes and formal actions at the session The Planning Board adopted the evening’s meeting agenda by motion at the start of the session (motion made and seconded; outcome: adopted). At the meeting’s close a motion to adjourn was made, seconded and approved. The board did not vote on or adopt the draft future land use map at this session.

What remains unresolved Board members asked for clearer visual overlays to compare the draft future land use map with the existing Pender 2 map and the current zoning map so lay residents can see parcel-level differences. Several members recommended the county prepare small-area plans for places that will see rapid change (for example, the WMPO area around U.S. 210) and requested more precise densities for some categories (one board member urged replacing ranges such as "3–6 units per acre" with a single target number and clear guidance tied to infrastructure availability).

The draft also leaves open questions about fiscal goals: staff said the plan did not include a detailed fiscal-impact analysis showing whether the proposed mix of uses would achieve a specific commercial/residential tax-base target, but they indicated that follow-up analyses could be done.

Ending Planning staff encouraged additional written comments before the close of the engagement window, and staff reiterated the intended schedule to return a final draft to the planning board for recommendation and then to submit the plan for coastal review and final county approval. The session ended without formal action on the map itself.