Edgecombe commissioners decline rezoning for 179-acre Macclesfield parcel after large public turnout

Edgecombe County commissioners did not approve a request to rezone roughly 179 acres on NC 111 South in Macclesfield from AR-30 (rural residential) to R-20 (mixed residential) during their Jan. 6 meeting, after a lengthy public hearing and a split vote among commissioners.

The application, filed as case 24-RZO-3 by CT Williams Corporation for parcel 3783-67-3068-00 at 111 S. Macclesfield, would have allowed smaller lots and a denser subdivision layout than the property’s current AR-30 designation. Planning staff and the county planning board recommended against the change; the planning board voted unanimously to forward an unfavorable recommendation to the commissioners, finding the rezoning inconsistent with the county’s 2014–2034 comprehensive plan and the county’s growth-management policy.

The rezoning request drew more than a dozen speakers during the public hearing. Dozens of residents urged the board to deny the change, citing traffic congestion on narrow rural roads, constraints on volunteer fire and rescue services, limited sewer availability, potential septic-system impacts, runoff and flooding in nearby lowlands and wildlife and environmental concerns. Richard Woodlark, a Macclesfield-area resident, told the board, "I would appreciate your vote of no for the proposal to R-20." Several residents described repeated flooding on Saint Louis Road and asked how additional runoff from new development would be handled.

Applicant Cecil Williams Jr., identified himself as owner of CT Williams Corporation and presented a video and photos of previous subdivisions his company has built. Williams said his plan called for single-family, stick-built homes on lots of about 20,000 square feet, multiple internal entrances, homeowner association controls and measures intended to limit erosion and runoff. He told the board he would be willing to make owner-occupancy and single-family conditions part of a rezoning if required: "It will be all single family... I don't bait and switch. I'm willing to make that a condition of the rezoning request, if necessary."

County staff and the planning director explained the procedural standard for a legislative rezoning. Planning Director Durbin Spehl summarized the staff report and told the board the planning board found the request "inconsistent with Edgecombe County's adopted policy guidance as expressed in the 2014–2034 comprehensive plan." Staff also clarified that, whatever the board decided, the owner retains development rights under the property’s existing AR-30 zoning and could pursue a subdivision that complies with current standards (including conservation-subdivision requirements and minimum lot sizes) if the rezoning was not approved.

On the board floor, one commissioner moved to approve the rezoning; that motion received no second and died. Another commissioner moved to deny the application, and that motion was seconded. The board vote on the denial was split, producing a 3–3 tie. County legal counsel advised the board that approval of a zoning change requires a majority of the board and that, absent a majority to approve, the rezoning is not adopted. The tie therefore meant the rezoning did not pass and the parcel remains zoned AR-30.

Following the vote several commissioners and staff noted outstanding questions raised during the hearing — including stormwater and drainage engineering, septic permitting capacity, emergency-services capacity and utility availability — and said those topics would inform any future application. Staff told the board they would review the county’s application procedures and ordinance timelines to clarify whether and when the applicant could return with a new or conditional application. Planning staff also noted a conditional rezoning process exists that allows site-specific plan elements and use limitations to be attached to a rezoning application and could address some neighbors’ site-specific concerns.

The board took no further action on the item at the Jan. 6 meeting. The property remains AR-30 rural residential under Edgecombe County zoning law; any development under that designation would be subject to the county’s subdivision and environmental permitting processes.