Nash County denies conditional rezoning for 46‑lot West Orange Church Road subdivision after residents raise water, safety and driveway concerns

The Nash County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 3 denied a request to conditionally rezone roughly 43.8 acres on West Orange Church Road to allow a 46‑lot RA‑30 conditional subdivision. Planning staff had presented a sketch plan showing 46 lots, a private community well, and 15 lots with direct driveway access to West Orange Church Road.

Planning director Adam Tyson told the board the change would reduce the minimum lot size from 40,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet and would prohibit double‑wide manufactured homes under the RA‑30 conditional zoning. Tyson said the county's Technical Review Committee recommended redesigning the plan to eliminate road‑front lots and provide interior road access; the applicant declined to revise the sketch plan.

Multiple neighbors urged the commissioners to block the rezoning. "We would like for as much of the agricultural and pastoral landscape to be maintained as possible," said resident Stephanie Pitts, who lives across from the site. Others raised concerns about groundwater, construction on karst/rock quarry terrain, stormwater runoff and farm equipment access. "I'm very concerned that there's not county water for this development," said Jane Finch, citing both construction costs for community wells and prior local well failures.

Kim Moore, the NCDOT district engineer who joined the hearing, described the DOT's driveway guidance and said the department reviews each location individually. "It's more just about the number of conflict points than it is the actual number of people utilizing the entrances," Moore said, explaining that shared driveways reduce conflict points on higher‑speed roads.

Developer Cecil Williams of CT Williams Corporation defended the plan, saying it meets the Unified Development Ordinance and that shared driveways are an accepted DOT approach in some locations. He asked the board to approve the rezoning and work with DOT on driveway permits.

Commissioner Leggett moved to deny the rezoning, citing the board's prior preference against multiple road‑front shared driveways and the TRC's recommendation to require interior access. Commissioner Howell seconded the motion. After discussion the board voted to deny the request.

The decision leaves open options for the applicant to return with a redesigned sketch plan that locates lots off an interior road or to pursue other avenues consistent with DOT driveway permits and county standards. Planning staff noted that if the design strays from the approved sketch plan in future it would require rereview and reapproval by the board.

The board's action was framed chiefly as a land‑use decision: commissioners repeatedly emphasized public safety, farm‑equipment access and future water availability as reasons to prefer interior access rather than multiple direct driveways.

The zoning map change was denied; no vote to rezone was adopted.