Onslow commissioners deny rezoning for 117-acre Richlands parcel after wetlands, school-capacity and traffic concerns

The Onslow County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 17 denied a developer's request to rezone a 117.19-acre parcel near Kinston Highway and Richlands Loop Road from a split RA/R-8M designation to solely R-8M, citing concerns about wetlands, stormwater runoff, traffic and the effect on Richlands High School.

Planning Director Carter Metcalfe summarized staff findings and noted the Planning Board's unanimous recommendation to deny the map amendment (Piercy Z 2025, No. 19). Metcalfe told the board the site is forested, is currently served by Northwest Onslow water (water-line size not confirmed) and that individual septic serves adjacent areas. He said the most recent trip count on Kinston Highway (2023) is about 17,000 trips with an estimated capacity near 35,000 and that Richlands High School is already over capacity.

Opponents and nearby property owners described persistent wet conditions and runoff risks. Neighbor David Williams, who said his property directly adjoins the parcel, told the board, "It's wet before it rains... Where's all that water gonna go when all the homes are built?" He also questioned the county's wetland determinations and warned of safety and traffic impacts on local roads.

Several speakers, including Janice Pointer and Chad Whaley, urged denial to preserve rural character and protect long-term family property; John Gosnell asked commissioners not to "tear out wooded lands" for development.

The applicant's attorney, Kyle Fountain, said the developer intends single-family, stick-built homes and not multifamily, and that a wetlands delineation, conceptual plan and a letter from Northwest Onslow Water had been submitted. Developer Ricky Ward said the requested change would provide uniform lot sizes and estimated roughly 300 homes on 8,000-square-foot lots if the rezoning were approved; he said buildout could take three to five years.

Commissioner discussion focused on the zoning differences (RA minimum lot size 20,000 sq ft vs. R-8M minimum 8,000 sq ft), the county's stated goals for suburban growth in that location, and the tension between housing affordability and infrastructure limits. One commissioner cited the Planning Board's unanimous denial as influential; another emphasized the county needs an "overarching plan" that aligns schools, utilities and transportation planning when evaluating rezoning requests.

After public comment and deliberation, a motion to deny the rezoning passed by voice vote. The chair noted state law allows applicants to resubmit amended proposals.

What's next: the applicant may amend and resubmit, and any future application will return to planning review and public hearings. The county staff noted that development review would require wetland concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and engineering approvals if a project proceeds under any zoning.