Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Turkey Creek topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pittsboro rejects Turkey Creek mixed‑use rezoning by 4‑1 vote amid traffic and sewer concerns
Summary
After a lengthy presentation and questions, the Board voted 4‑1 to deny the Turkey Creek conditional rezoning for roughly 140 acres; staff and applicants had proposed residential, commercial and light industrial uses with buffers and trail commitments, while businesses across the road warned about heavy truck traffic.
The Pittsboro Board of Commissioners voted 4‑1 on June 13 to deny a proposed conditional rezoning for the Turkey Creek properties, a multi‑parcel request totaling about 139.7 acres that would have created a mix of single‑family, multifamily, commercial and light industrial conditional zoning districts.
Staff and applicant presentation: Planner Janie Phelps reviewed the proposal and said the planning board had voted 4‑1 in favor on May 2. Applicant planners from McAdams and developer Greenhawk described a plan of transitions (single‑family and multifamily adjacent to Potterstone Village, commercial at a key intersection, and M‑1 uses limited to avoid obnoxious industrial activities), a proposed 10‑foot shared path and a network of buffers and stormwater ponds. The applicant estimated the concept could allow "just under 300 units" (about 290 in the conceptual material) and roughly 200,000 square feet of nonresidential space in the long term.
Public comment and business concerns: One advanced commenter from a business directly across Montcure‑Pittsboro Road said his site is heavy industrial and warned the corridor currently sees a high volume of tractor‑trailer traffic (he estimated roughly 100–125 trucks per day), urging the board to consider the compatibility issues of placing dense residential uses nearby.
Board action and rationale: Commissioners questioned sewer capacity, traffic impacts, transitions between industrial and residential uses, and whether the town's future land use plan should guide such large rezonings. After debate the board moved to deny the application and the motion carried 4‑1. Commissioners urged staff to pursue the town's future land use plan update and to consider sewer capacity before allowing large rezonings.
Next steps: Applicant may revise and reapply after the waiting period or when circumstances (sewer capacity, land use plan) change. The town indicated it will continue CTP conversations with NCDOT and will track sewer capacity before hearing similar large‑scale rezoning requests.
