Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southern Pines approves Hunt Cliff rezoning with 29 conditions and private‑property sign
Summary
The Town of Southern Pines voted April 8 to rezone the Hunt Cliff property (Z‑07‑24) to a conditional district with 29 staff‑recommended conditions and one applicant‑offered private‑property/no‑trespassing sign after residents raised concerns about density, drainage and deed restrictions.
The Town of Southern Pines approved a conditional rezoning for the Hunt Cliff Residential Development (Z‑07‑24) on April 8, adopting 29 conditions submitted by the applicant and adding one voluntary condition — a private‑property/no‑trespassing sign for a trail entrance — that the developer agreed to at the meeting.
Planning staff told council the application addressed questions from a March public hearing by adding clarity on architecture, enhancing vegetative buffers and updating the phasing plan to limit construction access. As staff summarized, “The 29 conditions that are attached to the staff report would, if you so choose, after the conclusion of the public hearing here this evening, would be the reference that you would want to make to the conditions.”
The applicant, Jeremy Sparrow of Longitude Planning Group, said the revised proposal calls for 11 units and includes three buffer types: a 20‑foot perimeter “Type A” buffer that retains trees 12 inches in caliper, a 10‑foot undisturbed “Type B” buffer on the western edge, and a 10‑foot supplemental “Type C” buffer where limited grading is allowed to capture stormwater. Sparrow also described architecture standards to match existing Hunt Cliff homes: low‑pitch roofs, horizontal siding and front porches.
Neighbors at the hearing pressed several concerns. Plaudy Meadows said the rezoning would change the area’s character: “Why do you want to rezone that to basically ruin that effect, if you will? Youre going to go from low density to at least a medium density, put a bunch of duplexes in there.” Meredith Mooji and other residents cited deed restrictions on one Sandhurst parcel and estimated that the usable land was closer to 1.8 acres, which would raise on‑site density to about 4.44 units per acre for portions of the property. Residents also raised traffic, dumpster location and safety questions and described historic drainage problems in the low point of the development.
Staff and the applicant stressed that private covenants remain civil matters: planning staff told council deed restrictions and covenants are agreements between private parties and, if contested, would be resolved in court rather than by town zoning. Planner BJ Greer also reiterated that stormwater and erosion‑control standards are unchanged by the conditional district and that temporary measures such as silt fencing are required during clearing, with permanent basins and engineered controls designed at site‑plan review.
Council moved to approve the conditional district as set out in the April 8 staff report, including the applicant’s voluntarily proposed site conditions, and to include the additional requirement that the applicant install a private‑property/no‑trespassing sign on the pedestrian connection. The council motion passed by voice vote and the conditions will be attached to the rezoning ordinance and reflected on the town GIS once recorded. The applicant must complete required site‑plan reviews, finalize tree tagging and obtain any necessary DOT approvals for construction access before construction begins.
The ordinance approval is a legislative land‑use decision; according to staff, any disputes over private covenants would remain civil matters between the involved parties and do not prevent the town from processing rezoning applications.
