Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fayetteville council rejects developer's rezoning after neighbors cite safety, parking and traffic deaths
Summary
After hours of testimony and debate Oct. 21, the Fayetteville City Council declined to approve a proposed split rezoning for 3070 West Mount Comfort Road, siding with neighbors who said the site cannot safely absorb the commercial uses allowed under NSG zoning.
The Fayetteville City Council voted on Oct. 21 to reject a rezoning request for 3070 West Mount Comfort Road after sustained opposition from nearby residents who said the location lacks the infrastructure to support commercial uses.
The request, filed as RZN 2025-27, had been amended by the applicant to split the property so the northern portion would be rezoned to RSF-18 (residential single-family, 18 units/acre) and the portion adjacent to Mount Comfort would be NSG (Neighborhood Services General). Jonathan Kurt of the Development Services Department told the council staff recommended the amended split zoning, noting the planning commission had denied an earlier proposal when the entire parcel was requested to be rezoned NSG.
Developer representatives told the council the project would be built to current stormwater, access and setback standards and said the applicants had offered a late-day bill of assurance to limit certain uses. "If anything gets built on this property at 3070 West Mount Comfort, it'll be the only project on the street that's actually up to modern standards," an applicant representative said during a short presentation.
Neighbors and residents who live on Gooseberry Lane and nearby streets urged councilmembers to reject NSG zoning. Jay Herzog, speaking for a neighborhood coalition, said residents had "been consistently and unwaveringly opposed to NSG zoning" and argued the bill of assurance submitted the same evening did not address several core concerns. "We don't believe Mount Comfort and Gooseberry is prepared for the introduction that all of these kinds of businesses bring in terms of those traffic variables," Herzog said.
Multiple residents cited traffic congestion, limited street parking, lack of a turn lane and recent crashes. Cynthia Smith, who said she has lived in the neighborhood for 30 years, requested that the council "listen to the planning commission. They denied it for a reason." Kevin Smith, who testified remotely, described a memorial near the site for a motorcyclist killed in a recent crash and said the city needs a center turn lane before approving more left-turn-generating uses.
Councilmembers deliberated at length. Some members said they came to the meeting inclined to support the project but were persuaded by field visits and neighbors' testimony. Others emphasized the city's 2040 plan and the role of compact, mixed-use development in creating walkable corridors.
During the meeting councilmembers voted to amend the ordinance to make the rezoning "subject to a bill of assurance," but on the final roll-call vote the amended rezoning failed. The final tally recorded three "Yes" votes (Councilmembers Stafford, Doctor Jones and Moore) and five "No" votes, so the planning commission denial on appeal stood and the rezoning did not pass.
The council discussed procedural options for reconsideration: members who voted in the majority (against the rezoning) may move to reconsider before the end of the next meeting, or the property owner may file a new application if the requested change is substantially different from the denied application.
The meeting moved on after the vote; council staff said they would provide additional information in advance of future hearings for any related items.
