Goldsboro council approves several special‑use permits, denies downtown convenience store; approves economic development amendment

Goldsboro — The City Council on Tuesday approved a string of land‑use decisions and an economic development amendment while rejecting one proposed neighborhood business after a contested debate over compatibility with the city’s land‑use map.

The council granted special‑use permits for a proposed downtown event center at 123 North Center Street (SU‑1025), an accessory dwelling at 100 Plantation Road (SU‑126) and a place of entertainment on US‑117 (SU‑7‑25) after taking the four required findings for each item by show of hands. Planning staff had recommended no objection for the downtown event center and the accessory dwelling after reviewing site plans and standards; the council voted to issue each permit.

Council also denied a separate request for a convenience store without fuel at 1515 East Ash Street (SU‑9‑25). Planning staff told the council the proposal was “not compatible with existing land uses” and inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive land‑use plan; after discussion the council voted on the four special‑use findings and determined the proposed convenience store would substantially injure adjoining property and would not be in harmony or in general conformity with the plan. Those motions passed on recorded show‑of‑hands votes (one motion 4–3, subsequent motions 5–2), and the permit was denied.

In a separate item, the council adopted an amendment to an economic development agreement with Alianza USA. City staff said the project would bring about $36,400,000 in private investment and at least 16 new jobs and described a utilities agreement to facilitate rail service to the site. Council adopted the resolution as presented.

Votes at a glance: • CZ‑4‑25 (Tucker Trace) — Applicant withdrew; council accepted withdrawal (unanimous). • SU‑1025 (123 N. Center St.) — Special‑use permit granted after all four findings passed (unanimous). • SU‑126 (100 Plantation Rd.) — Accessory dwelling permit granted after four findings (unanimous). • SU‑7‑25 (place of entertainment on US‑117) — Special‑use permit granted after four findings (unanimous). • SU‑9‑25 (1515 E. Ash, convenience store) — Denied after council found it incompatible with the comprehensive land‑use plan (motions passed 4–3 and 5–2 as recorded). • Alianza USA economic development amendment — Resolution adopted; council approved amendment (unanimous). • Business development plan (item 7.2) — Adopted subject to three typographical/job‑title edits.

Planning director Mark Helmer summarized staff reviews for several land‑use matters and told council that revised plans or site constraints had prompted the CZ‑4‑25 applicant to withdraw: “planning staff is recommending and the applicant has agreed to withdraw their case.”

Council members who supported denial of the East Ash convenience store cited the comprehensive plan and land‑use compatibility with neighboring office and institutional properties; members who opposed denial pointed to prior council approvals of other commercial conversions and urged consistent standards in decision‑making.

Council also approved two emergency utilities repairs (a water main repair for $91,550 and a failing manhole replacement for $78,380) on the consent agenda, and directed staff to notice a public hearing March 2 on an engineering design manual that would formalize the city’s process for accepting public infrastructure.

The council spent substantial time during the general public‑comment period resolving a procedural question about whether to reopen a previously closed quasi‑judicial hearing (SU‑9‑25). The mayor and counsel clarified that speakers could make comments during the general public‑comment period but that, unless the council voted to reopen a closed hearing, testimony presented then could not be considered as evidence in the quasi‑judicial deliberations.

What’s next: The council asked staff to return a revised draft of a proposed noise ordinance to a future meeting after discussion about downtown drumline practices and weekend performance hours; it also plans to place an updated animal‑control (Chapter 91) ordinance on a future consent agenda after minor edits.