Carroll County commissioners deny rezoning for 80‑acre industrial development

Carroll County commissioners voted unanimously on March 3 to deny a rezoning application that would have changed about 79–80 acres along U.S. 27 from agricultural and commercial designation to industrial use for five warehouse/manufacturing buildings.

The decision came after a multi-hour zoning hearing in which county staff, the applicant and several residents debated whether the record was sufficient for an industrial rezoning. Ben Skipper, the county’s director of community development, told the board the planning commission had recommended approval 4–3 but that staff had recommended denial to the planning commission. Skipper read the state-submitted summary describing “industrial warehousing” of five buildings (three roughly 100,000 square feet, one about 194,000 and one about 72,000) on roughly 79.73 acres, and confirmed that the state’s Development-of-Regional-Impact process had been initiated where applicable.

Opponents and several commissioners said the application shifted during the planning process from warehousing to manufacturing, a material change that, they argued, required additional documentation. “When a proposed use changes materially, the appropriate course is to withdraw and resubmit with documentation reflecting the new intensity and impacts,” resident Zach Martin told the board, arguing there was no identified end user, no confirmed DOT sign‑off for manufacturing intensity, and no wastewater or infrastructure modeling for manufacturing operations.

Applicant representatives, including attorney Bowen Kendrick and developer Rhett Harmon, said the omission of the word “manufacturing” in the application was a clerical error and that the submitted traffic and stormwater studies support the proposed light‑industrial use. Harmon told the board the applicant would accept conditions—“we don't mind having some kind of exclusion or something saying that we won't do that, and we won't go after any kind of data center,” he said—and that the project would likely be built out over multiple years. He also said potential tenants often require confidentiality until deals are firm.

Commissioner questions focused on parcel boundaries and ownership, the DRI threshold, maximum building footprints, traffic impacts, utilities and whether the county’s future‑land‑use map supported the proposed industrial classification. Staff confirmed to the board that the state’s DRI trigger is 400,000 square feet and read the project summary filed with the state. Several commissioners cited concern that the record before them lacked sufficient detail about end users, operational intensity, and infrastructure capacity.

Commissioner Bailey moved to deny the rezoning application; the motion was seconded and passed 7–0. The board did not adopt conditions or remand the application at that meeting. The applicant indicated willingness to reapply if the board preferred the application be refiled with clearer documentation.

Votes at a glance: the board also unanimously adopted the 2026 zoning map to reflect prior zoning decisions; approved a 100‑day moratorium on applications for data centers, battery energy storage systems, solar farms and similar technology facilities (see separate article); authorized procurement actions for public‑safety software and for architect/owner‑rep negotiations on a sheriff’s office/jail modernization project; approved solid‑waste cost‑saving measures to transition services to a user‑fee model; and authorized up to $175,000 for Mossberry Park improvements. All listed motions passed by recorded unanimous voice vote (7–0) in the meeting record.

The county clerk’s minutes will record the formal denial and the action is effective as of the meeting date. The applicant may choose to withdraw and resubmit a clarified application or return to the planning commission for further review.