Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Long Creek Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board recommends denial of 85‑home rezoning in Long Creek over density, septic and infrastructure concerns
Summary
A 55.6‑acre proposal for 85 single‑family homes in Long Creek (REZONE‑2025‑92) drew opposition over septic feasibility, voluntary agricultural district impacts and cumulative traffic; the planning board recommended denial.
The Pender County Planning Board on March 4 recommended denial of a conditional rezoning from rural agricultural to a conditional district that would have allowed up to 85 detached homes on roughly 55.63 acres north of NC‑210 (Case REZONE‑2025‑92).
Marcy Waters, long range planner, presented the application and staff analysis, explaining the applicant proposed a gross density of 1.53 dwelling units per acre and a net density of 3.51 units per acre after accounting for wetlands and open space. Waters told the board the project would provide approximately 17.79 acres of open space, connect to county water on NC‑210, and use private septic systems for each dwelling. She said staff estimates the development would generate about 869 daily vehicle trips and an estimated school impact of roughly 30 students and that staff finds the proposal consistent with the Imagine Pender 2050 future land use designation for the site.
Applicant representatives said wetlands and floodplains would be avoided and that a recent wetlands delineation reduced potential impacts. Tom Harvey, representing the applicant, said the developer’s target price for the detached homes was in the "low‑to‑mid 300s" per home and emphasized efforts to minimize environmental impacts.
Multiple residents and speakers urged denial. Public commenters and several board members raised issues including the property’s proximity to a voluntary agricultural district (they argued the application failed to adequately account for farm protections), the lack of central sewer and the groundwater and septic risks of building in areas with high water tables and wetlands, and cumulative traffic impacts given other approved developments in the area. One public commenter noted inconsistencies in the application paperwork (some sections listed 75 homes while others listed 85), which staff and the board flagged as a concern for the record.
After discussion about density, septic feasibility and infrastructure capacity, the Planning Board voted to recommend denial of the rezoning. Staff advised that the applicant could appeal the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners; the transcript indicates the recommendation will be forwarded but does not include a roll‑call tally of individual votes.
