Residents object; commissioners deny rezoning that could have enabled RV park on Critter Creek Road

The Cumberland County Board of Commissioners on March 17 voted unanimously to deny a rezoning request for a southwestern county parcel after residents raised safety, traffic and character concerns tied to a potential RV park.

Commissioner Patel moved to deny the application to rezone the property from R-48 Residential to A-1 Agricultural, saying the request was "not consistent with the South Central land use plan" and "not in the public interest." The motion was seconded and approved without dissent.

The owner, Richard Mamera, was present and asked the board to approve A-1 zoning for his parcel. Several neighbors opposed the change during the public hearing, arguing it would alter the rural character of the area and place new demands on a narrow, privately controlled road.

"This rezoning will put an end to our country life as we know it now," said Glenn Elliott, who said his property adjoins the parcel. Bruce Skinner, another nearby resident, acknowledged that RV parks "are fine," but added: "The location is bad." Ed Pone, chairman of Willys Creek AME Zion Church, told commissioners: "This is not about farmland. It's about the RV park. . . . Do not do this."

Residents and commissioners flagged several practical constraints: Critter Creek Road is a substandard private Class C road, many parcels along it rely on deed-prescribed easements for access, and the subject property lacks public water and sewer. Director of Planning and Inspections Ross Howard told the board zoning approval would not itself grant a permit for an RV park; any operator would have to pursue a separate Board of Adjustment permit, which would include an evidentiary review of road, fire and access issues.

Commissioner Tyson said he opposed the rezoning because the road and the original deeded easement were not intended to serve a larger-scale development. "That was not the intent" when those easements were granted, he said, arguing that possible future upgrades would be the responsibility of property owners and could create burdens for neighbors.

Howard noted the Planning Board had recommended approval of the A-1 request on an 8–1 vote, but commissioners stressed that the planning recommendation and the likely subsequent permit process did not reduce their responsibility to weigh land-use consistency and community impacts.

After the vote, the board moved on to other business. The denial leaves the property's existing zoning in place; any future development proposals would have to follow the current R-48 standards or return to the board for a new request.

The board later entered a closed session on real property acquisition; no actions were reported on return.