Pitt County approves 83-acre sand mine rezoning after debate over groundwater and cemetery access

The Pitt County Board of Commissioners voted to approve a conditional rezoning that will allow an 83.29-acre sand-mining operation on land owned by D and J Baker Holdings LLC, the board heard on April 2026.

The applicant, Bobby Tripp, told commissioners he plans to excavate a 25.4-acre pit initially and later market surrounding acreage for 10-acre residential lots after reclamation. Tripp said the mine would be operated under state mining permits and that access arrangements are under negotiation to avoid routing heavy traffic onto Grama Horn Road.

Residents and nearby landowners urged caution. Lisa Adams Lucas, speaking for the Ward family, said she was not invited to a prior on-site meeting and raised concerns about chemicals, public-health effects and the impact on longtime farming operations. Scott Avery, a nearby resident, warned that many homes in the corridor depend on private wells and asked the board to ensure the mine would not harm groundwater levels or contaminate wells.

The board reviewed a hydrogeological evaluation introduced by the applicant and summarized by consultant Ken Elliott. Elliott said the proposed operation would not dewater the excavation or discharge water from the mine permit area, that internal berming and pond design would prevent off‑site discharge, and that his review found no expected adverse impacts to nearby wells when the mine is operated per plan. He said measurements at a nearby active mine showed groundwater drawdown of about 1–2 feet at 300–500 feet from an actively dewatered excavation and that residences closest to the proposed site are more proximate to the existing Matty Mine than to the proposed pit.

Planning staff told the board the request was found to be consistent with the Envision Pitt County 2045 comprehensive land-use plan and recommended approval with conditions, including: no zoning compliance permit until an approved site plan; a landscaping/screening plan or a minimum 6-foot berm; required construction standards for parking and access drives; required erosion- and sedimentation-control and stormwater plans; a 50-foot riparian buffer along streams unless exempted; required NCDOT driveway permit and a traffic‑impact analysis; and state mining permits.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on notification procedures after members of the Ward family said they had not received in-person notices. Staff said mailed notices were sent to property owners within 500 feet per county practice and pointed to a list of recipients in the meeting packet. The applicant and staff also confirmed the existence of a cemetery on the property and proposed a 10-foot easement to ensure continued access; the applicant said the state permitting process requires setbacks and legal access provisions to cemeteries.

After questions and discussion, a two-part motion procedure was used: first to adopt staff’s consistency statement with the land-use plan, then to approve the rezoning subject to the staff‑recommended conditions. The transcript records motions, seconds and that the board voted to approve the request as recommended by staff; the transcript excerpt provided does not include a roll-call tally.

What happens next: approvals are conditioned on the required site plans, permits and the applicant’s compliance with erosion control and state mining rules. The county noted that a state mining permit and implementation of the screening/berm and access easement are prerequisites before full site development.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article appear in the public record at the meeting: Lisa Adams Lucas (resident), Scott Avery (resident), Bobby Tripp (applicant), Ken Elliott (consultant), Jonas Hill (planning staff).