Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends Mills rezoning request for Clarks Neck Road back to planning board after public hearing
Summary
After a public hearing on Jan. 9, 2023, Washington City Council voted 3-1 to send a request from Mills Construction to rezone 13.15 acres on Clarks Neck Road from RA20 to RMF back to the Planning Board for further review amid flooding and wildlife concerns.
A public hearing on Jan. 9, 2023 prompted Washington City Council to send back a rezoning request from Mills Construction for about 13.15 acres on Clarks Neck Road for further review. The motion by Councilmember Bobby E. Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Lou Hodges, carried 3-1, with Mayor Pro tem Richard Brooks opposed.
The developer sought to rezone the parcel from RA20 (Residential Agricultural) to RMF (Residential Multi-Family). Tammy Stern, speaking for Mills Construction Company, said the parcel is roughly 12–13 acres and argued the rezoning would help meet local housing demand, citing a 2022 market study that showed nearby multifamily properties operating at high occupancy and long waiting lists. Stern said the site has water and sewer capacity and that the request aligns with several housing goals in the city's Comprehensive Plan.
Multiple residents and property owners spoke during the hearing, raising three recurring concerns. Isaac Jeannette, who owns nearby property, cited flooding issues he traces to nearby development and said the area needs middle‑class housing and jobs rather than additional lower‑income housing. Luther and Loretta Bailey presented neighbor concerns about flooding and reported that eagles use the property. Resident Jason Briley said he had not observed flooding on the specific parcel but noted nearby drainage issues related to an NCDOT discharge ditch.
Ian Burn, representing Mills Construction, said the project is not planned as a project‑based Section 8 development and criticized discussion of prospective residents’ incomes as inappropriate under fair‑housing principles: “it is not planned to be a project based Section 8 housing community,” he said, and added that income assumptions should not be discussed.
City staff noted the parcel’s Future Land Use designation in the Comprehensive/CAMA plan recommends heavy industrial use, and the Planning Board had unanimously recommended denial on Dec. 20, 2022 based on that inconsistency. Council limited its action on Jan. 9 to the rezoning request, noting that any site plan would require subsequent Council review and approval.
By sending the matter back to the Planning Board, council requested additional review of the rezoning’s consistency with the Comprehensive/CAMA Future Land Use Plan and local flooding and wildlife concerns. The Planning Board will revisit the application before any future Council action.
