Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aberdeen board denies rezoning request near US‑15501 after residents raise traffic and water concerns
Summary
Aberdeen Town commissioners voted to deny a rezoning request from Rose Land LLC that would have rezoned roughly six acres to RM6 for attached housing after residents questioned access from US‑15501, groundwater and notice for citizen meetings.
The Aberdeen Town Board on Nov. 24 denied a request to rezone roughly 6 acres northeast of the US‑15501/PD Road intersection from mixed commercial and lower‑density residential districts to RM6, a multi‑family/attached‑residential district. The application, submitted on behalf of Rose Land LLC, drew opposition from nearby residents concerned about traffic safety, potential loss of commercial frontage along the highway and effects on private wells.
Pam Graham, the town planning director, told the board the request would create a consistent zoning parcel intended to permit attached multifamily or single‑attached townhomes and noted the planning board had previously recommended approval. In staff materials she warned the proposal was only “partially consistent” with the comprehensive land‑use map while citing goals to increase housing options.
At the public hearing residents questioned the adequacy of outreach and timing for required citizen meetings and flagged safety issues on US‑15501. One resident urged the board to preserve commercial frontage along the corridor to avoid future losses of local businesses and to avoid placing homes directly adjacent to a state highway. Others raised groundwater and spring protection concerns, asking for careful vetting of stormwater and well impacts.
Developer representative Matthew Blake described preliminary designs that would provide single‑attached townhomes and said the RM6 district would allow “four to five units per building” versus duplex limits in R10 zoning, which Blake said would help achieve lower price points for new homes. Residents pushed back on density and whether future roadway widening would make homes adjacent to the highway vulnerable.
After discussion the board voted in sequence that ZA25‑05 was not consistent with adopted plans, not reasonable and in the public interest, and then adopted a denial. No formal vote tally of individual names was recorded in the transcript beyond the board’s roll call voice votes.
