Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nash County delays vote on 151‑lot ‘Bissets Bay’ subdivision as water and road details remain unresolved
Summary
After hours of public testimony and technical review, commissioners postponed a rezoning decision on the proposed 151‑lot Bissets Bay subdivision until June 1 to allow the developer and county staff to work out whether Nash County water can be extended or a community water system will be needed and to refine traffic and environmental permits.
The Nash County Board of Commissioners on May 4 postponed a decision on a conditional rezoning that would allow a 151‑lot subdivision called Bissets Bay on roughly 193 acres southwest of Spring Hope.
Planning staff told the board the proposal would change the property from A1 agricultural zoning to RA30CZ and reduce minimum lot size from 40,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet while adding conditions protecting stream buffers and requiring either a public water extension or a community water system. Staff also noted that a road crossing will need NCDEQ and Army Corps permitting.
Residents who live near the site told commissioners they worry about groundwater, runoff, internet and utility access, and the ability of first responders and local schools to handle substantial new population. Barry Adams, an adjacent property owner, told the board he was concerned about Old Spring Hope Road’s narrow width and said, “Spring Hope Road does not have a wide berth. We’re talking about 150 houses only accessing this one road for egress and ingress.” Joseph Bailey, a nearby resident and petition organizer, urged the board to make water and emergency services assessments before approving density increases.
The developer and their engineer described two water options. Kevin Varnell of Stocks Engineering said the site’s nearest county water line is several thousand feet away and that the current proposal would be served either by Nash County public water or a community well system; he told the board, “The property will be served with public water either through a community water system or by extending the Nash County water system roughly 6,000 ft to the site.” Developer Joe Hartzfield said his team’s preference is county water but that access and easements remain unresolved.
Commissioners asked staff to model the cost and feasibility of county water extension, and whether the county’s upcoming Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) rewrite should change the thresholds that trigger mandatory public‑water connections. Several commissioners argued for a consistent policy so one developer is not advantaged over another. Commissioner How moved to postpone action to the June 1 meeting and asked staff and the applicant to supply specifics about a Nash County water connection and any county participation in upsizing lines; the motion carried.
What’s next: The developer and county staff will meet in the coming weeks to clarify whether a Nash County water extension can serve the site, to identify easement needs and construction costs, and to return to the board — with a public hearing — on June 1.
