Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cumberland commissioners approve fire‑district change and multiple rezoning requests; one rezoning sent back to planning
Summary
The board unanimously approved moving annexed property into the Eastover Fire District and approved several rezoning requests (ZON260013, ZON260014, ZON260016); a Stedman‑area rezoning (ZON260015) was returned to the planning board after extended public comment and commissioner questions.
At its May 18 meeting the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners approved several land‑use actions and heard extended public comment on another.
The board voted unanimously to transfer a recently annexed parcel into the Eastover Fire District after staff said Eastover has been providing service and both fire districts agreed to the change. Commissioner Tyson moved the motion and it passed with no dissent.
On zoning matters, the board approved several rezoning requests following staff presentations and planning‑board recommendations. Director of Planning and Inspection Rose Howard described ZON260013, which consolidated split zoning and rezoned about 4.31 acres from rural/residential and heavy commercial to a light industrial (M‑1P) district to support an existing woodworking operation; the board approved the request unanimously. The board also approved ZON260014 (A‑1 to RR for roughly 2.67 acres near Lake Linden to allow manufactured homes) and ZON260016 (R‑6 to C‑2P for an expanded service/retail footprint for a used car operation in South Fayetteville) following staff presentation; both passed unanimously.
A more contentious item, ZON260015 — a request to rezone roughly 27 acres near Stedman from A‑1 to R‑30 — drew multiple residents, volunteer fire personnel, the applicant and the landowner to the podium. Speakers raised concerns about infrastructure capacity (water, septic and roads), PFAS contamination, long‑term land‑use compatibility, and how dividing the parcel could affect future owners. The applicant said the immediate intent was to preserve two existing dwellings while maintaining agricultural use on the remainder. Commissioners discussed alternatives including R‑40 or a group‑development approach to protect the homes while limiting density. After lengthy discussion the board voted unanimously to send ZON260015 back to the planning board for additional analysis and community input.
These actions left the board with several approved land‑use changes on the record, and the planning board was asked to revisit the Stedman proposal with refined options for commissioner consideration.
