Lenoir council denies 68-unit Seahorn rezoning after residents cite traffic, safety and neighborhood concerns

The Lenoir City Council voted unanimously on April 21 to deny a conditional zoning request (CZ‑13) that would have allowed Connelly Development LLC to build a 68-unit apartment complex at 938 Seahorn Street.

Council member Beal made the motion to reject the rezoning "that we do not approve the project as presented," and the motion carried 6–0. The vote followed more than two hours of presentations and public comment that focused on traffic, emergency access and the development’s scale relative to nearby single-family lots.

Planning Director Hannah Williams told the council the proposal covered two parcels totaling 7.3 acres and would allow medium-density multifamily housing at 10 dwelling units per acre under the conditional zoning. Staff and the planning board recommended approval with conditions including a 45-foot building setback where the development abuts single-family zones, a 30-foot planted buffer, limited access from Seahorn Street only, and a requirement that amenities and site landscaping be completed before occupancy.

Developers Field Goodlet and Andy Rosen of Canady Builders and Development described a four-building complex with clubhouse, playgrounds, a detention pond and 137 parking spaces (122 standard and 15 accessible). Rosen said the project would set aside 10% of units as accessible and target workforce households with rents proposed at about $500–$1,100. The developers cited a third‑party market study that, they said, found significant unmet demand for workforce housing in the area.

Residents who spoke during the public hearing countered that Seahorn Street and the signalized intersections on nearby U.S. 321 cannot safely absorb the development’s traffic pattern. "It's not low density, it's high density on a small space," said resident Eddie Winkler, who calculated the developers would effectively be concentrating units on the developed half of the site. Multiple speakers described narrow, curving sections of Seahorn used by walkers, children on bicycles and residents accessing schools and local destinations.

Other residents cited emergency access and runoff concerns. Brenda Walters, whose property abuts the site’s upland area, said the single entrance and curving roadway created a potential hazard for fire and emergency vehicles. In response the developer said each unit would be sprinklered, the entrance and parking areas would be designed for two‑way emergency access and the property would be subject to routine inspections and deed restrictions tied to any tax‑credit financing.

Planning staff provided traffic figures showing Seahorn's 2025 average daily traffic at about 2,195 trips and staff estimated the 68 units could add roughly 448 daily trips (about a 20% increase), still below an engineering estimate of Seahorn’s capacity. Developers cited a separate traffic analysis with a lower trip estimate (about 278 trips). Council members and neighbors emphasized that peak‑hour conditions at Seahorn’s intersections, signal timing on 321 (controlled by the state) and roadside parking in the corridor make the functional capacity during busy hours a more urgent concern than daily trip totals.

Council members expressed a tension between the city's stated goal to expand housing options and the practical limits of the site. Several members praised the project's design and the developer’s commitments but said the location — particularly the Seahorn/321 corridor and the single site entrance — made this proposal unsuitable at this place and time. "We need housing, but I will vote against this project because of the location," one council member said during the discussion.

The denial leaves the property with its current split zoning (B‑6 commercial and R‑15 single‑family) and staff noted that some commercial uses allowed today could generate vehicle trips as well. Council approved the rest of the consent agenda, including proclamations and a contract award for Veterans Plaza paver replacements, and adjourned.

What happens next: the developer may revise the proposal or seek an alternate site. Any subsequent application would return to staff and the planning board for review and to a public hearing before council.