Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jennings Road rezoning for up to 244 homes deferred after hours of public opposition
Summary
Beaufort County Council deferred action on a proposal to rezone 86.56 acres on Jennings Road to hamlet place types after extensive public comment about traffic, drainage and insufficient affordable housing; a previous motion to approve a related ordinance failed 5–6.
Beaufort County Council on the evening considered a rezoning and related place‑type overlay that would allow up to 244 housing units on 86.56 acres along Jennings Road, but after hours of public testimony the council voted to defer first reading so the zoning request can be negotiated together with a developer draft development agreement.
The proposal from Pulte Homes would apply hamlet place‑type zoning (T3/T4) to the parcel; developer representative Rob Merrick said the request “embraces the vision, goals, and responsibilities outlined in the 2040 Beaufort County comprehensive plan” and argued it would deliver a mix of townhomes and single‑family homes and commit funds toward affordability and community enhancements. Merrick told council the applicant proposes a modest deed‑restricted component and other funding mechanisms intended to support workforce homeownership.
Opponents filled the lectern during the public hearing. Barbara Charles said the current zoning allows 28 dwelling units and called 244 units “massive,” warning the change would worsen traffic near Battery Creek High School. Laura Wilson urged the council not to “concrete AllJoy,” arguing a proposed impervious path would amplify drainage problems. Other residents raised concerns about displacement, stormwater management, lost habitat and the adequacy of the applicant’s affordable‑housing commitments.
The council first took a roll‑call vote on ordinance 20‑25/37 (the rezoning as presented) and the motion failed, with the record showing Yes votes from Chair Howard, Councilmember Passamont and Councilmember McAllen and No votes from Councilmembers Reitz, Lawson, Glover, Dawson, Cunningham and Brown; Bartholomew and Vice Chair Tabernick voted yes (final tally recorded in the meeting transcript as 5 in favor, 6 opposed). After extended debate about negotiating a stronger development agreement and additional affordable units, Councilmember Bartholomew moved — and the council passed — a motion to defer the zoning map amendment and to schedule a special call meeting to consider the developer’s draft development agreement alongside the rezoning request.
Staff told council the parcel is designated in the county’s future‑land‑use map and that adoption of the place‑type overlay is one way to implement the comprehensive plan’s goals for walkable, mixed‑use places; staff also noted the applicant submitted a draft development agreement that includes a proposal for workforce‑housing tools and community enhancements and recommended council work with the applicant to clarify affordability details. Several council members said they would only support up‑zoning if the development agreement included substantially more affordable or workforce units than the developer’s initial offer.
The council’s deferral preserves the applicant’s ability to return while creating a structured negotiation path: staff and the applicant will be asked to refine the development agreement terms and return to council for consideration at a special meeting so rezoning and binding commitments can be considered together.
What happens next: Council deferred first reading to allow negotiation of a development agreement and to schedule a special call meeting; the applicant may revise affordability commitments, unit mix or other terms before second reading. The zoning map amendment will not advance until the council reconvenes the matter.
