Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Udo Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Nash County on water, fire access and pace of growth; many call for moratorium on data centers
Summary
During the public-comment portion of the June 24 UDO meeting, residents repeatedly asked the county to slow the UDO process and demanded studies of water supply, emergency access and farmland impacts; fire officials urged 24-ft roads, and multiple speakers urged a moratorium on data centers until infrastructure impacts are assessed.
A diverse group of Nash County residents turned the June 24 meeting into a wide-ranging forum on infrastructure and growth, with repeated calls for slower action and additional studies before the Board of Commissioners finalizes a rewrite of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Public-safety testimony: multiple fire and emergency-service officials told the county narrower internal subdivision roads make firefighting and water-shuttle operations hazardous. Bailey assistant chief Chad Bissett and Nashville Fire Chief Chris Joyner described operational constraints for tanker and attack apparatus on 20-foot pavement sections and asked the county to adopt 24-foot internal roads or require hydrants where 24-foot pavement is not feasible. Bissett cited NFPA 1142 guidance on rural water-supply operations and provided a rough per-home cost estimate for additional pavement, which he said would be modest relative to safety benefits.
Water and wells: residents from Oak Level, Spring Hope and other unincorporated areas said new subdivisions relying on wells risk reducing groundwater availability for longtime households and farms. Speakers reported well failures and expressed concern about the county's dependence on Rocky Mount's system for treated water; commissioners and staff acknowledged limited countywide water coverage and said infrastructure expansion would be costly and gradual.
Farmland and conservation: farmers and farm families urged the county to protect productive soils and limit low-density sprawl into agricultural lands. Some speakers supported the conservation-subdivision idea but urged that conservation set-asides not be made up largely of wetlands or marginal land; staff said the conservation model includes caps on creditable wetlands (discussed at 20% in the meeting) and that smaller-lot options would be practical only where sewer or innovative on-site wastewater treatment is available.
By-right review and public input: several residents objected to moving some by-right subdivision approvals from the Planning Board to the technical review committee (TRC), saying the change would reduce visibility and public input. Staff said the TRC consists of the technical agencies who ensure compliance and that the change is meant to shift technical approvals away from the Planning Board without removing public hearings for rezonings.
Calls for moratoria and more study: multiple speakers asked for moratoria, particularly on data centers, until water-use and infrastructure studies are complete; staff replied that permanent bans on land uses are legally constrained in North Carolina, and that jurisdictions often use temporary moratoria while standards are developed.
Next steps: commissioners thanked attendees and said staff and the consultant will continue drafting ordinance text. Several commissioners signaled support for slowing the schedule and for more study on data centers and infrastructure impacts; staff will publish draft ordinance language for additional review and schedule the Planning Board and Board hearings.
