Edgecombe commissioners approve special‑use permit for 46.5‑acre sand borrow operation over neighbor objections

The Edgecombe County Board of Commissioners voted 6–1 on July 6 to approve Case 26‑SUP‑12, a special‑use permit for a proposed 46.5‑acre sand (borrow) operation near NC Highway 33 and Rattling Springs Lane in the Tarboro area. Chair (speaker 1) moved the approval after the board voted through the six quasi‑judicial review criteria individually and attached conditions requiring submission of state surveys and permit documents before zoning compliance.

The applicant, represented by designer Michael Blakely, described a staged mining plan that will maintain or add vegetative buffers and construct a vegetated 50‑foot berm in addition to the county’s Type C buffer. “We’re exceeding [the ordinance] and planning it with a Type C buffer,” Blakely said, adding that the state mine permit requires a 50‑foot undisturbed buffer (the county ordinance calls for 40 feet) and a 6‑foot vegetated berm. Blakely also described erosion control measures including temporary sediment basins and phased mining that will leave reclaimed ponds behind as work progresses.

Property owner Tatum Eason, who spoke in support, told the board she wants the site to be “beautiful” after reclamation, not an eyesore, and described plans for a pond and native plantings. Neighbors pressed the applicant on how quickly planted vegetation would reach required heights; the applicant said planted material should meet the 6‑foot UDO requirement within about two years and the berm will provide immediate screening.

Several residents, including Marquetta Dickens of Princeville, asked for more independent studies before approval, raising concerns about downstream erosion, wetlands and groundwater impacts on the Tar River and neighboring communities. Dickens urged that wetland delineations and groundwater surveys required by NCDEQ be provided to the county. The applicant and planning presenter said many of those studies are part of the state mining‑permit process and committed to providing all surveys and studies required by the state at the zoning compliance stage, and the applicant agreed that the county could make those submittals conditions of approval.

Board members recorded votes on each of the six review criteria required for quasi‑judicial special‑use permits; tallies recorded by the chair were: criterion 1 (public health/safety) 6–1; criterion 2 (compliance with ordinance standards) 6–1; criterion 3 (no substantial injury to adjoining land values) 5–2; criterion 4 (harmony with the area) 4–3; criterion 5 (general conformity with county policy guidance) 6–1; and criterion 6 (subject to a concept plan) approved with the recorded vote noted. The board’s motion to approve the special‑use permit with the noted conditions carried 6–1.

The board also directed staff to prepare a proposed order that includes the conditions agreed tonight; that order will return to the board for formal adoption at the next meeting.

What happens next: the approval is site‑specific and subject to the conditions noted. The applicant must provide the state‑required surveys and the state mining permit documentation to county staff during zoning compliance; the state also requires bonding and reclamation assurances if the permit is issued.

(Reporting note: statements and direct quotations are attributed to speakers who spoke on the record during the July 6 hearing.)