Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Scale Residential topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board recommends denial of 1,023‑home Clark Builders rezoning, citing infrastructure and policy concerns
Summary
The planning board voted to recommend denial of a conditional rezoning for 1,023 single‑family lots in Long Creek Township, citing inconsistencies with Imagine Pender 2050, concerns about cumulative impacts on schools, roads, emergency services and flood risk.
The Pender County Planning Board voted on Aug. 4 to recommend denial of Clark Builders LLC's conditional rezoning request for roughly 630 acres in Long Creek Township, which proposed a clustered conservation subdivision of 1,023 single‑family lots.
Staff presented the project as a conservation subdivision that would preserve about 253 acres in conservation easements and provide sidewalks, bus shelters and clustered development to protect wetlands and flood zones. Planning staff said the proposed density is 1.62 dwelling units per acre and noted the comp plan’s formula yields a theoretical maximum of about 1,119 units if all credits applied.
Applicant attorney Madeline Williams said the plan aims to “preserve as much of the conservation and green space as you can” and described outreach commitments including paving Cricket Drive, providing enhanced landscaping at the entrance and coordinating with Pender County Utilities on a pump station; the applicant said a private package plant would be a backup option only if county sewer is not available.
Neighbors and residents—including Edith Shannon, Jay Dixon and others—spoke in opposition, citing traffic on NC‑210 and local rural roads, Riley’s Creek flooding and concerns about school capacity and emergency services. One resident asked, “Where will the sewage go?” and another warned that existing roads flood frequently.
Board members debated buy‑right versus conditional outcomes and whether the project meets the broader goals and policies of Imagine Pender 2050. Board member Keeler moved to recommend denial, citing policy inconsistencies; Coleman seconded the motion, and the board voted to forward a recommendation of denial to the county commissioners, who will consider the application on Sept. 21 if the applicant pursues it.
The applicant and staff emphasized that the proposal includes conservation‑focused design elements and that either county sewer or a permitted state‑regulated treatment facility would be required for buildout. The planning board’s denial is advisory; county commissioners retain final authority.
