Planning board recommends approval of straight rezoning for 10‑acre Sidbury Road parcel, sends 4–2 recommendation to commissioners

The New Hanover County Planning Board on Aug. 6 voted 4–2 to recommend approval of a straight rezoning request to change approximately 10 acres on the south side of Sidbury Road from R‑15 residential to B‑2 regional business. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their public hearing on Sept. 21.

Planning staff told the board the comprehensive plan designates the parcel as "community mixed use" and that B‑2 zoning can provide neighborhood‑serving commercial uses the area lacks. Robert Farrell, the planning staff presenter, said the request is for a straight rezoning — meaning no concept plan or conditions may be attached — and that staff "would've preferred a conditional rezoning with a concept plan to better evaluate potential impacts related to traffic and adjacent development." Farrell noted nearby projects (Sidbury Station, Sidbury 187 and Avenue 1) would add about 4,000 dwelling units at full build‑out, increasing demand for local services.

Applicant John McCormick, who identified himself and gave his address for the record, said he intends to relocate an established outdoor equipment business to the site and described a modest building footprint (about 6,000 sq. ft. and under 10,000 sq. ft. of disturbance). "This is what I'm doing, and nobody can put anything else there without permitting," McCormick said in rebuttal, arguing the business has low traffic impact compared with other potential commercial uses.

Several board members said the corridor needs neighborhood services as residential development advances, while others warned a straight B‑2 rezoning for the entire 10 acres would allow a broad list of by‑right uses that could be incompatible with adjacent neighborhoods. One member moved to recommend denial, citing the "variety and potential scale of by‑right uses in the straight B‑2 district" as a risk; that motion failed. A subsequent motion to recommend approval passed 4–2 and will be transmitted to the commissioners for their Sept. 21 hearing.

The board’s recommendation is advisory; the final decision rests with the Board of County Commissioners. The planning staff noted that specific development proposals would still go through Technical Review Committee (TRC) processes and that TIAs could be required during that review depending on the scale of the eventual development.