Nash County commissioners deny Wildlife Road conditional rezoning after public outcry over water, traffic and density

The Nash County Board of Commissioners on June 2 denied a conditional rezoning request, CZ250501, for the proposed Wildlife Road subdivision after an hour‑plus public hearing and technical review. The 4–3 vote rejected a developer plan to rezone roughly 151 acres to an RA‑30 conditional zone to allow 122 new residential lots.

The decision capped a contentious review that divided county staff, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and the planning board. Senior planner Aaron Chalker briefed the board on the request, saying the developer sought to reduce the minimum lot size from 40,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet and to rely on on‑site wells and septic systems where county water is not available. He noted the TRC recommended approval subject to conditions while the planning board recommended denial 6–1, citing a projected increase in traffic on the Dead End Wildlife Road that the board said would be incompatible with the surrounding area.

The developer and his engineer defended the plan in the hearing. David J. Geiger, representing Little Bear Creek Properties, told commissioners the company had closed on the property and argued the RA‑30 proposal “closely aligns with Nash County’s land use plan” while preserving open space at the site’s northern end. Engineer Justin Brown described the project’s comparative layout and gave the board NCDOT‑based trip estimates, saying the plan “equates to about 1,220 vehicle trips per day.”

Residents who live on or near Wildlife Road urged denial and stressed impacts on groundwater, emergency response and wildlife. “We are opposed as most people here from Wildlife Road to this development,” said Bruce Everett, who said the community is worried about groundwater and septic impacts. Other speakers described long emergency‑response travel times to Castellia, concern about existing volunteer fire protection, and potential damage to wetlands and established timber tracts.

Chalker and the developer repeatedly noted the conditional rezoning would bind the development to the submitted sketch plan and a set of proposed development conditions if approved, and that the proposal had been designed to avoid direct impacts to riparian stream buffers. The developer’s team also presented an alternate layout using 40,000‑square‑foot lots, which they said would produce fewer lots but reduce conserved open space.

After public comment and board discussion, Commissioner Bellfield moved to deny the rezoning; Commissioner Leggett seconded. The motion to deny carried by a roll‑call style result recorded as 4–3. The board’s formal motion cited compatibility and traffic concerns raised by the planning board as reasons supporting denial.

The denial leaves the property under its existing A‑1 agricultural zoning, preserving the existing 40,000‑square‑foot minimum lot standard unless the developer pursues a new application or an alternate plan.