Commissioners table Stallings Road subdivision rezoning after neighbors raise stormwater, traffic and buffer concerns

Nash County commissioners voted on April 1 to table a conditional rezoning request (CZ‑240301) for the Stallings Road Subdivision after residents and staff raised stormwater and traffic concerns and talked of a potential land swap.

Planning Director Adam Tyson presented the proposal from Little Bear Creek Properties: roughly 54 acres proposed for RA‑30‑CZ single‑family conditional zoning with a sketch plan for 56 new lots, three public roads, an open‑space parcel for stormwater control and individual wells and septic systems. Tyson noted the planning board recommended approval with conditions, including a six‑foot vegetative screening requirement for certain property lines and potential street‑stub adjustments depending on a state buffer determination.

Neighbors urged delay. Stacy Bohofsky said reducing minimum lot sizes from 40,000 to 30,000 square feet would increase density and worsen flooding in an area she described as already prone to stormwater problems. "This development will continue to hinder and cause stormwater and pollutionary ... flooding issues," she said. Jeremy Wood, speaking for five neighboring landowners, asked the developer to resume land‑swap talks proposed by an adjacent property owner and warned that runoff from the new subdivision could affect Coker Creek.

Ethan Averitt, the developer’s representative with Stocks Engineering, said the applicant agreed to add the requested six‑foot vegetative berm, would reserve an open‑space lot for stormwater treatment on the southwest corner, and would meet Nash County stormwater requirements. Averitt said the parties were still discussing a possible land trade but that a formal swap had not been finalized.

After discussion, Commissioner Outlaw moved to table the request so the parties could pursue potential land trades and obtain an environmental jurisdictional determination; Commissioner Leggett seconded. The board amended the motion to set the next consideration for the board’s first meeting in June to allow the planning‑board process to accommodate any revised plan. The motion to table carried by voice vote.

Planning staff told the board that a revised plan including additional property would miss the April planning‑board submittal deadline and could not be heard by the planning board until May, meaning the earliest board consideration would be in June. Tyson said condition language would be updated to reflect the applicant’s commitment to add the vegetative screening along the worried property line.

The board’s action delays final approval while leaving open negotiated remedies — buffers, stormwater measures or a land trade — that interested neighbors and the developer say they will pursue.