The rezoning application, identified as case number Z-2024-12, sparked debate among board members, staff, and the public. The proposed change aims to increase dwelling unit density and introduce a mix of residential and commercial uses to a 20-acre site. While the staff’s presentation supported the rezoning request, detailing its consistency with the local comprehensive plan, residents voiced strong opposition.

Thomas Ponto, a resident directly across from the proposed site, raised traffic safety concerns, particularly the difficulty of exiting his neighborhood onto Lillian Highway during peak hours. He described the situation as “dangerous” and questioned the appropriateness of changing the zoning to high-density mixed-use, which he argued does not align with the area’s suburban character. Another resident, Christopher Maxheimer, echoed these concerns, emphasizing the traffic challenges along Lillian Highway and the potential impact on local schools, particularly Blue Angels Elementary, which he noted is already overcrowded.

Environmental concerns were also prominent in the discussion. Robert Books highlighted the important role of wetlands on the site in managing water runoff. He argued that the proposed development could disrupt this natural system, leading to adverse effects on drainage and water management. Books claimed that the compatibility of the proposed zoning only applied to the initial 100 feet bordering Highway 100 and that the remaining area, which backs up to the Little Creek subdivision, could be negatively impacted.

In defense of the rezoning, the applicant’s representative asserted that the proposed high-density mixed-use zoning was consistent with surrounding land uses and aligned with the comprehensive plan’s goals. They argued that the development would create a complementary mix of high-density residential and non-residential uses, promoting urban development principles.

The Planning Board’s decision to approve the rezoning came after a thorough discussion of the potential impacts on the surrounding residential areas. Some board members expressed concerns about the long-term implications of the zoning change on community dynamics and property values. Despite these concerns, the board ultimately approved the rezoning request, emphasizing that the proposed density of 50 units was lower than the maximum allowed under high-density zoning guidelines.

Another notable topic during the meeting involved a rezoning request for a property at the corner of Lillian Highway and Spanish Moss Drive, from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High-Density Mixed Use (HDMU). This change would allow for 25 dwelling units per acre, compared to the current 10. Public comments revealed significant opposition to this proposal as well. Laura Lee Nichols, a nearby resident, cited issues with the property’s deterioration, parking capacity, and safety. She emphasized concerns about the potential impact on local wildlife and the area’s existing infrastructure.

Further complicating the board’s deliberations was a remanded case from the Circuit Court involving Teramore Development LLC and a Dollar General Store. The board grappled with procedural uncertainties due to gaps in the Land Development Code regarding new hearings after court rulings. The County Attorney clarified that when a court quashes an order, it resets the proceedings, allowing the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to adopt, modify, or reject the Planning Board’s recommendations.

Concerns were raised about the potential for the board members to be found in contempt of the Circuit Court’s ruling if they proceeded to accept new evidence. Ultimately, the board decided to proceed with the original recommendations without hearing further testimony or evidence.

In addition to these zoning cases, the board reviewed and approved the 2023-2027 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), which outlines the costs of improvements and fiscal policies guiding funding and construction. Some members raised questions about specific plans mentioned in the document and the status of certain transportation projects.

As the meeting concluded, the board scheduled the next session, noting the need for adjustments due to the building being used as a voting center. The proceedings underscored ongoing tensions regarding the balance of authority between the Planning Board and the BCC, as well as the challenges of addressing public concerns within the procedural constraints.