HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN2606-0003_RA20M_Industrial_SRSTAFF REPORT Page 1 of 9
REZONING STAFF REPORT
Case: PLAN2606-0003
Sarah Arbour, Long Range Planner
sarbour@harnett.org
Phone: (910) 814-6414 Fax: (910) 814-8278
Planning Board: August 3, 2026 County Commissioners: August 17, 2026
Rezoning Request: From the RA-20M, Residential and Agricultural Zoning District to the Industrial Zoning
District, and a Land Use Classification amendment to the Employment Growth Area land use
classification
Applicant Information
Owner of Record: Applicant:
Name: EC 635 LLC Name: Mauldin-Watkins Surveying, PA
Address: 6312 Lauraca Lane Address: P.O. Box 444
City/State/Zip: Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526 City/State/Zip: Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
Property Description
PIN(s): 0636-80-6643.000; 0636-80-6408.000 Acreage: 1.75
Address/SR No.: 6940 & 6970 Cokesbury Rd., Fuquay-Varina
Township:
Johnsonville
Lillington
Neill’s Creek
Stewart’s Creek
Upper Little River
Anderson Creek
Averasboro
Barbecue
Black River
Buckhorn
Duke
Grove
Hectors Creek
Vicinity Map
STAFF REPORT Page 2 of 9
Physical Characteristics
Site Description
The rezoning request consists of two adjacent parcels of land, 6970 and 6940 Cokesbury Rd. The properties are adjacent to Duncan Industrial Park.
6970 Cokesbury Rd.
6970 Cokesbury Rd. is currently used for residential purposes, and a manufactured home is located on the
property.
STAFF REPORT Page 3 of 9
6940 Cokesbury Rd.
The property is currently used as a commercial storage facility. The property is split-zoned, RA-20M and
Industrial. If approved, the rezoning will place the property under a single, unified Zoning District.
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses consist of industrial, residential, and agricultural land uses.
Duncan Industrial Park
STAFF REPORT Page 4 of 9
Services Available
Water:
Public (Harnett County)
Private (Well)
Other: Unverified
Sewer: Public (Harnett County) Private (Septic Tank)
Other:
Transportation
Annual Average Daily Traffic counts:
Cokesbury Rd. : 2,397 (AADT, 2025)
Site Distances: Good
STAFF REPORT Page 5 of 9
Zoning District Compatibility
Current RA-20M Requested IND
Parks & Rec X X
Natural Preserves X X
Bona Fide Farms X X
Single Family X
Manufactured Homes, (with design criteria) X
Manufactured Homes X
Multi-Family X & SUP
Institutional X X
Commercial Services SUP X
Retail X
Wholesale X
Industrial X
Manufacturing X
The following is a summary list of potential uses. For all applicable uses for each Zoning district please refer to the UDO’s Table of Uses.
Land Use Classification Compatibility
ZONING LAND USE
Industrial Rural Center
Parks & Rec X X Natural Preserves X X
Bona Fide Farms X X
Single Family X
Manufactured
Homes, Design Regulated X
Manufactured Homes X
Multi-Family X
Institutional X X
Commercial Service X X
Retail X X
Wholesale X
Industrial X Manufacturing X
The above is a summary list of potential uses. For all applicable uses for each Zoning district, please refer to the UDO’s Table of Uses.
Future Land Use Classification Compatibility:
Employment Growth Area
STAFF REPORT Page 6 of 9
These areas are located along major thoroughfares and include prime locations for economic development
opportunities. Uses encouraged in the Employment Growth Areas include but are not limited to industrial, warehouse, office, research and development, “tech flex”, medical, energy, and distribution. Residential development is appropriate only when not in conflict with existing or future industry or commercial uses or
focal development areas.
Site Photographs
Site
Street View
South North
STAFF REPORT Page 7 of 9
Across Road
Evaluation
Yes No A. The proposal will place all property similarly situated in the area in the
same category, or in appropriate complementary categories.
Both properties are adjacent to properties located within the Industrial Zoning District. Additionally, one property is partially located within the Industrial zoning
district. Reclassification of the site to the Industrial Zoning District would place the
site under a single, unified zoning district.
Yes No B. There is a convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district classification would be in the interest of the general public and not merely the interest of the individual or small group.
The uses permitted under the Industrial Zoning District would be in the interest of the
general public due to compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
Yes No C. There is a convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district classification would be appropriate in the area included in
the proposed change. (When a new district designation is assigned, any use
permitted in the district is allowable, so long as it meets district
requirements, and not merely uses which applicants state they intend to make of the property involved.) The uses in the area would be compatible with the adjacent industrial land uses.
Yes No D. There is a convincing demonstration that the character of the
neighborhood will not be materially and adversely affected by any use
permitted in the proposed change.
STAFF REPORT Page 8 of 9
There is a convincing demonstration that the character of the neighborhood will not
be materially and adversely affected by the uses permitted in the requested zoning
district. The uses permitted in the Industrial zoning district are compatible with the nearby non-residential land uses.
Yes No E. The proposed change is in accordance with the comprehensive plan and sound planning practices.
The requested zoning district is not fully compatible with the land use classification,
Rural Center.
If the request to rezone the properties to the Industrial zoning district is approved, the land use classification must be amended to “Employment Growth Area”. This
land use classification encourages industrial land uses to support economic
development efforts.
Procedure for Amending the Future Land Use Classification When in Conflict
with the Requested Zoning District Pursuant to G.S. 160D-605(a):
Land Use Plan Amendments
Made in Conjunction with Zoning Map/Change Amendments
Where a proposed zoning change petition conflicts with the Land Use Plan, the Planning
Staff may also request a Land Use Plan amendment, to be considered simultaneously with
the zoning district change request, as outlined herein.
A. In such a case, the Planning Board and County Board of Commissioners shall consider
the plan amendment proposal and the zoning change petition separately and shall vote
separately on the two (2) items (though the votes may occur simultaneously).
B. The Planning Board shall submit its report and recommendation regarding the Land Use
Plan amendment to Board of Commissioners at the same time it submits its report and
recommendation regarding the zoning change petition.
C. For the purposes of this Section, Land Use Plan amendments will automatically be
advertised in conjunction with the zoning district change request.
Suggested Statement-of-Consistency (Staff concludes that…)
As stated in the evaluation, the requested rezoning to Industrial is reasonable. The requested rezoning
would not negatively impact the surrounding community based on compatibility the surrounding land
uses. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed change of zoning to the Industrial zoning district is APPROVED, and that the future land use classification be AMENDED to the Employment Growth Area future land use classification.
Standards of Review and Worksheet
TYPICAL REVIEW STANDARDS
The Planning Board shall consider and make recommendations to the County Board of Commissioners
concerning each proposed zoning district. The following policy guidelines shall be followed by the Planning
STAFF REPORT Page 9 of 9
Board concerning zoning districts and no proposed zoning district will receive favorable recommendation
unless: Yes No A. The proposal will place all property similarly situated in the area in the same category,
or in appropriate complementary categories.
Yes No B. There is convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district classification would be in the general public interest and not merely in the interest of the individual or small group.
Yes No C. There is convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district classification would be appropriate in the area included in the proposed change. (When
a new district designation is assigned, any use permitted in the district is allowable, so
long as it meets district requirements, and not merely uses which applicants state they
intend to make of the property involved.)
Yes No D. There is convincing demonstration that the character of the neighborhood will not be materially and adversely affected by any use permitted in the proposed change.
Yes No E. The proposed change is in accordance with the comprehensive plan and sound planning practices.
GRANTING THE REZONING REQUEST Motion to grant the rezoning upon finding that the rezoning is reasonable based on All of the above findings of fact A-E being found in the affirmative and that the rezoning advances the public interest. DENYING THE REZONING REQUEST Motion to deny the rezoning upon finding that the proposed rezoning does not advance the public interest and is unreasonable due to the following:
The proposal will not place all property similarly situated in the area in the same category, or in
appropriate complementary categories. There is not convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district classification would be in the general public interest and not merely in the interest of the
individual or small group.
There is not convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the proposed district
classification would be appropriate in the area included in the proposed change. (When a new
district designation is assigned, any use permitted in the district is allowable, so long as it meets district requirements, and not merely uses which applicants state they intend to make of the property involved.)
There is not convincing demonstration that the character of the neighborhood will not be
materially and adversely affected by any use permitted in the proposed change.
The proposed change is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan and sound planning
practices.
The proposed change was not found to be reasonable for a small scale rezoning