New Bern Planning and Zoning Board removed from major subdivision approval process which eliminated the requirement for public comment.
The New Bern Board of Aldermen authorized text changes to the city’s land use ordinance that removed the Planning and Zoning Board from the major subdivision approval process and gave approval authority to the director of Development Services or their designee on May 13, 2025.
Developers will no longer need to go through a public approval process to develop major subdivisions in New Bern, NC.
For the past nine years, the Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed and approved plans for major subdivisions in New Bern during public meetings. Before that, the Board of Aldermen approved plans. As public bodies, both boards conducted the people’s business in open meetings and the proceedings and decisions were recorded in meeting minutes or video.
That all changed on May 13 when the New Bern Board of Aldermen adopted an ordinance that takes the approval authority away from the P & Z Board and gives it to the director of Department Services or their designee.
The change also eliminates the requirement for the city to advertise a notice in the newspaper about a public meeting related to planned unit developments.
It also removes the requirement to mail a notice to people who own property within 100 feet of the development.
Now, when general subdivision plans are reviewed, notice will be mailed to owners of property that abuts the proposed subdivision no later than seven days before the decision is made. The applicant will post signs that contain the words “Subdivision Decision” on streets that abut the proposed subdivision seven days before the decision is made, according to the text amendment that can be found on page 195 of the meeting packet.
Why the change?
City staff have said the development community asked for changes to be made to the subdivision section of New Bern’s Land Use Ordinance. They have been working with consultants from CodeWright Planners to re-write the ordinance, which regulates how landowners can use their land since 2023. The initiative is called “Re-New Bern.”
In June 2024, Zoning Administrator Kendrick Stanton proposed the text changes to New Bern’s Planning and Zoning Board that would remove their authority to approve preliminary plans and final plats for major subdivisions and give the power to him or an assistant zoning administrator.
He said the law allows for final decisions on subdivisions to be made by the planning board or city staff and said it would lessen the workload if the authority was given to staff.
Jessica Rhue, the director of Development Services, asked what the point was of bringing the application to the board. She said she thought it just added paperwork on staff.
P & Z Board Member Kellie Kiser asked if there was a downside.
“I don’t think there’s any downside. I think the developers are going to love it because they’re going to get their approval two months faster,” Director Rhue said.
In the past, an applicant submitted the plans, and the Departmental Review Committee and staff would review them and provide comments. Staff reported on the proposed plans to the Planning and Zoning Board and made recommendations during public meetings. The board reviewed the application and approved the plans if they met the standards in the land use ordinance. Members of the public were allowed to comment. If someone objected to a technical violation of the ordinance, it could be challenged.
The P & Z Board recommended that the Board of Aldermen approve the text amendment.
In March 2025, Assistant Director of Development Services Robert Gough presented a revised amendment to the P & Z Board that proposed taking the authority away from them and giving it to the director of Development Services. It also removed the requirement to publish a public notice in the newspaper for planned unit developments.
He said the applicant will post a sign noticing that a decision has been made about the subdivision and anyone who felt aggrieved and has standing could appeal.
Assistance City Attorney Jaimee Bullock said she thought the proposed language benefited the development community and the citizenry at large.
Vice Chairman Rusty Ingram said he didn’t think it would benefit the citizenry by taking the decision away from the Planning and Zoning Board and giving it to one person inside the administration.
He said he understood that the board has to comply with the guidelines and felt that citizens should have an opportunity to provide information to the board.
He said the development community would love it because they get to make decisions and then move on, but it doesn’t benefit the citizenry.
“It should be noted that the citizenry can only speak on this subject as to whether or not it meets the conditions or standards within the ordinance,” Robert Gough said.
“One of the tenants of the planning board is to facilitate and coordinate citizen engagement and participation in the planning process. Well, you’re basically taking that away from the citizenry through this major subdivision process. It doesn’t give the people the ability to comment or feel like they have a place that they can go and have a discussion,” Rusty Ingram said.
He said another duty “is to advise the governing board concerning the implementation of plans including but not limited to review and comment on all zoning text and map amendments as required by the general statute. So, this is implementation of plans. By putting this planning board in place, the Board of Aldermen is saying they’re looking to us to advise them and so I want to I think we should still hold that ability to advise the board of alderman, that’s what this board is all about.”
Attorney Bullock said she thought members of the public were frustrated after they provided public comment because the board responded by saying the application checked all the boxes of the ordinance.
“We have no choice but to make that approval, so in one way you could see the invitation of the public to comment on the subdivision process that they cannot influence as a bit of a misnomer and this is an opportunity proposed by staff to make the process more efficient,” she said.
She said someone can appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment if they have information that staff didn’t have or if a mistake was made.
Rusty Ingram said, “So basically what you’re saying is when the application is made and the decision is made. It doesn’t come to us, there’s no discussion of it in the open, in the public, you basically are notified that it’s done deal and then you have to appeal, and you have 30 days to appeal that.”
Chairman Brad Jefferson said citizens can complain, but there’s no stopping it if they want to do a subdivision and it checks all the wickets.
“If I own a piece of property and I want to do with it as I wanted to, this process works for me. But if I live next to a property and I maybe don’t want that to happen, I have no say in it. And you don’t have say in it now and you don’t have say in it with this text proposal change and that’s unfortunate,” he said.
Board Member Kellie Kiser said she has been on both sides of it and looked at the “amendment as being able to speed that train up” and was excited to see how this will move a little quicker.
The P & Z Board voted 5-1 to recommend that the Board of Aldermen approve the amendment.
During the April 8 BOA meeting, Alderman Rick Prill, also the mayor pro tem, said what is being proposed is if a developer comes into the city, submits an application for a subdivision and if it checks the boxes and the provisions in the land use ordinance, then there’s no reason for the application to go to the P & Z Board because all they can do is rubber stamp it, which is frustrating, but that’s how North Carolina has set up the process.
He said what is being proposed is that the applicant or developer doesn’t need to notify adjacent property owners of what’s being proposed other than posting a sign. If adjacent owners don’t reside on the property and don’t live in the area, they won’t see the sign and they’ll find out about it at a much later date. He wanted to see the requirement to notify adjacent owners of what’s proposed remain in the ordinance as well as posting a sign.
Director Rhue said, “North Carolina is a very property owner state and even if we send out those notifications, the frustration for all of us, especially our Planning and Zoning Board, is people get the notification and feel like they can share their comments, and again, they can’t put conditions on it if it meets the requirements in our ordinance.”
City Attorney Scott Davis said that nothing would prevent the city from mailing a notice to adjacent property owners that a decision will be made about a major subdivision plan by a certain date and time.
He said, the problem is, when an average property owner receives a notice, they may think that it’s so they can share their thoughts about the development and are upset when they’re told it’s a technical review. People are welcome to read the requirements in the land use ordinance and compare them with the proposed subdivision and then raise any deficiencies they find, and they would be happy to entertain it.
Rick Prill said he felt North Carolina has “significantly taken and is proceeding to take rights away from adjacent property owners.”
“As staff just indicated, North Carolina is a pro-development state, but at the same time what is also being unstated is that adjacent property owners have no rights,” he said.
Scott Davis said, “That’s correct.”
Alderman Prill said several residents talked about transparency and wanted to know more about what is happening. By maintaining the advance notice to adjoining property owners, it would at least provide the opportunity to comment before the administrative decision is made.
Davis suggested that they reflect on what Alderman Prill said between now and the public hearing.
On April 22, the city attorney said if the applicant meets the requirements in the land use ordinance and the only objection a person can have to the major subdivision plan is a technical violation of the ordinance, which could stop the approval. He later added, “Then the developer would have the opportunity to correct the deficiency and proceed with their subdivision.”
A public hearing for the proposed text amendment was held and Dr. David Harshman referred to the lengthy Petition of Citizens period that was held at the being of the meeting and said, “I’m sure the irony is not lost that the discussion really is about eliminating the opportunity for public comment that we just witnessed.”
“Public disclosure, comments, discussion, debate is a hallmark of the transparency that this board rightly values. The application process is a public document. Notifying the public of its existence certainly seems like a reasonable thing to do, particularly the adjacent landowners who are affected by a potential development.”
“As far as the developers are concerned, certainly Raleigh is doing a good job of protecting their interests and I think that your job should be looking out for the interests of our community, our neighbors and our neighborhood. And that part of that is giving the public an opportunity to come before the zoning board or this board and raise any concerns that they may have, whether they be technical or otherwise. I think that the idea that public scrutiny should be feared or suppressed or worried about is not a legitimate concern. I think that whatever concerns are raised can be simply addressed but it allows both parties to move forward. I don’t think that the goal should be to shorten the timeline for approval or to make it more convenient for developers at the expense of the public that we’re here to serve,” he said.
Attorney Davis said people can share their thoughts with the Planning and Zoning Board, but they will go unanswered unless the questions have to do with technical violations.
He said it doesn’t have anything to do with the idea of having houses in an area or wishing driveways were in a different location. They are legislative issues that are addressed when the land ordinance is modified. The rules of engagement are established in the ordinance, and they are legislative issues that can be considered anytime, but not when the design process is live. Once they are set, the Planning and Zoning Board is powerless to accommodate comments that are non-technical.
Lainy White said, “What I’m coming to understand is that it’s really a moot point to invite public comment after the fact on something that already has been approved.
She asked when the appropriate time is for people to engage in the process.
Scott Davis said people have an opportunity to get involved in the re-writing of the land use ordinance.
He said the P & Z Board’s purview is to stay abreast of issues, modern trends, citizen input along with the Board of Aldermen and the BOA can direct the Planning and Zoning Board to study something.
He noted that the landowner is required to post a sign on the property subject to development and a person with standing has 30 days from notice to appeal the decision.
John Thomas of Thomas Engineering, PA, said he was in favor of the proposed change and thought it would be great if it didn’t go before the Planning and Zoning Board. He said, “When we get before the board with a subdivision, let’s say even though it’s not a public hearing in cases the public’s allowed to speak. I’m not really against that, but I’m not in favor of it either because, like Scott said it is an administrative, technical process you go through, but we often find ourselves in a compromising situation if an adjacent property owner wants something. So, we talk about it, and we may or may not agree to it, but the board is of the opinion they may be able to turn the project down because of that and they really can’t.”
Eric Remington, an attorney with Ward and Smith said he has worked with staff on the proposal and spoke in support of it. He said it was a check the box situation where developers need to meet specific criteria and he thought the process was frustrating because the planning board has to hear what people say and then say they’re sorry because the technical requirements have been met and then they approve it. He said it adds time to the process.
Alderman Barbara Best and Alderman Hazel Royal said they thought adjacent property owners should be notified.
Alderman Rick Prill said he didn’t think property owners could do much at this point in time to have a meaningful impact on undeveloped parcels that abut their property unless there is an “overwhelming effort on the part of individual property owners in this state to get that get those laws changed and I don’t anticipate that will happen.”
He thought adjacent property owners should be given an opportunity to talk with staff who are technical experts. They may not get the answers they’re looking for but at least may get a better understanding of the process.
He asked the board to consider changing the language to include notification of adjacent property owners.
The Board of Aldermen met on May 13 and approved several test changes to the subdivision section of the land use ordinance that included the language about notifying adjacent property owners. They can be found towards the end of the meeting packet here.
One change removed the P & Z Board from the major subdivision approval process and gave the director of Development or a designee the authority to approve major subdivision plans.
The applicant will be required to post a sign that contains the words “Subdivision Decision” that contains contact information for anyone who has questions.
Another change removes the language that says, “the planning and zoning board shall approve the final plat unless it finds that the plat or the proposed subdivision fails to comply with one or more of the requirements of the ordinance, or that the final plat differs substantially from the plans and specifications approved in conjunction with the general plan approval that authorized the development of the subdivision.”
It appears that delegating authority to one person inside the administration is now an opaque decision-making process.
NewBernNow.com asked Attorney Scott Davis for a comment.
He said, “The notice to abutters and the posted sign provides contact information to review the proposed subdivision. And the subdivision documents are public records that anyone can review. So, anyone who’d like to review documents is more than welcome. As a practical matter, one person inside the city government has been reviewing and approving subdivision plans for decades. The only difference is that the plans don’t go to P & Z Board any longer, so folks with questions will go straight to staff for answers rather than going to P & Z.
David Harshman told us that he was grateful for the decision to leave in the requirement for adjacent property owners to be notified in advance of a decision by mail.
Director Jessica Rhue later told us, “State law says subdivision approvals must be approved if they meet local ordinances. Because of this, there is absolutely no reason to bring these projects through an advisory board that legally has no mechanism to deny the approval.”
The ordinance says the Board of Alderman “deems it advisable and in the public interest to effect the revisions.”
Food for thought
Is it in the public interest to remove a public body from the major subdivision approval process?
Related news:
The Ward Six Alderman seat remains vacant ten months after the last elected official resigned as reported here.
The Board of Aldermen called for public hearings for more text changes to the land use ordinance to be held on June 10, 2025. The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. on the second floor of City Hall in New Bern, NC, according to the May 13 meeting packet.
One of the proposed amendments “would increase the number of allowable lots that may result from a minor subdivision to a maximum of six lots, totaling six acres (one acre per lot).”
Another prosed amendment would “allow broader flexibility to allow Mobile Food Vendors as a temporary use in residential districts.”
Meeting minutes and agendas can be found here. Meeting videos can be found on the city’s Facebook page, City 3 TV and YouTube channel.
Editor’s note: Article updated on May 30 to include an additional comment from a resident.
By Wendy Card, editor. Send an email with questions or comments.