Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS24-04 & 05 Additional Items Submitted by Parties 3-24-2025 Public Comments and Items as Submitted 3-24-2025 The Planning Department staff do not attest to the truth or accuracy of the following documents. Each party bears the weight of explaining and certifying the validity of their own submitted items, as well as ensuring they are entered into evidence. 1 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Thursday, January 9, 2025 7:41 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan Subject:Online Form Submission #16499 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Maria Last Name Morgan Address 8234 Porters Crossing Way City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email klaft92@smml.net Please select the case for comment. PB Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I am apposed to both S24-04 and S24-05 on the bases that we need more affordable homes - individual houses - not condo's, townhomes and apartments. People want their own starter home with a yard. There are plenty apartments going up around here. What about small affordable starter homes? I also object based on the congestion having so many more 2 people and cars would create at the corner of Market and Porters Neck Road. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 3 Farrell, Robert From:jbaillar@gmail.com Sent:Wednesday, January 8, 2025 9:36 PM To:Farrell, Robert Cc:Erica Baillargeon Subject:Bayshore Townhomes - 8138 Market Street ** External Email: Do not click links, open aƩachments, or reply unƟl you know it is safe ** Hello Robert, I’m a resident in the Marsh Oaks community and my wife and I are very concerned about the proposed development at 8138 Market Street. I’m parƟcularly concerned about impact to our schooling system and traffic on Market Street. I previously opposed this development the last Ɵme it came to the Commissioners and remain opposed. I plan to be at the meeƟng tomorrow. Thank you, Joe Sent from my iPhone 4 Farrell, Robert From:Roth, Rebekah Sent:Wednesday, January 8, 2025 2:45 PM To:Farrell, Robert Subject:FW: Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street Attachments:Special Permits letter Market street.docx I let Mr. McLendon know that I would send you his comments so they could be included in the agenda packet. Rebekah Roth (she/her/hers) Planning & Land Use Director New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7465 p | (910) 798-7838 f rroth@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com From: Scott McLendon <csmclendon@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 2:33 PM To: Rivenbark, Bill <brivenbark@nhcgov.com>; Pierce LeAnn <lpierce@nhcgov.com>; Scalise, Dane <dscalise@nhcgov.com>; Zapple, Rob <rzapple@nhcgov.com>; Walker, Stephanie <steph.walker@nhcgov.com> Cc: Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> Subject: Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Good Afternoon NHC Commissioners. I hate to add yet another email to your inbox but feel compelled to again offer my comments regarding the subject Special Use Permit request that you will be considering in your upcoming February 3 meeting. As you may recall, this project was considered last January at which time the developer withdrew his request prior to a decision from you. The current request contains only a modest reduction in the number of dwelling units but still has a density of approximately 9 units/acre. Accordingly, the factual basis for my opposition remains the same: 1. Unacceptable impacts to an already overcrowded and unsafe section of Market Street; please carefully review the proposed traffic improvements. 2. Unacceptable increase in the number of school age children at our already overcrowded schools over what is allowed under the current R-15 zoning. 3. Incompatible with the surrounding land use which is primarily single family homes. 4. Unacceptable increase in the amount of impervious surfaces in the Pages Creek watershed which is already closed to shellfishing and is subject to copious amounts of stormwater runoff during storm events. 5. Contrary to the developers statements, this project will do nothing to alleviate the shortage of affordable housing in the area. My comments are more fully supported and explained in the attached document. Your consideration of these comments is greatly appreciated. 5 Sincerely, Scott McLendon 910 231 9275 9 • Schools will be even further strained – Porters Neck Elementary and Laney High School are already over-capacity • Further strain on nearby healthcare facilities • Negative impact on the overall single-family homes community ambience of the Porters Neck area. Comparing the original development plan presented at the NHC Board of Commissioners meeting on January 8, 2024 to the updated one being presented on January 9, 2025, the following is noted: Zoning Density: According to the new plan map details, the zoning density has changed from Medium Density to High Density for the R-15 Townhomes area. This isn’t a positive change! Number of Units The number of Townhomes has decreased from 348 to 304, but this is partially offset by the new inclusion of 62 apartment units. The total number of living units has decreased by only 12.6%, from 348 to 304 total. This small change won’t alleviate the concerns previously raised about the original plan. Residential Parking Spaces The original plan called for 786 resident parking spaces. The new plan calls for 582 resident parking spaces, a decrease of 204 spaces, or 26% less. 484 parking spaces for the 242 townhomes. 20 spaces for the 10 two-bedroom apartments. 78 spaces for the 52 one- bedroom apartments (1.5 spaces per one-bedroom unit, according to the specs). Total: 582 parking spaces for residents. The total number of resident autos could total 608 (2 cars for each of the 304 units), which would mean any overflow would need to park on the development’s street. Would there be room for this? Miscellaneous Only 6 parking spaces appear to be planned for the recreation/pool area. Is that realistic for potentially 400-600+ residents? There appears to be no parking spaces available for the four pickleball courts. The nearest parking is for the residents of the nearby three-story townhomes. Is this practical? The map legend indicates a pedestrian crossing location, but the map itself doesn’t appear to show where this is. 6 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, January 7, 2025 9:32 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan Subject:Online Form Submission #16466 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name S Last Name McLendon Address 604 Shoals Drive City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email csmclendon@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. PB Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Please consider this and my attached comments as strong opposition to the subject special use permit request. Although this project has less units than was considered last January, the project, if approved, will result in the placement of approximately 9 dwelling units/acre. This high density proposal will result in additional traffic on an already overcrowded and unsafe section of Market street, result in more students at already overcrowded schools, will do nothing to alleviate the shortage of affordable housing, and result in additional 7 degradation of Pages Creek, which is already closed to shellfishing and is subject to increasing amounts of sedimentation from urban runoff. In short, this project cannot be found to be in the Public Interest and must be rejected in favor of a more reasonable proposal. I note that although the Military Cut-Off extension has been open for about one year, traffic routinely backs up a considerable distance from the light at Porters Neck Road. Additionally, I urge you to look critically at the proposed improvements at Cypress Pond Way which the developers' traffic engineer stated are supposed to reduce queuing at the light at Porters Neck. Instead, it appears that anyone wishing to make a U-turn at Cypress Pond Way from the proposed development, will have to cross two lanes on Market Street and enter the left turn lane after it has already started. Finally, this proposal is not compatible with the surrounding single family residential development. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Rezoning letter Market street.docx File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Special Permits Request S24-04 & S24-05) – Request by Bayshore Townhomes LLC, for a special use permit to construct a 62 unit multi-family apartment complex with 1,800sqft of commercial space and to construct 242 townhomes on approximately 33.54 acres located at 8138 Market Street. As a long time, resident of the Bayshore community I am extremely concerned about the construction of 304 dwelling units (DU), resulting in approximately 9 DU per acre. In short, this proposal, if adopted, will generated more traffic thus requiring the installation of an additional traffic light Market Street, will adversely impact schools that are already overcrowded, is not compatible with the surrounding land use, and result in additional impervious surfaces and runoff to Pages Creek which has experienced significant declines in water quality due exactly to this type of high density residential and commercial development. My comments are more fully explained below. 1. Traffic. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that NC DOT prepared for the Hampstead Bypass/Extension of Military Cutoff, the Level of Service on Market Street up to and including Porters Neck is “F”, which represents the worst operating conditions of a roadway. This data is from 2014 and undoubtedly has only gotten worse as traffic routinely backs up from the light at Porters Neck Road to Marsh Oaks Drive. Although the improvements to Market Street and the recent opening of the Military Cutoff Extension may help to alleviate some of these transportation issues, it appears that Market Street and the intersections at Middle Sound Loop Road and Porters Neck Road will continue to operate at a Level of Service “F”; higher density development will only exacerbate this problem. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed for this proposal, the proposed development would result in an additional 2,300 trips/day to this already overcrowded and unsafe section of Market Street. In addition, this project will require another light at the entrance to the Food Lion Shopping Center thus resulting in yet another impediment to an already overcrowded roadway. It is unclear if the TIA considers the impact of this project cumulatively with the other existing and proposed projects in the area. For example, the recent rezoning that was approved along the Murrayville Road extension to the recently opened Military Cutoff extension, will add more traffic to Torchwood Blvd, Murrayville Road, and I - 140, and ultimately to Scotts Hill. 2. Pages Creek. Cape Fear Resource Conservation and Development along with the New Hanover County Soil and Water Conservation District is preparing a Pages Creek Watershed Restoration Plan. According to information that is provided on New Hanover County’s own website, Pages Creek has approximately 18% of its watershed covered with impervious surfaces, Pages Creek is impaired under the Clean Water Act and its shellfish waters are closed due to high bacterial levels from runoff, and has experienced an increase in flooding and a decrease in water quality over the past two decades (Pages Creek Watershed Restoration Plan – CFRC&D and NHCS&WCD). As a resident of Bayshore I can personally attest to the amount of sediment that enters the creek after moderate to heavy rainfall, as well as the warning signs regarding fecal coliform that are posted periodically at the community boat ramp. It is sad and extremely frustrating to watch as our Public Trust Resources are slowly degraded to satisfy the interests of the development community. It is an established fact that as the amount of impervious surfaces increase in a watershed, water quality in receiving waters declines. This project is located directly adjacent to Sweetwater Branch, a tributary to Pages Creek, and, according to the sketch plan provided at the public information meeting, most of the property will be covered in asphalt/concrete parking needed to accommodate the 304 DU and corresponding automobiles. This rezoning request, if approved, will only exacerbate the steady decline of Pages Creek. Although the watershed plan that was referenced earlier is in a draft stage, I strongly encourage the Planning Board to determine if this proposal is consistent with the goals outlined in that plan and to thoughtfully consider the impacts this project will have on Pages Creek and its receiving waters. 3. Schools. According to a recent article in the Port City Daily, (September 24, 2023) students are most concentrated in Porters Neck, Ogden, and the southern end of the county which are in areas experiencing rapid growth. According to this article, at the agenda review meeting, Superintendent Charles Foust pointed out Porters Neck Elementary is only three years old and already in need of mobile units. Laney has 2,214 students currently housed in a facility built for 1,887. In addition, the Facility Utilization Study commissioned from Cropper/McKibben noted that its recommendations, including disruptive redistricting, will only alleviate current overcrowding and are not aimed at accommodating potential future increases. (Port City Daily – September 24, 2023). This rezoning proposal has the potential to only exacerbate overcrowding in the local schools and the developer has no responsibility to address these impacts; that ultimately falls to the citizens of the county in the form of bonds or taxes. 4. Housing shortage/compatibility with surrounding land use. At the open house/public information meeting the developer’s representatives indicated that there is a housing shortage in New Hanover County; this statement should be qualified to indicate that there is a lack of affordable housing. If this is correct and the proposed townhomes will be high end, as indicated by the developer’s representatives, this proposal will do nothing to alleviate that problem. I encourage the Planning Board to not consider a housing shortage as a reason to approve the rezoning request. Finally, this proposal is completely inconsistent with the surrounding land use, which consists entirely of residential areas which are comprised entirely of single- family homes. In closing, there is absolutely no merit to the subject rezoning request. If approved it will bring more traffic, more adverse impacts to Pages Creek, adversely impact already overcrowded schools, and is completely incompatible with the surrounding land use. I understand that growth is inevitable, and I appreciate the difficult tasks the Planning Board faces in a rapidly growing community. However, that growth must take into account current and future projects and consider the impacts its decisions have on the overall public interest, including impacts to natural resources that draw people to the area in the first place. The current R-15 zoning would allow the property to be developed in a manner that would satisfy the developers need for a return on his investment while minimizing impacts to the citizens that reside in the area. 8 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, January 7, 2025 12:23 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan Subject:Online Form Submission #16438 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Ian Last Name Mackenzie Address 8230 Porters Crossing Way City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email ianmac32sr@hotmail.com Please select the case for comment. PB Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Although there are some positive changes in the updated plan being presented to the NHC Planning Board on January 9, 2025, the changes do not appear to be sufficient to adequately mitigate the risks and concerns raised at the January 8, 2024 NHC Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on the original plan. These included the following: • Considerable added traffic congestion towards the northern end of Market Street resulting from the addition of over 300 family units in this development 10 Unmitigated Problems exacerbated by this proposed development Significant traffic congestion from all the existing in-process and recently-completed developments in the close vicinity of North Market Street, Highway 17N and Sidbury Road. Major additional burden on area schools that are already considerably over-capacity Alternative for Consideration Use the 30 R-15 acres to construct 60-80 single family homes! [2-3 homes per acre]. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Rezoning Request (Z23-21) – Request by Bayshore Townhomes LLC, for a special use permit to construct a 62 unit multf-family apartment complex with 1,800sqft of commercial space and to construct 242 townhomes on approximately 33.54 acres located at 8138 Market Street. As a long tfme, resident of the Bayshore community I am extremely concerned about the constructfon of 304 dwelling units (DU), resultfng in approximately 9 DU per acre. In short, this proposal, if adopted, will generated more traffic thus requiring the installatfon of an additfonal traffic light Market Street, will adversely impact schools that are already overcrowded, is not compatfble with the surrounding land use, and result in additfonal impervious surfaces and runoff to Pages Creek which has experienced significant declines in water quality due exactly to this type of high density residentfal and commercial development. My comments are more fully explained below. 1. Traffic. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that NC DOT prepared for the Hampstead Bypass/Extension of Military Cutoff, the Level of Service on Market Street up to and including Porters Neck is “F”, which represents the worst operatfng conditfons of a roadway. This data is from 2014 and undoubtedly has only gotten worse as traffic routfnely backs up from the light at Porters Neck Road to Marsh Oaks Drive. Although the improvements to Market Street and the recent opening of the Military Cutoff Extension may help to alleviate some of these transportatfon issues, it appears that Market Street and the intersectfons at Middle Sound Loop Road and Porters Neck Road will contfnue to operate at a Level of Service “F”; higher density development will only exacerbate this problem. According to the Transportatfon Impact Analysis (TIA) completed for this proposal, the proposed development would result in an additfonal 2,300 trips/day to this already overcrowded and unsafe sectfon of Market Street. In additfon, this project will require another light at the entrance to the Food Lion Shopping Center thus resultfng in yet another impediment to an already overcrowded roadway. It is unclear if the TIA considers the impact of this project cumulatfvely with the other existfng and proposed projects in the area. For example, the recent rezoning that was approved along the Murrayville Road extension to the recently opened Military Cutoff extension, will add more traffic to Torchwood Blvd, Murrayville Road, and I- 140, and ultfmately to Scotts Hill. 2. Pages Creek. Cape Fear Resource Conservatfon and Development along with the New Hanover County Soil and Water Conservatfon District is preparing a Pages Creek Watershed Restoratfon Plan. According to informatfon that is provided on New Hanover County’s own website, Pages Creek has approximately 18% of its watershed covered with impervious surfaces, Pages Creek is impaired under the Clean Water Act and its shellfish waters are closed due to high bacterial levels from runoff, and has experienced an increase in flooding and a decrease in water quality over the past two decades (Pages Creek Watershed Restoratfon Plan – CFRC&D and NHCS&WCD). As a resident of Bayshore I can personally attest to the amount of sediment that enters the creek after moderate to heavy rainfall, as well as the warning signs regarding fecal coliform that are posted periodically at the community boat ramp. It is sad and extremely frustratfng to watch as our Public Trust Resources are slowly degraded to satfsfy the interests of the development community. It is an established fact that as the amount of impervious surfaces increase in a watershed, water quality in receiving waters declines. This project is located directly adjacent to Sweetwater Branch, a tributary to Pages Creek, and, according to the sketch plan provided at the public informatfon meetfng, most of the property will be covered in asphalt/concrete parking needed to accommodate the 304 DU and corresponding automobiles. This rezoning request, if approved, will only exacerbate the steady decline of Pages Creek. Although the watershed plan that was referenced earlier is in a draft stage, I strongly encourage the Planning Board to determine if this proposal is consistent with the goals outlined in that plan and to thoughtiully consider the impacts this project will have on Pages Creek and its receiving waters. 3. Schools. According to a recent artfcle in the Port City Daily, (September 24, 2023) students are most concentrated in Porters Neck, Ogden, and the southern end of the county which are in areas experiencing rapid growth. According to this artfcle, at the agenda review meetfng, Superintendent Charles Foust pointed out Porters Neck Elementary is only three years old and already in need of mobile units. Laney has 2,214 students currently housed in a facility built for 1,887. In additfon, the Facility Utflizatfon Study commissioned from Cropper/McKibben noted that its recommendatfons, including disruptfve redistrictfng, will only alleviate current overcrowding and are not aimed at accommodatfng potentfal future increases. (Port City Daily – September 24, 2023). This rezoning proposal has the potentfal to only exacerbate overcrowding in the local schools and the developer has no responsibility to address these impacts; that ultfmately falls to the citfzens of the county in the form of bonds or taxes. 4. Housing shortage/compatibility with surrounding land use. At the open house/public informatfon meetfng the developer’s representatfves indicated that there is a housing shortage in New Hanover County; this statement should be qualified to indicate that there is a lack of affordable housing. If this is correct and the proposed townhomes will be high end, as indicated by the developer’s representatfves, this proposal will do nothing to alleviate that problem. I encourage the Planning Board to not consider a housing shortage as a reason to approve the rezoning request. Finally, this proposal is completely inconsistent with the surrounding land use, which consists entfrely of residentfal areas which are comprised entfrely of single- family homes. In closing, there is absolutely no merit to the subject rezoning request. If approved it will bring more traffic, more adverse impacts to Pages Creek, adversely impact already overcrowded schools, and is completely incompatfble with the surrounding land use. I understand that growth is inevitable, and I appreciate the difficult tasks the Planning Board faces in a rapidly growing community. However, that growth must take into account current and future projects and consider the impacts its decisions have on the overall public interest, including impacts to natural resources that draw people to the area in the first place. The current R-15 zoning would allow the property to be developed in a manner that would satfsfy the developers need for a return on his investment while minimizing impacts to the citfzens that reside in the area. 1 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 20, 2025 9:49 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17218 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Sondra Last Name Vitols Address 8208 Bald Eagle LN City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email sevitols64@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC Commissioners. My name is Sondra Vitols and I live at 8208 Bald Eagle Lane in New Hanover County. I am strongly opposed to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood will negatively impact our community. The current infrastructure cannot support this 304 total unit development. This development also does NOTHING 2 to help the county’s affordable and workforce housing crisis. Finally, the use of special use permit is a blatant attempt to circumvent the significant community opposition which shut down their original, unsuccessful re-rezoning application last January 2024. Here are some specific concerns: • Traffic and Safety Risks. The traffic impact analysis was done in 2022. It does not account for the more than 1,200 units that have been built since then nor does it address the significant commercial development expansions that has happened Novant Medical Complex in Scott’s Hill or Food Lion shopping center at 8207 Market St. Increased traffic will create safety hazards and strain emergency response times. • Overcrowded Schools. Porter’s Neck schools are all over 100% capacity. The developer’s public response on 1/9/25 that this is the NHC School Board’s problem, not theirs, underscores the developer’s sole focus on profitability, without real concern for community impact or their future tenant’s children’s educational needs. • Affordable and workforce housing crisis. The developer has openly stated that no units will be utilized for affordable or workforce housing. The Workforce Housing Advisory Committee 2024 report describes an annual shortage of 2,902 units (rental and for sale) for New Hanover County. The county’s website only lists three projects that would create a total 238 affordable/workforce units from 2024 to 2025. The R- 15 parcel should be developed with affordable single family starter homes, not with another Type A apartment and luxury townhomes that do nothing to mitigate the affordable/workforce housing crisis in New Hanover County. • Community disintermediation. The special use permits application is a blatant attempt to circumvent significant community that shut down the initial re-zoning application for this project. At the 1/08/24 NHC Commissioner Board meeting, approximately two hundred residents attended and voiced their fact-based concerns and a member of the Planning Board publicly stated his regret at approving re-zoning for the project. Home owner and neighborhood associations are being forced to hire lawyers and experts to present the same fact-based concerns shared last year. Also, the Bayshore Townhome SUPs application was filed on December 18th 2024, just before a holiday period focused on family and travel. The notification was limited to properties within 510 ft of the project and the 3 SUP limits direct communication with the NHC Commissioners prior to February 3rd. meeting. This behavior only angers well- organized and resourced residents who vote in New Hanover County. This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you, Sondra Vitols Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Vitols Bayshore Townhouse Letter.pdf File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 4 Farrell, Robert From:sevitols64@gmail.com Sent:Friday, January 17, 2025 3:58 PM To:Farrell, Robert Cc:Roth, Rebekah Subject:FW: Opposition to Special Use Permits Application S24-04 & S25-05 ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Robert, I meant to cc in the original email. Have a good weekend, Sondra From: sevitols64@gmail.com <sevitols64@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 2:57 PM To: 'Roth, Rebekah' <rroth@nhcgov.com> Subject: Opposition to Special Use Permits Application S24-04 & S25-05 Dear Ms. Roth, My name is Sondra Vitols and I live at 8208 Bald Eagle Lane in New Hanover County. I am opposed to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because it is sƟll too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. The current infrastructure cannot support this 304 total unit development. Moreover, the traffic and school capacity impact studies are based on stale/flawed data. This development also does NOTHING to help the county’s affordable and workforce housing crisis. Finally, the use of special use permit is a blatant a Ʃempt to circumvent the significant community opposiƟon which shut down their original, unsuccessful re-rezoning applicaƟon last January 2024. Here are some specific concerns:  Stale TIA report. The traffic impact analysis was done in 2022. It does not account for the more than 1,200 units that have been built since then nor does it address the significant commercial development expansions that has happened Novant Medical Complex in ScoƩ’s Hill or Food Lion shopping center at 8207 Market St.  School capacity. Porter’s Neck schools are all over 100% capacity. The developer’s public response on 1/9/25 that this is the NHC School Board’s problem, not theirs, underscores the developer’s sole focus on profitability, without real concern for community impact or their future tenant’s children’s educaƟonal needs.  Ignores affordable and workforce housing crisis. The developer has openly stated that no units will be u Ɵlized for affordable or workforce housing. The Workforce Housing Advisory CommiƩee 2024 report describes an annual shortage of 2,902 units (rental and for sale) for New Hanover County. The county’s website only lists three projects that would create a total 238 affordable/workforce units from 2024 to 2025. The R-15 parcel should be developed with affordable single family starter homes, not with another Type A apartment and luxury townhomes that do nothing to miƟgate the affordable/workforce housing crisis in New Hanover County.  Community disintermediaƟon. The special use permits applicaƟon is a blatant aƩempt to circumvent significant community that shut down the iniƟal re-zoning applicaƟon for this project. At the 1/08/24 NHC Commissioner 5 Board meeƟng, approximately two hundred residents aƩended and voiced their fact-based concerns and a member of the Planning Board publicly stated his regret at approving re-zoning for the project. Special use permits require the NHC Commissioners to act as judges and severely restricted public input. Only material evidence can be considered in these hearings, so the developers’ technical consultants and reports usually beat out community concerns. The Home Owner AssociaƟons are being forced to hire experts to present the same fact-based concerns shared at 1/08/24 NHC Commissioner Board mee Ɵng. Also, the Bayshore Townhome SUPs applicaƟon was filed on December 18th 2024, just before a holiday period focused on family and travel. The noƟficaƟon was limited to properƟes within 510 Ō of the project and the SUP limits direct communicaƟon with the NHC Commissioners prior to February 3rd. meeƟng. This behavior only angers well- organized and resourced residents who vote in New Hanover County. Porters Neck and its residents fully support smart, holisƟc development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners 2024 vision plan or the goals that hopes to achieve. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request. Thank you, Sondra Vitols January 20, 2025 Dear NHC Commissioners. My name is Sondra Vitols and I live at 8208 Bald Eagle Lane in New Hanover County. I am strongly opposed to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood will negatively impact our community. The current infrastructure cannot support this 304 total unit development. This development also does NOTHING to help the county’s affordable and workforce housing crisis. Finally, the use of special use permit is a blatant attempt to circumvent the significant community opposition which shut down their original, unsuccessful re-rezoning application last January 2024. Here are some specific concerns: • Traffic and Safety Risks. The traffic impact analysis was done in 2022. It does not account for the more than 1,200 units that have been built since then nor does it address the significant commercial development expansions that has happened Novant Medical Complex in Scott’s Hill or Food Lion shopping center at 8207 Market St. Increased traffic will create safety hazards and strain emergency response times. • Overcrowded Schools. Porter’s Neck schools are all over 100% capacity. The developer’s public response on 1/9/25 that this is the NHC School Board’s problem, not theirs, underscores the developer’s sole focus on profitability, without real concern for community impact or their future tenant’s children’s educational needs. • Affordable and workforce housing crisis. The developer has openly stated that no units will be utilized for affordable or workforce housing. The Workforce Housing Advisory Committee 2024 report describes an annual shortage of 2,902 units (rental and for sale) for New Hanover County. The county’s website only lists three projects that would create a total 238 affordable/workforce units from 2024 to 2025. The R-15 parcel should be developed with affordable single family starter homes, not with another Type A apartment and luxury townhomes that do nothing to mitigate the affordable/workforce housing crisis in New Hanover County. • Community disintermediation. The special use permits application is a blatant attempt to circumvent significant community that shut down the initial re-zoning application for this project. At the 1/08/24 NHC Commissioner Board meeting, approximately two hundred residents attended and voiced their fact-based concerns and a member of the Planning Board publicly stated his regret at approving re-zoning for the project. Home owner and neighborhood associations are being forced to hire lawyers and experts to present the same fact-based concerns shared last year. Also, the Bayshore Townhome SUPs application was filed on December 18th 2024, just before a holiday period focused on family and travel. The notification was limited to properties within 510 ft of the project and the SUP limits direct communication with the NHC Commissioners prior to February 3rd. meeting. This behavior only angers well- organized and resourced residents who vote in New Hanover County. This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you, Sondra Vitols 6 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 20, 2025 10:45 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17221 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Sara Last Name Fischer Address 308 Marsh Oaks Dr City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email sarafischer19@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Sara Fischer and I reside at 308 Marsh Oaks Dr in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal 7 of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high- density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and 8 ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sara Fischer Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. 10 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 20, 2025 11:29 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17230 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Albert & Joanne Last Name Schroetel Address 161 Spring Creek Lane City Wlmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email downeast@bellsouth.net Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment My name is Albert Schroetel and as residents of Porters Neck (161 Spring Creek Lane) my wife and I are deeply opposed to the proposed Special Use Permits for approximately 33 acres at 8138 Market Street. This proposal, if adopted, will make these existing problems worse: • Extremely Heavy and dangerous traffic on Market Street • Inadequate storm water management • Overcrowding in Porters Neck schools 11 Dangerous Traffic: This proposed development will require residents to enter the already over-crowded Market Street and if they want to head towered Wilmington (which most will need to do) they will have to cross 3 lanes of traffic on Market Street in order to make a U-turn or force more traffic to the already congested Porters Neck Rd. intersection. This will result in even more traffic backups on Market St. and create more dangerous driving conditions. Damage to Pages Creek: The developer’s plan to mitigate potential water runoff through one existing retention pond is inadequate. This directly affects the residents and creek that borders the proposed development and ultimately runs into Pages Creek, which is already impaired and closed to shell fishing. Pages Creek was recently approved for restoration by New Hanover County for and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. This Special Use request, if approved, is counter to the restoration of the Creek will only exacerbate its steady decline. It is extremely frustrating to watch as our public natural resources in New Hanover County are slowly degraded to satisfy the interest of developers. Overcrowded Schools: The Porters Neck area has over 1,200 already approved or proposed housing units to be built in 2024. The Porters Neck school is already over capacity. This number will only increase with this proposed development and the developer has shown no credible plans for how even school buses could even access this development. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this rezoning request. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 12 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 20, 2025 11:33 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17231 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Kellie Last Name Shanahan Address 7750 Marymount City Wilmington State Nc Zip Code 28411 Email Kelshanahan@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment The northern part of the county, specifically 17 is too populated with enough apartments. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. 14 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 20, 2025 11:54 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17233 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Jessica Last Name Foley Address 7913 Bonaventure Drive City WILMINGTON State NC Zip Code 28411 Email jessica.b.foley3@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Jessica Foley, and I reside at 7913 Bonaventure Drive in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. 15 The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family 16 homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high- density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. 17 I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jessica Foley Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 18 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 20, 2025 12:53 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17238 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name rachel Last Name tirone Address 106 spring creek lane City wilmington State nc Zip Code 28411 Email Field not completed. Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Rachel Tirone, and I reside at 106 Spring Creek Lane in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the 19 overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R- 15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce 20 quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Tirone Family Upload supporting files 22 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 20, 2025 1:25 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17241 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Sean and Karen Last Name Murphy Address 8720 Champion Hills Drive City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email slmurphy99@aol.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment See supporting documentation. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. 23 File 1 Vote against Market St Development Sean and Karen Murphy.docx File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Dear NHC County Commissioners, Our names are Sean and Karen Murphy, and we reside at 8720 Champion Hills Dr in New Hanover County. We are wriƟng to express my strong opposiƟon to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposiƟon that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning applicaƟon in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R- 15 zoned area, and its negaƟve impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic CongesƟon & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including addiƟonal residenƟal units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased populaƟon density will lead to longer emergency response Ɵmes, puƫng residents at risk in criƟcal situaƟons. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate miƟgaƟon plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put exisƟng homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local uƟlity companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 addiƟonal units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeraƟon for essenƟal medicaƟons. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompaƟble with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residenƟal use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negaƟvely impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potenƟally forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise polluƟon, traffic congesƟon, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, mulƟ-level structures with no age restricƟons, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not aƩainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing soluƟons and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioriƟzes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposiƟon voiced at the January 9th public meeƟng by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon. Sincerely, Sean and Karen Murphy 24 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 20, 2025 2:47 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17247 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Sharon Last Name El Address 7320 Anaca Point Road, Wilmington, NC, USA City WILMINGTON State NC Zip Code 28411-9502 Email sharonelystudio@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment The public has already made known it's opposition to this project. Please remember that you represent the citizen's of this community and not just developers out for profit. Upload supporting files 25 If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 26 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 20, 2025 4:02 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17252 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Steve Last Name Miller Address 8116 Wade Hampton Ct. City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email novelwriter45@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear commissioner, We are once again confronted with the absurdity of a developer wanting to put more than 300 housing units on a very small lot. There will be virtually no green space. The electric utility grid will be overly stressed. The porters neck elementary School is already overcrowded and this project will only make it worse. 27 Traffic at the intersection of Porter's neck road and Market Street is already terrible and it will only be made worse. The safety issue is also of Paramount importance because for the vast majority of people who will want to go back toward Wilmington They will have to make a right turn and then very quickly go over three lanes of traffic to make a u-turn to go westward downtown Wilmington. A year ago, the commission was ready to vote to turn this project down in the developer took it off the table. It was bad then and it's just as bad if not worse now. In the development where I live, Forest Creek, a phase two is starting up very shortly and it does not need commission approval. There will be at least 50 new units all of which will come out onto Porter's neck road and head toward Market Street. The situation here in porters neck in regard to traffic is abysmal and this crazy project will only make it worse. Please reject the special use permit. Sincerely, Stephen G Miller, PhD Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 28 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 20, 2025 7:04 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17260 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Danya Last Name Dong Address 8215 Porters Crossing Way City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email dxd753357@icloud.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I oppose to the construction of the Bayshore townhouses. I’m tryna have keep the view I got in my backyard. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. 29 File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 30 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 12:50 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17282 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Steve Last Name Hamburger Address 8501 Emerald Dunes Road City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email shamburger09@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC County Commissioners, Our names are Steve Hamburger and MAry Melia, and we reside at 8501 Emerald Dunes Road in New Hanover County. We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. 31 The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R- 15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. 32 • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 33 Steve Hamburger & Mary Melia Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 34 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 1:43 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17286 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Kim Last Name Nelson Address 8703 Thornblade Circle City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email Field not completed. Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment My name is Kim Nelson and I live at 8703 Thornblade Circle and vote in New Hanover County. I am opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm water management cannot support this 304 units development. The traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies are based on old and flawed data. The special use permit is a blatant try by the developer to dodge the significant community 35 opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application last January 2024. Porters Neck and its residents fully support smart, holistic development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners 2024 vision plan or the goals that hopes to achieve. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request. Thank you. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 36 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 1:58 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17289 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Lauren Last Name Schweitzer Address 1009 butler National lane City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email lnalepa@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Ms. Rebekah Roth, Planning Director for NHC Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor 2/21/2025 Dear Mr. Farrell & Ms. Roth, My name is Lauren Schweitzer and I live at 1009 Butler National Lane, Wilmington NC 28411, and vote in New Hanover County. I am opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 37 Market Street because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm water management cannot support this 304 units development. The traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies are based on old and flawed data. The special use permit is a blatant try by the developer to dodge the significant community opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application last January 2024. My children have both attended PNES for the past few years and one is still there as a third grader. The school is too overcrowded and despite the staff’s efforts, the children are affected. There is no real music room, the art room with the kiln has been taken over as a classroom and the art class moved to a small room, and the morning drop off is a mess due to how many children have to arrive at the school. Every day the roundabout at Porters Neck Road and Edgewater Club Road is in gridlock. This problem is exacerbated by the massive third grade class that strains the ability to have a specials rotation due to how many children need to be taken care of. The school is doing the best it can but it is bursting at the seams and it is showing in the inability to meet all students’ needs because there are just too many to take care of. Porters Neck and its residents fully support smart, holistic development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners 2024 vision plan or the goals that hopes to achieve. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request. Thank you, Lauren Schweitzer Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. 39 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 3:43 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17300 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Roger Last Name Wells Address 1205 Congressional Ln City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email roger.wells.nc@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I am opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm water management cannot support this 304 unit development. The traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies are based on old and flawed data. The special use permit is a blatant try by the developer to dodge the significant community opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application last January 2024. 40 Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Bayshore Townhouse Development.docx File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. PLEASE FORWARD TO: January 21, 2025 Ms. Rebekah Roth, Planning Director for NHC Mr. Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor Dear Ms. Roth and Mr. Farrell, My name is Roger Wells and I live at 1205 Congressional Lane, Wilmington, NC 28411 and vote in New Hanover County. I am opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm water management cannot support this 304 unit development. The traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies are based on old and flawed data. The special use permit is a blatant try by the developer to dodge the significant community opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application last January 2024. The building of this community on Market Street will create additional traffic safety problems and hazards for community neighbors and commuters on Market Street. Porters Neck and its residents fully support smart, holistic development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners 2024 vision plan or the goals that the plan hopes to achieve. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request. Thank you, Roger F. Wells 41 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 5:14 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17316 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Cheryl Last Name Wolf Address 575 Windstar Lane City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email cherylwolf28411@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I object to both S24-04 and S24-05. I am opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm water management cannot support this 304 units development. The traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies are based on old and flawed data. The special use permit is a blatant try by the developer to dodge the significant community opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning 42 application last January 2024. Porters Neck and its residents fully support smart, holistic development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners 2024 vision plan or the goals that hopes to achieve. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 43 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 6:32 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17318 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Shirley Last Name Prince Address 157 Spring Creek Lane City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email sprince60@hotmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Ms. Rebekah Roth, Planning Director for NHC Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor January 21, 2025 Dear Mr. Farrell & Ms. Roth, My name is Shirley Prince and I live at 157 Spring Creek Lane, Wilmington NC 28411, United States and vote in New Hanover County. I am opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 44 Market Street because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm water management cannot support this 304 units development. The traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies are based on old and flawed data. The special use permit is a blatant try by the developer to dodge the significant community opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application last January 2024. Development in our area should be curtailed until our roads can support additional traffic and our area is provided county water and sewer. We are still dealing with a contaminated well and septic system even though we pay the same level of county taxes. Porters Neck and its residents fully support smart, holistic development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners 2024 vision plan or the goals that hopes to achieve. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request. Thank you, Shirley Prince Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 45 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, January 21, 2025 6:33 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17319 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Maria Last Name Sawyer Address 8701 Lincolnshire Lsne City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email Maria.sawyer621@yahoo.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Please do not go through with this Bayshore development. The infrastructure cannot support more cars. Does the aboard even look at the consequences of overdevelopment in this great city of Wilmingyon.? Upload supporting files 47 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 9:02 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17329 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Gregory Last Name Stone Address 1350 Village Cove Ct City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email ghstone99@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Ms. Rebekah Roth, Planning Director for NHC Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor Jan 22, 2025 Dear Mr. Farrell & Ms. Roth, My name is Greg Stone and I live at Porters Neck Village and vote in New Hanover County. I am opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm 48 water management cannot support this 304 units development. The traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies are based on old and flawed data. The special use permit is a blatant try by the developer to dodge the significant community opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application last January 2024. This attempted ‘end run’ does not provide for an open and transparent discussion of this proposal Porters Neck area residents fully support smart, holistic development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners 2024 vision plan or the goals that hopes to achieve. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request. Thank you, Gregory Stone Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 49 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 9:41 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17331 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Cheryll Last Name Schramm Address 8903 Mahogany Run City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email Lc1schramm@yahoo.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I attended the hearing when the Bayshore project was presented and denied by the Board based on how it would negatively affect our water and sewer systems, significantly increase traffic and, overload our overcrowded schools. These same issues would still be in place regardless of a special use permit. Upload supporting files 51 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:27 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17336 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Eric Last Name Wolf Address 575 WINDSTAR LN City WILMINGTON State NC Zip Code 28411-8401 Email ericwolf575@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative 52 impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high- density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is 53 meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 54 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:53 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17342 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Jeanne Last Name Gordon Address 1106 Tennwood Dr, Wilmington, NC 28411 City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411-8306 Email jl4108989@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Jeanne Gordon, and I reside at 1106 Tennwood Dr. in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. 55 The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high- density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. 56 • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters 57 Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Gordon Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 58 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:54 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17343 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Jeanne Last Name Gordon Address 1106 Tennwood Dr, Wilmington, NC 28411 City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411-8306 Email jl4108989@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment See previous comment. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. 60 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:58 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17345 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Barry Last Name Gritton Address 8206 Porters Crossing Way City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email bsgrit@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment We strongly oppose the multi unit project. Adding an additional 304 units will add an additional 600+ people to the area and will stress our resources. Please go back to the original plane to have single family homes. Upload supporting files 61 If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 NHC Barry.docx File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Barry Gritton and I reside at 8206 Porters Crossing Way in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R- 15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, [INSERT NAME] 62 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:59 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17346 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Lisa Last Name Gritton Address 8206 Porters Crossing Way City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email bsgrit@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment We strongly oppose the multi unit project. Adding an additional 304 units will add an additional 600+ people to the area and will stress our resources. Please go back to the original plane to have single family homes. Upload supporting files 63 If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 NHC Lisa.docx File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Lisa Gritton and I reside at 8206 Porters Crossing Way in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R- 15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, [INSERT NAME] 64 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 12:37 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17348 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name harold Last Name garrett Address 108 hallbrook farms circle City wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email halgar1@hotmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Far too dense for an r-15 zoned area..Was previously withdrawn due to overwhelming community opposition...Traffic congestion...study doesn't account for new developments in the area...storm water risks in area already prone to flooding. ..Strain on already taxed power grid..Further strain on emergency services Upload supporting files 65 If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 66 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 2:02 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17354 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Melissa Last Name Marciano Address 205 Beawood Rd City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email mstidd@mac.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Melissa Marciano and I reside at 205 Beawood Rd. in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. And as a mom and former NHCS teacher I am extremely concerned about the rapid development of our county housing stock, with 67 no concern for impact on school overcrowding. What is the commissioners plan to address this issue, along with those listed below? The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high- density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the 68 area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Melissa Marciano Upload supporting files 69 If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Response Market St. dev.docx File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Melissa Marciano and I reside at 205 Beawood Rd. in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R- 15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Melissa Marciano 70 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 3:01 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17359 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Bonnie Last Name Stone Address 1350 Village Cove Ct City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email bonniestone246@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Bonnie Stone, and I reside at 1350 Village Cove Ct in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal 71 of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high- density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. 72 This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Bonnie Stone Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. 74 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 3:07 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17360 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name John Last Name Nesbit Address 8722 New Forest Dr City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email TM15YanksCatcher@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Market St is inundated with traffic on a daily basis and is not designed to support the additional traffic that this project will generate. Constant adding developments without improving the infrastructure is unconscionable. If the infrastructure is not improved by the developer, the project should be voted down. In addition, Porters Neck Elementary School is filled past capacity even though it was built just a few years ago. The school cannot support additional students and learning will suffer by adding the students from this development. 76 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 3:34 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17362 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Ann Last Name Garrett Address 108 Hallbrook Farms Cir City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email ann_garrett_2000@yahoo.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment As a 22 year resident of Porters Neck, I've personally seen the gobbling up of green spaces in formerly well (or not) conceived expansion of housing projects. This one is by far one of the worst proposals to date. Packing in as many residences as possible in an island of green space surrounded by other residential communities.who will all feel the impact of this development. To what end does this proliferation of housing units and their impacts serve on infrastructure, environment, water usage and 77 conservation, flooding, traffic, education and most of all quality of life!!!! I do hope each of you will consider the impact on the current inhabitants, human and fauna, in your decision making process. I don't see any upside for the current residents, but only for the profiteers. You are accountable to your electorate, not a handful of developers. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 78 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 10:55 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17373 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Jennifer Last Name Mercier Address 225 Bayfield Drive City Wilmington State North Carolina Zip Code 28411 Email Jennmercier@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Jennifer Mercier, and I reside at 225 Bayfield Drive in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. 79 The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high- density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 80 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer Mercier Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. 82 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 10:56 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17374 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Jennifer Last Name Mercier Address 225 Bayfield Drive City Wilmington State North Carolina Zip Code 28411 Email Jennmercier@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Jennifer Mercier, and I reside at 225 Bayfield Drive in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. 83 The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high- density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 84 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer Mercier Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. 86 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2025 10:17 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17380 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Lana Last Name Nesbit Address 8722 New Forest Dr City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email Lanajnesbit@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Ms. Rebekah Roth, Planning Director for NHC Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor 1/23/2025 Dear Mr. Farrell & Ms. Roth, My name is Lana Nesbit and I live at 8722 New Forest Drive, Wilmington NC 28411 and vote in New Hanover County. I am opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because it is too high density for an R-15 zoned 87 neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm water management cannot support this 304 units development. The traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies are based on old and flawed data. The special use permit is a blatant try by the developer to dodge the significant community opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application last January 2024. Additionally the County Commission has not done enough to improve the infrastructure to accommodate the large increase in traffic not to mention the environmental concerns and proper sewage management in an already stressed flooding area. I am deeply concerned about the impact this will have on already overcrowded schools. Porters Neck and its residents fully support smart, holistic development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners 2024 vision plan or the goals that hopes to achieve. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request. Thank you, Lana Nesbit . Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Email_SHORT EX.pages File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 88 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2025 10:57 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17403 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Gregory Last Name Stone Address 1350 Village Cove Ct City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email ghstone99@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment The description above of S24-05 is WRONG ! It is not 3.21 acres - that acreage is applicable to S24-04 It is not B-2 - but instead is R-15 Hello ? Upload supporting files 90 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2025 2:26 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17417 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Rosemary Last Name Schmitt Address 337 Shackleford Drive City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email swinrose@aol.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Please see attached file. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. 91 File 1 COMMISSIONER EMAIL 1-23-25 OPPOSING BAYSHORE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT.docx File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 1/23/2025 New Hanover County Commissioners: My name is Rosemary Schmitt. I live at 337 Shackleford Drive within the Porter’s Pointe neighborhood in New Hanover County adjacent to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes development at 8138 Market Street. I am contacting you to express my concerns and strong opposition to the proposed development. I have many concerns about this proposed development. The most significant concern I have is with the potential for increased vehicle traffic from the proposed community through my Porter’s Pointe neighborhood. The developer has promised that vehicular traffic would be limited through our community on Bray’s Drive for “Emergency Use Only” access. After attending the Planning Commission meeting on January 9 th, it was stated that the second entry/exit on Brays Drive in the Porter’s Pointe neighborhood would be desirable for this new community for connectivity and not just for emergency access. It was also stated that our roads are not privately owned. It was stated that Porter’s Pointe roads are public roads that are privately maintained. During the discussion near the end of the meeting, The Planning Board members as well as the traffic engineer expressed that they “feel sorry for the people in Porters Pointe, but…”. In other words, Brays Drive will need to be accessed. The bottom line is that Porter’s Pointe, privately as a neighborhood, will be burdened to financially maintain the roads to be used by this new development. Not to mention that we will have to deal with the incredible increase in the traffic density that over 300 new residences (with likely two cars each) will contribute to our quiet neighborhood. The Porter’s Pointe community roads and not maintained by NCDOT. They are privately maintained by our HOA. A large portion of our HOA budget (and my quarterly fees) is for the repairs and periodic re-surfacing of our roads. The increased initial heavy construction and eventual continuous residential traffic would undoubtedly cause significant wear and tear and damage to our private roads, thus creating an incredible undue financial burden on the residents of the Porter’s Pointe neighborhood. Currently making a left-hand turn exiting our community onto Porters Neck Road is difficult at best and can take up to 5-10 minutes with the current traffic on Porters Neck Road coming from all the developments and traffic that surround our 58-home community. When I moved into my quiet Porter’s Pointe community in 2019, I was under the impression that my neighborhood was situated next to a tree farm. This proposed development has totally upended my peace of mind and that of my neighbors too. If this development is approved, I will have to move…period. I would ask you one simple question as you consider this application…if you lived in the Porter’s Pointe community, would you want that dense traffic access to go through your community….and in addition, have to pay for the road maintenance of all the road use by an outside development? I need to mention one other concern I have. The Porter’s Pointe HOA board has aligned themselves with the developers and has voted to give our community approval of this development. They have expressed the idea that this is our best chance to have only emergency access with a development on that property. The developers have promised emergency only access to our neighborhood, but that can’t be promised. After attending the Planning Board meeting that was quite clear. Many community members, including myself, feel “sold out” by this approval. I do not support the Porter’s Pointe HOA Board approval for this proposed development. I would also like to express some additional concerns I have regarding this proposed development. Our Porter’s Neck community as a whole is dismayed about the level of increased development in the Porter’s Neck region of the county. The number of townhomes and multi-family units being proposed in this development is too dense. In addition, the proposed development (and traffic impact study, which is outdated and reflects another area of the county) doesn’t take into account or factor in the number of apartments and other developments already under construction in our area of the county and what their impact will be in addition to this proposed development on the Porters Neck community. The Porter’s Neck community as a whole is raising the following concerns about this proposed development which I wholeheartedly support: This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposiƟon that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning applicaƟon in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negaƟve impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic CongesƟon & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including addiƟonal residenƟal units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased populaƟon density will lead to longer emergency response Ɵmes, puƫng residents at risk in criƟcal situaƟons. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate miƟgaƟon plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put exisƟng homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local uƟlity companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 addiƟonal units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeraƟon for essenƟal medicaƟons. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompaƟble with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residenƟal use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negaƟvely impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potenƟally forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise polluƟon, traffic congesƟon, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, mulƟ-level structures with no age restricƟons, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at$500,000 or more—are not aƩainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing soluƟons and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioriƟzes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposiƟon voiced at the January 9th public meeƟng by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. I sincerely hope you will consider my concerns and strong opposition as you prepare for your action on this proposed development. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Respectfully, Rosemary Schmitt 337 Shackleford Drive Wilmington, NC 28411 910-431-8445 rosemaryschmitt826@gmail.com 92 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Thursday, January 23, 2025 6:02 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17431 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Renee and Rod Last Name Ertischek Address 539 Windstar Lane City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email reneeertischek@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Ms. Rebekah Roth, Planning Director for NHC
Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor
 [INSERT DATE] Dear Mr. Farrell & Ms. Roth, Our names are Renee and Rod Ertischek and we live at 539 Windstar Lane and vote in New Hanover County. WE are opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm 93 water management cannot support this 304 units development. The traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies are based on old and flawed data. The special use permit is a blatant try by the developer to dodge the significant community opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application last January 2024. Porters Neck and its residents fully support smart, holistic development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners 2024 vision plan or the goals that hopes to achieve.
 We urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request.
 Thank you, Renée and Rod Ertischek Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 94 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, January 24, 2025 12:18 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17446 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Cathy Last Name Fisher Address 8418 Emerald Dunes Rd City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email cfisher0901@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I am opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project for Multi- Family in B-2 as well as the Additional Dwelling Allowance at 8138 Market Street. This is not a case of Not In My Backyard, I oppose it because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm water management cannot support this 304 units development. NEW traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies are needed as the current studies are based on old and flawed data. The special 95 use permit is a blatant try by the developer to dodge the significant community opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application last January 2024. Porters Neck and its residents fully support smart, holistic development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners 2024 vision plan or the goals that hopes to achieve.
 I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request.
 Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 96 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Saturday, January 25, 2025 8:38 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17487 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Seymour Last Name Pizette Address 7919 Blue Heron Dr, Apt 204 City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email pizetteseymour2@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear Mr. Farrell & Ms. Roth, My name is Seymour Pizette and I live at 7919 Blue Heron Dr, Wilmington and vote in New Hanover County. I am opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because it is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm water management cannot support this 304 units development. The traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies are based on old and flawed data. The special use permit is a 97 blatant try by the developer to dodge the significant community opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application last January 2024. Porters Neck and its residents fully support smart, holistic development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners 2024 vision plan or the goals that hopes to achieve. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request. Thank you, Seymour Pizette Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 98 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2025 12:36 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17511 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Theodore Last Name Davis Address 509 Marsh Oaks Dr City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411-8741 Email tedd_e4@hotmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment 1 / 2 Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Theodore Davisand I reside at 509 Marsh Oaks Dr. Wilmington NC 28411 in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks 99 to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high- density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from 100 the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 2 / 2 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely Theodore Davis Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. 101 File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 102 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2025 12:38 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17512 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Theodore Last Name Davis Address 509 Marsh Oaks Dr City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411-8741 Email tedd_e4@hotmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment 1 / 2 Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Theodore Davis, and I reside at 509 Marsh .Oaks Dr. Wilmington NC 28411 in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks 103 to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high- density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from 104 the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 2 / 2 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Theodore Davis Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. 106 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2025 12:42 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17513 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Karly Last Name Shanahan Address 220 Bayfield drive City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email Karly.shanahan@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment 17 is way too crowded for this big of a project Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. 108 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Sunday, January 26, 2025 2:52 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17517 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name BRADLEY Last Name ERBES Address 313 Folly Island Court City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email bjerbes@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I oppose the proposed development. See the attached supporting file. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. 109 File 1 Special Use Permit S24-05 Opposition Comment.docx File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. January 26, 2025 Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Bradley J. Erbes. My family and I reside in the Marsh Oaks development at 313 Folly Island Court, Wilmington, NC 28411, New Hanover County. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. I believe that this project does meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. I believe that the developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character should not be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger the large number of medically vulnerable residents in this area who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is truly incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. I believe that this project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units, expected to be priced at $500,000 or more, are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion I believe that this project is not needed, not desired and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Bradley J. Erbes Resident, Marsh Oaks Development 110 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 27, 2025 11:26 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17565 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name MONICA Last Name ROLQUIN Address 8205 WINDING CREEK CIR City WILMINGTON State NC Zip Code 28411 Email MONICA@LUXURYREALESTATENC.COM Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Monica Rolquin and I reside at 8205 Winding Creek Circle, in the Porters Neck Area of Wilmington. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street, which is within a 1 mile radius of my residence. This project does not meet the four criteria required for 111 approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R- 15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria: 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion and Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater and Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain and Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes 112 in this space will negatively impact property values. • Porters Neck Elementary School is already 106 students beyond its capacity and has had to install 2 portable classrooms on site to accommodate the extra students. If approved, this project is estimated to have 57 extra school children than it would have under the R-15 zoning. The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life for current residents. • Access to Brays Dr. would lead to more hazardous left hand turns onto Porters Neck Rd. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. 113 I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Monica Rolquin Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 114 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 27, 2025 1:29 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17580 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Elizabeth Last Name Gaylord Address 8221 Winding Creek Cir City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email elizabethkinggaylord@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I oppose this development. The traffic would not be sustainable for the area. The schools would also not be able to sustain. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. 116 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 27, 2025 1:52 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17581 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Marcia Last Name Hart Address 8120 Barstow Ln City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email Field not completed. Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment This project is a terrible idea and will only benefit the builder. Traffic on Market is already horrible and on Porters Neck as well. The elementary school is over capacity and can’t effectively handle even more students. Please do not allow the continuing efforts by builders to take every bit of land in the Wilmington area and turn it into a profit at the expense and quality if life of the citizens. 118 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 27, 2025 2:55 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17592 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Cynthia Last Name Riley Address 121 Kedleton Ct City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email cindyriley300@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment There are already too many autos on the streets around Porter's Neck - the traffic backs up every morning. Do not change the zoning to allow for these multi-family units as the infrastructure cannot handle it! Upload supporting files 120 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 27, 2025 4:51 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17614 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Amanda Last Name Goodwin Address 8221 City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email houstonamanda@hotmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I oppose this building project. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. 122 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Monday, January 27, 2025 6:22 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17619 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Ellie Last Name Dale Address 1013 Cranford dr City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email elliedale64@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC Commissioners, My name is Ellie Dale, and I live at 1013 Cranford dr, Wilmington NC 28411 in New Hanover County. I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the required criteria for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and will negatively impact our community. Key Concerns: • Traffic & Safety Risks: The traffic impact study is outdated 123 and does not reflect current congestion from new developments. Increased traffic will create safety hazards and strain emergency response times. • Power Grid Strain: Duke Energy has struggled with frequent outages in this area. Adding 304 units will increase the risk of power failures, endangering residents who rely on medical equipment like oxygen machines. • Overcrowded Schools & Public Services: Local schools are already at capacity, and this project will further burden essential services. • Not in Line with R-15 Zoning: This area is meant for low- density housing, and high-density townhomes will harm property values and disrupt neighborhood character. • Misleading Affordable Housing Claims: The developer has confirmed no units will be designated for affordable housing, and the expected price point of $500,000+ is far out of reach for middle-income families. This project was already rejected due to overwhelming opposition, and the developer is now using the SUP process to bypass community input. I urge you to reject this project and protect the safety, character, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ellie Dale Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 124 Farrell, Robert From:tom.burrell@verizon.net Sent:Monday, January 27, 2025 10:35 PM To:Roth, Rebekah; Farrell, Robert Subject:Bayshore Special Use Permits Attachments:Bayshore Letter.pdf ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Ms. Roth and Mr. Farrell – Please see the attached letter that I hope can be entered into the record of the forthcoming hearing on the Bayshore project. Thank you. Tom Burrell 703-927-7580 Thomas (Tom) Burrell 8124 Blue Heron Drive East, Apartment 304 Wilmington, North Carolina 21488 January 27, 2025 Ms. Rebekah Roth, Planning Director New Hanover County 230 Government Center Drive Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 Mr. Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor New Hanover County 230 Government Center Drive Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 Dear Mr. Farrell & Ms. Roth, My name is Tom Burrell, and I live at 8124 Blue Heron Drive East, Wilmington. I vote in New Hanover County. I am opposed to the Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street because I believe the developer is using the special use permit to circumvent the significant community opposition which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application in January 2024. The density of the proposed development is still far too high for an R-15 zoned neighborhood, especially given the fact the developer is simply trying to maximize density to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhoods and the significant transportation issues the development will cause. The roads, schools, and storm water management systems impacted by this development will not support this 304 residential unit + commercial development. The traffic, school capacity, and storm water impact studies are based on old and flawed data. I fully support smart, holistic development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. This proposal is far from that! The Bayshore Townhome project is not aligned with the NHC Commissioner’s 2024 vision plan or the goals that hopes to achieve. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to deny these requests for Special Use Permits. Thank you, 1 Farrell, Robert From:Rosemary Schmitt <rosemaryschmitt826@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2025 3:10 PM To:Farrell, Robert Subject:Bayshore Townhome Development ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Mr. Farrell: My name is Rosemary Schmitt. I live at 337 Shackleford Drive within the Porter’s Pointe neighborhood in New Hanover County adjacent to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes development at 8138 Market Street. I live and vote in New Hanover County. I am contacting you to express my concerns and strong opposition to the proposed development. Among the many concerns I have about this proposed development, the most significant concern I have is the potential for increased vehicle traffic from the proposed community through my Porter’s Pointe neighborhood. The developer has promised our HOA that vehicular traffic would be limited to “Emergency Use Only” access on Brays Drive. After attending the Planning Commission meeting on January 9 th, it was clearly stated that the second entry/exit on Brays Drive in the Porter’s Pointe neighborhood would be desirable for this new community for connectivity and not just for emergency access. It was also stated that our roads are not privately owned, but are public roads that are privately maintained. The bottom line is that Porter’s Pointe, privately as a neighborhood, will be burdened to financially maintain the roads to be used by this new development, as well as having to deal with the incredible increase in traffic density that over 300 new residences (with likely two cars each, so ~ 600 cars) will contribute to our quiet neighborhood and roads. I am also strongly opposed to the proposed development for additional reasons. The proposed development is still too high density for an R-15 zoned neighborhood. Our current roads, schools and storm water management cannot support this 304 unit development. Multiple developments in the area are also currently under construction and are not being factored into the traffic, school capacity and storm water impacts we will face as a community. The traffic, school capacity and storm water impact studies the developer has presented are based on old and flawed data. In addition, the special use permit process being pursued here is a blatant attempt by the developer and their attorney to silence the significant community opposition to this development which shut down their first failed re-rezoning application last January 2024. 2 Porters Neck and its residents fully support development that will enhance our area and help address NHC’s affordable housing needs. The Bayshore Townhome project is not in alignment with the NHC Commissioners’ 2024 vision plan or the goals that it hopes to achieve. I strongly urge the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to DENY this Special Use Permits request. Respectfully, Rosemary Schmitt 337 Shackleford Drive Wilmington, NC 28411 910-431-8445 rosemaryschmitt826@gmail.com 3 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, January 28, 2025 9:42 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17665 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Chesley Last Name White Address 8285 Winding Creek Circle City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email Field not completed. Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I oppose the case S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance. This type of density discussed in this project would bring additional traffic to Porters Neck Road which is already crowded, and children to Porters Neck Elementary which I don't believe that school could support. Porters Neck Elementary already had to add two trailers this year to accommodate additional classrooms. Have they been polled in seeing if they could support this type of density? 4 I am all for development, and understand the developer wants max density to maximize profits, but I don't believe it could be properly supported in this location. The area is more suited for single family residential development vs. multifamily given it's constraints. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 5 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2025 10:41 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17780 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name William Last Name Doran Address 8123 Blue Heron Drive East. #212 City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email 1stltdoran@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Project, if approved, shall result in increased traffic in an already congested area and create a difficult turnabout for those necessarily exiting the area intending to head south on Market Street. Also proposed travel through an existing residential area shall adversely affect the desirability of that neighborhood and its he value of property therein. Upload supporting files 7 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2025 12:56 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17795 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Cynthia Last Name DeGregory Address 8125 Barstow Ln City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411-1100 Email cin.degreg@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear NHC County Commissioners, My name is Cynthia DeGregory, and I reside at 8125 Barstow Lane in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal 8 of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) • Traffic Congestion & Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. • Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. • Stormwater & Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. • Power Grid Strain & Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) • This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high- density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. • The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. • Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce quality of life fo r current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) • The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and 9 ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) • The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. • With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well- being, and ignores the clear stance of local residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 9th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Cynthia DeGregory Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. 11 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, January 29, 2025 2:20 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17805 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Samuel Last Name Barber Address 8238 PORTERS CROSSING WAY City WILMINGTON State NC Zip Code 28411 Email PSUSAM76@GMAIL.COM Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-05 - Bayshore Townhomes Additional Dwelling Allowance What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear Members of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Special Use Permit application by Bayshore Townhomes LLC for the development of 242 townhomes in the 8100 block of Market Street, within the R-15 Residential District. I urge you to deny this permit based on several critical concerns that I believe would detrimentally affect our community. 12 Zoning Incompatibility: The R-15 zoning district is explicitly designed to preserve a low-density, quiet, and recreational residential environment. Introducing such a high-density development fundamentally contradicts the zoning's purpose, which is to serve as a buffer between varying residential densities. The proposed townhomes will significantly alter the neighborhood's character, directly contravening the zoning ordinance's intent. Impact on Neighborhoods: The project site is surrounded by established, low-density neighborhoods including Marsh Oaks, Porters Crossing, and Porters Points. This development would impose undue strain on these areas by increasing noise, traffic, and reducing the overall quality of life for current residents. The aesthetic and environmental integrity of these neighborhoods would be compromised. Infrastructure Overload: • Schools: Our local schools are already at or beyond capacity. The influx of new families from 242 townhomes would exacerbate this issue without corresponding plans for educational infrastructure expansion. • Traffic: Market Street currently suffers from congestion levels that are above capacity. Adding hundreds of new residents will only intensify this issue, leading to increased travel times, safety risks, and further degradation of our road infrastructure. There seems to be no clear plan in the proposal to mitigate these effects. Environmental and Quality of Life Concerns: The development would likely lead to the loss of natural landscapes, increased runoff, and potential environmental degradation. The quiet, recreational nature of the R-15 district would be compromised, affecting not just property values but also the health and wellbeing of the community. Conclusion: The Special Use Permit process should ensure that any development is in harmony with the existing community structure and zoning regulations. This project, however, appears to be more aligned with profit motives rather than community enhancement or compliance with the established zoning laws. I strongly urge the Commissioners to consider the long-term implications for our community and deny the Special Use Permit for this development. Thank you for considering this letter. I trust that the Board will act in the best interest of New Hanover County's residents by 13 protecting the integrity of our zoning regulations and community welfare. Sincerely, Samuel Barber 8238 Porters Crossing Way Wilmington, NC 28411 Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 14 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Thursday, January 30, 2025 9:05 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #17855 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Susan Last Name Roscher Address 8117 Blue Heron Dr. E #201 City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email Roscher71@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Dear Mr. Farrell and Ms. Roth, As a voting resident of NH County for 32 years, I am asking you both to REJECT the Special Permit to Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. The population density along Market St. is a driving nightmare as it is now. It is unimaginable how our infrasture--besides traffic, storm water schools and currents roads can withstand ANOTHER 304 housing units ( with a potential of another 600 residents, at least) in this area. The developer already had significant community opposition to their 15 re-zoning efforts. A special use permit is just another way to get around what the community wants ! Developers make a lot of money building the structures then leave the area and never face the consequences of just massive building projects in already densely populated areas. If you say NOT HERE to the developers, they will find someother area to invade. They will get their way eventually but please let it be NOT HERE. Porters Neck residents completely support intelligent, affordable housing needs in a sustainable, manageable manner which would NOT have deleterious effects to our community. I urge the New Hanover County Board of Comissioners to REJECT this request for a Special Use Permit. Thank you all for what you do to protect, yet promote our beloved community. Susan Roscher Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 16 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, January 31, 2025 9:18 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #18002 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Mary Ann Last Name Parks Address 8123 Blue Heron Dr. E. Apt. B 104 City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email Marybelle42@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment Traffic concerns. Lack of adequate info structure to support the new community-already classroom trailers used at schools, impact on the ground and land for the footprint of the community, building on flood plain . Just because there is a plot of land, do we. Need to cover every inch? And please consider the animal and plant habitat that is available on that land! Upload supporting files 18 Farrell, Robert From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, January 31, 2025 11:17 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Doss, Amy; Dickerson, Zachary; Beil, Ryan; Watson, McCabe Subject:Online Form Submission #18016 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Will Last Name Burke Address 635 Belhaven Dr City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28411 Email will.burke.bes@gmail.com Please select the case for comment. BOC Meeting - S24-04 - Bayshore Townhomes Multi-Family in B-2 What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment While I generally support adding housing to Wilmington/New Hanover county, such development cannot be allowed without significant improvements to the infrastructure of our community. PNES is already at capacity and the roads are often congested. I strongly oppose this development without a funded plan to expand infrastructure and services for this community. 20 Farrell, Robert From:Crowell, Kym Sent:Monday, February 3, 2025 10:00 AM To:Farrell, Robert Subject:FW: Bayshore Townhomes (304 units) PLEASE SAY NO FYI… sent last Friday… Kym Crowell Clerk To The Board New Hanover County - County Commissioners (910) 798-7143 p | (910) 798-7808 f KCrowell@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 175 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com From: Janelle Reeves <Janelle.Reeves@ppd.com> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 1:43 PM To: County Commissioners <D_CCOM_CountyCommissioners@nhcgov.com> Subject: Bayshore Townhomes (304 units) PLEASE SAY NO ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Commissioners- I am a Porters Crossing Homeowner, 13+ years who would be directly impacted by the approval of Bayshore Townhomes in my backyard. PLEASE SAY NO! Children’s safety (our neighborhood has many children under 10 who play at our neighborhood club house, playground, tennis court, pool that directly looks at this proposed area), neighborhood liability, trespassing/crime, school overcrowding , these are all issues that will directly impact: Porters Crossing, Porters Pointe, Marsh Oaks, Lantana Road, Portes Neck Road who all back up directly to this property. Not to mention the surrounding Portes Neck neighborhoods directly oƯ Porters Neck Road. As our county commissioner, you should put the residents first when it comes to all these new approvals and developers rezoning request/approvals. Our area does not need another complex unit as few are currently under construction. This specific developer had a loop hole exception (something was missed/forgotten, due to a board commissioner’s error on the first attempt) and this should remain a NO from our commissioner panel. PLEASE SAY NO and STOP overdeveloping Porters Neck. Continuously approving these proposed developments are destroying our area and allowing overcrowding of childcare/education, traƯic, grocery stores, restaurants the list goes on. The downside of your approval: stressing sewer systems/water supply, maintenance-c ongestion/traƯic on the roadways (NCDOT has yet to finish construction on Market Street (3+ years in the area now) and causing more deforestation, displacement of wildlife and the overall appeal our area has had for years. PLEASE think of the future and current residents who live in this area! Enough is enough on approvals of apartments and townhome complexes, let’s approve smarter for this area and what we lack not what we already have, an overflow abundance of 3+ story unit brick buildings replacing nature. Porters Neck homeowners are furious with the commission’s decision to continue to allow another “tight fit, squeezed in” complex in our area. Our voices do not matter as they should! We are the ones’ impacted not the developer. Approval in our area over the past 5 years within 4.7 miles radius:  Middle Sound West (288 units) * newly completed 21  Edgewater Villas (44 units, Senior Living) * under review  Alexander Road (253+ units) * Just approved  8704 Market Street (Inspire Futch Creek, 293 units + commercial) * approved  Canopy Point (72 units, Senior Living) * approved  Nixon/Ruth Ave Apartments (144 units) * approved  Beaumont Oaks at Porters Neck (204 units) * completed  The Reserve at Beaumont Oaks (34 units divided by 17 duplex buildings) * completed  Amberleigh South Apartments (287 units) * completed  The Park at Three Oaks Apartments ( 2 new, 3 story buildings added)  Bayshore Townhomes (304 units) ** proposed by developer, rejected/withdrawn last year as it should PLEASE SAY NO Please take the residence and children of the Ogden, Porters Neck area into consideration. Thank you~ Janelle Reeves This email transmission and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this transmission to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return email and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. 22 Farrell, Robert From:Christy Mason <crm83131@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 19, 2025 5:13 PM To:Roth, Rebekah Cc:McDonnell, Dylan; Norris, Virginia; Farrell, Robert; County Commissioners; Smith, Josh; Sara Fischer; Kevin Foley; Courtney Corriher; Kristen Butler; Elizabeth Gray; Liz Oblinger; Coudriet, Chris; boardmembersemail@nhcs.net; Erica (Henry) Baillargeon; Trent Mason; jbaillar@gmail.com; grshaver86@gmail.com; Janet Cronemiller; Daniel Yadlosky; Jake Greer; tldavis509@gmail.com; tedd_e4@hotmail.com; Ashley Perry; hmz819 @hotmail.com; jmurray0731@gmail.com; Loeper, Jessica; susannahlparker@yahoo.com; sevitols64@gmail.com; Mary Vogelsong; Steve Hamburger; Stephanie Walker; Josie Barnhart; Hugh McManus; Pat Bradford; stephanie.kraybill2@nhcs.net; Pete.Wildeboer@nhcs.net; Melissa.Mason@nhcs.net; James Dixon; ash530@gmail.com; Lyndsey Morisey; brad@luminagem.com; annaclark@bellsouth.net; Johnathan Wright; Trish Nicholson; Gretchen Baumgartner; nikki.bascome@yahoo.com; County Commissioners; jess2643@icloud.com; Amanda Mountford; ashley walter; Wilkins411 @gmail.com; Konni J; jpetroff@cldeng.com; cjtarrant14@gmail.com; hansen@mwmrealestate.com; pavery@mckinleybuilding.com; jclarkhipp@gmail.com; hine@pbcdesignbuild.com; cameron@wilmhba.org; dawn.brinson@nhcs.net; christopher.barnes@nhcs.net; patrice.faison@nhcs.net; ashley.sutton@nhcs.net; julie.varnam@nhcs.net; bill.saffo@wilmingtonnc.gov; jessekmorman@gmail.com; lslonneberg@yahoo.com; Steph Sheehan; Mindy Yates; robert keith; connettjs@gmail.com; Julie Hurley; Brittanyking1@yahoo.com; Lisa Watts; lskiba.philips@gmail.com; Tim@merrick4schools.com; justicefornhcschools@gmail.com; info@perryforeducation.com; courtneymotz23@gmail.com; Melissa Hemrick; Dickerson, Zachary; Eddie J Anderson; nktlutz@outlook.com; Amanda Walker; Kassie Rempel Subject:Re: Laney High School Information Attachments:NHC Elementary Forecast 27-28.png; NHC Middle Forecase 27-28.png; NHC High Forecast 27-28.png ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** I hope that you all are having a great week! Since there was uncertainty on calculating retroactive units for Laney, I went ahead and manually compiled the Laney numbers based on all of the rezonings sent for 2023 and 2024. Noting, in 2023, rezonings made of 2/3 of residential approvals (subdivision plots, etc.) So, the student projections here are an underestimate. I added Moore’s Crossing to the 2024 list (115 residential units.) Perhaps, it was omitted because it was mixed use. Here are the 2023 and 2024 rezonings districted for Laney High: 2023  Z23-02 – Swartville Rd. – maximum 624 units (this was a straight rezoning from R-20 to R-7 and did not include a concept plan so unit type was not identified)  Z23-12 – The Oasis at Blue Clay & Holly Shelter – 521 units (combination of multi-family, single family, and single family attached) 23  Z23-19 – Legacy Landing Phase 2 (this was the same 24 single family units as the 2024 project; major modifications to existing conditional zoning districts requires a rezoning so it had to go to the Board twice) 2024  Ervin’s Drive Place: maximum 9 single-family units  Covenant II: 128 multi-family units  Moore's Crossing Planned Development - 3500 Block of Castle Hayne Road 115 multi-family units That is a total of 1,412 residential units districted for Laney High - currently 117% over capacity with a student population of 2252 (per your staff report,) and a programmatic capacity of 1927. Based on your student generation rate of .09, the rezoning approvals for 2023 and 2024 alone will yield an estimated 114 additional students for Laney High. Again, this is an underestimate. This is an excellent illustration of the type of cumulative data that should be in front of our commissioners and planning board when deliberating new residential units. Decisions are being made without critical data on infrastructure impacts from what has already been approved but not yet built. The same numbers could be run for traffic increase estimates. This is not an anti-development email. This is about serving current residents and positioning our community to grow well. As businesses look to relocate or expand to Wilmington, they’re looking at our school system - not only to attract their relocating employees and locally find a highly skilled workforce, but also because strong schools are a mark of a thriving community. Furthermore, strong schools enable people with 0 kids to benefit from a higher property value increase trajectory, as well as softer dips during downtowns and slow markets. Strong schools start with space to learn. Ideally, at 85% capacity. I’ve attached the ’27-’28 student forecast from the 2023 Faculty Utilization Study to give a visual. Again, this study used 750 new homes/year countywide over the next ten years. That number is closer to 3,000 new homes/year. A study update is being discussed. The lack of space in our schools for the foreseeable future is a problem we all share; it affects every single one of us. And, the solution should be collaborative across departments, not only because NHC sees intrinsic value in investing in future generations per its own vision, but also because all departments stand to gain immensely from strong schools. In closing, I just want to thank you all so much for reading through, engaging, and for the process improvements that have already been implemented or are underway. I sincerely hope that this example from Laney High has proved the importance of tracking and presenting infrastructure impacts from what has been approved but is not yet built to ensure decisions are comprehensive. 24 And I sincerely hope that you all see that prioritizing education is a win-win-win for our community and will work together to bring our schools to 85% capacity as soon as possible. These mass emails began as a collective effort from concerned residents to connect what seemed to be disjointed, to shed light on data holes and discrepancies across departments, and to communicate the need for cumulative data in deliberations, as well as a need for and benefit of education to be prioritized across departments. I believe the purpose of these emails has been fulfilled. Moving forward, I'm happy to help outside of this thread, but will be focused on other ways to positively impact the community. Thank you for your time and everything you all do for NHC. Christy On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 3:12 PM Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> wrote: Since we did not calculate the number of residential units in the Laney enrollment zone previously, we may not be able to look at the numbers retroactively—I can look into this and will let you know, though. According to the information we were provided from the schools, the 2024-2025 programmatic capacity for Lane is 1,927 students (the percentage was rounded up to 117%). I’ll be in touch once I know more about those retroactive unit counts. Rebekah Rebekah Roth (she/her/hers) Planning & Land Use Director New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7465 p | (910) 798-7838 f rroth@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com 25 From: Christy Mason <crm83131@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 2:24 PM To: Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> Cc: McDonnell, Dylan <dmcdonnell@nhcgov.com>; Norris, Virginia <vnorris@nhcgov.com>; Farrell, Robert <rfarrell@nhcgov.com> Subject: Re: Laney High School Information ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Thank you! Apologies, I may not have articulated the question well. I am looking for the number of approved homes in the last 3 years in the Laney High School enrollment zone. Does your system enable you to calculate that? Also based on your information that Laney is at 117% capacity and the student count of 2,252, I calculated a capacity of 1,989 students. But then remembered that you do not use student population to calculate capacity. What is the current programmatic capacity number for Laney High? Thanks, Christy On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:54 AM Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> wrote: Christy, I wasn’t sure which email thread you had wanted to include this information on, but here is the information about the Laney High School District. We calculated that there were 23,371 residential units in the Laney High School enrollment zone, so based on the student count of 2,252, it results in a generation rate of 0.09 Laney students per residential unit. 27 Farrell, Robert From:Kenneth Budd <kbudd@ncbudd.com> Sent:Sunday, February 23, 2025 12:11 PM To:Farrell, Robert Subject:Bayshore townhome development OPPOSITION Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed ** External Email: Do not click links, open aƩachments, or reply unƟl you know it is safe ** I am a resident of Marsh Oaks. My address is 321 Folly Island Court. My property falls within 510 feet of the proposed development. My concern with the proposed development is that we do not have the infrastructure to support more high density development at this Ɵme. Last week I spent 2 days in the emergency room at New Hanover Hospital. The emergency room was so overcrowded that I was placed on a bed IN THE HALLWAY for 2 days awaiƟng a procedure. There we 42 other beds in the hallways! The nurse told me that “it has been like this forever, and is geƫng worse” (the emergency room has a capacity for 50 and during my Ɵme there were 92!) Market street is very over capacity, trying to get out of Marsh Oaks, while others are trying to do U turns, is like Russian rouleƩe. My daughter is a teacher, and she teaches out of a trailer, because her school is overcrowded (Murrayville) Please consider delaying or denying this development, unƟl we can get our infrastructure caught up. Thank you Ken Budd Sent from my iPad Ken Budd 336 210 1323 cell 28 Farrell, Robert From:Roth, Rebekah Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 10:41 AM To:Sally Heflin Cc:Farrell, Robert Subject:RE: Opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street Ms. Heflin, Thanks for your comments. I have looped in the case planner for this item, as he is collecting all public comments submitted before the public comment portal is re-opened ahead of the April public hearing date. We will make sure this is provided to the Board ahead of the meeting. Rebekah Roth Rebekah Roth (she/her/hers) Planning & Land Use Director New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7465 p | (910) 798-7838 f rroth@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com From: Sally Heflin <sallyheflin@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 10:37 AM To: Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> Subject: Opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Sarah Heflin, and I reside at 1017 Wild DUnes Circle, Wilmington NC 28411 in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. 2. 3. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) 4. 29    Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was  conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily  congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.     Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency  response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin.     Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area  already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk.     Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have  struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for  oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications.  2. 3. 4. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) 5.    This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt  the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.     The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing  larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.     Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development  will reduce the quality of life for current residents.  3. 4. 5. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) 6. 30    The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate  for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it.  4. 5. 6. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) 7.    The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs,  but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing.     With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced  at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies.  Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sarah Heflin -- 31 Farrell, Robert From:Roth, Rebekah Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 10:41 AM To:Kaitlin Yadlosky Cc:Farrell, Robert Subject:RE: 8138 Market Street Ms. Yadlosky, Thanks for your comments. I have looped in the case planner for this item, as he is collecting all public comments submitted before the public comment portal is re-opened ahead of the April public hearing date. We will make sure this is provided to the Board ahead of the meeting. Rebekah Roth Rebekah Roth (she/her/hers) Planning & Land Use Director New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7465 p | (910) 798-7838 f rroth@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com From: Kaitlin Yadlosky <kriemen@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 9:30 PM To: Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> Subject: 8138 Market Street ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Kaitlin Yadlosky and I reside in the Porters Neck/ Ogden area of New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. I am significantly concerned with the impacts to traffic (which is already terrible in this area) infrastructure (we’ve recently had a significant increase in power outages due to the constant building and increased density on aging equipment) and already significantly overcrowded schools The closest two elementary schools and high school are already over capacity and have been for several years. High density housing will only make these problems worse. In addition, this project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1)  Traffic Congestion and Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market 32 Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.  Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin.  Stormwater and; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk.  Power Grid Strain and; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2)  This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.  The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.  Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce the quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3)  The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4)  The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing.  With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely Kaitlin Yadlosky Neighbor, home owner, parent, educator 33 Farrell, Robert From:Roth, Rebekah Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 10:42 AM To:Jake Greer Cc:Farrell, Robert Subject:RE: Bayshore Townhomes project opposition Mr. Greer, Thanks for your comments. I have looped in the case planner for this item, as he is collecting all public comments submitted before the public comment portal is re-opened ahead of the April public hearing date. We will make sure this is provided to the Board ahead of the meeting. Rebekah Roth Rebekah Roth (she/her/hers) Planning & Land Use Director New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7465 p | (910) 798-7838 f rroth@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com From: Jake Greer <jake.greer44@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 9:05 PM To: Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> Subject: Bayshore Townhomes project opposition ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Jake Greer, and I reside at 632 Belhaven Dr in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1)  Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.  Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. 34  Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk.  Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2)  This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.  The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.  Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce the quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3)  The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4)  The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing.  With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jake Greer Sent from my iPhone 35 Farrell, Robert From:Roth, Rebekah Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 10:42 AM To:Ashley Greer Cc:Farrell, Robert Subject:RE: Opposition to Bayshore townhome project Ms. Greer, Thanks for your comments. I have looped in the case planner for this item, as he is collecting all public comments submitted before the public comment portal is re-opened ahead of the April public hearing date. We will make sure this is provided to the Board ahead of the meeting. Rebekah Roth Rebekah Roth (she/her/hers) Planning & Land Use Director New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7465 p | (910) 798-7838 f rroth@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com From: Ashley Greer <ashley.marie.greer@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 8:57 PM To: Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> Subject: Opposition to Bayshore townhome project ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Ashley Greer, and I reside at 632 Belhaven Drin New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1)  Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.  Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. 36  Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk.  Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2)  This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.  The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.  Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce the quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3)  The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4)  The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing.  With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ashley Greer 37 Farrell, Robert From:Roth, Rebekah Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 12:42 PM To:Amber Johnson Cc:Farrell, Robert Subject:RE: Oppose Bayshore Townhomes Project Ms. Johnson, Thanks for your comments. I have looped in the case planner for this item, as he is collecting all public comments submitted before the public comment portal is re-opened ahead of the April public hearing date. We will make sure this is provided to the Board ahead of the meeting. Rebekah Roth Rebekah Roth (she/her/hers) Planning & Land Use Director New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7465 p | (910) 798-7838 f rroth@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com From: Amber Johnson <ajohnsonvet0526@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 12:36 PM To: Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> Subject: Oppose Bayshore Townhomes Project ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Amber Merrill and I reside at 209 point drive in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1)  Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.  Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. 38  Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk.  Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2)  This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.  The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.  Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce the quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3)  The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4)  The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing.  With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. Amber Merrill Sent from my iPhone 39 Farrell, Robert From:Heather N Purvis <hnelson92@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 1:02 PM To:Farrell, Robert Subject:Bayshore Townhome Project ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Heather Purvis, and I reside at 300 Folly Island Court in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1)  Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.  Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin.  Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk.  Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2)  This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.  The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.  Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce the quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3)  The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4)  The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. 40  With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Heather Purvis 41 Farrell, Robert From:Jessica Smith <jess2643@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:26 PM To:Roth, Rebekah; Farrell, Robert Subject:Opposition to Bayshore Townhomes Project ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Jessica Fischer, and I reside at 7906 Cumberland Place in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1)  Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.  Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin.  Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk.  Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2)  This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.  The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.  Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce the quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3)  The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4)  The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures 42 with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing.  With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. On a side and personal note, my son is a student who needs extra attention at school and when you allow housing projects like this one that will increase the amount of students in an already over crowded school you make it hard for teachers to help kids like mine. The teachers are already underpaid and stretched to thin. Please don’t let a project like this make the school situation worse. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jessica Fischer 43 Farrell, Robert From:Betha Knight <bethaknight68@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 6:05 PM To:Roth, Rebekah; Farrell, Robert Subject:Bayshore Townhome Project Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** My name is Katherine Knight and I reside at 8204 Beddoes Drive (Blue Point off Porters Neck Road] in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. 44 Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce the quality of life for current residents. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low- density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, 45 and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely Katherine Knight 46 Farrell, Robert From:White, Maribeth <mswhite@emory.edu> Sent:Wednesday, February 26, 2025 8:33 AM To:Roth, Rebekah Cc:Farrell, Robert Subject:Bayshore Townhomes Project Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Maribeth White, and I reside at 1033 Wild Dunes Circle in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria: 1.Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) ●Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians. ●Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin. ●Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. ●Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2.Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) 47 ●This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values. ●The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here. ●Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce the quality of life for current residents. 3.Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) ●The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4.Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) ●The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing. ●With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Maribeth White 48 Farrell, Robert From:Roth, Rebekah Sent:Wednesday, February 26, 2025 5:38 PM To:Erica Baillargeon Cc:Farrell, Robert Subject:RE: Bayshore Townhome project opposition Ms. Baillargeon, Thanks for your comments. I have copied the case planner Robert Farrell so they can be provided to the Commissioners ahead of the April public hearing. Rebekah Roth Rebekah Roth (she/her/hers) Planning & Land Use Director New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7465 p | (910) 798-7838 f rroth@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com From: Erica Baillargeon <erica.germain@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 1:41 PM To: Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> Subject: Bayshore Townhome project opposition ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Erica Baillargeon, and I reside at 404 Marsh Oaks Drive, in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. 2. 3. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) 4.    Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) 49  for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market  Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.     Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead  to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin.     Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater  runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk.     Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including  Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely  on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications.  2. 3. 4. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) 5.    This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family  homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.     The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area,  potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.     Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from  the townhome development will reduce the quality of life for current residents.  3. 4. 5. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion 6. #3) 50 7.    The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development  is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it.  4. 5. 6. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) 7.    The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce  housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing.     With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these  units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies.  Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Erica Baillargeon 51 Farrell, Robert From:Roth, Rebekah Sent:Thursday, February 27, 2025 10:06 AM To:elissahansonlcsw Cc:Farrell, Robert Subject:RE: Please vote NO on Bayshore Townhomes Ms. Hanson, I’ve copied in Robert Farrell, who is the case planner for this item. We will make sure the Commissioners receive your comments ahead of the April public hearing regarding this request. Rebekah Roth Rebekah Roth (she/her/hers) Planning & Land Use Director New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7465 p | (910) 798-7838 f rroth@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com From: elissahansonlcsw <elissahansonlcsw@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 7:55 PM To: Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> Subject: Please vote NO on Bayshore Townhomes ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** VOTE NO on the Special Use Permit for bayshore townhouses on Market st. We, in the Ogden and Porters Neck communities have been inundated with multi family complexes. It's nerve wracking driving on Market street to run simple errands. I still have well water in Bayshore because we don't have the county infrastructure to t ake care of the people who are already living here. PLEASE stop this. Why does every development have to be so large??? Why can't they be single family... Thank you for your careful consideration. Elissa Hanson 305 Windsong 52 Farrell, Robert From:Michael Questell <fpdoctor53@me.com> Sent:Thursday, February 27, 2025 11:09 AM To:Farrell, Robert Subject:Bayshore Townhome Development ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Michael Questell, and I reside at 8819 Fazio Dr in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. 2. 3. Health and Safety 4. Risks (Fails Criterion #1) 5.    Traffic Congestion  and Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical  Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.     Emergency Services  Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin.     Stormwater and Flooding  Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk.    53  Power Grid Strain  and Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger  medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications.  2. 3. 4. Harm to Adjoining 5. Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) 6.    This project is incompatible  with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.     The project adds stress  to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.     Noise pollution, traffic  congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce the quality of life for current residents.  3. 4. 5. Non-Compliance with 6. the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) 7.    The UDO was designed  to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for  overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it.  4. 5. 6. Not in Harmony with 7. the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) 8. 54    The developer claims  this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable  housing.     With the median income  in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more— are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies.  Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Michael Questell 55 Farrell, Robert From:Roth, Rebekah Sent:Friday, February 28, 2025 8:35 AM To:Jennifer Mercier Cc:Farrell, Robert Subject:RE: Letter of Opposition to Bayshore Townhomes Project Ms. Mercier, I’ve copied in the case planner for this item, Robert Farrell, and we will make sure that these comments are provided to the Commissioners ahead of the April public hearing. Rebekah Roth Rebekah Roth (she/her/hers) Planning & Land Use Director New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7465 p | (910) 798-7838 f rroth@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com From: Jennifer Mercier <jennmercier@icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 9:52 PM To: Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> Subject: Letter of Opposition to Bayshore Townhomes Project ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Jennifer Mercier, and I reside at 225 Bayfield Drive in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1)  Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.  Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin.  Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk. 56  Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications. 2. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2)  This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.  The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.  Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development will reduce the quality of life for current residents. 3. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3)  The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it. 4. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4)  The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs, but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing.  With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies. Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer Mercier Special Permits Request S24-04 & S24-05) – Request by Bayshore Townhomes LLC, for a special use permit to construct a 62 unit multi-family apartment complex with 1,800sqft of commercial space and to construct 242 townhomes on approximately 33.54 acres located at 8138 Market Street. As a long time, resident of the Bayshore community I am extremely concerned about the construction of 304 dwelling units (DU), resulting in approximately 9 DU per acre. In short, this proposal, if adopted, will generated more traffic thus requiring the installation of an additional traffic light Market Street, will adversely impact schools that are already overcrowded, is not compatible with the surrounding land use, and result in additional impervious surfaces and runoff to Pages Creek which has experienced significant declines in water quality due exactly to this type of high density residential and commercial development. My comments are more fully explained below. 1. Traffic. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that NC DOT prepared for the Hampstead Bypass/Extension of Military Cutoff, the Level of Service on Market Street up to and including Porters Neck is “F”, which represents the worst operating conditions of a roadway. This data is from 2014 and undoubtedly has only gotten worse as traffic routinely backs up from the light at Porters Neck Road to Marsh Oaks Drive. Although the improvements to Market Street and the recent opening of the Military Cutoff Extension may help to alleviate some of these transportation issues, it appears that Market Street and the intersections at Middle Sound Loop Road and Porters Neck Road will continue to operate at a Level of Service “F”; higher density development will only exacerbate this problem. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) completed for this proposal, the proposed development would result in an additional 2,300 trips/day to this already overcrowded and unsafe section of Market Street. In addition, this project will require another light at the entrance to the Food Lion Shopping Center thus resulting in yet another impediment to an already overcrowded roadway. It is unclear if the TIA considers the impact of this project cumulatively with the other existing and proposed projects in the area. For example, the recent rezoning that was approved along the Murrayville Road extension to the recently opened Military Cutoff extension, will add more traffic to Torchwood Blvd, Murrayville Road, and I - 140, and ultimately to Scotts Hill. 2. Pages Creek. Cape Fear Resource Conservation and Development along with the New Hanover County Soil and Water Conservation District is preparing a Pages Creek Watershed Restoration Plan. According to information that is provided on New Hanover County’s own website, Pages Creek has approximately 18% of its watershed covered with impervious surfaces, Pages Creek is impaired under the Clean Water Act and its shellfish waters are closed due to high bacterial levels from runoff, and has experienced an increase in flooding and a decrease in water quality over the past two decades (Pages Creek Watershed Restoration Plan – CFRC&D and NHCS&WCD). As a resident of Bayshore I can personally attest to the amount of sediment that enters the creek after moderate to heavy rainfall, as well as the warning signs regarding fecal coliform that are posted periodically at the community boat ramp. It is sad and extremely frustrating to watch as our Public Trust Resources are slowly degraded to satisfy the interests of the development community. It is an established fact that as the amount of impervious surfaces increase in a watershed, water quality in receiving waters declines. This project is located directly adjacent to Sweetwater Branch, a tributary to Pages Creek, and, according to the sketch plan provided at the public information meeting, most of the property will be covered in asphalt/concrete parking needed to accommodate the 304 DU and corresponding automobiles. This rezoning request, if approved, will only exacerbate the steady decline of Pages Creek. Although the watershed plan that was referenced earlier is in a draft stage, I strongly encourage the Planning Board to determine if this proposal is consistent with the goals outlined in that plan and to thoughtfully consider the impacts this project will have on Pages Creek and its receiving waters. 3. Schools. According to a recent article in the Port City Daily, (September 24, 2023) students are most concentrated in Porters Neck, Ogden, and the southern end of the county which are in areas experiencing rapid growth. According to this article, at the agenda review meeting, Superintendent Charles Foust pointed out Porters Neck Elementary is only three years old and already in need of mobile units. Laney has 2,214 students currently housed in a facility built for 1,887. In addition, the Facility Utilization Study commissioned from Cropper/McKibben noted that its recommendations, including disruptive redistricting, will only alleviate current overcrowding and are not aimed at accommodating potential future increases. (Port City Daily – September 24, 2023). This rezoning proposal has the potential to only exacerbate overcrowding in the local schools and the developer has no responsibility to address these impacts; that ultimately falls to the citizens of the county in the form of bonds or taxes. 4. Housing shortage/compatibility with surrounding land use. At the open house/public information meeting the developer’s representatives indicated that there is a housing shortage in New Hanover County; this statement should be qualified to indicate that there is a lack of affordable housing. If this is correct and the proposed townhomes will be high end, as indicated by the developer’s representatives, this proposal will do nothing to alleviate that problem. I encourage the Planning Board to not consider a housing shortage as a reason to approve the rezoning request. Finally, this proposal is completely inconsistent with the surrounding land use, which consists entirely of residential areas which are comprised entirely of single- family homes. In closing, there is absolutely no merit to the subject rezoning request. If approved it will bring more traffic, more adverse impacts to Pages Creek, adversely impact already overcrowded schools, and is completely incompatible with the surrounding land use. I understand that growth is inevitable, and I appreciate the difficult tasks the Planning Board faces in a rapidly growing community. However, that growth must take into account current and future projects and consider the impacts its decisions have on the overall public interest, including impacts to natural resources that draw people to the area in the first place. The current R-15 zoning would allow the property to be developed in a manner that would satisfy the developers need for a return on his investment while minimizing impacts to the citizens that reside in the area. 57 Farrell, Robert From:Dominique Mackenzie <dmqpaynmack86@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 28, 2025 9:10 AM To:Farrell, Robert Subject:Special permits: S24-04/S24-05 ** External Email: Do not click links, open aƩachments, or reply unƟl you know it is safe ** This pertains to (Special permit S24-04/S24-05) We are very concerned with the impact these town homes will have on Market street and abuƫng residences. The negaƟve impact it will add to the exisƟng already congested and over capacity roads and school is staggering. CemenƟng over more porous surfaces impacts the marshes eco system and increased risk of flooding for homes in the adjacent developments. Residents in surrounding areas are limited to the amount of impervious surfaces allowed on their land but these rules do not seem to apply to these developers. This is one of three high density developments on Market street at this Ɵme South of Porters Neck Rd. Not to menƟon the impact it will have on the value of our homes. Every inch of green-space is being cemented over for the purpose of cramming in as many dwellings as possible. To add insult to injury these will all be rental proper Ɵes which create a more transient neighborhood of residents that have no pride of ownership. This will ulƟmately impact the value and desirability of buying exisƟng homes in abuƫng residenƟal areas. We are very frustrated with the way the developers are re applying in a sneaky way to shut out the residents and the fact based impute that stopped this from happening last Ɵme. Unless we hire lawyers and engineers we will be shut down. These is too many homes for the area and reflects the greed of the developers as once again as they will be rental properƟes. Single family homes, that can be sold, will ensure properƟes are taken care of and the land will not be over developed. The original zoning allowed for this. The traffic merging onto market would require the immediately crossing of three lanes of traffic in order to make a U- turn to travel south. IntersecƟons at the Walmart entrance and Porters Neck Rd. road and Market are at a stand sƟll during rush hours and school pick up and drop off Ɵmes now. Imagine adding 350 cars to this scenario assuming one car per residence. RealisƟcally it will be double that. It takes 10 minutes someƟmes just to-exit out of Porters Crossing Way onto Porters Neck Road now. At this Ɵme I do not aƩempt to leave my neighborhood before 9:00 am and aŌer 3:00 pm. Which is insane! Those same delays are experienced by emergency response teams ofas Porters Neck Road. There is no place to pull over with one lane in each direcƟon. Please reconsider approving this permit. They have slapped paint on a prior proposal and are shuƫng out our impute. Dominique Mackenzie Sent from Dominique's phone. 58 Farrell, Robert From:Simone Grace <soulpoised@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 16, 2025 5:56 PM To:Roth, Rebekah; Farrell, Robert Subject:Bayshore Townhomes Project ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, I own a home at 8259 Brays Dr in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. 2. 3. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) 4.    Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was  conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily  congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.     Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency  response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin.     Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area  already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk.     Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have  struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for 59  oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications.  2. 3. 4. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) 5.    This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt  the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.     The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing  larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.     Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development  will reduce the quality of life for current residents.  3. 4. 5. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) 6.    The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate  for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it.  4. 5. 6. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) 7.    The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs,  but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing.     With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced 60  at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies.  Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Simone Grace 61 Farrell, Robert From:Tamara Agnelli <tammyag62@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 16, 2025 5:59 PM To:Farrell, Robert Subject:Bayshore Townhomes Opposition ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Dear NHC Planning Director, My name is Tamara Agnelli, and I reside at 6428 Old Fort Road in New Hanover County. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bayshore Townhomes Project at 8138 Market Street. This project does not meet the four criteria required for approval under the Special Use Permit (SUP) process and poses significant risks to our community. The developer is using the SUP process to bypass the overwhelming community opposition that led to the withdrawal of their rezoning application in January 2024. The project remains far too dense for an R-15 zoned area, and its negative impact on infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood character cannot be ignored. Key Reasons the Project Fails to Meet SUP Criteria 1. 2. 3. Health and Safety Risks (Fails Criterion #1) 4.    Traffic Congestion &amp; Safety: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was  conducted in 2022 and is now outdated. It fails to account for significant new developments in the area, including additional residential units and commercial expansion at the Novant Medical Complex and Food Lion Shopping Center. Market Street is already heavily  congested, and adding 304 units will worsen safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.     Emergency Services Strain: Increased population density will lead to longer emergency  response times, putting residents at risk in critical situations. Overcrowding also adds strain to local fire and law enforcement services, which are already stretched thin.     Stormwater &amp; Flooding Risks: The project will increase stormwater runoff in an area  already prone to flooding, yet the developer has failed to provide adequate mitigation plans. Poor drainage infrastructure will put existing homes at higher flood risk.     Power Grid Strain &amp; Outages: Local utility companies, including Duke Energy, have 62  struggled with frequent power outages in this area due to outdated infrastructure. Adding 304 additional units will further strain the power grid, increasing the risk of outages that could endanger medically vulnerable residents who rely on electricity for  oxygen machines, CPAP devices, and refrigeration for essential medications.  2. 3. 4. Harm to Adjoining Property Owners (Fails Criterion #2) 5.    This project is incompatible with the surrounding single-family homes and will disrupt  the character of the area. R-15 zoning is intended for low-density residential use, and allowing high-density townhomes in this space will negatively impact property values.     The project adds stress to already overcrowded schools in the area, potentially forcing  larger class sizes and fewer resources for families who already live here.     Noise pollution, traffic congestion, and parking overflow from the townhome development  will reduce the quality of life for current residents.  3. 4. 5. Non-Compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance (Fails Criterion #3) 6.    The UDO was designed to guide responsible growth and ensure development is appropriate  for the designated zoning. This project is not in alignment with R-15 zoning, which is meant for low-density, single-family homes. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in areas not designed to support it.  4. 5. 6. Not in Harmony with the Comprehensive Plan (Fails Criterion #4) 7.    The developer claims this project will address affordable or workforce housing needs,  but this claim is misleading. The townhomes will be three-bedroom, multi-level structures with no age restrictions, and the developer has confirmed that no units will be designated for affordable housing.    63  With the median income in New Hanover County at $54,891, these units—expected to be priced  at $500,000 or more—are not attainable for middle-income families. The project does not contribute to affordable housing solutions and fails to align with the county’s long-term housing strategies.  Conclusion This project is not needed, not wanted, and does not meet the required criteria for an SUP approval. It does not align with responsible growth, prioritizes profit over community well-being, and ignores the clear stance of residents. I urge you to stand with the overwhelming opposition voiced at the January 19th public meeting by the residents of Porters Neck. Please vote against this project to protect the integrity, safety, and long-term sustainability of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Tamara and Stephen Agnelli 64 Farrell, Robert From:Roth, Rebekah Sent:Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:08 AM To:Farrell, Robert Subject:FW: Proposed Townhouse Development at Porter's Pointe Attachments:NHC Commissioners.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Rebekah Roth (she/her/hers) Planning & Land Use Director New Hanover County - Planning & Land Use - Planning & Zoning (910) 798-7465 p | (910) 798-7838 f rroth@nhcgov.com 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 www.NHCgov.com From: Greg Brawley <brawleybury@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 1:48 AM To: Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com> Cc: Lily Salisbury <misslilymagnolia@gmail.com> Subject: Proposed Townhouse Development at Porter's Pointe ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Rebekah Roth Planning Director, New Hanover County Wilmington, NC Dear Ms Roth My name is Greg W. Brawley. I am the trustee of the Greg W. Brawley Living Trust, the legal owner of the residential property located at 377 Shackleford Drive, Wilmington, NC 28411. The home is currently occupied by Lily E. Salisbury, my ex-wife who is living there under a lifetime tenancy agreement. This home, located in the Porter's Pointe subdivision, is located within a "stones throw" of the proposed 300 unit Townhouse development located on the adjoining property known as the Tree Farm. This is not my first correspondence on this matter, as residents of the Porter's Pointe have been expressing their dismay at this project's trajectory, since SEP 2023. We have joined with the residents of Marsh Oaks, in resistance to this project as currently presented. My "distance" from the actual site hinders my ability to be completely current on how things stand. However, it is my understanding that the developer has avoided the issue of "re-zoning" by applying for a Special Use Permit. While this smacks of a shoddy diversion to avoid political accountability, this appears to be some kind of "end- run" maneuver by the developer. The prospect of the "back-wall" of the structures being mere feet away from "377" property line is abhorrent. According to the last known plan, that wall would be 65 approximately 40 feet high and 200 feet long! That's without consideration of the roof-line which would increase the ability of this project to "block-out the sun" to it's neighbors! There is no consideration being provided for noise barriers, mature tree buffers, flood protection or other considerations of the impact on its neighbors. While hurricane risks are common to the area, and a structure that size will be caused to conform to prevailing engineering standards, no amount of engineering can mitigate the risks to the adjoining property of a "giant sail" being constructed within feet of their property. I find it incomprehensible that professional planners would not, at least, establish design measures to protect the neighboring sites. A more prudent development plan, would suggest that less height and reduced surface areas of building facades would improve the serviceability of these structures. Wind and Storm insurance has become unaffordable in the area... what is the likelihood that any insurance provided to this proposed project, would in any way protect neighboring properties? Better yet, such developments should be focused on more secure inland locations where the hurricane risks can be marginalized. My understanding of R-15 Zoning is:  Single-family homes as the primary use.  Accessory structures, such as garages or sheds, that comply with zoning regulations.  Home-based businesses, provided they meet specific conditions.  Parks and recreational facilities.  Community facilities, like schools or places of worship, may be permitted with additional approvals.  How does this proposed development meet any of these considerations? It is understandable that New Hanover County needs additional housing, although 20 - 25% of current housing needs are met by apartment buildings. A reasonable alternative might be acceptable with smaller units of perhaps duplexes or even small apartment units limited in height to two stories and prescribed wall-surface area. It seems apparent, however that the developer wants to "hit a home run" here! The surrounding neighborhoods and the community ambience would not be well served by adding this behemoth to the mix. Aside from the impact on adjoining property values, the quality of life impacts that such a development would bring to the area are formidable.  The addition of in excess of 300 cars to the area effecting air quality, noise, traffic, street maintenance, etc.  Increased population density in excess of 1,000 people (average of 3+ persons per unit)  Increased requirement for public services: Has fire protection equipment and capability been assessed for dealing with a structure fire for a building this size? What about additional Police force, Public works, Flood control, etc.  Impacts on schools  Impacts on City and County Services I'm sure that the developer has ready "alibis" for all the aspects, but what is indisputable, which is no doubt supported by your planning and administrative experience, is that whatever mitigation is suggested for this gigantic abuse of regional planning, is sacrificing the interests of thousands of residents of the area, for the "special interests" of the developer. Whatever mitigation is proposed as 66 a political solution, will, in practice be insufficient 5, 10 or 20 years form now. If and when these units are built and occupied, the Planning Commission will have to accept responsibility for the consequences of their passivity. Oh, but wait a minute.... the politicians will be gone..... the developer will have made their "score", and the only ones who will be "left holding the bag" are the people who live there. My final comment about this matter, is that the homeowners and property holders in the area relied on the fiduciary responsibilities of the Planning Commission, at the time, that the zoning ordinances in place could be relied on to protect their interests, as well as the interests of the developers of the region. Indeed, noting the unalterable forces of nature, I suspect that previous Planning Commissions recognized the unavoidable risks of calamity. I cannot envision any responsible planning authority anticipating that a 300 unit behemoth, with massive "sails" for walls, would be plunked down in the middle of this community. IF it is inevitable that this project proceeds, I would strongly advocate for a dramatic downsizing of the number of units and the size of the units to be built. Since Lily Salisbury is the resident in this property, I have also attached a letter that she submitted to the Planning Commission for your consideration. I would hope that our perspectives on these issues might find expression with the Planning Commission in their consideration of the Special Use Permit being considered. Thank you for you consideration of these matters. Best Regards Greg W. Brawley brawleybury@yahoo.com I live at 377 Shackleford Drive, Porter’s Pointe neighborhood, in New Hanover County. My back yard faces south, adjoining the HOA’s retention pond. Porter’s Pointe’s common property directly borders the northern aspect of the proposed “Market Street Townhomes”, Case Z23-21. I strongly oppose CIP’s rezoning request to RMF-M. I vehemently oppose approval of this gargantuan construction project. Please request and carefully review the aerial photo of the larger (not adjacent to Market St.) project site. While the enlarged photo was presented at Paramounte/CIP’s “neighborhood” meeting, the incredible aerial photo was noticeably missing from slides provided by the developer to the Planning Commission. Once the heritage trees are removed, the invaluable canopy will be replaced by impermeable concrete. Instead of photosynthesis turning CO2 into oxygen, 350 to 600+ cars will spew an endless stream of polluting emissions. During the November 2nd public Planning Commission meeting, CIP/Paramounte’s Land Use executive presented a photo of a scrub oak, a ditch, some brown weeds. She stated that this photo was indicative of the vegetation of the parcel surrounded by Marsh Oaks, Porter’s Pointe, and Porters Crossing neighborhoods. Disingenuous at best. I reiterate, please request and review drone/aerial footage or photos of the site where CIP plans more than 345 two and three story townhomes. If you care one whit about NH county air quality and public health, reject this ill conceived townhome development. The proposed development is 348 units, more than 4 times the allowable density of the existing zoning and the zoning of the surrounding properties. The project’s eastern boundary with Porters Crossing neighborhood includes wetlands requiring increased protection by CIP/Paramounte. In Porter’s Pointe neighborhood, please focus on Shackleford Drive homes immediately adjacent to the proposed townhome site. Per the design documents, you will note that we are the closest and therefore most impacted of the three surrounding communities. Current plans present two buildings and apparently a road parallel to the northern boundary. Where Shackleford Drive abuts this border, plans evidence a PAUCITY of vegetation, no protection from noise pollution, and a microscopic SETBACK. If you do approve “Market Street Townhomes”, PLEASE require: (1) removal of at least one (preferably both) of the two buildings near Porter’s Pointe’s Shackleford Drive border AND (2) VASTLY increased setback and vegetative buffer on the northern CIP border with Shackleford Drive. Since this house was completed in 2014, I have enjoyed a beautiful, serene vista and relative quiet. Egrets, raptors, and a huge variety of smaller birds have graced the landscape out back. I grieve the loss of quiet and wildlife habitat should you approve the “Market Street Townhomes” project, Case Z23-21. Your vote to maintain single family home zoning would preserve quality of life, existing property values, and community safety within existing single family home communities of Marsh Oaks, Porters Crossing, and Porter’s Pointe. Porter’s Pointe has only 1 means of entering or leaving the community, i.e. Bray’s Drive. During the public Planning Commission meeting 11/02/23 much discussion centered upon the Bray’s Drive easement conveyed with the property previously utilized as a private tree farm. The developer’s land use executive referred to slight “difficulty” turning left (west) onto Porter’s Neck Road when leaving Porter’s Pointe. What an understatement! We of Porter’s Pointe take our lives in our hands turning west onto Porter’s Neck Road headed toward Market Street. If you approve of Case Z23-21 request for rezoning to RMF-M, please permit ONLY emergency vehicle access on Bray’s Drive. On Nov. 2nd this same executive, Allison Engebretson stated that there would be one garbage compactor for all 348 units. One of the Planning Commissioners inquired as to the proposed location of this compactor. Allison said it would be located near the Bray’s Drive emergency access gate. This would have horrifying impact on my Shackleford neighbors closer to Bray’s Drive. Thank you very much for your consideration. Lily Salisbury 377 Shackleford Drive Wilmington, NC 28411 910-508-8295