HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-02 Regular Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 630
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met on September 2, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. in Regular
Session in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North
Carolina.
Members present: Chair Bill Rivenbark; Vice-Chair LeAnn Pierce; Commissioner Dane Scalise; Commissioner
Stephanie A.C. Walker; and Commissioner Rob Zapple.
Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell; and County
Attorney K. Jordan Smith.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Associate Pastor David Haley, Wrightsville United Methodist Church, provided the invocation, and
Commissioner Scalise led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Rivenbark requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes – Governing Body
The Board approved the minutes of the August 14, 2025 Agenda Review and the August 18, 2025 Regular
Meeting.
Approval of Refund of Excise Tax – Register of Deeds
The Board approved the refund to Midtown Law Firm in the amount of $651.00 for the overpayment of
excise tax.
Release of the Levy for Tax Year 2015 – Tax
The Board approved the release of the levy for tax year 2015 as the 10-year statute of limitations prohibits
the collector from using forced collection measures to collect the taxes.
A copy of the release of the levy is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit
Book XLVI, Page 16.1.
Approval of New Hanover County Monthly Collection Report for July 2025 – Tax
The Board approved the July 2025 tax collection reports for New Hanover County, New Hanover County
Debt Service, and New Hanover County Fire District.
Copies of the tax collection reports are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit
Book XLVI, Page 16.2.
Ratification of the Fiscal Year (FY) 25-26 Port Security Grant Application submitted to the Department of
Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency – Sheriff
The Board ratified the FY25-26 Port Security Grant Application submitted to the Department of Homeland
Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency. The request totals $620,485, with a 25% match of $155,122
available within the FY25-26 Sheriff’s Office budget. The award is anticipated before September 30, 2025. Funds will
purchase a 31-foot vessel, the largest in the agency’s fleet, with a secure cabin to enhance crew safety during severe
weather.
Adoption of Resolution Approving the Award of Contract for Both the Purchase of 2025 Harley Davidson
Motorcycles and the Sale of 2022 Harley Davidson Motorcycles Owned by the County to New River Harley
Davidson – Sheriff
The Board adopted a resolution awarding a contract for the purchase of six (6) new 2025 Harley-Davidson
motorcycles and the sale of the used motorcycles to New River Harley Davidson. Funds to cover the net cost of
$82,973 are available in the FY 2026 budget.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLVI,
Page 16.3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE CORNING STEM PARTNERSHIP SPONSORSHIP OF CAPE FEAR MUSEUM
"SCIENCE MATTERS" GALLERY
Cape Fear Museum Director Kate Baillon introduced Tiffany Lindstrom, Senior Product Engineer at Corning,
and announced Corning as the third major donor for Project Grace. The “Invest in Grace” campaign has secured
$560,000 toward its $1 million goal, with prior sponsorships from nCino and Novant Health. Corning committed
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 631
$200,000 to sponsor the “Science Matters” exhibition for the museum’s first 10 years. The partnership includes
interactive exhibits on light and fiber optics developed with the museum team. Ms. Baillon noted that approval of
the sponsorship agreement formalizes Corning’s commitment.
Ms. Lindstrom stated that Corning is grateful for the opportunity. She noted that STEM is a personal passion
of hers, and bringing Corning’s innovative STEM initiatives to the community is a top priority.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for Board direction.
MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to approve the Corning STEM Partnership
Sponsorship of Cape Fear Museum "Science Matters" Gallery at the $200,000 level. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY SAMUEL POTTER WITH EQUITAS LAW PARTNERS
LLP, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF GOLDEN VENTURES I LLC TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 5.18 ACRES ZONED R-15,
RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 7715 MARKET STREET AND 7718, 7740 ALEXANDER ROAD TO (CZD) B-2, REGIONAL
BUSINESS AND (CZD) R-5, RESIDENTIAL MODERATE HIGH DENSITY FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL
STATIONS, FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU, WITH ROW-STYLE DWELLING UNITS (Z25-11)
Senior Planner Zach Dickerson presented a request to rezone approximately 5.18 acres at the corner of
Market Street and Alexander Road. The request is to rezone from R-15, Residential, to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business
District, for a convenience store with fuel stations and a fast-food restaurant with drive-through, and to (CZD) R-5,
Residential Moderate-High Density, for up to 12 attached single-family dwellings. The site is currently zoned R-15
and is largely surrounded by R-15 zoning, with nearby B-2 and Office/Institutional zoning across Alexander Road.
The property is wooded with one house on site. Surrounding development includes Clay Crossing (R-15), row-style
dwellings, and convenience stores with fuel stations.
The concept plan depicts a convenience store with fuel stations and a rear drive-through at Market Street
and Alexander Road, a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through sharing a Market Street access point with the store,
and twelve row-style dwellings accessed only from Alexander Road. The plan includes an emergency connection
between residential and commercial areas, two stormwater systems, and a proposed pump station. Conditions
address interconnectivity, bicycle and pedestrian easements to promote walkability, public access easements,
stormwater maintenance, and tree retention in transitional buffers and along roadways. Access points include a
right-in/right-out on Market Street, full commercial access on Alexander Road, full residential access on Alexander
Road, and emergency access between uses. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) requires installation of a right-turn and
deceleration lane on Market Street. The project is expected to generate 155 AM and 124 PM peak-hour trips above
current zoning, though many trips are anticipated to be pass-by traffic. Student generation would be comparable to
existing zoning.
Mr. Dickerson noted the site’s location along the Market Street commercial corridor, which is undergoing
widening by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). While low-density residential exists nearby,
the corridor functions primarily as commercial, transitioning outward to residential. The plan was described as
generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan’s (Comprehensive Plan) Community Mixed Use
and General Residential place types and supportive of the County’s strategic plan for business growth and housing
supply.
The Planning Board considered the request on August 7, 2025, and voted 6-0 to recommend approval,
finding it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, reasonable, and in the public interest. It also recommended eight
conditions addressing access easements, stormwater maintenance, outdoor speakers, and tree retention. Staff
concur with the Planning Board’s recommendation. Additional public comments have been received and provided
to the Board. If approved, the project will be subject to TRC and zoning compliance review.
Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Dickerson for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks.
Corrie Faith Lee with Equitas Law Partners, LLP, applicant, on behalf of Golden Ventures, LLC, expressed
appreciation for the Planning Board’s recommendation of approval and staff’s recommendation. She stated that her
remarks would supplement the staff’s report by providing additional context. She noted that the site is located along
Market Street, a commercial corridor with surrounding uses that includes a storage facility, veterinary hospital,
apartment complex, auto service businesses, and a gas station. Photographs were provided to illustrate the existing
character.
The site plan proposes residential uses along Alexander Road adjacent to existing neighborhoods, with
commercial uses fronting Market Street. These include a Sheetz convenience store with 12 fuel stations and a quick-
service restaurant. Most recently updated in June, the TIA concluded that approximately 75% of the projected trips
would be pass-by traffic from motorists already traveling Market Street. Ms. Lee explained that the TIA accounted
for up to 10,000 square feet for the convenience store, while the current plan shows approximately 6,100 square
feet, and up to 3,500 square feet for the restaurant, with approximately 2,000 square feet currently proposed.
She emphasized that the project would meet a service need, particularly for motorists traveling southbound
toward Ogden. She cited that the closest gas station heading southbound toward Ogden is about 8.7 miles, or 15
minutes away, which is about the same distance as reaching Pender County from the site. Northbound, the closest
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 632
gas station is approximately 2.7 miles away. In response to prior questions on trees, Ms. Lee presented an overlay
of the site plan with the tree survey, showing preservation areas. She stated the intent is to retain as many mature
trees as possible. Renderings of the proposed Sheetz convenience store and fuel station and examples of similar
recently built locations were provided. Conceptual images of the 12 proposed townhomes were also shown, though
no builder has been identified. She reiterated that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, particularly
with the Community Mixed Use and General Residential place types. She noted Planning Board members’ comments
supporting the project as a good example of commercial development, preserving residential character along
Alexander Road, and offering a cohesive mixture of uses. Ms. Lee concluded her comments by deferring to Sheetz
representatives for additional presentation materials.
Sean Poole, Real Estate Site Selector for Sheetz, introduced the company and provided background on its
operations. He explained that Sheetz is a family-owned business, founded in 1952 by Bob Sheetz and now led by
Travis Sheetz, the third generation of family leadership. Sheetz operates over 800 stores across the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic, with approximately 130 locations in North Carolina, including two in New Hanover County. This
proposed location would follow the company’s prototype design, featuring a brick exterior, 12 fueling stations, a
drive-through, and modernized amenities. Renderings and site elevations were presented, showing brick masonry
on all four sides of the building. Mr. Poole also highlighted Sheetz’s recognition as one of Fortune’s “Best Places to
Work” and its extensive community involvement. He noted that Sheetz supports programs such as “Sheetz for the
Kids,” which sponsors 16 children per store through the Salvation Army, along with ongoing partnerships with Make-
A-Wish, Feeding America, and the Special Olympics. At every store opening, Sheetz donates $2,500 each to Feeding
America and the Special Olympics. The local district manager, Tammy Whitehurst, was noted as active in the
Wilmington community and engaged in area events. He also emphasized Sheetz’s long-standing commitment to
community service and stated he looked forward to working with New Hanover County.
Chair Rivenbark announced that one person signed up to speak in support of the request and no one signed
up to speak in opposition. He invited the speaker to provide remarks.
Natalie English, President and CEO of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, stated her support for the
rezoning. She emphasized the community’s housing shortage, noted that even 12 additional units are meaningful,
and praised Sheetz as a community-minded employer and partner.
Chair Rivenbark closed the public hearing and opened the floor for Board discussion.
In response to questions, Mr. Dickerson confirmed the property could support 13 homes under current
zoning and that the proposal reduces residential units to 12 while adding a commercial component. Commissioner
Scalise stated that because the project aligns with what could otherwise be developed by right, while adding
commercial uses that create jobs and economic opportunity, he supports the request.
Discussion ensued about egress and ingress for the site. Mr. Dickerson explained that motorists heading
northbound must first exit southbound and make a U-turn at the next designated location. He confirmed the
northern intersection provides a controlled left-turn arrow for northbound Market Street traffic turning onto
Alexander Road, but vehicles exiting Alexander Road onto Market Street may only turn right because it is not a full
four-way signal. To travel northbound, motorists must first head south and then make a U-turn. Ms. Lee added that
the right-in/right-out design reflects how the corridor functions and that most site traffic will be southbound, making
the design appropriate. A U-turn is available a few hundred feet south of the site, and motorists can also use
Alexander Road to reach another signalized U-turn near the Amberleigh Apartments.
In response to questions, Mr. Dickerson stated that the ordinance requires a minimum of 20% open space
and confirmed the site plan meets or exceeds that standard, though he did not have the exact percentage. As to
whether the images shown in the presentation reflect the open space, Ms. Lee clarified that the image was the
project’s tree survey. Mr. Dickerson added that the slide was intended to show areas subject to the tree retention
condition, not open space. He confirmed that staff reviewed the site plan and found it compliant with the Unified
Development Ordinance’s (UDO) 20% open space requirement.
Discussion ensued about the stormwater facility. Ms. Lee explained that the project’s stormwater system
was engineered to account for surrounding properties and NCDOT’s recent corridor improvements. The system is
designed as underground storage with discharge directed to the opposite side of the property. Nick Lauretta,
owner/president of Riverview Engineering, PLLC, described the design as a direct-feed system with underground
pipe storage. A diversion structure will channel flow into underground detention, followed by storm filter treatment
for water quality, before discharging beneath Market Street. In response to concerns about flooding during
Hurricane Florence, Mr. Lauretta stated that the culvert under Market Street was upsized to eight feet and that the
design includes modeling of the full drainage area. He noted that an existing five-foot pipe running under Alexander
Road and through the site was incorporated into the model. The system is designed to meet 2-, 10-, and 25-year
storm retention requirements while conveying off-site flow through the site into the culvert.
In response to questions, Ms. Lee stated that landscape buffer requirements apply due to adjacent
residential uses and that maintaining mature trees in the buffer would help protect nearby homes. She
acknowledged the public comment regarding dumpster location and noted it had been addressed in the site design.
Ms. Lee confirmed confidence in the engineer’s modeling and stated that analysis was completed to ensure
stormwater will not pose concerns for the development.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 633
Vice-Chair Pierce noted that many Market Street properties face similar northbound access limitations,
though most traffic continues into Wilmington rather than turning back north. She stated that the project provides
community services and jobs through a stable company with a strong track record. She emphasized job creation as
an important factor and expressed support for the request.
Chair Rivenbark asked Ms. Lee whether, based on the Board discussion and items presented during the
public hearing, whether she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Ms. Lee responded that
she wanted to proceed with the vote.
MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce, to approve the proposed rezoning. The
Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the types and
intensity of uses, as well as the residential density, are compatible with its place type designation. The Board also
finds approval of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the site plan provides a
transition from the roadway corridor to the nearby housing. The following proposed conditions are included as part
of the approval:
1. Existing trees that do not impact the proposed development, including changes to the site plan that
constitute minor deviations, shall be preserved.
2. Emergency vehicle access shall be provided between the residential portion of the project and the
convenience store. The location of the emergency vehicle access may be modified during the TRC
process administratively.
3. A 10-foot-wide public bicycle and pedestrian easement shall be reserved from Alexander Road through
the (CZD) R-5 portion of the site to the (CZD) B-2 portion of the site. Maintenance of the access
easement shall be the responsibility of the residential portion of the project, the commercial portions
of the project, or a combination thereof. Provisions for future maintenance shall be included in a
maintenance agreement approved by New Hanover County and recorded with the Register of Deeds
prior to signature and recordation of the final plat of the residential portion.
4. A bicycle and pedestrian path shall be provided between the residential units and the dedicated open
space for the residential development. The path shall be reserved as a private access easement for the
residents and owners of the residential units if the parcels are subdivided.
5. There shall be a maximum of twelve (12) dwelling units on the site’s residential portion, for a maximum
density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre. The concept plan shows the dwelling unit type as row-style
dwellings. The following attached dwelling types are authorized for development in the R-5 zoning
district and may be utilized so long as the overall approved density is not exceeded: Row-Style,
Quadraplexes, Triplexes, Duplexes, and Dual-Unit Attached.
6. All outdoor speakers, other than those used for the drive-throughs on the site, shall be oriented away
from the R-5 portion of the site and the R-15 parcel to the north.
7. Drive-throughs appearing on the site plan may be administratively removed or adjusted on the same
side of the buildings as shown on the concept plan. Changes to drive-through locations to other sides
of the buildings would constitute a major deviation and require approval through the conditional
rezoning process.
8. A stormwater maintenance agreement between property owners or a maintenance easement for the
stormwater pond will be recorded with the New Hanover County Register of Deeds prior to TRC
approval.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 5 OF
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED July 6, 1971, is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes
and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section 5, Page 94.
PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS, APPLICANT,
ON BEHALF OF GIOVANNI IPPOLITO AND TANYA VLANCANCICH, PROPERTY OWNERS, TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 4.56 ACRES ZONED R-15, RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 6634 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD TO (CZD) R-5,
RESIDENTIAL MODERATE-HIGH DENSITY FOR A MAXIMUM 36 UNITS, ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT (Z25-14)
Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell presented a request to rezone approximately 4.5 acres on
Carolina Beach Road from R-15 to Conditional R-5, Residential Moderate-High Density, for 36 attached single-family
dwellings. The property is wooded and bordered on the west by the Lord’s Creek neighborhood. The property has
been the subject of three prior rezoning requests for higher-density multi-family development, all of which drew
public concerns about traffic, height, density, and housing type.
The concept plan shows access from Carolina Beach Road with a new turn lane onto a circular drive.
Conditions include a public access easement along the frontage and 36 homes in nine quadraplexes, with flexibility
for other attached housing types such as triplexes. The plan sets a maximum building height of 35 feet, lower than
the 40 feet otherwise permitted, and includes a central tree-save area. A Type A buffer with preserved mature trees
and fencing will be located along the property line. A stormwater pond is proposed in the southern corner adjacent
to delineated wetlands, which are not expected to be impacted.
Nearby development includes several projects under review or construction. Although this project is below
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 634
the 100-trip threshold for a TIA, NCDOT will review it through the driveway permitting process. A condition requires
construction of a right-turn lane if approved by NCDOT. The nearest U-turn for northbound traffic is about 1,800
feet south of the site. While the applicant provided an easement for future bicycle and pedestrian access, there are
no current alternative transportation options or planned NCDOT improvements in the area. Mr. Farrell noted that
the application includes conditions intended to mitigate potential impacts on adjacent parcels through reduced
building height, tree preservation, lighting restrictions, and fencing.
The project advances Strategic Plan objectives related to increasing housing supply and preserving natural
features. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Community Mixed Use, which supports compact residential
patterns. At its August 7, 2025 meeting, the Planning Board heard two speakers in opposition and one in general
support but with concerns about traffic and drainage. The Planning Board voted to recommend approval (5-1) and
found the project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable in the public interest because the
proposed conditions mitigate potential impacts. Staff concurred with the Planning Board’s recommendation and
identified conditions related to housing type restrictions and parking, maximum building height, tree protection and
preservation, lighting restrictions, public access easement along Carolina Beach Road, and right-turn lane permitting
and construction.
Mr. Farrell concluded the staff presentation by stating additional comments had been received and
provided to the Board. If approved, the project will remain subject to technical review and compliance with land use
regulations. Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Farrell for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks.
Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlancancich,
property owners, stated that the site along the Carolina Beach Road corridor has been the subject of multiple prior
rezoning requests. Her clients have been adamant that this is a good site for development in this area of the
community. She explained that the current proposal addresses past community concerns by reducing density,
changing the residential product type, and adding conditions to mitigate impacts.
Ms. Wolf noted that the request for a conditional R-5 district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
which encourages diverse housing types, infill development, and transitions in density along major corridors. She
described townhomes as a suitable housing option for this property, providing individual ownership, common area
maintenance, and a product type that differs from traditional single-family subdivisions. The plan proposes 36
townhomes in nine four-unit structures, approximately eight units per acre, compared to prior requests for 64 to 78
multifamily rental units. Ms. Wolf then provided a brief overview of the proposed conditions:
Homes limited to attached single-family, with flexibility to reduce density by allowing duplex or triplex
buildings.
A 35-foot maximum height, below the 40 feet otherwise permitted.
A 15-foot tree preservation buffer with a solid screening fence located inside the buffer to protect
existing vegetation.
Preservation of older trees in the central area of the site, supported by a certified arborist and Cape
Fear Trees.
Natural preservation of the southeastern ditch bank and delineated wetlands, with no impacts
proposed.
Drainage and stormwater management through a detention pond located at the site’s low point, with
a public drainage easement over the stream and compliance with Corps of Engineers review.
Ms. Wolf explained that the stormwater system will capture roof runoff, direct flows to the central drive,
and convey water to the retention pond sized for regulatory storm events. Preliminary grading shows finished floor
elevations and drainage patterns that preserve the courtyard and prevent off-site impacts.
Ms. Wolf concluded the presentation, stating that conditions since the site’s original R-15 zoning in 1969
justify rezoning and that the project represents an appropriate transition along a major roadway. She emphasized
that the density is residential in character, not multifamily, and that the plan mitigates potential impacts through
conditions and design. She thanked staff and the Planning Board for their favorable recommendations and requested
Board approval.
Chair Rivenbark announced that two speakers signed up to speak in favor of the request and four people
signed up to speak in opposition to the request. He invited the speakers to provide remarks.
In favor:
Laura McCabe, a resident of New Orleans Place, Wilmington, NC, and representing Alliance for Cape Fear
Trees, supported the rezoning. She highlighted the project’s commitment to preserving a central tree-saving area,
using a certified arborist, and avoiding clear-cutting. She encouraged incorporating low-impact development
practices and native landscaping and stated that the plan shows how housing needs can be met while protecting
mature trees.
Natalie English, President and CEO of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, stated that the County faces
a shortage of housing units and emphasized the importance of infill development. She noted that multifamily
projects may not always be popular but are necessary to increase supply and help reduce housing costs. She urged
the Board to support the rezoning.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 635
In opposition:
Adrianne Garber, a resident of Red Heart Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated the request conflicts with the
County’s recent trend toward downzoning and relies on an outdated Comprehensive Plan. She argued the property
should remain R-15 to preserve low-density character, protect trees and open space, and avoid increased impervious
surfaces, runoff, and storm risks. She expressed concern about noise, loss of privacy, and precedent for future
higher-density rezonings and urged the Board to deny the request.
Kyle Pressma, a resident of Glenarthur Drive, Wilmington, NC, spoke on behalf of his family and neighbors
who live in the Lords Creek subdivision. He stated they are not opposed to development but want strategic growth
in appropriate locations. He expressed concern about traffic and safety, noting the congestion and recent accidents
near the site entrance, which already serves nearly 1,000 households. He argued that the proposed 15-foot buffer
is inadequate, cited a petition signed by over 500 residents opposing the rezoning, and noted that hundreds of
townhomes are already being built nearby. He urged the Board to deny the request.
Penny Willmering, a resident of Bancroft Drive, Wilmington, NC, described ongoing traffic and safety issues
on Carolina Beach Road, noting speeding, congestion, and added pressure from church traffic near the neighborhood
entrance. She stated that adding another turn lane and development on the property would increase risks for
residents and urged the Board to deny the rezoning request.
Peggy Derrick, a resident of Oliver Court, Wilmington, NC, and representing the Lords Creek subdivision,
stated she has opposed the rezoning from the beginning and noted growing community support against it. She
referred to the petitions submitted to the Board and urged the Board to deny the rezoning request.
Chair Rivenbark stated the next steps for the public hearing are the applicant and opponent’s rebuttal with
each side having up to five (5) minutes to speak.
In applicant rebuttal, Ms. Wolf stated that although the Comprehensive Plan is being updated, properties
along Carolina Beach Road will continue to be viewed as transitional and appropriate for higher densities. She
emphasized that conditional zoning limits the project to a specific plan and set of conditions, which must be met
before any work can begin. She noted that many petition signatures opposing the project came from newer residents
of surrounding communities built within the past decade. She agreed with opposition speakers that the speed limit
on Carolina Beach Road should be reduced, but stated that traffic from 36 townhomes, with the required turn lane
improvements, would not create unusual impacts compared to other nearby developments. She noted that the
project has evolved in response to public input, that staff and the Planning Board support it, and that it represents
appropriate growth for the corridor.
In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Derrick stated that much of the new development between Monkey Junction
and Carolina Beach has been built on wetlands, causing flooding and stormwater backup in existing yards. She
referenced photos of recent flooding, questioned the effectiveness of proposed stormwater measures, and urged
consideration of both flooding impacts and the need for a timed traffic light at the site entrance.
In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Garber commented on concerns about entitlement for higher density and
possible future commercial uses. She expressed concern about tree loss, retaining walls, increased impervious
surfaces, and impacts on wetlands. She argued that the Comprehensive Plan is outdated, does not reflect current
needs, and urged the Board to deny the request.
Chair Rivenbark closed the public hearing and opened the floor for Board discussion.
In response to questions, Ms. Wolf stated that the project is entirely residential, limited to two stories with
a maximum height of 35 feet. Reducing the project to 36 units allowed preservation of the courtyard area. A
preliminary grading plan confirmed that retaining walls would not be required in that area and that tree protection
fencing would be installed as part of the detailed design process under Technical Review Committee (TRC) oversight.
Tree protection fencing and creative grading, including stepped slabs, would allow preservation of the buffer area.
Preliminary engineering showed no need for major retaining walls, and if any were required, they would be small,
two to three feet in height, behind units at the edge of the buffer. Regarding concerns about the existing deceleration
lane, she explained that NCDOT recommended extending it north to the project’s driveway. She noted that shared
use of turn lanes for multiple access points is common along Carolina Beach Road. She confirmed that NCDOT
reviewed the project and required the extension of the deceleration taper as a condition, which was agreed to by
the applicant.
In response to questions, Ms. Wolf confirmed the property would be fully built out under the proposed
rezoning. She noted the R-5 district allows a maximum of eight units per acre. As to the price range, she explained
that market conditions are unpredictable this far in advance of construction but estimated an average price of about
$425,000 for this type of housing. As to the location of the fencing, she explained that tree protection fencing will
be installed along the 20-foot setback before construction begins. At the end of construction, a six-foot solid
screening fence will be placed within a 15-foot buffer, allowing preservation of existing vegetation. She added that
existing trees are generally 20 to 30 feet tall, which will provide screening combined with the six-foot fence.
Commissioner Scalise commented that while the property owners are adamant that the property should
be rezoned, the Board has been equally adamant in declining prior requests. He stressed that, although he does not
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 636
support a moratorium and expects to approve rezonings elsewhere, it is appropriate to identify certain parcels that
should remain R-15. He concluded that not every property in the community must be rezoned and that this one
should remain R-15. While deferring to the will of the majority, he made clear his intent to vote against the request.
Ms. Wolf responded by clarifying that her earlier remark referred to the property owner’s intent to develop the site.
She stated the owners are adamant about developing the property. While rezoning is central to the type of
development proposed, the property will be developed in some form.
In response to questions about wetlands and flooding concerns, Ms. Wolf explained that there is only a
narrow wetland area along the stream bed, with no other wetlands identified. She acknowledged a low pocket on
the tract that has caused drainage issues on neighboring property but stated the proposed grading plan will redirect
that water to the stormwater pond, preventing future collection in the area.
Commissioner Walker commented that this property has a history of withdrawals and denials, which has
created a trust concern for neighbors. She emphasized that traffic and stormwater issues remain ongoing problems
in the area, with residents experiencing flooding during heavy rain. She stated that she understood the community’s
concerns and agreed that not every parcel must be rezoned. She noted her agreement with Commissioner Scalise’s
position that not every property needs to be rezoned and stated she does not support the request. Ms. Wolf
responded that Lords Creek lacks stormwater management and that new projects provide it.
In response to questions, Ms. Wolf indicated that the project has been presented to the Planning Board
multiple times and to this Board on three occasions.
Vice-Chair Pierce said that when she is out in the community, people are adamant that they do not want
increased density in New Hanover County. She noted that many projects are annexed into the City of Wilmington
because the County has stood firm on limiting density and stated that the Board is continuing that commitment. She
questioned the idea that the County must build a home for everyone who wants to move here, remarking that it
would require “100-foot skyscrapers.” She appreciated the applicant for reducing the density and acknowledged the
property will be developed but stated she is not inclined to increase density in the County.
In response to questions, Ms. Wolf stated that under the current R-15 zoning, single family 11 homes could
be placed on the site.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked Ms. Wolf whether, based on the Board discussion and
items presented during the public hearing, whether she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the
vote. Ms. Wolf responded that she wanted to proceed with the vote.
MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to deny the proposed rezoning. While the
Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed
housing type and density is within the range recommended by the Community Mixed Use place type, the Board finds
recommending denial of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the project places the
attached dwelling units too close to existing single-family development. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF A REQUEST BY BAYSHORE TOWNHOMES, LLC, APPLICANT, ON
BEHALF OF BEE SAFE PORTERS NECK, LLC, PROPERTY OWNERS, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A 62 UNIT MULTI-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH 1,800 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE IN A B-2, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
ON A 3.21-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 8138 MARKET STREET (S25-04) AND DENIAL OF A REQUEST BY
BAYSHORE TOWNHOMES, LLC, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HERBERT PARHAM, PROPERTY OWNER, FOR A SPECIAL
USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING ALLOWANCE FOR 242 ROW-STYLE DWELLING UNITS IN AN R-15,
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON A 30.22-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT THE 8100 BLOCK OF MARKET STREET (S25-
05)
Chair Rivenbark stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and before the hearing is opened, the deputy county
attorney will provide an overview of the hearing procedures.
Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards stated quasi-judicial proceedings are handled a little bit differently.
There are four criteria or elements that must be met, that must be set out as findings of fact and must be
stated clearly on the record. It is up to the Board to weigh the evidence to determine if these four criteria have been
met.
1. Will this project materially endanger the public health or safety.
2. Does this project meet all required conditions and specifications in the Unified Development
Ordinance, or UDO.
3. Will this project substantially injure the value of the adjoining or abutting properties.
4. Will this project be in harmony with the area in which it is located and in general conformity with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County.
Staff have compiled information from the applicant that may or may not support these required findings of
fact. The Board must state the reasons why the application does not meet these four criteria if the Board decides
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 637
so. If the Board determines any of the above criteria cannot be made based on the evidence, that alone may provide
the basis for denial.
The Board only needs to find that the evidence does not support one element, not all four, to deny an
application. The Board has the authority to determine if this application should be approved or denied based solely
on the competent and material evidence presented during this public hearing.
Nothing from the public forum that was held in front of the Planning Board should be considered, because
that was not in front of the Board. Therefore, there is not a Planning Board member present for questions. Everything
will be provided to the Board, and then the Board should make that decision based on what is presented to the
Board today.
Ms. Richards stated she is present for any questions.
Chair Rivenbark opened the public hearing and stated that because the SUP process requires a quasi-judicial
hearing, anyone wishing to testify must be sworn in. He asked that all people who signed in to speak and wish to
present competent and material testimony please step forward to be sworn in.
Robert Farrell Gary Shipman Dennis Burton John Davenport Allison Engebretson
Rebekah Roth Roy Carroll Brad White AJ Anastopauo Don Bennett
Tim Lowe Paul Smith Tim Milam Rob Ballard Grady Richardson
Caitlin Cerza Craig Carlock Patrick Bowen Brad Schuler Zachary Bugg
Courtney Corriher Mike Rose Mike Bearak
Chair Rivenbark further stated that a presentation will be heard from staff and then the applicant and any
opponents will each be allowed 30 minutes for their presentation and an additional ten minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Farrell presented the staff report, stating this is a quasi-judicial public hearing for two special use permit
requests involving multifamily residential in a B-2 district and an additional dwelling allowance in an R-15 district.
The property is located at the 8100 block of Market Street. As a reminder, the site was the subject of a
rezoning request last year. The applicant ultimately withdrew the request at the January 2024 Board of
Commissioners meeting, and resubmitted it as these two special use permits.
The aerial photography shows an existing vacant commercial building bordered by commercial
development along Market Street and a tree farm to the southeast, bordered by a single-family residential
development. Mr. Farrell presented an aerial photo of the site with images of the property from different angles.
The parcels were originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s. At the time, the purpose of the district was to provide
lower density due to the need for private wells and septic systems. Since then, public water and sewer have become
available in the area.
The B-2 portion was rezoned in 1985 for compatibility with a business in operation at the time. Mr. Farrell
then presented the combined site plans for the two requests.
The section outlined in blue is zoned B-2, which allows residential dwelling units as part of a mixed-use
development with approval of a special use permit. The section outlined in red is zoned R-15, which allows increases
to the density of the district for additional dwelling allowances with approval of a special use permit.
The ordinance requirements for each type of special use permit are different, which requires the two
separate special use permit applications. The applicant has proposed conditions that neither project could be
developed without the approval of both special use permits. Due to the relationship between the two projects, staff
have included both in one presentation. Combined, the projects include a total of 1,800 square feet of commercial
space and 304 dwelling units, consisting of 62 multifamily units and 242 row-style dwellings.
The Unified Development Ordinance states multifamily dwellings in the B-2 district must be part of a mixed-
use development established to provide innovative opportunities for an integration of diverse but compatible uses
into a single development. Additional standards generally address requirements for mixed-use development,
pedestrian infrastructure, use restrictions, shared parking, common areas, and requirements for building elevations.
The site plan for the B-2 request includes a mixed-use building with commercial space and multifamily units
fronting Market Street. The second building is proposed as multifamily units. The applicant’s project narrative caps
the total unit count at 62, but would allow the site to be reconfigured with three buildings instead of two if approved
as part of the special use permit. As part of the special use permit, that change would be allowed administratively
by staff.
The density of the B-2 portion of the project is 19.3 dwelling units per acre. The UDO does not set a
prescribed or maximum density for mixed-use developments. Multifamily developments in the B-2 district are
required to include a mixed-use component that is limited to only uses permitted in the B-1 district. While the TIA
analyzed the project as a retail use, other land uses of the B-1 district would be allowed.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 638
Parking is provided throughout the site and is proposed as shared parking between the multifamily
dwellings and commercial uses.
The concept plan also includes the proposed location of exterior light poles. Sidewalks are provided around
the perimeter of both buildings shown on the plan, with a sidewalk along the road to access the proposed row-style
dwellings on the R-15 portion of the project.
One of the requirements for the special use permit application is submitting proposed building elevations
for the commercial and multifamily portion of the project. These are also included in the staff report and packet.
The second special use permit is for an additional dwelling allowance to increase the allowed density in an
R-15 district. While the Board did adopt changes to additional dwelling allowances last month, because this
application was submitted before the amendment was adopted, it must be reviewed under the previous ordinance
standards.
The UDO contains supplementary standards for additional dwelling allowances regarding density, open
space, and impervious surface limitations. The ordinance standards for additional dwelling allowances are different
from a typical performance residential subdivision.
For example, the base density may be increased up to 10.2 dwelling units per acre. The special use permit
request is for a maximum of 8.37 dwelling units per acre. The minimum open space requirement is 35%. There is an
impervious surface limit of 40%. There is a perimeter setback of 25 feet, which is slightly higher than the setback for
performance residential.
In addition, the maximum height in the R-15 district is 40 feet. However, additional dwelling allowances
require structures over 25 feet tall adjacent to single-family residential to be set back equal to the height of the
building. The applicant has also included a condition restricting the homes to a maximum of three stories, not to
exceed 40 feet tall.
The site plan for the additional dwelling allowance includes an amenity center, stormwater, and open space.
There is also a condition to provide an overland relief path, such as a drainage ditch or swale, within a public drainage
easement from the natural pond to the stormwater outfall.
The homes are centered on the site, with the road closest to the Porters Point subdivision sited away from
the existing homes and towards the adjacent open space. The ordinance requires a minimum 35-foot setback around
the perimeter of the site. The applicant has included a condition that retains a minimum 35-foot landscape buffer of
existing vegetation around the site as a visual buffer.
A road stub is provided to Brays Drive, which will be gated for emergency access only. A condition has been
included guaranteeing a bicycle and pedestrian connection to Brays Drive. While not required by the ordinance, the
applicants have also provided conceptual elevations of the proposed row-style homes.
The project is estimated to increase AM traffic but would reduce PM peak hour trips compared to what
could be developed under current zoning. The estimated traffic generated from the site is over the 100 peak hour
threshold that triggers the ordinance requirements for a traffic impact analysis.
The site has existing access to Market Street and Brays Drive. The combined projects propose a right-
in/right-out-only access on Market Street, with a gated emergency-access-only connection to Brays Drive.
The TIA requires an extended right-turn lane into the site and a traffic light at Cypress Pond Way. Vehicles
wanting to travel south would be able to utilize U-turns at Cypress Pond Way or the Porters Neck intersection.
The site is also just south of the I-140 interchange.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the area along Market Street as Urban Mixed Use and the area to the
southeast as General Residential. The Urban Mixed Use place type promotes multifamily and higher-density single-
family development to provide a range of housing types, opportunities, and choices. The Urban Mixed Use place
type does not recommend a maximum density.
The majority of the project area is designated General Residential, which encourages single-family and
duplex residential development at a maximum density of eight dwelling units per acre. However, because of the
general nature of place type borders, sites located in proximity to the boundaries between place types could be
appropriately developed, with either place type allowing site-specific features and evolving development patterns
in the surrounding area to be considered.
The applicant has proposed conditions for both special use permit requests.
Proposed conditions for the multifamily in B-2 include:
A condition that neither project could be developed without the approval of both special use permits.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 639
Incorporating a section of I-1 property for the internal roadway.
Common restrictive covenants.
Easements preserving existing trees and required buffers.
Building height.
The applicant’s proposed conditions for the additional dwelling allowance are related to:
A condition that the project could not be developed without the approval of both special use permits.
Incorporating the I-1 property.
Common restrictive covenants.
Easements preserving existing trees and buffers.
Building height.
Emergency access-only connection to Brays Drive.
Additional buffers adjacent to existing residential.
Bicycle and pedestrian interconnectivity.
Drainage.
Mr. Farrell stated that, as a reminder, we just heard earlier that when the Board evaluates the request
during quasi-judicial hearings, it must determine that the following four conditions are met:
1. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and
approved.
2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance.
3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or the uses of public
necessity.
4. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan, as submitted and approved,
will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County.
After an analysis of the proposed use and the information provided as part of the application package, staff
have compiled two sets of facts provided in the applications and identified through technical review and analysis,
and organized them by the applicable conclusion. These findings are preliminary, and additional relevant facts may
be presented during the public hearing. The compiled facts for each request may or may not support the Board's
ultimate decision.
For conclusion one for the B-2 request, the preliminary findings generally address utilities, fire protection,
access, traffic generation, and environmental features.
For conclusion two, the preliminary findings generally address requirements for mixed-use development,
commercial uses, sidewalks, shared parking, open space, mixed-use buildings, building elevations, site plan review,
setbacks, requirements for enclosed commercial space, parking performance, residential setbacks, and building
spacing.
Conclusion three for the B-2 request addresses existing conditions and property values.
Conclusion four addresses the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant’s proposed conditions.
For conclusion one of the additional dwelling allowance, the findings generally address utilities, fire
protection, access, traffic generation, and environmental features.
Conclusion two addresses reductions for tidally influenced water bodies, maximum unit count, floodplain
requirements, proximity to the Urban Mixed Use place type, primary access requirements, internal roadways, open
space limits on impervious surface, perimeter setbacks, maximum building height, building spacing, landscape
buffers, parking, signs, public sewer, private infrastructure, maintenance and covenants, site plan review, wetlands,
stormwater, major deviations, and parking.
Conclusion three for the additional dwelling allowance addresses existing conditions and property values.
Conclusion four addresses the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant’s proposed conditions.
Mr. Farrell stated that this concluded his presentation. Caitlin Cerza with the WMPO and County Engineer
Tim Lowe are here. The applicant has prepared a presentation.
Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Farrell for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks.
Gary Shipman of Shipman & Wright, LLP, representing Bayshore Townhomes, LLC, applicant on behalf of
property owners Bee Safe Porters Neck, LLC and Herbert Parham, stated at the outset that he wants to make
particular note and objection to the fact that staff sent to the Board email communications, which the president of
the Marsh Oaks Homeowners Association solicited from people in the community. That is the type of incompetent
and immaterial and inadmissible evidence that simply cannot be considered.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 640
Mr. Shipman stated that Mr. Zapple, as he knows, in a special use permit, if the Board reads them, which
he assumes the Board has, they were provided to the Board by staff. The Board must disregard them, and must
assure this applicant that the Board will, and that the Board cannot consider unsworn statements from those without
standing who are not experts expressing opinions about matters that only experts can express opinions upon.
The evidence that is offered in support of the application is contained in the binder, which, as the Board
will see, is what he will consider a brief of sorts: his PowerPoint presentation, the affidavit of Brad White, the affidavit
of Rob Bolen, the affidavit of Patrick Bohn, the affidavit of John Davenport, Jr., the affidavit of Allison Engebretson,
the affidavit of Tim Milan, and the affidavit of Roy Carroll.
Mr. Shipman asked those whose names he had just read to stand up. He then asked each of them to affirm
that the information contained in their respective affidavits is true to the best of their knowledge. Each confirmed
the same.
Mr. Shipman stated that some of this will be redundant with what staff have presented. He presented the
site plan and explained its relationship to Porters Neck Road and Market Street. Of particular note, in the areas in
purple, it will be seen that this industrial-zoned site, the border of that with Marsh Oaks, is almost double the border
of the proposed site.
Next, what is seen is the shared borders are for this site and what the uses are that are being made of these
shared borders. This site is a mixture of Urban Mixed Use. It is in the Porters Neck growth node, and from the staff
report, and as staff made clear, Urban Mixed Use promotes development of a mixture of uses at higher densities.
The types of uses encouraged include multifamily residential. Legislatively, this decision has already been made, that
with this Urban Mixed Use classification, you are promoting that in these areas, the highest densities permitted in
the County are allowed.
Similarly, in the Porters Neck growth node, this is from the County's own website. It encourages higher
densities than the surrounding areas. High density development is promoted in growth nodes and, from your own
website, the growth node is the area in the future land use map, which, legislatively, you have adopted, where more
density, not less, will be encouraged.
As staff's presentation shows, there is clear compliance with the maximum density allowed, even with the
additional dwelling allowance, which is up to ten. They are down in the eight area in the R-15. In the B-2 area, the
proposed uses are less intense than what uses could be made as a matter of right in the B-2 area. As staff noted,
these properties were the subject matter of a prior rezoning application and, based upon the information that we
heard and the feedback that we got, the density was reduced by 44 units. The density toward the R-15 was reduced
by 86 units.
The differing housing types, which the land use plan encourages, were incorporated. The total impervious
surface was reduced, and more flood control measures were added to this project than will ever be required, either
under your ordinance or under the state standards. As Mr. Bowen has testified, the after-development drainage
characteristics of the surrounding property will be better than if the property remained in its undeveloped state.
They believe that the staff has provided many comments that are supportive of the notion and idea that this project
is certainly in harmony.
On the site plan for the B-2, again, as staff noted, with an administrative change, two buildings can be
turned into three. Mr. Shipman reviewed the conceptual elevations for the B-2. There is an extensively engineered
drainage plan for the B-2. There is an extensively engineered utility plan for the B-2. For the R-15, one will see the
stormwater improvements in the R-15, the existing vegetative borders that are maintained, and the existing
treescape that is maintained. When Mr. Shipman heard all the presentations associated with why the rezoning
should be approved, they were amplifying what this project does. It preserves trees, not tears them down. It has
buffering multiple times more than is required under the ordinance.
Mr. Shipman then reviewed the conceptual elevations. As staff noted, not only the stormwater facility, but
the drainage improvements that will be provided in this area, from the natural pond to the storm fall or the storm
outfall shown on the diagram, the stormwater characteristics of the surrounding area will be improved with the
approval of this project.
Now, in the open space, the existing live oak cluster up near Market Street is maintained. There are over a
mile and a half of interconnected sidewalks and nature trails. There are amenities, which include a pool, a cabana,
and an outdoor kitchen. Again, as this shows, the buffers that are provided here exceed the minimum requirements
multiple times. He presented a picture of what is seen coming off of Market Street, stating that the clusters will be
maintained.
Mr. Shipman presented the existing conditions on the sites, both in the B-2 and the R-15. The vegetative
buffers will be maintained, including the one that is near Lantana Lane on the boundary of this property, sort of
toward the northeast end. Again, this illustrates that the minimum buffers are far more than minimum. They are
providing up to 12 times more than what the ordinance requires for buffering, including preservation of existing
trees on the sites. He provided an overview of the Porters Point boundary, noting the vegetation there that is going
to be maintained. He also presented an illustration of the typical vegetation adjacent to Porters Point.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 641
Mr. Shipman then presented the entirety of the plan and stated how the importance is that this property
will be combined into one tract, not two tracts, as it is currently. What that ensures is that the future use of this
property is locked in forever, as against the creeping, heavy industrial use that borders not only this property but
borders Marsh Oaks. For traffic improvements, as their traffic engineer will state, the daily counts for the project
that the Board just approved for Sheetz without the residential component are more than the traffic that will be
generated by this project, without the improvements.
The WMPO provided an updated approval in December of 2024 with two scenarios: one that called for, in
Mr. Shipman’s term, full access use of Brays Drive, and the other that approved an emergency access only. It is the
applicant's proposal that there be an emergency access only. Responding to the concerns of those in Porters Point,
although, he would say, as the residents of Porters Point know, the owner of the R-15 tract sold the property that
would become Porters Point to the developer of Porters Point and reserved an easement over this R-15 property for
the development of that property. Next, if this R-15 property is developed as R-15 without access onto Market Street,
combining the tracts, 100% of the traffic associated with this project will go where? Down Brays Drive. It can't get
onto Market Street.
Mr. Shipman then presented the transportation points, noting the gated emergency access only on Brays
Drive. He emphasized the improvements that the developer will be making at the developer's expense more than:
a) the project that the Board just approved with higher traffic counts, and b) more than what would be required
given the amount of traffic generated from this site.
First, from the ABC store heading north, there will be a continuous through turn lane all the way to Porters
Neck Road. Next, there will be, at number two, a southbound signal, a signalized ability to make a U-turn at Cypress
Pond Way. And again, number three, a signalized left turn U-turn at Cypress Pond Way. It will be better when finished
than it is presently. He presented an illustration of the improvements to be constructed, including extending the
right turn lane over some 400 feet.
The key points are that it provides density in an area that the Board has already identified legislatively for
high density growth; the Board has already crossed that bridge. Next, it adjoins, as does Marsh Oaks, an I-1 zoned
property, which includes uses as a matter of right or special use, which the Court of Appeals has said the Board made
a decision that they are compatible: a strip club. Legislatively, the Board made a determination that the property
that adjoins the applicant’s property and adjoins the Marsh Oaks property can be used for something far more
objectionable to the residents, including his client.
The stormwater infrastructure exceeds what is, well, maybe some people like strip clubs, he means, not to
be too critical, maybe some of them do, but the stormwater infrastructure improves the status quo than if the
property were left undeveloped. As the Board knows, the stormwater requirements require that one not exceed the
post-development amount of stormwater, pre-development. They have got two parcels that are going to be
combined into one. The scope and quality of the traffic improvements go far beyond what is required. It helps
existing traffic conditions on Market Street.
The updated TIA takes into consideration the new traffic counts with the Military Cutoff extension opening
and the reduction of traffic on Market Street; then, from the time this project was originally proposed. It provides
needed housing. How many times did they hear that already today about the need for housing?
Now, the evidence. Mr. Shipman asked the Board to note the two italics that he has: the use will not
materially endanger the public health. The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the UDO. There
cannot be any debate about that. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property. The location
and character of the use will be in harmony.
Here are the witnesses:
Mr. Milam, who says not only is this project needed to provide needed residential housing, it’s in
harmony and will have no substantial injury to the value of adjoining properties.
Mr. Davenport indicates the traffic infrastructure improvements that will be made, that the project will
not result in any significant increase in traffic onto Market Street. It will enhance the flow of traffic onto
Market Street.
Mr. Bowen has presented information to this Board and to the City of Wilmington back in 2024 about
the need for residential housing in New Hanover County. His opinion is that the proposed project, the
current market, supports this project. The project design enables it to meet a variety of household sites.
The site’s appropriate. The projected rental household growth will continue through 2029. The
absorption rate, contrary to suggestions made by those who are not experts, will continue at its current
pace, and there exists a demand for housing of this type, that the existing inventory that we have today
will be fully absorbed by 2027.
Brad White, his appraiser, who has provided specific case studies to show that multifamily adjacent to
R-15 zoned areas does not result in any diminution in value, much less a substantial diminution in value.
And the actual market data of residential properties located in New Hanover County adjacent to
multifamily projects shows values have increased, not decreased.
Rob Balland, Paramounte Engineering. He details the stormwater infrastructure that will enhance the
drainage characteristics, and that the proposed stormwater infrastructure, from a safety perspective,
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 642
will not materially endanger the safety of the public.
Allison Engebretson walks through the changes in this project, the density that was decreased, the
parking buffers being more than required, density being less than the maximum permitted.
And then finally, Mr. Carroll. When we talk, Mr. Rivenbark, about someone who gives more than he
takes, that describes Mr. Carroll. That describes what he’s already done here.
Mr. Shipman then stated, now, the staff report, they have walked through it. He stated that they, again,
believe that the conclusions in the staff report show that they have produced material and competent evidence of
compliance. These are but a few of the points; staff pointed out what they are. They meet the maximum density
calculations. The additional dwelling allowance requires 35% open space. They have more than that. The additional
dwelling allowance, or the multifamily in the B-2 portion, meets the specifications of the ordinance. The additional
dwelling allowance for the R-15 portion meets the specifications of the ordinance. They do not have any
conservation areas that are going to be impacted, or that will not be preserved. And, with the assistance of our
engineer, New Hanover County Engineering identified the area at the easternmost boundary of this property, where
enhancements will be made to the natural stormwater flow from the pond.
The schools’ projection is expected to have a minimal impact on school enrollment. Again, this Board has
already looked at the utilization of the County schools. He then reviewed what was presented in 2024 to this Board
by Cropper. Elementary schools, in 2010, as you know, we adopted a neighborhood schools model, obviously, with
some areas being more developed than others. Schools located in densely populated areas have more students than
schools in less densely populated areas. We created a magnet school concept by attendance. It didn't work. The
Cropper report notes that, as a unit of schools, elementary schools are not overcapacity.
In New Hanover County, Porters Neck was over capacity in 2017 when it opened, but instead of enacting a
solution by redrawing district boundary lines to send kids that are going to Porters Neck to the under-capacity Blair,
the board chose not to do that. Middle schools; they are not overcapacity, especially the Holly Shelter Middle School
where students from this project would go. And, as a matter of fact, Cropper has told us that, over the next ten
years, the projected increase of students in the middle school is less than 100 students.
High schools: Laney is at 117%. Capacity has been that way for years and years and years. The other two
high schools, for the next two years, are projected to be, according to Cropper, under capacity. The New Hanover
County Board of Education made a decision to send students who would otherwise go to New Hanover to an
overcrowded Laney. That's not the decision that this Board made. Note what the staff report says: that, in terms of
what we projected in terms of enrollment in 2020 to 2021, there has actually been a decrease, a net decrease per
residential unit. He then presented information on what staff indicates to be the total impact: to six grade levels at
the elementary school, three grade levels at middle school, and four grade levels at Laney High School.
Mr. Shipman then stated, again, here's the evidence, and it's been summarized in their application. The use
will not materially endanger the public health. The use meets all requirements and conditions of the UDO for the B-
2. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property, with that qualifier, “substantially,” being the
operative term. The location and character of the use will be in harmony.
Number four, he will get to that back in just a minute. Same, showing, with respect to the SUP in the R-15,
they meet all of the required conditions. They have made out a prima facie case of entitlement to the SUP. Now,
here is this issue about harmony: meaning the inclusion of a particular use in the ordinance, as one which is
permitted under certain conditions, is equivalent to a legislative finding that the prescribed use is in harmony.
So, this project can't be denied on the basis that it's not in harmony. The Board has already made a
legislative determination that it is. The inclusion of a use in a zoning district, even when a special use permit is
required, establishes a prima facie case that the use conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, unless material and
competent evidence is presented by those in opposition that would say to the contrary. Your staff hasn't told you
that because that's not the case.
Mr. Shipman stated he is happy to answer any questions that the Board may have, but, with that, he wanted
to turn the floor over to Mr. Carroll.
Roy Carroll, applicant, Founder, President, and CEO of The Carroll Companies, stated that it is great, Mr.
Chairman and Board members, it is great to be before you this evening. He does owe the Board an apology. About
a year ago, this case was before you, or a similar case. Not the exact case, and he had a conflict, couldn't attend, but
he watched it by video. Great video. Clear.
He just wants to go on record to say that they took those notes, and he took them back to the team, and
they said they did not fall on deaf ears. They heard density. They cut their density by 10%. They heard it was vague.
Certain aspects of the plan were very vague; common space, open areas. Very, very specific plan before the Board
this evening. And they heard, you know, that they did not do a good job when the question came up, are you going
to sell these or keep these? And it just was kind of clunky if you ask him.
But, anyways, he is here to tell the Board he keeps just about everything he builds. He will keep this project
if it is successful and passes with the Board’s consideration. They will keep this project for as long as he is in charge
of the company. And hopefully that is a long time to come.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 643
What does that mean? Well, if he sells, he does not have control. He cannot tell the Board that it is going
to be maintained to the highest standards. He can't tell the Board the grass is going to be growed, or, you know,
landscape is going to look unruly, or whatever. But he can tell the Board that if he owns it, the Board has his word
that it will be maintained to the highest standards. It will be an awesome addition to this community.
And, speaking of awesome additions to this community, this is an area of housing, he has sat here and
heard, he means, he has just about had their case presented by other cases before the Board this evening. There is
a need in this County. Denying housing, a housing project, is not going to stop people from moving into your
wonderful community. He loves it and stays down here as much as he can, but he can tell you that this fills a niche.
Now, where's that niche? A niche is between garden, garden style flats, you know, and that’s, they did not
bring that before the Board because they thought this would be a great buffer. The townhouse with garage would
be a great buffer and a great addition to your housing stock. The Board needs that housing stock.
They are talking about housing for, you know, teachers, firemen, policemen, and folks like that. And not
everyone wants to live in a flat. The fact is, you know, housing starts today in this community at over $400,000. Now,
you know, schoolteacher salaries, police salaries, firemen, those folks that support us and take care of us.
Unfortunately, you know, a lot of those folks cannot afford the American dream today. So, what does this give them?
This gives them a stepping stone. Not everyone wants to live in a flat, starting a home. They do not want somebody
above them or below them. They build lots of that. You know, if the Board tells him, go build a bunch of flats, you
know, they will definitely listen to it. But he thinks this property is too valuable for that. So, the housing stock that is
before the Board this evening is a housing stock of townhomes for those people in transition from buying that
American dream and living in a flat, garden style apartment.
Mr. Carroll thanked the Board for its consideration and is glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Shipman stated not to remind the comments that were previously made in the Board’s rezoning
considerations, acceptable transition. This is an acceptable transition for the uses that could otherwise, and are
otherwise, being made of property that borders this.
Robust tree preservation, they say they are going to encourage that, that does this. Preserving natural
space. This plan does that. We are desperate to increase supply; we're told by those who are in the know. This
project does that. And, consistent with, legislatively, the decisions that were made by this Board as to what kind of
uses, higher intensity uses in this growth node, that would be encouraged. So, this is not a project that is not
consistent with the Board’s land use plan. It is totally consistent with the land use plan. This is not a project that's
not in harmony. The Board has legislatively made that determination that it is, or at least that it can be.
Mr. Shipman stated he is happy to have any of the witnesses that he has presented answer any questions
that any of the Board may have, and he appreciates the Board’s consideration.
Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Shipman for his presentation and stated that now the opponent has 30
minutes for their presentation.
Grady Richardson, attorney with the Law Offices of Grady Richardson, representing the Marsh Oaks
neighborhood and Marsh Oaks Homeowners Association (HOA), stated that tonight he has several affidavits he will
go through on the PowerPoint, but he would like to have Courtney Corriher stand up. He stated that she is the
president of the Marsh Oaks HOA.
He stated he has just a few questions as a little bit of a baseline to get started. He asked Ms. Corriher if she
is the president of the Marsh Oaks HOA. Ms. Corriher stated yes.
He then asked if she has, in her capacity for the Marsh Oaks HOA, retained him and other experts to oppose
the applications that are before the Board tonight. Ms. Corriher stated, “Yes, we have.”
He then asked if the HOA is a nonprofit organization. Ms. Corriher stated, “Yes, we are.”
Mr. Richardson asked, “How much money, approximately, have you expended in hiring him and other
consultants and attorneys to help him and experts to oppose this application?” Ms. Corriher stated that, tonight,
depending upon what your final invoice is, at least $30,000.
He asked Ms. Corriher, “Did you actually have to, previously, appear to oppose the rezoning that was done
about a year ago that was turned down, but the vote was pulled?” Ms. Corriher stated, “Yes, I did.”
He asked her, “How much time have you invested as the president of the HOA, on behalf of the members
of the HOA, to spearhead the opposition tonight?” Ms. Corriher stated, “This has well exceeded a full-time, 40-hour
job for me for the last year and a half to two years consistently, not only for myself but also for all of the volunteer
residents who have assisted with this.”
He asked if there are several property owners that live well within the 500-foot radius in the Marsh Oaks
subdivision. Ms. Corriher stated, “Yes, there are. There are at least 28.”
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 644
He asked if they are opposed, as well, to the applications tonight. Ms. Corriher stated, “Yes. They are
unanimously opposed to this application.”
Mr. Richardson thanked Ms. Corriher.
Mr. Richardson then stated that what he’d like to do is start off with what Mr. Shipman has talked about
with respect to harmony, and this business about pre-legislatively determining as though we have no ability to
oppose the harmony aspect. Actually, the correct standard of the law is, you have pre-legislatively determined that
this could be harmonious in this district. It’s not a rubber stamp, and it’s not a guarantee.
The Board doesn’t need to take his word for it. The Board can take the word of the Court of Appeals in
Petersilie v. Boone Board of Adjustment. He then handed out copies of said case to the Board and clerk to the board.
He then stated, the case handed out to the Board is directly on point, where townhomes were being proposed in a
residential area and the applicant was making the pitch that, well, the Board pre-legislatively determined that these
townhomes can go in here, so it’s by law per se harmonious. The Court rejected that argument and said that if there
is substantial, material, and competent evidence, supported by the opponents of those applications in townhomes,
then the Board is well within its right to turn the application down, finding that it is not harmonious with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Mr. Richardson then referred to his PowerPoint presentation, stating, “What the Board has here tonight
are two properties. Close your eyes for a minute, and I want you to sit there and say to yourself, ‘I got 33 acres, and
about 72 single-family homes could be put on these 33 acres, but the applicant wants you to believe that it is
completely consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods to go from 72 single-family homes to 4.22% times,
multiple over that, to 304 units.’”
The Board has already heard the standards for your decision tonight. He won’t belabor them, but our focus
tonight is on two. Obviously, you’ve heard a little bit about the harmony, but also the fact that it poses a substantial
and grave public health and safety concern, based upon the density, the egregious density, and the traffic counts,
and what’s going to happen with the burdening of an already deathtrap called Market Street in this area.
He has Zach Bugg, who’s here tonight. He’s a PhD; he’s an expert on the TIA stuff. The application’s TIA
tonight was done in December of 2022. It was actually scoped in August of 2022, three years ago, before the Military
Cutoff extension was opened up.
In December of last year, the applicant submitted its pending applications with a build-out year of 2027,
when it started out as a build-out year of 2024. So now, if they build out as of 2027, the TIA is going to be based on
five years instead of the initial two years, and then update it with the supplemental technical memo, showing a
revised townhome count and retail space, without accounting for any actual increased traffic and new or proposed
unrelated development already approved by the WMPO.
The opening of the Military Cutoff extension, in fact, has not reduced traffic. The WMPO counts were done
in 2022 and 2024, before and after the extension was opened, so we have a traffic volume increase of 3%. This data
was not included in the applicant’s 2024 memo. There are developments that are not included in the applicant’s
memo that show build-outs for the year of 2027.
Mr. Richardson stated that, based on the next slide, at least 1,332 new residential units and 157,000 square
feet of new commercial space will have been added since the old 2022 TIA report. Some of those projects you can
see here are the proposed Bayshore townhome developments. But then you’ve got Middletown West Landing
Apartments, The Pinnacle, and Scotts Hill Hospital complex.
The TIA report also uses a low traffic growth rate. While the TIA report was completed three years ago as
scoped, it may have also underestimated the actual traffic impact by using only a 1% traffic growth rate when 2% is
more typically assumed, and the actual traffic growth has been 2.7% for Market Street. This is coming from Mr. Bugg.
There’s also the use by the applicant of the ITE 220 code, beyond his pay grade, but basically, as per Mr.
Bugg’s affidavit, the 220 code is used for multifamily trip calculations. That results in 10 to 20% fewer trips than using
the ITE 215. Why does that matter? The ITE 215 code is for townhome trip calculations, such as the one being
proposed by the developer.
In the past three years, this stretch of Market Street has shown a total of 1,024 accidents, with 223 injuries.
Mr. Richardson stated that he also has with him tonight Michael Rose, who’s a former city planner for
Greenville, South Carolina, a land use and town planner for Centralina Council of Government, and past town
manager or administrator for Pineville, Harrisburg, and Topsail Beach. The reasons why, in his affidavit, he says the
proposed developments are not in harmony with the New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan are as follows:
It’s way too high in density. General Residential calls for low density, 2 to 6 dwellings per acre, or single-
family 1 to 6 dwelling units per acre, not townhomes. The R-15 section of this development is proposing
8.4 dwelling units per acre.
The project lacks multiple entry points.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 645
Ernest (or Ernie) Olds, former chairman of the New Hanover County Planning Board and a vice president
and principal at Becker Morgan, is an architect. He looked at it, and in his affidavit, he looked at it
through the lens of an architect about this development and its health and safety, as well as its
harmony.
Mr. Richardson stated that Mr. Olds says in his affidavit: “It’s too aggressive on density; it’s too much density
than appropriate for the location. He suggested a single-family development with a density of three units per acre.
It has poor entry and exit traffic design, because all traffic is being routed through the parking lot of the two
commercial buildings near Market Street. Number three, it lacks lawn and yard space. There’s an urban aesthetic
that is not in keeping, not in harmony with the surrounding locations of Marsh Oaks and Porters Point. The design,”
Mr. Olds says, “is more like what would be found in downtown Charlotte.”
Probably the most demonstrable exhibit for the lack of harmony of this project is this snippet from your
zoning map that goes from the north of Gordon Road to the Lowe’s near Porters Neck. All along Market Street is
zoned B-2, but not one single piece along Market Street from that stretch is multifamily abutting Market Street, with
one exception, the Amberleigh Apartments. That one, you turned down on a rezoning, rightfully so. And then they
went and petitioned for voluntary annexation so that they could put multifamily in there. That’s the only one.
There’s another one by Mr. Maynard off Lendire Road, B-2 multifamily, but it’s not directly on Market
Street, because B-2 is supposed to have your commercial on the Market, and behind it is supposed to be your
residential. That’s transition.
Mr. Richardson stated that Mr. Shipman points to the industrial nature of the land. That’s what it’s
supposed to be on Market Street. It’s been there. And he would submit to the Board that the industrial is far less of
an intense use and far less of a density concern and health and safety concern than having 304 multifamily units
dumping onto and off of Market Street, where they propose to do U-turns, U-turns on Market Street.
Pictures don’t lie. That’s what you have. The Board is being asked to approve the first ever multifamily on
this stretch of Market Street as a special use permit. It is not harmonious based on the fact of looking at your zoning
map right now and the fact that only one multifamily exists on that stretch.
The R-15 parcel is not entirely in the growth node. The growth node designation applies only to the 3.2-
acre parcel zoned B-2. The proposed development for the B-2 parcel does not meet the full standards of being a
growth node because it does not promote either pedestrian activity or connecting to public transportation.
There’s no bus stop within approximately ten miles of this entry point of the applicant’s development.
There’s no sidewalk access to the Oak Landing Shopping Center from inside the B-2 parcel.
Mr. Richardson then stated he would go through and do a deep dive on the Comprehensive Plan. It doesn’t
satisfy at least 25 of the 30 items you look for in a plan, and he presented them. He stated they’re not preserving
open space and agricultural land.
Mr. Richardson said Mr. Shipman wants you to believe, with that slide that he showed you, that putting 304
units on 30 acres, 33 acres, is preserving open space, because they dump a few trees in here, but they want you to
ignore the three-story concrete jungle of 304 units with a limited entryway and exit way from the development as
being preservation of open space.
He then stated that he could go on. It doesn’t. It doesn’t support multimodal transportation, encouraging
safe and walkable communities. That’s what Mr. Olds and Michael Bearak, who’s a certified safety planner, talk
about, the lack of safe transportation and lack of safe pedestrian access for folks who are going to be walking,
jogging, or using their vehicles on a road that’s going through a parking lot off of Market Street to the narrow, narrow
access way to the back to get to the other part, the R-15, that they are seeking to have the additional allowances.
The water issues are not addressed by the proposed development plan. They don’t talk about upstream
runoff sources not being mitigated from the Porters Neck Center, the Oak Landing Shopping Center, the Harris Teeter
fuel station, and so forth, and the ABC store.
You, the local government, may say no to a new development when schools have reached maximum
capacity. The local schools, we all know, they are over capacity. They say that there’s going to be 304 multi-families
coming in here, but not any increase in the schools.
They talk about how there is a need for housing. Why can’t you just do the single-family like it was zoned
for the past 50 years, and put your 72 single-family homes on there? That’s satisfying the housing need.
And make no mistake, tonight’s application is not about whether their desired development can be
supported by the public. It’s whether or not it should be allowed under your zoning ordinance as a special use permit,
where they are increasing the density four plus fold.
Mr. Richardson then stated that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan, shall be designed to facilitate the efficient and adequate provision of transportation. Nothing about this
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 646
development that they are proposing is going to facilitate any transportation, much less safely or in a healthy way,
along this Market Street corridor. It is not going to do anything with respect to serving the schools and making them
less crowded.
There are some additional slides in the appendix to the presentation. They are talking about the approvals
and the TIA, the Market Street TIAs. We have got information there from slide 18 that shows the amount, the data
supporting the traffic accidents, the data from Rebekah Roth’s email with the County about the schools over capacity
that was sent on August 28, 2025. You have got the link there to the School of Government that talks about how
communities facing school overcrowding, when a school has reached maximum capacity, the local government may
say no to new development.
You then have the affidavit of Zach Bugg. Mr. Richardson then reviewed the bookmarks/tabs of the
information he provided to the Board, stating: “Tab one was the slide presentation. Tab two is Mr. Bugg’s affidavit.
Tab three is Mr. Olds’s affidavit,” and noted that all of the affidavits have the respective résumés or past work history
of these experts that have been retained by his client.
The next one is the affidavit of Michael Rose, who had all the planning and city planning experience. And
then, finally, we have the affidavit of Michael Bearak, whose résumé is attached. He’s a master safety professional.
He’s a certified safety health manager. He has extensive experience in analyzing the safety, general safety, and
analytics of any given particular instance. And, in this case, he looked at this project and whether or not it posed a
significant public safety and health concern.
And, as we go further down his affidavit, he lays out the concerns he has. He cites, and is attached to his
affidavit, articles about pedestrian safety from the National Transportation Safety Board that talk about the inherent
dangers and the elevated risk of parking lot facilities and commercial parking lots with pedestrian safety and
pedestrian traffic, as well as vehicular safety and traffic.
There is a substantial material endangerment of the public’s health and safety, as Mr. Bearak has laid out
in his affidavit, as has also been laid out with the design critiques by Mr. Olds and Mr. Rose.
And, finally, on Tab six, 334 residents of New Hanover County have signed this petition opposing tonight’s
proposed development. Ninety-two percent of the signatures come from adjacent Marsh Oaks and Porters Point
subdivisions and other Porters Neck neighborhoods, all within the 28411 ZIP code. All addresses have been verified.
All the petition’s contact information has also been verified.
Mr. Richardson then asked for assistance scrolling to the petition, which he stated shows all of the
signatures of those opposed to tonight’s applications. He then stated he will yield at this time, absent any questions,
for anyone else that wishes to be heard on this, because he only represents the Marsh Oaks folks and the HOA.
But he would urge this Board, as it did with the rezonings, albeit it’s slightly different: there’s nothing
different here about the lack of harmony. There’s nothing different here about this application. In fact, it is
significantly exacerbating the concerns the Board should have about the health and safety of the folks in Marsh Oaks,
the folks that are going to be going to and from their places of work and business and homes on Market Street, and
the density calculations that they are bringing to the Board tonight.
Mr. Richardson stated that, for all of those reasons, he would ask that this Board uphold and find that this
project is not harmonious, and it does materially endanger the public’s health and safety, and for those two reasons,
it should be denied under the Board’s UDO. And this special use permit application, both of them, be soundly
rejected.
Chair Rivenbark stated that there were four other people that had signed up. The first one would be Michael
Bearak. Mr. Richardson responded that he has them signed up in the event that they needed to come forward and
testify, but also because of the affidavits that he has also tendered into the record, hard copy and flash drive. Chair
Rivenbark asked if Zachary Bugg, Courtney Corriher, and Mike Rose come under that. Mr. Richardson confirmed that
was correct, and that Ms. Corriher already testified briefly.
Chair Rivenbark stated the applicant and opposition speakers would each have ten minutes to provide
rebuttal remarks.
In applicant rebuttal, Mr. Shipman stated, Mr. Chairman, this map doesn’t lie. When we talk about harmony,
the idea, notion that affiants are telling you that this property is not in the Porters Neck growth node or does not
contain an Urban Mixed Use classification is contrary to what your own staff has told you.
Next, architects can’t give opinions about traffic. Architects can’t give opinions about safety. He then
presented the permitted uses, stating that just some of them in the I-1, whose border doubles that of the subject
property, are airports, emergency service facilities, a post office, adult entertainment establishments, outdoor
recreation facilities, banks, mini warehouses, commercial kitchens, a microbrewery, a restaurant, boat dealer, car
wash, equipment rental, fuel sales, mobile home building sales, transportation, vehicle service and storage facilities,
vehicle rentals, and chemical manufacturing.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 647
This County has already crossed, in a prior SUP denial, this notion that generalized fears, even from those
who purport to be experts, are not sufficient to deny an SUP permit. That’s not evidence. It is not competent.
No one’s even addressed the notion that the stormwater improvements that will be made with this project
will render the after-development condition of the surrounding areas safer.
Traffic, if indeed the traffic issues that the opponents suggest exist, the WMPO would never have approved
this TIA. Never, ever. So this is an attack on the very process that this County and the City and other counties and
cities rely upon to ensure that, at least as it pertains to traffic, we’re not going to have an issue with safety.
The opinions provided by those who oppose this project don’t even touch on the traffic infrastructure
improvements that will be part of this project, that aren’t a part of the project that you have already approved.
Mr. Shipman then asked John Davenport, traffic consultant with Davenport, to step forward. He asked Mr.
Davenport, will the traffic from the Sheetz project that this Board just approved exceed the traffic counts on this
project? Mr. Davenport stated that it is twice the traffic.
Mr. Shipman asked him to explain why. Mr. Davenport stated, that’s just the land use that the Board
approved. He means, if Sheetz is 12 to 14 gasoline pumps, it’s 24 hours a day, so it generates traffic all day, seven
days a week. It’s just a completely different land use. So it’s a high turnover. It’s got a restaurant in it. We actually
talked about that when he came up one time before, comparing what’s here to actually use the Sheetz, because he
has done several Sheetz. He does not even think; he, like his kids, likes Sheetz. He stated he likes Sheetz, but it does
generate a lot of traffic. It’s just a simple nature and how you drive through. He means, it’s just a land use that
generates as much traffic, almost as a Chick-fil-A.
Mr. Shipman then asked, “How would he compare the traffic infrastructure improvements that this project
will provide versus what he saw that the Sheetz project won’t provide?”
Mr. Davenport stated that, well, we’re putting in a traffic signal. He knows someone was asking questions
about U-turns there. We’re putting in a traffic signal to facilitate that. Anyone that talks about U-turns on Market
Street knows that a median was put out there. That causes a lot of U-turns. In our case, we’re putting a signal in to
facilitate the safety of that, whereas, in some cases, they turn without a signal.
Mr. Shipman thanked Mr. Davenport.
Mr. Shipman then stated, so the suggestion has been made that the last time that an applicant came before
the Board to propose multifamily “on Market Street” was Amberleigh Shores. And, of course, the Marsh Oaks
Homeowners Association opposed that. And we see how that turned out. More than 40% more density was put on
that site once the City annexed it. There are almost 600 units at Amberleigh Shores now, more than 40% more than
what they were seeking when they asked for a rezoning.
So, the idea and notion that the Board, somehow, by denying this SUP, is going to reduce densities is not
so. Allowing this SUP will control what happens with this site. Two sites will become one. The stormwater
infrastructure will be better after development than it is now.
There are no appraisers that have come to the Board from the opposition who indicate that there will be a
material diminution in value, because we provided the Board the case studies that show, to the contrary, projects
in Wilmington, New Hanover County, adjacent to multifamily, suffered no diminution in value.
Prima facie, this is in harmony unless material and competent evidence is presented that it’s not. And, in all
due respect, affidavits from people that ain’t from round here that take issue with what the staff has already
concluded is not material and competent evidence that rebuts the prima facie showing of harmony. It just isn’t.
Mr. Shipman then stated, now, what are the alternatives? Deny it. Allow it. Allow it with the conditions.
He does not hear anything from the opposition that objects to the emergency access use only of Brays
Drive. He does not hear anyone who takes issue that the improvements that will be made with the traffic
infrastructure that will be provided will make Market Street better than it is now.
So, if the Board denies this issue, someone said earlier the site’s going to be developed, whether it’s
developed this way, developed another way, developed as two parcels instead of one. This Board won’t have control
over that. What the Board will assure is that the R-15, if it is developed as such, separate from the B-2, that 100% of
the traffic from the R-15 will go down Brays Drive, the very thing that those who have opposed this say they do not
want. But it will happen as a matter of right. It will happen because there is an easement that is there, and the
owners and Porters Point cannot prevent it from being used for all of the access on this R-15.
They have listened to the concerns, they have reduced the density, they have increased the buffers. The
opponents poo-poo that. They can’t. How can you throw rocks at a developer who is increasing the buffers by 12
times what is required? Don’t you wish to encourage that? He thinks we do.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 648
Material competent evidence has been produced. Prima facie case has been made. That prima facie case
has not been rebutted. And, in all due respect, he and his client respectfully request that the SUP application be
approved. And, again, he is happy to answer any questions anybody has.
In opposition rebuttal, Mr. Richardson thanked the Board for its time tonight. He knows these are tough
issues that come before this Board. When he goes into court or goes into a hearing, he always likes to use his other
opponent’s evidence against them.
Their TIA for 304 units calculates out to 2,306 daily trips. And that’s using their ITE 220 code versus the 215
code, which would have even more trips going on there. 131 peak AM trips dumping on Market Street with 304 units
going in there. 170 peak afternoon trips dumping onto Market Street, if this is allowed.
Mr. Richardson then stated Mr. Shipman rhetorically says, “How can his clients throw rocks at this
development?” Because they are doing it. 4.2 multiples over density than what’s been allowed for 50 years? That’s
the rock. Not 72 units, 304 units. That’s why they are throwing rocks, because that fact in and of itself smacks of
being harmonious to this established neighborhood.
Let’s talk about the easement of Brays Drive. That easement that Mr. Shipman references was given to a
parcel that was zoned R-15 for 30 acres for single-family homes. That easement wasn’t given for 304 units traversing
public roads that are privately maintained by the Porters Point neighborhood. What do you think is going to happen
to that road? If it were to be open for 304 units, the maintenance is going to be astronomical.
And what he’s telling you without telling you about Amberleigh Shores is what all the developers are doing
now: “You deny our request, County, and we’re just going to go to the City and we’re going to nuke the site.” But
that doesn’t mean that the Board should allow it tonight and turn its back on the folks that are here opposing this
development. If the City doesn’t want to stand up for them, then there’s a way to get rid of the City officials that are
going to keep rubber-stamping this stuff and making multifamily everywhere in this County. Enough is enough.
This application, he has one thing to add. Mr. Shipman talks about the architects are in the business of
designing things and designing them well, which means you’ve got to make sure they’ve got adequate ingress and
egress in there, safe for people to use, and pedestrians and bicyclists. And that’s what Mr. Olds tells you. With all of
his experience as an architect, the deficiencies of this plan have been discussed before the Board tonight, and the
significant increase in the safety risk for pedestrians and vehicular users.
Mr. Richardson then asked Mr. Bearak to step forward. He asked Mr. Bearak, although he knows his résumé
is extensive and it is attached to his affidavit, to just give an overview of his experience to the Board in the safety
field.
Mr. Bearak stated his experience in the safety field has been 30 years, ranging from everything from
warehouse, distribution, transportation, warehousing, general safety flow plans, facilities, sites, and roads. That is a
general overview of what he has handled. So, he has looked at traffic patterns. He has had a look at the merging and
egress of trucks, semis, and trailers fully loaded, often with heavy loads like ductile iron pipe and other fittings when
he was in underground waterworks. So, he understands that when we talk about the amount of traffic flow, what it
means when we put on five more cars or ten more cars in a five-minute window, or 100 more cars, or in the case of
the Sheetz where they were, the other side wishes to convince you, well, it’s a greater flow. It’s two different roads.
You have to consider the size of the roads, the egress, and the other configurations. The mere fact that they’re asking
us to make U-turns, or they’re asking these new residents in this new community to make a U-turn, they’ll have to
cut across all traffic lanes in order to make that fast U-turn that they’re putting in. U-turns are not safe, even when
we expect them. People tend to jump the gun when they’re turning right and do not allow time for people to make
their U-turns. It’s very commonplace now on Market Street, something he sees on a daily basis and something that
he did pick up when he was doing a study for this hearing.
Mr. Richardson asked him, in preparing his affidavit, did he do his own vehicular density calculations that
are also attached to his affidavit?
Mr. Bearak stated, “Yes, sir, I did.”
Mr. Richardson asked Mr. Bearak to generally tell the Board what those findings show.
Mr. Bearak stated, “Generally, we found high levels of traffic when you normally would expect it, Monday
through Friday from the 7:30, 7:45 to almost 9:00 a.m. time, and then 4:30 to almost 6:30 at night, which would be
your PM traffic. Additionally, we looked at weekends, so you had more midday traffic, late morning to early
afternoon, all of which is consistent with what you’d expect. Additionally, when we were counting them, one of the
things that was not taken into consideration were the number of vehicles that we’re seeing taking a U-turn,
specifically at the, he believes it’s Haynes, which is where the Walmart is, to come back north on Market Street. And
there were a significant number of vehicles that turned north in order to end up in our count.”
Mr. Richardson then asked if, in his experience of 30 years in evaluating the safety of a variety of things, in
his opinion, reviewing this application, did he believe that this application, if approved with the 304 units and the
increased vehicular density that’s going to come from it, would pose a significant material endangerment of the
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 649
public’s health and safety?
Mr. Bearak stated, “Sir, without question.”
Mr. Richardson asked, “And did he review Mr. Olds’s affidavit from his architectural perspective, as well as
the affidavits of Mr. Rose and, forgetting someone, Mr. Bugg, but Mr. Rose and Mr. Olds, and does he concur with
their conclusions that the design of this proposed development, if approved and if built, would pose a material and
significant public health and safety concern?”
Mr. Bearak responded, “Absolutely.” He stated he looked at both of their affidavits and, in looking and
reviewing their affidavits, he did agree with what they found and their general findings, which is commensurate with
what he has found with other architects and other planners in setting up different projects and building renovations.
Mr. Richardson thanked Mr. Bearak.
Mr. Richardson stated, so with that, Board, he respectfully requests that it deny these applications tonight.
They do not meet two requirements at a minimum that the Board must find for granting an SUP. They materially
endanger and increase the significance of the health and safety of the public, and also that this development is not
harmonious with the surrounding neighborhoods and the area within which it is being located. And do not be
confused when you look at the zoning map, the zoning map doesn’t lie. There is one multifamily abutting Market
Street, and that’s because the developer went around the Board’s authority to the City. And if it weren’t for that,
there wouldn’t be any multifamily on it. He asks the Board to deny them.
Chair Rivenbark recognized County Attorney Smith. County Attorney Smith stated that if the Board has
questions of anybody who spoke tonight, that's going to draw out additional evidence, he just recommends that
Chair Rivenbark technically keep the hearing open and not close it. If there's any questions of this Board, of anybody
who testified tonight, and he knows that's contrary to what the script says. Chair Rivenbark stated, alright, and asked
if anybody has any questions.
Commissioner Walker stated she does have questions. There was a reference made to the road that goes
out from the one parcel onto Market Street. Is it a parking lot, or is it a road? She does not know who wants to
answer that question, maybe Gary. So, the B-2 lot, that's the first one that fronts Market Street.
Mr. Shipman responded, “Yes, ma'am.”
Commissioner Walker stated, looking at the map, it looks like that whole area back there feeds into a
parking lot. It doesn't look like a road. So, she’s curious, is it a road, or is it not a road?
Mr. Shipman asked if it was from the B-2 into the R-15.
Commissioner Walker stated, no, from the R-15 going towards Market Street through the B-2.
Mr. Shipman responded, “There’s a road there, yes.”
Commissioner Walker stated, it is a road, so it goes out, curves around the building, and then it goes on to
Market Street?
Mr. Shipman responded, “Yes, ma'am.”
Commissioner Walker stated she has a second question that maybe Mr. Shipman can answer. How many
parking spaces are in that R-15 proposed, like how many? How many cars are you preparing to approve for that?
Mr. Shipman stated he would let Ms. Engebretson answer that question.
Allison Engebretson with Paramounte Engineering stated, there's a minimum required of 470 some spaces
back there. It's two parking spaces per unit. What we have drawn on the plan is in excess of 100 more than that,
anticipating visitor parking. But everything that we've promised in the plan is the minimum above the minimum
amount because there may be some design changes for grading or some such.
Commissioner Walker asked, so what's the high side?
Ms. Engebretson responded, “That the high side would be 572.”
Commissioner Walker asked County Attorney Smith if the Board is allowed to ask staff questions or not.
County Attorney Smith stated, “Yes.”
Mr. Shipman responded to Commissioner Walker on one additional point. The parking spaces that she
points out is in addition to the garages that will also be present.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 650
Ms. Engebretson clarified that it includes garages.
Commissioner Walker stated, this might be a staff question, did we look at Pages Creek and the potential
effects of a dense development like this on the creek itself? Have we looked at any?
Mr. Farrell asked her, from a drainage standpoint?
Commissioner Walker responded, drainage and/or environmental standpoint. She does not, she obviously
does not know the answers. So, she is just asking. She knows Pages Creek is what it abuts up to, she believes, and
asked, is that true?
Mr. Farrell stated he will defer to the county engineer.
County Engineer Tim Lowe stated, yes, it abuts a tributary of Pages Creek, and he believes it's been alluded
to this evening, the pre- and post-requirements, so they cannot exceed what is leaving the site today with the new
development. So that's what those ponds are designed to do, is control that flow rate into the creek itself.
Commissioner Walker asked, so stormwater ponds, what he is referring to, not the natural pond that's at
the back.
Mr. Lowe responded, “Yes, the natural pond is there today.”
Commissioner Walker stated, that and that and it’s, so she knows, she does not know about what
watersheds actually do, necessarily, but, like, if it's a natural pond there, does it? It's a natural part of the whole
system, right? So, anything that goes into it is going to eventually drain into Pages Creek?
Mr. Lowe responded, so the nature of the concerns that we've had in that area is actually with that pond
not having anywhere for it to go except into the backyards of, he believes it’s Lantana up there. And so that
requirement of the swale was asked for to give some relief for those existing properties up on Lantana.
Commissioner Walker then stated she has one more question, not for Mr. Lowe, though, and thanked him.
She asked if Brays Drive is a privately owned road? Is it the HOA at Porters Point that owns that?
Mr. Shipman responded, it was originally intended to be dedicated. It was not, according to the maps, what
was really originally intended to be dedicated, but because it was not built to NCDOT specifications, it has not been
accepted as such.
Commissioner Walker asked, so essentially, the HOA owns that road right now, and it pays for the
maintenance on that?
Mr. Shipman responded, “Subject to the easement, yes, ma'am.”
Commissioner Walker stated that was all she has.
Commissioner Zapple stated he would like to talk about the WMPO letter that was submitted and asked
who would be the person to ask.
Mr. Farrell responded, asking if he could get a little clarification about the question Commissioner Zapple is
asking about the WMPO letter. He stated staff would either defer to the representative for the WMPO, or, if it’s
about the traffic study that was done, the applicants do have someone.
Commissioner Zapple responded, it is the letter itself, it is actually a pretty base question here, maybe Mr.
Farrell can answer it, or someone.
Caitlin Cerza, transportation planning engineer, WMPO, stepped forward.
Commissioner Zapple stated, the date on the letter is December the fourth, 2024, but in the letter itself, it
says the information is based on the TIA by Davenport provided on November 18 of 2024, is that correct?
Ms. Cerza responded, “Yes.” So, the TIA was submitted previously, she believes, 2022, but this was in
reference to the technical memorandum that they provided.
Commissioner Zapple asked, so did anything change between November 18, 2024, when this was
submitted, to this date?
Ms. Cerza responded, “Not that she is aware of, other than she believes that, as they had mentioned, they
intend to leave Brays Drive as an emergency access gate. But they had studied both intersections, or options, and
the improvements were the same for both.”
Commissioner Zapple then asked, and we also went to an SUP as well, is he correct? Mr. Farrell, is that
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 651
correct?
Mr. Farrell responded, “Yes, sir, the initial application was a rezoning, and then they resubmitted as these
special use permits, yes, sir.”
Commissioner Zapple said, there’s a short paragraph near the end on the second page of WMPO that says
that if there’s been any change in the land use, which the SUP in his mind would be, that the approval of this would
become null and void. So, he guesses it’s a process. His question: he wants to know, is the information in the WMPO
letter still valid based on the changes in the land use request, meaning shifting to an SUP?
Ms. Cerza responded, “Yes, it would be. She knows it was discussed as part of their general TIA review
process back when we reviewed the technical memorandum last year in December, as well as, she believes, there
was additional discussion when they elected to exercise the option to gate Brays Drive. And she thinks that it was in
May or June of this year. So, it was discussed again, and there were no changes. The WMPO, NCDOT, and, she
believes, county staff all agreed that nothing needed to be changed in the actual approval letter.”
Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Farrell if he agreed with that assessment from our staff point of view.
Mr. Farrell responded, “Yes, sir, at the time when the application—he apologized—when the WMPO and
TIA were being reviewed, yes, sir.”
Commissioner Zapple asked if he saw no difference, or substantial difference, which would change the
WMPO’s assessment?
Mr. Farrell responded that it was based on unit count and staff’s assessment.
Commissioner Zapple thanked Mr. Farrell.
Chair Rivenbark stated that one thing he was interested in, asking Mr. Carroll, when he was talking about
the police, nurses, and teachers being able to afford something, will they be able to afford that?
Mr. Carroll responded, well, we hope so. He means, it’s going to be a high-quality development, but their
goal would be that it is some workforce housing there. They have not staked themselves out on any but affordable
housing, something that’s near and dear to him. It’s, you know, something we face in every community we work in.
But Chair Rivenbark may have his word that they would try to, they would try to address some there, and they
typically have courtesy officers, where they give discounts to anyways in most of their communities. And so, yeah,
that’s something that they would try to, try to address.
Chair Rivenbark stated, people get confused when we talk about affordable housing, because it’s not just
for a policeman or nurses, for somebody old and somebody that doesn’t have a house. It covers, you know,
everybody.
Mr. Carroll responded that he agreed.
Chair Rivenbark asked if, at any point, was there a chance that they could get a stoplight right there on
Market Street where all the cars were going to come out. He knows they are expensive, but that is a lot of cars
coming out of there.
Mr. Davenport responded, “No, NCDOT would not allow a full access. They wanted a U-turn. They have
specific spacing along Market Street where they have full. He added that they would love to have full access. He
means, if they, he means, traffic signals going to cost what it’s going to cost. They would just have to put it on the
southbound side, not all the way across, but that’s the best they get out of them, they asked them.”
Chair Rivenbark stated that just pulling out of there, trying to get over two or three lanes anytime, is scary.
It’s like a ride at Disney World riding down Market Street. But he just knows it is not safe.
Mr. Davenport stated he understood. That is the way NCDOT designed that corridor, and they are just
complying with what they asked them to do.
Mr. Shipman asked if he could make a comment.
Chair Rivenbark stated, “Absolutely.”
Mr. Shipman stated that one of the things that they had indicated is, if this Board desires option A of the
approved TIA, and that is a full use of Brays Drive, they will agree to that condition. They proposed an emergency
access only in response to the concerns from those in Porters Point that no traffic from this development use Brays
Drive. That’s why they posed that, and that was approved.
But, if the issue is a concern about more traffic being able to exit this site, they would approve to, they
would agree to a condition for option A. The Porters Point residents are not pleased about that, he is sure. But a full
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 652
access or full use of Brays Drive would be, yeah, exit only, not in, people coming down Porters Neck and going down
Brays Drive, but exit only for those exiting the project onto Brays Drive. That was what was approved in the TIA as
option A.
Commissioner Scalise asked Mr. Shipman that he hoped that he could talk with him a little bit about the
case Mr. Richardson handed up, Petersilie versus Boone Board of Adjustment. He asked if, in Mr. Shipman’s mind,
how does this matter differentiate itself from the fact pattern in that case.
Mr. Shipman responded, because they have had 35 years more of opinions from the Court of Appeals since
1989, Mr. Scalise, that have made it abundantly clear that the same kind of generalized concerns from non-experts
which was given in that 1989 case. The Institute of Government has made clear as late as 2025, the Court of Appeals
made clear in 2021 in a case involving a special use permit which this Board denied. So, he would just say the
response is 35 years of appellate history in North Carolina that deals with the fact that material and competent
evidence is not the kinds of generalized statements made in that particular case. The conclusion was made in that
case that that generalized testimony rebutted the prima facie showing made by the petitioner. But he would suggest
to him today that is not the conclusion that the Court of Appeals have reached today, given what the Institute of
Government has said, and what 35 years of subsequent opinions of that said.
Commissioner Scalise stated, but even with that generalized reference to the Board and the case law, he
guesses that necessarily hinges on his suggestion, contention that there has been no expert witness testimony
tendered by the opposition tonight. Because it seems to him like they believe that they have tendered some expert
witness testimony. He understands that Mr. Shipman has some, he assumes that Mr. Shipman has some
disagreement about the sufficiency of that.
Mr. Shipman responded that he does.
Commissioner Scalise stated, but so, it is his position then that they have not tendered expert witness
testimony tonight?
Mr. Shipman responded, “To rebut their prima facie showing, yes, sir, that’s my position.”
Commissioner Scalise asked, is there a scenario in which he feels like part of what he is struggling with here,
right from the outset, he feels like Mr. Shipman is suggesting to this Board that it does not have a choice, that it has
to do what it is Mr. Shipman is telling the Board tonight, and is that, in fact, his legal contention.
Mr. Shipman responded that he does not know how he possibly, Mr. Scalise, could have assumed that from
the words that came out of his mouth, because he did not say that.
Commissioner Scalise stated, “Okay.”
Mr. Shipman stated that he specifically addressed what the options were, which included the Board deny
it. But when material competent evidence has been presented and the applicant makes out a prima facie case, you
can only deny it if material competent evidence is presented to rebut it. So, his position is that they presented
material competent evidence. They made out a prima facie case, they are prima facie entitled to the issuance of the
SUP, and yes, sir, he does not believe that there was material competent evidence to rebut the expert testimony
that they provided.
Commissioner Scalise stated, but the Board is ultimately the trier of fact in this situation, and the Board gets
to determine whether or not it thinks those things are, in fact, sufficient competent evidence.
Mr. Shipman stated that he disagrees with that.
Commissioner Scalise asked if he does?
Mr. Shipman responded, “Yes.”
Commissioner Scalise asked why.
Mr. Shipman stated, because that’s the conclusion of law that will ultimately be decided by a court as to
whether or not this evidence is materially incompetent. The Board does not get to make that. The Board can make
that decision tonight, but the Board is not the ultimate decision maker about that.
Due to audience noise, Commissioner Scalise stated that he does think that it’s appropriate to please keep
the audience noise to a minimum while we’re having this dialog, respectfully to Mr. Shipman.
Commissioner Scalise asked Mr. Richardson if he wanted to respond to any of that.
Mr. Richardson stated, yes, and commented that so his answer to Commissioner Scalise’s question about
the law that he gave was a bunch of smoke screen. It’s good law, like if you are in front of a judge, he has no law to
rebut it. It has not changed. In fact, you can have lay witnesses that are substantial, material, and competent to give
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 653
testimony in opposition to a special use permit based upon their own firsthand observations. And, for instance, since
he says his case is too old, there’s the Hopkins v. Nash County case from 2002. Perhaps that’s early enough for him,
more recent, where the residents were opposed to a stump dump being put in an inertia landfill next to their single-
family residential homes. And they testified, they being the residents, not experts, testified about there being dust,
noise, 30 to 40 trucks per day going in and out of the proposed site, the additional traffic and noise and dust directly
into a residential area. And the Court of Appeals said that is substantial, material, and competent evidence, and they
are going to uphold the decision to deny the special use permit for lack of being in harmony.
Mr. Richardson then stated he was happy to hand it out and asked if he could approach.
Commissioner Scalise asked him to approach, and Mr. Richardson handed out the case. Commissioner
Scalise thanked him.
Mr. Richardson stated he would just add, probably the state’s leading guru on all things land use and zoning
is David Lawrence. And he’s got countless blogs and posts and treatises that he’s issued. He’s got an article, “Planning
and Development Regulation: SUP Application and Neighborhood Harmony Standard,” by David Owens, from his
2023 fourth edition of Land Use Law in North Carolina. And he highlights Hopkins v. Nash County and the Petersilie
v. Boone Board of Adjustment as just two examples of how harmony is pre-legislatively determined. He means, the
special use permit is pre-legislatively determined that it might be harmonious in that area. But of course, you got to
have a hearing like this to determine whether or not the applicant’s proposal actually is harmonious.
And they might put on a prima facie case, but that doesn’t end it, because then the Board gets to hear from
the opponents, and his group put forward affidavits of an architect, a safety, a traffic engineer, and another guy with
countless land use and zoning planning in all of his experience for municipalities throughout the state of North
Carolina as to how this is both not harmonious and poses a substantial increase of the risk to the public’s health and
safety. And for those reasons, again, he would reiterate, hopefully he has answered his question, Mr. Scalise, he
would ask this Board to deny the applications.
Commissioner Scalise thanked Mr. Richardson and stated his appreciation for the case being handed up. He
then stated, there is a portion on page three that he finds notable. The quote is, “substantial evidence must be more
than a scintilla or a permissible inference.” He asked if Mr. Richardson would kindly define what the word “scintilla”
means for those who may not know.
Mr. Richardson responded that scintilla is, it has, it has to be more than a little bit. He means, you, we go,
and you use that term of art all the time, but a scintilla is usually, he goes into court and say, “…they don’t have a
scintilla of evidence, judge, to support their position on this aspect.” So, one has got to have just a nugget of evidence
as a scintilla. Beyond that, though, that’s what it’s saying. It’s got to be beyond a mere scintilla.
Commissioner Scalise stated that the next line, he thinks, is telling and helps to further define it. Substantial
evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. So, it seems to him
whether or not the Board is able to determine the outcome of this case will ultimately hinge on whether or not the
members are considered to have reasonable minds, and the evidence that has been provided one way or another
has been adequate enough for them to reach the decision that they ultimately reach in this matter. He thinks that
that’s instructive, and he appreciates Mr. Richardson handing up this case.
Mr. Richardson stated, yes, sir, and asked if there were any questions for him.
Commissioner Walker stated she did not have a question for Mr. Richardson, but one more maybe for staff,
maybe Mr. Shipman, his folks. She is looking at one of the conditions, and it includes an I-1 zoning that is not part of
it, but it is needed to in order to, let’s see, “…site shall not be valid about the use of the land zoned I-1 for vehicular,
pedestrian, utility infrastructure, connectivity.”
She stated that she had not heard anything about this. She means, it’s in here somewhere about the I-1,
but she would love an explanation about what that means, and where is this property, and is it owned by someone
else?
Ms. Engebretson responded, “Yes, she doesn’t know if we can go back to the site plan that may show us,
but it is a small sliver of land. It’s about 1,000 square feet that is currently zoned as industrial, and it is the connection
piece between the B-2 and the R-15 portions of land. It does not require a rezoning or a special use for the connection
road to be installed there, so therefore not part of our case or cases this evening.”
Commissioner Walker asked, “So that’s owned by someone else, but they have given it to you?”
Ms. Engebretson responded that it is under contract by their client.
Commissioner Walker stated, “Okay, thank you.”
Commissioner Zapple stated he had a question for Mr. Shipman. He asked Mr. Shipman in his presentation,
which went pretty quickly, and they appreciate that, he knows Mr. Shipman tried to cram in a lot of information, on
the section on schools, he believes Mr. Shipman referred a lot of the information to the Cropper report that appeared
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 654
to be dated in 2010.
Mr. Shipman responded, “2024, January 2024.”
Commissioner Zapple stated, “Okay, he must have misread it. He was trying to take some notes as they
were going along.” He then asked about January 2010, as there is some information.
Mr. Shipman replied that 2010 is when the New Hanover County Board of Education adopted the
neighborhood schools’ concept.
Commissioner Zapple stated, “Very good,” and thanked Mr. Shipman.
Chair Rivenbark stated, this is not the easiest thing in the world. We've got a gentleman over here that said
that the traffic in the development that we're looking at is worse than the traffic at the Sheetz station, and we have
a gentleman over here that says just the opposite, and everybody's experts, so we're trying to sort all that out. That's
why we're asking some of these questions. Anybody have anything further?
There being no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark stated he was closing the public hearing. He then asked
if anyone on the Board had anything to discuss.
Commissioner Zapple responded that he will take a stab at it, at least some comments at this point. The
traffic issues, the lack of safe transportation, and the overcrowding and overcapacity of schools in that area are all
issues he finds very troubling about this. And all in the context of the amount of density that is being asked for.
He greatly appreciated the conversation about harmony, especially with this property being surrounded on
three sides by established neighborhoods of single family, essentially R-15, not essentially, it is R-15, and then the
one side towards Market Street having more commercial. My thoughts on this is that it is not in harmony with the
location up there.
He will be interested in other commissioners’ points of view. He just wants to reiterate, the overcapacity of
what we now know is critical infrastructure in schools is also of great concern. The number of students that are being
put in, he knows they differ. The numbers we heard tonight differ from what our own staff has put out there, and
it’s a lot of students, both to Porter’s Neck and to Laney High School, that are both very much over capacity at this
point.
Vice-Chair Pierce asked Commissioner Zapple if that was a motion.
Commissioner Zapple responded, “Well, if we’re ready to go to a motion, he’d be more than happy to make
that.”
Commissioner Walker stated there are two separate.
Chair Rivenbark stated, “Yeah, we gotta vote separately.”
Commissioner Walker asked, “Which order should they be going in?”
Chair Rivenbark stated, “Well, the first one is S24-04, and that’s the front lot that’s on Market Street.”
Commissioner Zapple stated, “That’s the B-2, and, well, in trying to separate these, he would find that…”
Commissioner Scalise stated, he wonders, he apologized, and asked, “But how are we going to separate?
We’ve talked about this in combination throughout the entirety of this hearing, and it seems like one rises and falls
with the other.”
Chair Rivenbark stated, “But you have to vote on them separately. He has been going through this all day.”
Commissioner Scalise responded, “Okay.”
Chair Rivenbark stated, “That’s what he’s talking about.”
Vice-Chair Pierce stated, “Unless the attorney wants to jump in there, our attorney.”
County Attorney Smith stated he will be happy to chime in. He does believe they are interconnected. There
are conditions saying that if one fails, the other one fails. However, he does think that it would be appropriate to
vote on each specific special use before the Board.
Commissioner Scalise responded, “Sorry, Mr. Chair, not a problem.”
Commissioner Zapple responded that he agrees completely with Commissioner Scalise. The Board has been
asked to look at this one on top of the other, and to hear testimony about both interchanging swiftly. So, he agrees
with him, but if this is what our attorney is saying, he’d be more than happy to separate that.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 655
He then stated, focusing on the B-2 area, he made a motion to deny the permit because the Board finds
that the use will materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed, and specifically the lack
of safe transportation, entrance and exit, and having to go through the B-2 section to go over to the R-15. So, without
saying that, it’s the transportation issues that he is referring to, and that would be exit onto Market Street as well.
Vice-Chair Pierce seconded the motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to deny the permit, because the Board
finds that the use will materially endanger the public health or safety if located were proposed, and specifically the
lack of safe transportation, entrance and exit, and having to go through the B-2 section to go over to the R-15 and
the exit onto Market Street.
Commissioner Scalise asked Commissioner Zapple if he would entertain a friendly amendment to his
motion.
Commissioner Scalise stated he would recommend that, rather than focusing solely on the material
endangerment component, that he also makes reference to the lack of harmony in the area in which it’s located, to
include matters of noise and traffic congestion. As a friendly amendment, he would offer that to Commissioner
Zapple.
Commissioner Zapple stated, “He has no objection to that.”
Commissioner Walker stated, “She would second that amendment.”
Commissioner Zapple continued on, stating he was kind of holding that to the R-15, but “Yeah, can do this
here.”
Commissioner Walker reiterated that she seconded his amendment, procedurally.
AMDENDED MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Walker to deny the permit,
because the Board finds that the use will materially endanger the public health or safety if located were proposed,
and specifically the lack of safe transportation, entrance and exit, and having to go through the B-2 section to go
over to the R-15 and due to the lack of harmony in the area in which it is located, to include matters of noise and
traffic congestion.
Chair Rivenbark asked for a vote on the amended motion on the floor. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
County Attorney Smith asked the Board, “As a matter of housekeeping, can it be assumed that the Board
finds that the applicant did satisfy conditions two and three, or is the Board not going to address that?”
Commissioner Scalise responded, well, it is his understanding that all the Commissioners have to do is say
that one of or more of these does not reach the threshold. He then stated that he is not prepared, as part of his
motion, to make an assessment as to the second or the third proposition, unless he is required to do so.
Commissioner Walker stated, “Neither is she.”
Commissioner Scalise stated, as a perfunctory matter, he guesses he’ll say no, but, he means, he is not
prepared to speak to that. He thinks that it’s enough for him to say no as to issues one and four.
County Attorney Smith replied to Commissioner Scalise that it is fine, that it is certainly fine. He just noted
that if there is a challenge to this and the Board, the court rules against this Board, we may have to come back to
consider what about two and three.
Commissioner Zapple responded, “And at which time, we will address it.”
Commissioner Walker stated, “Right.”
Chair Rivenbark stated, “Okay, so from what he understands, if one doesn’t pass, the other one doesn’t
pass.”
Commissioner Walker stated, “That’s correct.”
Chair Rivenbark asked the county attorney if that was correct.
County Attorney Smith responded, and to be helpful, he thinks the Board would make the same motion
that it just made for the first one, for the second one, but he does recommend there be two votes.
Chair Rivenbark asked him if he recommended that they do vote.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 656
County Attorney Smith stated, “Yes, sir.”
Chair Rivenbark asked if there was a motion.
Commissioner Zapple stated, “Okay, yes, he will make a second motion. But he thought that if the Board
did not find for, in this case, the B-2 section, that the matter stopped right there. He asked if he was wrong in that.”
Commissioner Scalise responded, “Apparently, our attorney is suggesting that, for thoroughness, the Board
address the issue of the S24-05, R-15 portion.”
Commissioner Zapple stated, “He will make the same motion that he made for the B-2.”
Chair Rivenbark asked, “If it was for the same reason?”
Commissioner Zapple replied, “Yeah, number one and number four, public health and safety and harmony.
I find the motion to deny as a result of them not finding for those findings of fact, number, in our book, it says A and
D or one and four.”
Chair Rivenbark asked if there was a second.
Commissioner Walker responded, stating, “Second.”
MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Walker to deny the permit because the Board
finds that the use will materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and that the location
and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will not be in harmony with
the area in which it is to be located and will not be in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the evidence submitted by the applicant and opponents is hereby incorporated as part of the
minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLVI, Page 16.4. The order denying the Special Use Permit and listing the
findings of fact is scheduled for approval at the Board’s regular meeting on September 15, 2025.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Rivenbark stated that ten people signed up to speak under public comment and asked that the
speakers provide comments.
Linnea Wiseman, a resident of Okeechobee Road, Wilmington, NC, shared her concerns about Novant/New
Hanover Regional Medical Center, stating it is not meeting the County’s mission to provide exceptional public
services. She emphasized the need for stronger leadership and accountability in hospital services and urged the
Board to ensure residents receive the quality of care they deserve.
Robert Jahn, a resident of Walnut Street, Wilmington, NC, shared his concerns about the quality of care at
Novant/New Hanover Regional Medical Center, stating that failures in compassion, communication, and
accountability have serious consequences for families. He urged the Board to ensure stronger oversight, real patient
advocacy, and greater accountability so that all residents of New Hanover County receive the care they deserve.
Gayle Bordeaux, a resident of Lord Tennyson Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated that she is a registered nurse
with decades of professional experience and expressed concern about conditions at Novant/New Hanover Regional
Medical Center. She stated that nurses are undervalued and overextended, leading to burnout and high turnover,
despite large numbers of new graduates entering the workforce each year. Staffing shortages compromise patient
care, and she urged the Board to press for greater support of nursing staff and stronger accountability to ensure
quality care for residents.
Jeannie Lennon, a resident of Sweetbriar Road, Wilmington, NC, stated that voters are deeply concerned
about conditions at Novant/New Hanover Regional Medical Center. She urged the Board to use its influence to
demand a corrective plan from Novant and ensure accountability, noting that fear of inadequate hospital care affects
community well-being, economic vitality, and the County’s reputation. She stated the need for adequate staffing
and real safety measures, not just promises, to restore public confidence.
Dr. Jon Martell, a resident of Oakland Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated that when New Hanover Regional
Medical Center was sold to Novant in 2021, the County assumed responsibility for ensuring the contract was upheld.
He noted that Novant committed to raising the hospital to the top 10% nationwide in patient satisfaction and quality
but has not met those benchmarks, citing Medicare data showing the hospital at the 50th percentile in satisfaction
and 30th in quality. He stated that residents are deeply concerned, referencing a petition with nearly 3,700
signatures, and urged the Board to use its authority to hold Novant accountable for improving care.
Stephen Agnelli, a resident of Old Fort Road, Wilmington, NC, stated that Novant/New Hanover Regional
Medical Center is an “atrocity,” citing negative personal experiences that he said reflect broader failures in care and
staffing. He expressed concern about nurse burnout, inadequate staffing, and decisions that put patients at risk. He
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 36
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 657
urged the Board to act to ensure the hospital is held accountable and adequately staffed to provide safe, quality
care.
Denise Henning, a resident of Cassimir Place, Wilmington, NC, stated her concerns with care at Novant/New
Hanover Regional Medical Center, citing long waits, poor communication, and preventable errors. She noted that
the lack of accountability and patient advocacy led to devastating consequences for her family. She urged the Board
to act to ensure stronger oversight, better communication, and higher hospital care.
Shelia Wilson, a resident of Red Cross Street, Wilmington, NC, stated that she is a registered nurse with
extensive hospital experience and that her faith in Novant/New Hanover Regional Medical Center has been shaken
in the community. She noted concerns with cleanliness, long waits, and patients being left unattended, adding that
many residents now travel out of town for care. She commented that as the population grows, confidence in the
local hospital is critical, and urged the Board to push for improvements to restore public trust.
Stephanie Guanzini was absent when called to speak.
Christine Mason, a resident of Marsh Oaks Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated that in regard to earlier remarks
regarding school capacity, elementary and high schools are already over capacity and projections show the trend
continuing. She cited data indicating many schools are operating above 100% enrollment, with Laney High School
enrolling about 2,400 students despite a capacity of 1,927. She emphasized that the consulting study did not account
for future growth and concluded that overcrowding is a countywide issue. She urged the Board to keep accurate
information in mind when working with schools on solutions.
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
There were no additional items of business.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Rivenbark adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kymberleigh G. Crowell
Clerk to the Board
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners meeting. The entire proceedings
are available online at www.nhcgov.com.