Commissioners deny two special‑use permits for 304‑unit Market Street/Porters Neck proposal after contentious quasi‑judicial hearing

The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners denied two interrelated special‑use permit (SUP) applications for a mixed‑use and multifamily development near the Market Street/Porters Neck corridor after extensive testimony from the applicant's team and sustained opposition from nearby neighborhoods.

The applications, S‑24‑04 and S‑24‑05, would have authorized a 62‑unit multifamily building with about 1,800 square feet of commercial space on a 3.21‑acre B‑2 parcel fronting Market Street and a 242‑unit row‑style development across a 30.22‑acre R‑15 parcel. Applicants proposed design features they said would preserve buffers, save trees, provide internal sidewalks and trails, and limit direct traffic onto Braves Drive via a gated emergency access.

Applicant representatives, led by attorney Gary Shipman and developer Roy Carroll, presented affidavits and engineering exhibits and told the board they had reduced density from prior proposals, increased buffers and designed stormwater infrastructure to improve pre‑development runoff. "We've reduced the density. We've increased the buffers. The opponents pooh pooh that. They can't," Carroll said, and attorney Shipman argued the project complied with UDO standards and the county's urban mixed‑use guidance.

Neighborhood groups, led by counsel Grady Richardson for the Marsh Oaks Homeowners Association, marshaled affidavits from a traffic/safety expert, architect and planner and submitted a petition with verified signatures (the record cites several hundred signatures; an advocate stated 334 verified signatures and other testimony referenced approximately 3,700 petition signatures in broader outreach). Experts for the opposition criticized the traffic analysis, contended the TIA undercounted cumulative growth along Market Street, and said the proposal would create unsafe u‑turn and pedestrian conditions on a high‑volume corridor. "There is a substantial material endangerment of the public's health and safety," expert witness Michael Barrick told the board after reviewing existing crash data and traffic patterns.

WMPO staff submitted a technical memo that staff and the applicant cited as supporting required turn‑lane and signal improvements; the applicant also offered to construct an extended right‑turn lane and a signalized U‑turn location at Cypress Pond Way. Applicants additionally proposed shared parking, preserved tree clusters and on‑site amenities. The applicant's traffic witness and WMPO indicated the measures studied would mitigate impacts to the corridor if installed as proposed.

Commissioners framed the denial around two of the SUP approval criteria: material endangerment to public health or safety and whether the proposed use is in harmony with surrounding properties and the comprehensive plan. After board discussion, a motion to deny the B‑2 multifamily SUP on findings that it would materially endanger public health and safety and was not in harmony passed. The board then moved to deny the R‑15 additional dwelling allowance SUP on the same bases. Minutes on the record show the board cited heavy existing corridor traffic, the constrained nature of local access, school capacity concerns raised by speakers, and neighborhood impacts as reasons for the denials.

The denial is recorded as a board action at the meeting; staff noted the SUP process is quasi‑judicial and that the record includes applicant affidavits and opposition testimony that may be raised on appeal. Commissioners directed staff to include findings in the record consistent with the reasons stated on the floor.