Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise drainage, density and road‑capacity concerns over proposed Hilton Bluffs development
Summary
Three speakers during public comment warned that the planned Hilton Bluffs subdivision near Castle Hayne would increase flooding, overwhelm Castle Hayne Road and harm longtime farms; they urged reduced density or alternative mitigation.
Three residents used public comment time during the Feb. 18 meeting to raise concerns about the Hilton Bluffs (sometimes referenced in testimony as the Sledge or Slats property) development outside Castle Hayne, saying planned density and road access could worsen local flooding and traffic.
Tim McClung (resident and county employee) spoke in defense of the county’s DEI staff but also remarked that property tax notices showed higher values and said he would prepay support for county DEI — his remarks preceded other public comments about development.
Mark Holmes, owner of Castle Lane Farms in the Castle Hayne area, said his farm — which his family traces to 1932 — relies on drainage patterns that he believes would be altered by the Hilton Bluffs project. Holmes described repeated flooding during extreme events (citing Hurricane Florence) and said prior post‑storm improvements such as larger culverts and retention ponds have been necessary. He said new roads and lots in the adjacent development would block flows from ditches that drain to Prince George Creek, harming greenhouses and crops and making insurance unavailable for some operations.
Steve Cerbiak, who lives on McDougall Drive, told commissioners he opposes planned density and said the neighborhood’s two‑lane roads, existing safety issues and school‑bus routing would be negatively affected by the projected increase in traffic. He said a plan with “4,000 plus houses” generating substantial new daily trips would not be safe on the local road network and urged the county to seek reduced density or alternative access solutions.
Speakers asked the county to consider alternatives including changing density, purchasing or protecting sand resources used elsewhere to acquire the parcel, or requiring stronger drainage and access mitigation. Commissioners did not take immediate action on the development during the meeting; the comments were part of the public‑comment segment.
