Pender County commissioners debate expanded noise ordinance after Rocky Point dirt-bike complaints

Pender County commissioners spent the bulk of a July 28 special meeting debating a proposed change to the county noise ordinance after public comment from residents near a Rocky Point motocross/dirt-bike track and from riders and property owners. The draft amendment would add “motorbike” to the list of off-road vehicles and define “plainly audible” as sound detected at 70 decibels or greater at the property line; the sheriff’s office asked that the off-road-vehicle provision apply 24 hours a day.

The proposal drew sustained comment from neighbors who said noise from an Airbnb-hosted motocross track has made their properties difficult to use, and from riders and the property owner’s attorney who warned the ordinance would imperil property rights and small businesses.

The debate focused on three central points: how the ordinance would be enforced, whether it singles out dirt bikes and other off-road vehicles, and prior approvals or zoning determinations for the property where the track operates. Commissioners did not adopt the ordinance as written that night; instead they directed staff to continue work, and several commissioners asked that a subcommittee or negotiation between affected parties be formed to produce a revised draft for future consideration.

Neighbors described disturbance at close range. Julie Walker, who lives near the track, told the board she is “about 2,000 feet away” and can sit inside with the TV on and still hear the bikes. “I retired from the military to just live the rest of my life in peace and quiet. I can't do that anymore,” Walker said during public comment.

Several speakers urged the board to weigh property investments and rural character. Jay Dixon, who said he lives on Sawgrass Road in Hampstead, told commissioners that people invest “their entire life, their savings” and should be protected from activities that make adjacent properties unusable; he said current county enforcement leaves some residents without redress.

Riders and the property owner’s representatives said the ordinance, as written, would criminalize ordinary private recreation or shut down a small business. Trey Cook, who identified himself as a licensed attorney and motocross racer, asked the board to consider property rights and the risk of “selective enforcement and targeted harassment.” “Apparently, per this ordinance, it's gonna be illegal to ride a dirt bike in Pender County,” Cook said. “I think it's wrong.”

Grady Richardson, representing the property owners and their short-term rental business, told the board he believed the ordinance as drafted would be unconstitutional and could produce significant liability for the county. Richardson said staff previously advised the owners that short-term rental activity and motocross use on the site were permitted under county zoning; he described a letter from county staff (Daniel Adams) dated April 25, 2024, that he said supported his client’s interpretation. “If this ordinance is passed … it's unenforceable,” Richardson told the board, and he warned it could “constitute an inverse condemnation” and trigger attorney fees and damages.

County staff and the county attorney explained legal distinctions between police-power noise ordinances and land-use/zoning decisions. The attorney told commissioners that a zoning determination and a noise ordinance are separate legal matters: “What you're looking at here is a noise ordinance, which is a police power ordinance,” he said, and that exemptions for farming and traffic remain part of the draft. Staff also said the draft adds an objective decibel threshold because “plainly audible” had been difficult to enforce.

Key details in the draft discussed at length included the 70-decibel threshold, which staff said would make enforcement more objective, exemptions for agricultural and construction activities, and the existing time-based standard (previously 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.) that covers other categories of noise. The sheriff’s office recommended the off-road-vehicle provision apply 24 hours a day; several commissioners expressed concern about a 24/7 rule that would mean riding on private property at any hour could violate the ordinance if the decibel threshold were exceeded at a property line.

Commissioners and speakers also questioned enforceability. The board heard that deputies commonly respond by asking people to quiet down and that by the time law enforcement arrives a transient noise source may have stopped. Several commissioners said they did not want to single out one category of activity—dirt bikes—when the ordinance deals broadly with noise sources.

After public comment and discussion, a motion was placed on the table to adopt the ordinance as written and was seconded; a voice vote followed in which commissioners signaled both support and opposition. Multiple commissioners said the draft should be revised and returned to the board with more stakeholder engagement. One commissioner specifically asked for a subcommittee that would include residents on both sides of the dispute to produce a proposed resolution for a future meeting.

The board did not finalize the ordinance at the July 28 meeting. Commissioners asked staff to gather additional examples, consider time-of-day distinctions and exemptions, and return with a revised draft; one commissioner asked staff to convene interested residents and property owners for a negotiated solution prior to a future vote.

The Rocky Point discussion drew numerous references to pending separate proceedings: staff told the board there is an active zoning violation appeal related to the property and that the Board of Adjustment has a pending appeal. The county’s planning and legal staff and the property owner’s attorney acknowledged those are separate processes from a noise ordinance.

What’s next: Commissioners asked staff to continue redrafting the noise ordinance and to consider creating a subcommittee that includes residents and affected parties. No final adoption occurred July 28; the matter will return to a future agenda after additional stakeholder discussions and staff revisions.

Votes and formal actions connected to this item were procedural: a motion to adopt the ordinance as written was made and seconded and a voice vote was taken; commissioners signaled both aye and nay, and the board agreed to continue work and convene a smaller group to seek a compromise. The board instructed staff to bring back a revised ordinance for further consideration.

End note: The transcript includes multiple detailed public comments from neighbors and riders, and a legal letter that an attorney for the property owner said staff previously provided. The board emphasized the difference between zoning determinations and police-power noise regulation while seeking an enforceable, legally defensible approach that balances rural property use, public peace, and equitable enforcement.