Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land‑use Atv Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge planning board to halt special‑use request for ATV park in White Oak
Summary
Several White Oak residents told the Bladen County Board of Commissioners they were not properly notified about a planned ATV park and asked county staff and the planning board to check wetlands, zoning and notice procedures before any approval.
Speakers at the Bladen County Board of Commissioners meeting raised strong concerns about a proposed all‑terrain vehicle (ATV) park and campground near White Oak, saying neighbors received little notice, the site may include wetlands and the development would harm a quiet residential area.
At least four residents spoke during the meeting’s public‑comment period. Jason Holly asked whether an ATV park special‑use permit was on the agenda; a commissioner replied that the special‑use review is scheduled with the planning board next Tuesday, not the board of commissioners.
“My house is directly in front of what the ATV park would be,” said Jane Pate, who said she first saw a small sign about the proposal the previous week and that she and other neighbors had not received mailed notice. “If it's designated private residential ... no, you can't put an ATV park in there.” Pate said she has called planning‑board members and other officials and that neighbors believe parts of the site are wet. She said she has contacted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers about possible wetlands and asked county staff to confirm whether the site is regulated.
Other speakers repeated noise, traffic and public‑safety concerns. A caller identified as Alvarez said the community is small and warned that night riding and loud music would be disruptive and could bring illegal activity. Duane Shaffer urged a thorough review by the County Planning Commission and for the Army Corps to complete any wetlands analysis before development proceeds. Speakers cited a roughly 332‑acre parcel as the site under consideration.
County officials told speakers the board of commissioners does not approve special‑use permits; the planning board does. One commissioner who responded said that if the planning board approves a special‑use permit the only practical recourse may be the courts, and that the planning board’s decision — not the commission’s — controls special‑use outcomes. Commissioners and staff also said they would share the county GIS map link with residents so they can review parcel and wetland layers; a staff member indicated she had sent a link to Ms. Pate during the meeting.
Neighbors asked for larger public notice, for planning‑board members to walk the property and for the Army Corps of Engineers to verify whether the parcel contains regulated wetlands. Speakers said only three nearby property owners received mailed notice and asked the county to improve notification procedures for disruptive land‑use proposals.
No formal action on the application was taken by the board of commissioners at the meeting. Commissioners repeatedly directed residents to the planning board process for special‑use permits and encouraged those with legal questions to seek counsel if the planning board approves the permit.
The planning board’s special‑use hearing is scheduled separately; county staff told residents the planning board is the reviewing body and said it would provide the GIS parcel map and any available wetlands data to residents who requested it.
