Planning board recommends denial for Hawthorne at Hampstead plan to add 84 apartments amid resident concerns about flooding, traffic and schools

The Pender County Planning Board voted to recommend denial of a conditional zoning map amendment (case REZONE-2024-82) that would have added 84 apartment units to the Hawthorne at Hampstead development and unified two projects under a single conditional zoning district.

Planning staff recommended denial, saying the infrastructure required to support the additional multifamily units is not available and that the proposal conflicts with Objective 4.6 and Policies 5.1.C and 5.1.D of the Pender 2 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Staff noted the site straddles two future land‑use categories (regional mixed use and coastal residential) and explained how density is calculated under the county’s conditional zoning rules. Staff reported the project’s maximum allowable unit count under the future land use plan is 362 units; with the additional 84 units the proposal would result in 307 units on the site (gross density about 7.8 units/acre; net density about 13.2 units/acre). Staff also presented traffic and school capacity data: the added units would generate about 394 additional daily vehicle trips (about 37 AM peak and 42 PM peak), Highway 17 west of the site carried 49,862 daily trips in 2023 against a planned capacity of 37,232, and Pender County Schools identified the schools serving the site (Topsail Annandale Elementary, Topsail Middle and Topsail High) as over capacity.

The applicant’s attorney, Sam Potter of Equitas Law Partners, told the board the applicant offered a condition intended to limit school impacts: one‑third of the total multifamily units would be age‑restricted to residents 55 and older for three years after project “stabilization” (the applicant said stabilization would be defined as 90% occupancy of multifamily units). Potter said the developer would provide quarterly affidavits under oath to certify compliance with any age‑restriction condition and argued that comparable nearby properties owned by the same developer have far fewer school‑age children than the county’s per‑unit estimate.

During a lengthy public comment period dozens of residents spoke against the proposal. Comments detailed repeated stormwater and flooding problems in Deerfield Drive, Hughes Road and Washington Acres, showed before/after photos residents say document silt and erosion after site clearing, and raised concerns about long school bus runs and classroom overcrowding. Several speakers said traffic on Highway 17 and local streets is already at or above capacity and that the planned commercial build‑out (which is not part of this application) will trigger required transportation improvements; residents worried an additional 84 units would worsen existing traffic and school issues. Multiple speakers described onsite stormwater controls as inadequately maintained during construction and said wetlands and intended open space had been filled or altered.

Board members asked staff and the applicant detailed questions about unit mix and trip generation; the applicant said the new buildings would be roughly 50% one‑bedroom, 40% two‑bedroom and 10% three‑bedroom units and reiterated the offer to age‑restrict one‑third of the multifamily units for three years after 90% occupancy, enforced by quarterly sworn affidavits. Staff confirmed the traffic impact analysis submitted with the application accounted for the project’s currently approved units and for the proposed change, and that the major roadway improvements identified in the TIA are tied to the commercial build‑out rather than to the immediate addition of the three multifamily buildings.

After public comment and board discussion, a planning board member moved to deny the conditional rezoning and to find the proposal inconsistent with the cited comprehensive‑plan objectives and policies; the board seconded the motion and voted in favor of denial. The planning board’s recommendation of denial will be transmitted to the Board of Commissioners for final consideration.

Ending: The planning board’s denial recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners; several residents asked commissioners to sustain the denial based on stormwater, traffic and school capacity concerns.