New Hanover County revokes Seahawk Sanitation franchise after repeated early-morning noise complaints

The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners voted to revoke Seahawk Sanitation’s franchise after hearing that the company repeatedly collected household waste in residential neighborhoods in the predawn hours despite written and verbal warnings.

County Recycling and Solid Waste Director Joe Sullivan told the board the county received five complaints between March and June 2025 reporting Seahawk trucks operating near 4 a.m. to 6 a.m. in Ogden, Middlesex, Treasure Cove and North Hill. Sullivan said staff and deputies from the sheriff’s office repeatedly contacted the owner and that the county manager concluded the firm had failed to comply with the franchise agreement and county noise and nuisance ordinances, prompting the revocation notice and today’s hearing.

“At least from what I understand in reading the record, they admitted that they were in those neighborhoods at those times,” Sullivan said. He told the board the franchise agreement requires compliance with county code and that residential collection is not allowed before 7 a.m.

Sergeant Sean Moore of the sheriff’s office confirmed officers had followed up with the owner and said the conversations were civil but that complaints continued. “I did have to my recollection two different conversations” with the owner, Moore said, and reported additional complaints after his follow-up contacts.

Anthony (Jordan) Cordero, the owner of Seahawk Sanitation, acknowledged the complaints and described steps his company took after the first notices: discontinuing two one‑off accounts that drew complaints, shifting to a four‑day schedule to spread out routes, and moving neighborhood pickups later in the morning. He said Seahawk operates a single rear‑loader truck and serves roughly 300 customers.

Despite those concessions, several commissioners emphasized enforcement and the rule of law. “We set rules and laws in place and we expect people to abide by them,” said Commissioner Scalise, adding that repeated violations had consumed public resources and warranted the most serious penalty the county could impose. After discussion, a motion to revoke the franchise was made and seconded; the board voted in favor.

The revocation was presented as the county manager’s enforcement action after warnings and was supported by the recycling and solid‑waste director and the sheriff’s office. The revocation letter and related documents (franchise agreement, county code citations, and prior warning letters) were entered into the record during the hearing.

The owner timely appealed the manager’s determination to the board, and the hearing served as the appeal proceeding. Commissioners noted the company’s small size and the availability of other franchisees to serve affected customers, but said enforcement was necessary to uphold local ordinances and protect residents’ peace.

The board did not specify a stay of the revocation at the meeting; appeal rights were referenced as available through the established process.

Copies of the county’s franchise agreement, the revocation notice dated 07/30/2025, and the listed county ordinances were introduced into the record without objection.