Pender County board grants tree‑mitigation variance for Scotts Hill commercial project with conditions

The Pender County Board of Adjustments on Nov. 19 approved a variance allowing a commercial developer to provide fewer on‑site mitigation trees than required by the county’s Unified Development Ordinance, subject to conditions including larger caliper trees, five years of annual reporting and a fee‑in‑lieu intended for nearby Abbey Nature Preserve.

County planning staff said the Baker Commercial/Lee Properties proposal at the US 17 and Scottsdale Loop Road intersection would remove about 167 significant trees and that the code’s 2‑for‑1 replacement rule would require about 334 replacement trees. The applicant told the board it can provide 188 mitigation trees on site, leaving a shortfall of 146 trees under a strict 2:1 interpretation; of those 188, the applicant offered to plant 163 at a larger, 3‑inch caliper instead of the ordinance’s 2‑inch minimum to accelerate canopy growth.

“Strict compliance with the tree mitigation requirement would make viable development of this site impossible given the existing utility easement and overhead power line,” said Sam Frank, attorney for the applicant, arguing the utility easement is a site‑specific hardship beyond the applicant’s control. Frank also said the applicant offered a fee‑in‑lieu payment to fund plantings in the adjacent Abbey Nature Preserve and would support measures to ensure planted trees are maintained.

Parks and Recreation Director Zach White told the board parks staff had discussed a planting plan for the preserve entrance with the developer and that the preserve could accept a contribution. In the public presentation the applicant estimated the cost to plant the collection of preserve trees at about $31,689; during deliberations the figure was later referenced by a board member as $31,869 (the record contains both figures).

Nearby residents urged the board to deny or narrow the variance, saying removing trees would worsen flooding and stormwater problems in the Scotts Hill watershed. “When you take all the trees away, everything changed,” resident Wolfgang Herman said, describing decades of local changes to creek and spring flows. Kim Meyer, who identified herself as a Scotts Hill spokesperson, said the plan would meet only roughly 57% of the ordinance’s mitigation requirement and urged the board to prioritize canopy preservation for stormwater mitigation.

Applicant engineer Ryan McCoy testified the project’s retention pond and outlet controls were designed to North Carolina DEQ stormwater standards and that post‑development runoff was controlled to meet state requirements. The applicant noted that county stormwater and state permitting requirements remain in force regardless of the variance outcome.

After discussion the board voted to grant the variance with conditions the board read into the record: (1) the applicant shall plant 163 of the usable mitigation trees at a minimum 3‑inch caliper where possible; (2) the applicant shall submit annual reports on the landscaping’s health to county planning for five years; and (3) the applicant shall make a fee‑in‑lieu payment to Pender County for tree mitigation (the applicant’s estimate was $31,689; the board discussion referenced $31,869). The motion carried by voice vote with no recorded opposition.

The board’s action applies only to the tree‑mitigation provisions identified in the application (Pender County UDO §8.10.3 and related planting/maintenance provisions). The applicant and county staff said other requirements — including state stormwater controls — remain applicable, and that the county’s use of any fee payment will be subject to county appropriations and any restrictions the board places on the condition.

The case will be part of the administrative record for the project; the board did not alter the underlying zoning designation or the development review process. The board’s approval includes the conditions described above and a record of public comment opposing the mitigation reduction.