The New Hanover County Planning Board voted Jan. 8 to continue consideration of a rezoning application for a proposed nine-unit townhome community at 7244 Carolina Beach Road, citing unresolved technical items and outstanding access agreements.

Staff presented Z-2518 and recommended denial, saying the project's concept plan as submitted lacked a required transitional buffer adjacent to an existing access easement, had inconsistent sidewalk information across submittals and did not include a finalized memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Red Lighthouse Village for access. Planning Director Rebecca (first name used in the transcript) told the board that staff had received a revised plan the day of the meeting but had not yet completed a full analysis.

Cindy Wolf, the applicant's agent, described a reworked concept that shifts buildings to preserve a specimen water oak, provides a 15-foot transitional buffer, shows sidewalks along the drive in some locations and proposes access from Bridal Lighthouse Lane rather than Little Pony Trail. Wolf said the developer had drafted a memorandum of understanding with the HOA but had not executed it, and that attorneys' fees had delayed formal signature. "I would commit to 8 units and a sidewalk and a memorandum prior to the commissioner's meeting," Wolf told the board when asking for a continuation.

Neighbors, including Adrienne Garber, Laurie Bronard and others living on Little Pony Trail and Lee Landing, urged denial during public comment. Garber said the increased density would not be compatible with surrounding single-family homes and questioned whether the proposal aligned with the Destination 2050 plan that the board was simultaneously reviewing. "I ask that you deny the rezoning request for 7244 Carolina Beach Road from R-15 to R-5," Garber said during public comment.

Opponents also raised traffic and safety concerns tied to blind curves and narrow unimproved drives serving adjacent properties, said some neighbors had not received mailed notice, and criticized the presentation of multiple plan versions. Tim Brown told the board, "This whole process has been deceit from day one," citing three different plans circulated to the public.

Board members debated whether the late submittal resolved staff's technical critiques and whether the planning board could, or should, condition approval on an access agreement. Several members said the application felt incomplete and that staff needed time to vet the revised plan. The applicant therefore asked for — and the board granted — a continuance to the February meeting. The applicant committed to provide an updated plan, to reduce the fiveplex to a fourplex (8 units total) if necessary, add a sidewalk on the northern boundary of the drive, and secure HOA agreement language prior to the County Commissioners hearing.

The continuance means the Board of County Commissioners will see the case in February with the applicant's revised materials and any staff-recommended conditions. The planning board emphasized that its role is advisory; ultimate approval or denial rests with the Board of County Commissioners.