Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Edenton council approves 144‑unit Beachwood apartments with annual review and conditions

Edenton Town Council · October 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its Oct. 14 meeting the Edenton Town Council approved a major special‑use permit (MSUP25‑04) to build a 144‑unit market‑rate apartment complex at 1311 Paradise Road, with 12 conditions including stormwater, sidewalks and a revised annual status update; the motion passed 4–1.

The Edenton Town Council on Oct. 14 approved a major special‑use permit allowing Edenton Holding LLC and developer Saga Construction to build a 144‑unit apartment community at 1311 Paradise Road.

Council approved the modification to a 2008 approval after hearing a multi‑hour staff presentation and public hearing. The permit passed with conditions recommended by staff and the planning board and with one amendment: the council shortened a required post‑occupancy status review from three years to an annual update. The motion passed on a 4–1 vote.

The approved plan, presented by Debbie Gabbert of Saga Construction and development coordinator Aaron Dunigan, calls for six buildings of 24 units each across a roughly 23.75‑acre R5 zoned parcel and includes one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom apartments, a clubhouse, pool, fitness center and expanded green space. Gabbert said the firm intends a market‑rate product and stated, "This is market rate rents. This is not Section 8 housing." The applicant described measures to reduce massing, improve architectural details to match Edenton's character, and add pedestrian corridors.

Why it mattered: council and residents framed the decision as balancing the town’s stated land‑use goals for medium‑to‑high density residential development and pressing local demand for rental housing against neighbors’ concerns about traffic, stormwater, utilities and public safety. Supporters, including town and county economic development officials, said the town has few multifamily rental options and that new jobs and employers are creating local demand.

Council and staff safeguards: planning staff (Dwayne Wilton) and the applicant emphasized that several implementation steps remain before unit occupancy. Condition language requires the developer to post bonds or address existing infrastructure, provide traffic impact updates as phases proceed, meet NCDOT and state stormwater requirements, install sidewalks and interim lighting, submit final landscape plans to the town tree committee and complete technical‑review‑committee (TRC) approvals before releasing roadwork. Staff said water and sewer capacity had been previously unbonded/allocated under the older approval but that stormwater, street right‑of‑way work and detailed traffic engineering still must be completed as part of TRC and DOT coordination.

Concerns and responses: neighbors asked whether the project would overload the town’s electric grid; staff acknowledged the issue and said utility work orders, load studies and possible circuit splits would be handled through standard electric department and developer engineering steps. Residents raised public‑safety concerns; the developer cited on‑site management, lighting, camera access for the police department and lease provisions ("quiet enjoyment") as mitigation measures. The developer said phased construction and the option to condominiumize units later were among strategies they could use if market conditions shift.

Next steps: the council’s approval authorizes the special‑use permit subject to the listed conditions; the developer must submit engineering and site plans to trigger TRC review, secure any DOT approvals for state road connections, obtain building permits and meet conditions before occupancy. The permit includes a 24‑month vesting period and a requirement to report status to the planning board and council during the permitting timeline; the council's amendment requires at least annual updates instead of a three‑year post‑occupancy reassessment.

The council approved the permit as part of a lengthy meeting that also advanced other administrative items including a vacant‑building ordinance and several budget amendments.