Residents Urge Lincoln County to Reject Walmart Drone Hub Over Safety and Privacy Concerns

Walmart representatives and their drone provider, Wing, presented a conditional‑zoning amendment on June 1 seeking to allow an approximately 30 × 128 ft “nest” — an 18‑pad fenced area and 20‑ft kiosk — in the Walmart parking lot at 7131 Highway 73 for drone takeoff, landing and charging. Planning staff recommended approval.

Walmart representative Betty Doster introduced the plan and Pete Vanderberg, the store manager, said the company is expanding delivery channels to meet customer demand. Wing operations manager Anobia Haynes told the board Wing has completed roughly 750,000 deliveries elsewhere and that its aircraft operate autonomously under FAA approvals, cruise at about 150 ft and carry small packages in a “hex tote” that is lowered to a customer’s yard.

Wing senior aviation manager Joseph Marshall said the company uses ADS‑B and prebuilt keepout maps to detect and avoid helicopters and other aircraft and that pilots hold FAA certifications; he added the system will “automatically avoid” other aircraft and execute contingency landings if missions cannot be completed.

But the proposal drew sustained opposition during a lengthy public‑comment period. Resident Ned Divine asked whether drones would fly over private property and whether operators would have live feeds. Several residents — Bobby and Sharon Lamb, Katie Rainan, Lucas Bule, Tva and Mike Mills and others — said they were worried about constant drone traffic, noise (one resident described a takeoff sound “like an enormous swarm of hornets”), threats to birds and wildlife, battery‑fire risks, and the psychological impact of what they called a ‘‘drone highway’’ 150 ft above homes.

Katie Rainan cited North Carolina General Statute Section 15A‑300.1 and said she and others understood witnesses at a March 30 meeting to say video and photos would be recorded and stored offsite — an assertion she said would violate the statute’s ban on UAS surveillance of dwellings without consent. Wing representatives denied live video feeds for general surveillance and said onboard imagery is used only for navigation and safety; Wing also disputed that pilots or operators could view live video of customers’ yards.

Residents pressed for local controls: limits on flight paths over Forest Oaks and other neighborhoods, a cap on flights, guarantees about data retention, stricter noise buffers near schools and churches, and written agreements with first responders and hospitals.

The board’s land‑use decision at this meeting was limited to whether the landing/charging area is an allowed use on the parking lot; Jeremiah, the county planner, emphasized that airspace routing, flight altitudes and technical aviation rules are regulated at the federal level. Multiple commissioners and planning board members asked detailed safety and interagency coordination questions; Wing said it had already coordinated with Atrium Health’s aviation group.

Next steps: the proposal remained under consideration; the planning board had not made a final decision at the June 1 session and several related items were scheduled for final action at the June 15 meeting. Residents urged the county to defer action until the board could adopt local operational conditions or reject the zoning change entirely.