Pender County board says adjacent homeowner lacks standing to appeal 355‑home plan

The Pender County Board of Adjustments ruled on June 10 that an adjacent homeowner does not have the legal standing required to pursue an appeal of a planning‑board approval for a master development plan that proposes roughly 355 single‑family homes on about 147 acres.

John Stratton Lobdell, the adjacent property owner, told the board he lives at 656 Ravenswood Road and said “3,500 of those cars are gonna go behind my house every day,” arguing the project would materially damage his property value and harm neighbors. Lobdell also said he serves on the Old Point Property Owners Association board and was authorized to speak for neighborhood residents but acknowledged he had no documentation to prove that representation in this proceeding.

Amy Shaffer, an attorney with Case Parker Lee representing the applicant, urged the board to treat standing as a threshold matter and said the notice of appeal did not show the “special damages” the state statute requires. “Simply living next to a project does not in itself confer standing,” Shaffer said, noting the statute excludes lay opinion on property value and typically requires expert testimony to establish competent, material evidence.

Planning staff summarized the project and procedural history: the planning board voted to approve the master development plan (MDP 20‑25‑81) at its Jan. 6, 2026 meeting; staff later issued formal approval on Jan. 26; and an appeal was filed Jan. 29, 2026. Staff described the proposal as about 355 homes on 147 acres (gross density about 2.44 units per acre, net density roughly 3 units per acre) with roughly 20 acres of open space. Staff also cited the approved traffic impact analysis (TIA) dated Sept. 11, 2025 and regional traffic counts from the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization showing existing daily volumes on Country Club Drive in the several‑thousand‑vehicle range.

Board members focused the discussion on whether Lobdell had produced competent material evidence of harms that are distinct from those experienced by the general public. Several members noted the Unified Development Ordinance and state statutory guidance limit reliance on lay testimony for property‑value or technical traffic impacts and that, absent expert evidence, those claims do not meet the statute’s standard for standing.

Committee member Matt moved to deny Lobdell standing to pursue the appeal; the chair seconded the motion. The board voted to deny standing, and the chair said that without standing the board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The denial ended the appeal process before the board considered the merits of the planning board’s approval. The board then entered several county plans and the Pender County Unified Development Ordinance into the record as exhibits and moved on to scheduling and routine business.

The planning staff said the applicant and developer may pursue required DOT driveway permitting and off‑site mitigation; staff also noted that the TIA recommended, among other items, a signal at Spring Garden Road and Country Club Drive and that DOT is the agency responsible for conditioning driveway permits. The board discussed logistics for future meetings and recruiting additional board members or alternates; staff indicated July 15 as a tentative next meeting date.

Action details: motion to deny standing (mover: Committee member Matt; second: Chair) — motion approved; without standing the board stated it had no jurisdiction to hear the underlying appeal. The board entered the previous comp plans and the Pender County UDO into the record as exhibits.

Next steps: Because the board denied standing, the underlying appeal did not proceed before the Board of Adjustments. Any further remedies or appeals would depend on statutory rights not resolved at this meeting and are not specified in the record.