Pender planning board tables vote on Pluris wastewater plant after residents and members press for more study

The Pender County Planning Board on July 7 deferred action on a conditional rezoning requested by Pluris to build a 1,000,000‑gallon‑per‑day wastewater treatment plant east of Hoover Road near the Castle Bay community.

Staff recommended the map amendment, saying the 32‑acre site is remote (the nearest residences are roughly 3,000–3,500 feet away), that proposed vegetative buffers exceed Unified Development Ordinance requirements, and that the facility would support planned growth in the Hampstead/Scotts Hill area. “Staff respectfully recommends approval of the proposed conditional rezoning,” planning staff told the board, noting the applicant would have to meet all local, state and federal regulations.

Maurice Gallardo, managing member of Pluris and the project’s design lead, said the company funds and operates regional membrane bioreactor plants without county subsidies and expands in response to demand. “We don’t build package plants … We remain at that level until that trend line tells us when we have to expand it,” Gallardo said, describing a modular design intended to add capacity only when required and citing monitoring and awards for his company’s existing facility.

Residents and an engineer representing Castle Bay urged caution. “The Castle Bay community is approximately 300 homes,” Robert Griffin, P.E., told the board, and argued the application had not demonstrated it would not be detrimental to the Holly Shelter Game Lands, nearby trails, groundwater or the health and welfare of sensitive neighbors. He asked the board to require either NPDES (discharge) or nondischarge permitting, high‑rate infiltration basins, and groundwater monitoring for PFAS, PFOS and 1,4‑Dioxane.

Board members pressed both staff and the applicant on whether approving the new plant would effectively increase the county’s total permitted treatment capacity. The county already has a special‑use permit (SUP) authorizing 3,000,000 gallons per day at an existing Blake Farms site; the proposed plant would add 1,000,000 gallons of permitted footprint at a second site unless the applicant and permitting process constrained totals. Members debated whether the planning board can, or should, impose conditions that affect a separate SUP on a different parcel and asked staff and legal counsel to explore mechanisms for a county‑wide cap or concurrent amendment to the existing SUP.

Given conflicting testimony about whether this application would be net‑zero (a trade of capacity between sites) or a net increase for the county, and citing unanswered environmental and infrastructure concerns (schools, roads, stormwater and hurricane risk), the board voted to table the request to a date certain of August 4 so staff, legal counsel and the applicant can provide more analysis and draft any possible conditions. The motion to table was made by a board member who said it would allow the applicant to consider amending the Blake Farms SUP and to submit clearer documentation on environmental safeguards.

If the board issues a recommendation following the August 4 meeting, a final decision will be made by the Pender County Board of Commissioners at a later date. Staff noted that whether the county can legally condition one parcel based on approvals tied to another parcel will require review and, if appropriate, concurrent action by the applicant on both permits.