Applicant seeks rezoning for 258 West Frank Street for franchise hotel; residents raise traffic and safety concerns

An applicant’s presenter asked the Whiteville City Council to rezone 258 West Frank Street (and an adjacent parcel at 261 West Oliver Street) from R‑20 to B‑3 to allow commercial development, telling the council the two lots together total about 1.42 acres and could support a branded hotel of roughly "65 to tops 80" rooms and typically three stories.

The presenter (Speaker 2) framed the request as consistent with past council guidance and the city’s land‑use plan, noting that "this area is identified for future commercial growth" and arguing that the site sits near existing commercial corridors and the 74/701 bypass. He described site safeguards adopted in a special‑use ordinance last month, including screening, setbacks and a traffic‑impact requirement that would force traffic control measures if an independent traffic study finds a 25% or greater increase attributable to the hotel.

The rezoning drew multiple resident objections during public comment. Amanda Hill, who identified herself as a Pine Street resident and teacher, said she opposed a hotel at the site because of scale, lack of direct access to Highway 701 and safety concerns for children: "I'm here because I am very concerned about the possibility of the ... building a hotel in our neighborhood," she said, adding that "there's no room on that property for a hotel to sit." Another resident presented a two‑page petition opposing commercial zoning and warned that cut‑through traffic would bring vehicles past homes where children play.

Council members and staff noted procedural limits for a legislative rezoning, including that site‑specific setbacks or circulation design would be addressed later when a site plan or special‑use review is filed. One council member explained that state statute prevents reading emailed public comments into the record unless provided at least two days in advance; the transcript includes two emailed comments that were not read aloud for that reason.

During council discussion, a member (Speaker 8) moved to deny the rezoning, saying the proposed change was "not reasonable in the public's interest at this time" and that detriments outweighed benefits. The provided transcript records the motion to deny but does not include a second or a recorded final vote within the segments supplied.

What happens next: if the council takes formal action it must be recorded in a subsequent segment or meeting; if the rezoning is denied by formal vote, future site plans or a different application would be necessary for commercial use.

Provenance: discussion and presentation began with Speaker 2 at SEG 123 and public comments and the motion are recorded through SEG 1021; supporting details on acreage, traffic, and ordinance safeguards are drawn from the presenter’s remarks (SEG 224–519, SEG 670–717) and public comments (SEG 885–968).