Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press planning board on traffic, flooding, schools and water quality during two contested rezonings
Summary
At the Aug. 4 meeting residents voiced concerns about traffic on NC‑210, Riley’s Creek flooding, school capacity and water‑quality contaminants, urging the planning board to consider cumulative impacts before recommending rezonings to the county commissioners.
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A line of residents at the Pender County Planning Board meeting on Aug. 4 urged the board to weigh cumulative impacts of new developments on roads, schools, emergency services and water quality.
Edith Shannon, an adjacent property owner near one proposed entrance, said she is concerned about traffic and flooding and asked the board to “please table this until all these questions are answered.” Jay Dixon and Brett Bass described congested peak‑hour traffic on nearby roads and recent accidents; Bass said some local intersections currently pose safety risks for farm equipment and neighborhood traffic.
Environment and water‑quality concerns were raised in the wastewater case: Stan Green, an attorney representing Castle Bay residents, highlighted spikes of 1,4‑dioxane observed at other plants and questioned whether an NPDES process would be required; Andy Wood, director of Coastal Plain Conservation Group, said the project area is adjacent to Holly Shelter Game Land and urged requiring NPDES permitting rather than relying on subsurface infiltration.
Residents also pressed the board about schools: staff told the board that Pender County Schools estimated about 409 K‑12 students could come from the large subdivision proposal and that the county would need to plan for cumulative school impacts across multiple approved projects. Several speakers asked how emergency response and volunteer fire coverage would handle large new subdivisions.
The planning board’s actions reflected those concerns: it recommended conditional approval for the wastewater facility with permit documentation conditions, but it voted to recommend denial of the 1,023‑lot Clark Builders proposal, citing policy and infrastructure inconsistencies.

