WILMINGTON — A controversial drive-thru development proposed next to the Echo Farms neighborhood entrance on Carolina Beach Road was denied its variance request on Thursday, despite the property owner reducing the scope of the project.
On Thursday, the BOA voted 4-1, Chair Jeff Hovis dissenting, to deny the request, which was, essentially, to place a drive-thru lane where the city’s land code prohibits. The rejection occurred even after the property owner, Internet Optics LLC, refined its original request.
READ MORE: Echo Farms residents resist proposal for two drive-thrus at neighborhood entrance
The first submission included two drive-thrus on the site, and thus, several variances were needed. The hearing on this proposal was supposed to occur last month; however, the applicant requested the hearing be postponed, and has since resubmitted its application. It now has only one drive-thru and only one area where it needs to break the land code.
A drive-thru is allowed in the property’s zoning district by-right, but under certain conditions. One of them is a drive-thru lane not be placed between a building and a right-of-way; it also prohibits a drive-thru lane on the same side as the restaurant’s primary entrance. The property owner’s request is to vary from both requirements.
Variances are decided via quasi-judicial hearing, which mandates only citizens with “standing” may speak during the hearing. The deciding body — the board of adjustment in this case — made their decision based on four findings of fact that the proposed variance must meet:
- Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance
- The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography
- The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner
- The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved
BOA Vice Chair Patrick Moore said he didn’t think the application met the fourth tenet and also said the BOE heard a similar variance request recently. It was denied. BOA member Alain Norman said he didn’t disagree with his colleague.
“I think one of the challenges we always face is that whereas things may be available or permissible as of right, that does not necessarily mean that they meet [code requirements] automatically,” he said.
Norman pointed out the attorney — Amy Schaefer hired on the behalf of the property owner — said the property would be developed in some way even if the current plan didn’t pan out. The board member said, therefore, an unnecessary hardship would not occur without the variance.
The proposal Thursday was also met with opposition from people who live Echo Farms, which is located adjacent to the property in question. The Echo Farms Residents Association had denounced the first version of the project, the association’s vice president, Blair Deen, speaking with Port City Daily about it in January.
Deen explained the opposition isn’t towards the development of the property overall — “I’m not against a cute little coffee shop, the place to walk over from the park and the pool,” she said. However, the group would like to see the developers stay within the parameters of what is allowed without variances, even if that means only constructing one drive-thru.
Deen said, noting the neighborhood is welcoming of the public, including to its pool and its roads for walking and running groups.
However, Deen and members of the association didn’t like the new version of the development presented Thursday either.
She said the revision to shorten the property owner’s requests appeared like an attempt to secure incremental approval from the board, suggesting the applicant would come back with further variance requests in the future. The applicant did not address whether this was true, but Hovis was clear the board could only decide based on the request in front of them.
President Rachel Kleiches presented the BOA with a letter drafted by an attorney, which Schaefer objected to because the attorney wasn’t there to present the “legal argument.” Kleiches was nonetheless allowed to read it into the record.
Kleiches argued the applicant failed to demonstrate a hardship — a requirement in the four findings of fact — due to the site’s physical characteristics.
“Any claimed hardships appears to stem from the applicant’s desire to maximize profit through the drive-thru restaurant model,” Kleiches said, pointing out the applicant could choose to build a retail or office building or even a non-drive-thru restaurant.
The development’s team argued the property has a unique layout of the property — it’s boxed in by three right-of-ways because of its positioning between Carolina Beach Road and Echo Farms Boulevard. Thus, Schaefer argued this made it impossible to not place the drive-thru lane between a building and a right-of-way.
“I don’t know where else it could go,” she said.
Schaefer pointed out moving the drive-thru anywhere else would jeopardize the required 20-foot setback from Echo Farms’ residential development. The development team originally applied to encroach into the setback, as the line runs through the middle of the site and renders a significant portion of it undevelopable. This request was scrapped before Thursday’s hearing.
Kleiches also argued the proposal would endanger public safety, thus violating the fourth tenet of the BOA’s facts of finding.
“The proposed restaurant, with drive-thru facilities, would generate substantial vehicle trips — existing infrastructure cannot safely accommodate this,” she said, noting Echo Farms Boulevard already experiences pedestrian risks with neighborhood traffic.
Schaefer pointed out a traffic impact analysis is not required for the development, but the North Carolina Department of Transportation will review the project to determine the best entrance and exit. The applicant proposed one off Carolina Beach Road and another off Echo Farms Boulevard.
Still, Schaefer fell short of gaining the BOA’s favor.
Port City Daily reached out to the attorney requesting whether she would be appealing the BOA’s decision — which would be decided in Superior Court — or if a different development would be put forth for the property. A response was not received by press.
[Ed. Note: A previous version of this article included a typo in Norman’s comments which said an unnecessary hardship would occur without a variance. It should’ve read “would not occur.” PCD regrets the error.]
Tips or comments? Reach out to journalist Brenna Flanagan here.
At Port City Daily, we aim to keep locals informed on top-of-mind news facing the tri-county region. To support our work and help us reach more people in 2026, please, consider helping one of two ways: Subscribe here or make a one-time contribution here.
We appreciate your ongoing support.
