BRUNSWICK COUNTY —  A 1,340-home development previously denied by the Brunswick County Planning Board is going to be challenged in Superior Court next month. The county and development team failed to come to an agreement in mediation. 

A judge agreed the case between developers HIC Land LLC and CLD Engineering, of Green Hill Planned Development, and Brunswick County will move forward to Superior Court on Nov. 9 at the Brunswick County Courthouse in Bolivia. The developers are being represented by Shipman Wright and Moore law firm.

Gary Shipman did not answer Port City Daily’s questions by press; this will be updated upon response.

READ MORE: Developer suing Brunswick County for denied 1,300-home neighborhood

Mediation took place over a day in July without the parties reaching an agreement to settle the lawsuit, leading to judicial review.

Developers say staff found the plan met UDO standards and the board denied it without citing a violation. The county says staff’s recommendation isn’t binding and the board had authority to decide.

Background

The lawsuit was filed in May after Green Hill Planned Development was denied by the planning board twice — first in November 2025 (a petition with almost 1,000 signatures also was generated against the development) and again in a 3-1 vote in April 2026. The development is planned for 784.59 acres, with 1.71 dwelling units per acre, under the 2.9 maximum density in the current Rural Residential zoning allowance.

Originally, the developers wanted to build 1,450 homes but amended the site plan, reducing it by 110 units. Upon returning before the planning board in April, it presented 1,340 single-family units on the acreage, phased in over 10 years. Around 200 acres are on wetlands, though homes would be built outside the AE flood zone. 

Much of the pushback came from residents, fire personnel and planning board members about flooding concerns, traffic capacity and roadways, overburdened schools, and fire and EMS resources. Not to mention, overdevelopment of the Winnabow area was broached, with the nearby Cherrytree Tract also bringing 1,000 homes to the region.

The developer’s attorney, Mike Nichols, argued in the April meeting that having a large-scale, planned development scheduled over a period of time would allow for cohesive and thoughtful engineering. Also, the developer was planning to invest $6 million in roadway improvements and upgrade signal preemptions; basically, smart technology communicates for signals to be green upon detecting a fire truck or emergency vehicle approaching. It also planned to invest in 45 new fire hydrants.

Planning staff recommended approval, noting the objective criteria were met and the plan included exceptional design features, such as 310 acres of open space, beyond the 117.68 required

The plaintiffs allege that denying the project was “unconstitutional” but also accused the planning board of disregarding objective rules from the county’s unified development ordinance, stating they weren’t based “upon competent, material, and substantial evidence.” 

County response

A response filed by Brunswick County Attorney Bryan W. Batton and Assistant Attorney Ryan King on Aug. 21 addressed multiple claims in the lawsuit. 

While the county agrees planned development applications are to be assessed under objective criteria, it denies the UDO specifies wording like “not subjective or speculative concerns” and “material and competent evidence.” 

Plaintiffs also accuse the planning board of not identifying any UDO provision the plan failed to meet. The claims include board members voicing “frustration” before the hearing about the UDO limiting them to ordinance compliance rather than neighbors’ concerns; plaintiffs argue this shows prejudgment against Green Hill. The county denies both allegations and maintains the decision was administrative, not quasi-judicial.

The development team claimed the UDO doesn’t specify whether the decision is administrative or quasi-judicial, and argued it needed competent, material, and substantial evidence either way. They also allege the board didn’t follow its own procedures.

The county denies a quasi-judicial hearing should have been held; this type of hearing is like a court procedure with strict rules and speakers having to be sworn in after proving they have standing to show a development’s impact on their properties. The county maintains the planned development approval, like Green Hill, is administrative through the planning board and only requires a public hearing to garner feedback, which was held. 

The county adds the certiorari statute (160D-1402) doesn’t apply to administrative decisions. A judge granted the plaintiffs’ writ of certiorari petition for Superior Court review.

Furthermore, the board of adjustment in Brunswick County oversees quasi-judicial hearings. At least that was the case in April — this changed in July when the state legislature stripped the planning board’s final say over developments and gave the authority to commissioners. 

House Bill 1222 now has commissioners overseeing a quasi-judicial hearing but only for special use permits; however, commissioners are sending updated language in the bill back to legislators, requesting to allow all SUPs to go before the board of adjustment instead.

Either way, those instances don’t affect how the Green Hill case was heard six months ago, though it could be persuasive in a final judgment ruling.

The plaintiffs also take issue that the board did not follow the desire of planning staff’s recommendations. The county responded staff recommending or denying a project to the planning board doesn’t entitle a development to either resolution.

“The Planning Board disagreed with the ultimate conclusion of staff that the application met the requirements of the UDO,” according to the county’s response to the lawsuit. “Planning staff is not vested with the authority to approve or deny planned developments.”

Developers note they spoke with the Brunswick County deputy fire marshal, who approved of the plans after changes were made to address safety concerns. The county doesn’t dispute this.

Plaintiffs also discussed the plan with the Winnabow fire chief, who they say has no authority “over fire or traffic safety matters.”

Winnabow Volunteer Fire Department Chief Travis Mercer complained in April’s meeting about flooding in the area and proposed road developments potentially creating fire safety risks.

While the county agreed Mercer has no authority under the UDO, it also agreed road plans “had the effect of creating fire safety risks per the statement of” the chief. 

At the April meeting, planning board member Richard Leary said ahead of voting to reject the project: “The fire chief’s testimony makes it hard to deny.” 

The county concedes that fears lacking factual support aren’t enough to reject a project, and the board’s stated reasons were broad concerns about traffic safety and flooding, including the fire chief’s objection. But it disputes the decision was unlawful.

Also denied were the plaintiffs’ claims that the project met all requirements and criteria set forth in the UDO, including its traffic and flooding measures.

While the county agreed the planned 100-year stormwater ponds — now standard since January 2026 — were considered an “exceptional design,” the defendant denied the developer’s claim that environmental and cultural studies submitted found no significant impacts. 

Regarding a traffic impact analysis — estimating 11,814 daily trips — the county found staff determined North Carolina Department of Transportation approved a TIA. The county denied, however, the plaintiff’s claims that staff found it satisfactory with a recommended approval “on the condition that, among others, the TIA need only a revision reflecting the proposed reduction in lots from 1,450 single-family units (as originally proposed) to the new reduced amount of 1,340 single-family units.”

Per the lawsuit, the developers seek declaratory and injunctive relief, compelling the county to approve the planned development application. 

The county is asking for the courts to dismiss the claims with prejudice, the plaintiffs to cover court fees, and other relief the court deems proper.

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.