NEW HANOVER COUNTY — An infill project that has been on the books since January has received split pushback and approval, from both the public and voting county boards. Ultimately, it didn’t gain enough traction to move forward from commissioners this week.
Development consultant Cindee Wolf represented property owner Leo Nguyen to request an R-5 rezoning from R-15, to bring an eight-unit development to 7244 Carolina Beach Road. Beacon Townhomes would have been positioned off Red Lighthouse Lane, near Little Pony Trail and Lea Landing. Commissioners denied the rezoning request in a 3-2 vote, with Republicans Dane Scalise and Bill Rivenbark dissenting.
READ MORE: 9-unit development tabled until February amid site plan mix-up, opposition
Scalise was in favor of the development, particularly stating it was a better option than what could be allowed by-right — five or six units, with three homes and smaller accessory dwelling units, could be built on the 1-acre land, potentially separating one parcel into two lots. Should that happen, the by-right allowance could usher in one driveway directly leading cars onto an already overcrowded Carolina Beach Road, in effect presenting safety hazards especially as it’s near a curve.
To mitigate safety concerns for the townhomes project, the entry into the complex was slated to be from Red Lighthouse Lane; the roadway is privately maintained so the HOA of Red Lighthouse Village had to sign a memorandum of understanding to give the developer access. Tapping into Red Lighthouse Lane would provide motorists a deceleration lane, providing right-in, right-out turns onto Carolina Beach Road and buffering a little more security than having residents entering the property directly from the busy corridor.
The traffic impact of the project is expected to be around four to six morning and evening peak trips, which even if small, commissioners LeAnn Pierce and Rob Zapple still thought added to increasing volume. Carolina Beach Road, maintained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, is over capacity already; built for 34,000 vehicular trips, the road sees more than 40,000 daily.
“In sum, what we are talking about is the difference between six units and eight units, and I would think that the plan that would remove this additional turn off Carolina Beach Road and onto this existing road would be a preferable mechanism, but that does not sound like it’s the will of the board,” Scalise said at the meeting.
Before commissioners took up the agenda item, the county planning board unanimously approved it for consideration last month. Beacon Townhomes plans were modified since the original proposal in January, which also didn’t meet sidewalk, easement and buffer conditions. The planning board tabled the proposal until February, with a continuance at Wolf’s request; by the time the project reached the board for a vote, it was revised and reduced to eight instead of nine units, proposed as two duplexes and one quadruplex, both two-stories.
Multiple people spoke in favor and opposition at January and February’s planning board meetings, as well as the commissioner meeting this week. Some agreed the proposal was better than a commercial project that would be allowed on the site in the future county comprehensive plan, while others thought higher density rezoning on a small parcel would set an unwanted precedent on the few parcels of land left countywide.
Adrianne Garber spoke in opposition to both boards.
“The higher the density, the higher the cost of natural disasters,” she said, stating more pervious surface would not be sufficient for heavy rains and storms, adding to flooding issues. “This is not what we want to encourage in the narrow peninsula of New Hanover County.”
Garber thanked commissioners for action taken in the last year to allow for more greenspace in the county. Just before the Beacon Townhomes project was proposed Monday, the county commissioners unanimously voted on a sale agreement devised for the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust to purchase the 60-acre Flossie Bryan tract to become a nature preserve.
She also pointed to past decisions not being of that mindset, such as developments scaled near her home on River Road and Lorraine Drive. She said contractors “moved a small mountain and backfilled it along Motts Creek and the Cape Fear River” to bring Argento Apartments and The Cottages at Riverlights, built on plateaus with a new lake and “large pipes dumping into Motts Creek.”
“Even allowing a small parcel would open the door to higher density rezoning requests in the future,” she said, stating “a few row houses” will be what builders start pointing to when they request switching zoning.
Surrounding neighborhoods to Beacon Townhomes are R-15, meaning they allow up to 2.5 units per acre, whereas R-5 allows eight units per acre.
Planning Chair Cameron Moore said last month, while the rezoning of Beacon Townhomes’ request is high-density, overall the project is not — at only one acre and eight townhomes.
Board member Pete Avery shared similar thoughts, noting even in its current zoning, R-15, it doesn’t mean the lots are built out to 15,000 square feet.
Ultimately, the planning board suggested the project be allowed with conditions to protect impact on adjacent neighbors:
- Structures have max building height 35-feet
- 21-inch DBH water oak located in designated open space between units 5 and 6 be preserved and protected during construction
- Exterior lighting point downward
- Land use limited to duplex and quadruplex dwellings, with one-car garage and minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit. Four additional parking spaces provided for community.
- All existing trees shall be retained on site
- Minimum 20-foot wide public access easement on the frontage for future bicycle and pedestrian use on Carolina Beach Road
- Before TRC approval, documentation must be provided to the NHC planning and land use that Beacon Townhomes has legal access to Red Lighthouse Lane
Monday, Commissioner Rob Zapple asked Wolf about the MOU allowing road access and devised between the residents of Red Lighthouse Village and Beacon Townhomes. He wanted to know why it hadn’t been submitted as part of the proposal packet. Wolf didn’t foresee the MOU needing to be public, pointing to the planning board making the legal agreement a condition before TRC approval.
“I guess from my point of view, there is no project without that agreement legally binding,” Zapple said.
“We’re talking about notaries, attorney fees — there is a lot of coordination involved in that. It was not a reasonable ask in our mind to do that,” she retorted.
The Beacon Townhomes and Red Lighthouse Village residents would be financially responsible for upkeep of Red Lighthouse Lane, per the MOU. Wolf explained the memorandum included an amount paid ahead of time — or what’s called a system development charge. Thereafter, monthly dues are remitted.
Zapple worried eight townhome owners wouldn’t be enough people to keep up with the private maintenance.
“It’s a small group putting a substantial amount into the fund. Are we not setting ourselves up for another orphan road situation that we deal with all over the county?” Zapple asked, speaking about roads without city or NCDOT maintenance that are privately owned and fall into disrepair. “I know I’m projecting 20 years into the future.”
The Red Lighthouse HOA president David Gross worked with Wolf on the MOU, to satisfy all parties. They had 17 people from the HOA sign a petition in support, while also garnering three no’s and three that were unresponsive; a supermajority of the association’s support is needed to grant the incoming development road access.
Though Gross couldn’t be in attendance Monday before commissioners, Paul Gagne was there in his stead. Gagne ensured their support and ongoing safety of Red Lighthouse Lane roadway access to Beacon Townhomes’ property.
He also said it didn’t make sense that the county’s Destination 2050 Comprehensive Plan suggested smaller infill properties along the Carolina Beach Road corridor be more geared toward commercial. The 2050 plan has not been voted on by commissioners yet, so it’s technically not in effect.
“It would be the wrong use of that land,” Gagne said. “Two-story single-family homes make sense.”
Wolf agreed and defended the rezoning request follows the current 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, stating it is in the commercial mixed-use corridor and consistent with high density needs. She found it hard to believe anyone would want a commercial entity on the site.
Garber posited to commissioners during public comment: “What’s worse: townhomes or a gas station? This is a terrible choice … Both favor a type of growth that many here do not want.”
Nearby Little Pony Trail resident Lori Burner did not think the plan was “in harmony” with surrounding R-15 single-family neighborhoods. She called it “patchwork, high-density zoning,” discouraged by the county’s view of the future.
“Keep high density rezonings for larger parcels of land,” she said.
The property has mostly been cleared, sans a large oak and a corner buffer area that still has trees that won’t be removed. Part of the buffer against Little Pony Trail will be fenced off for neighbors abutting the property. One is the former owner of the acreage, resident Tim Brunner, who sold the land to Nguyen in 2025. He, too, was against the development.
“I sold this property to one individual to build one house,” he told commissioners, recognizing plans may change. “My problem with the plans: I don’t know where the sewer is going, I don’t know what the elevation will be, I don’t know the foliage they’re going to put in the buffer zone.”
A separate HOA at Lea Landing also started a petition in favor of the proposed project. Nicole Rainer, the HOA president, asked that their 12 signatures be added into the record during public comment.
Though roughly 30 signatures came in with support, Commissioner Stephanie Walker and Chair Pierce told Wolf they had received numerous emails, estimating 30 or so, also against the plans. Wolf called some of them a “cut-and-paste that someone has rebel-roused” from River Road residents unaffected by the project but who just don’t want any more development.
“Every project has to be evaluated on its own merits, one way or another,” Wolf said, noting the property owner is going above what could be allowed by-right with multiple buffers and added conditions.
Still it wasn’t enough to secure commissioner approval.
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: Subscribehere or make a one-time contribution here.
We appreciate your ongoing support.
