Board of Commissioners

TOWN OF CAROLINA SHORES Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2026 10:30 a.m. At 10:30 a.m., Chairperson Ron Johnson called the January 21, 2026, Planning Board Meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and there was a moment of silence. The following members attended: David Steele, and Diane Baker. Also present: Commissioner Marlene Vandergrift, Board Liaison Alternate; Chad Hicks, Town Administrator; Nicole Hewett, Assistant Town Administrator/Town Clerk; Chris Edwards, Public Works Director; James Eldridge, Town Attorney; and Corey Childers Deputy Town Clerk/ Administrative Assistant. Absent: Member Ashley McEntee, Member Ruth Ann Campbell, and Alternate Member George Grant. Before the meeting was called to order, Ms. Hewett asked Chairperson Johnson if she could clarify the questions the public had before the meeting on voting members and a quorum. Ms. Hewett explained that there are 3 voting members of the board present to vote and a 4th member called right before the meeting could not be here. Town Attorney, Mr. Eldridge is in attendance but is not voting and Commissioner Vandergrift was strictly here as the alternate liaison between the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board. A question was asked if there was a quorum for the vote. Ms. Hewett explained there are 5 voting members and 2 alternates, a majority must be present for a vote, and 3 is a majority of 5 so yes, there are enough members to vote. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only: Sandy Smith, 11 Pinewood Drive: Ms. Smith expressed they were appalled the Town of Carolina Shores has said it is not their responsibility to question many concerns and problems that residents researched and presented to them. Issues that have been presented by residents included drainage, flooding, safety, and traffic. She hopes that the board listens to these concerns from the public. She is also disappointed the town has not secured a larger venue for all residents to attend to voice concerns. For the board to not consider all this critical information in this recommendation as to whether or not to rezone would be a travesty. If rezoning goes through, it is too late to go back. It strikes Ms. Smith as odd that they have not been questioned on any of this research, so she can only assume that the board has read and understands the ramifications of such an important decision. A vote to rezone would open dense housing to an already existing community. Ms. Smith said since the Planning Board are representatives of the residents and only have their best interests in mind, they should vote down to rezone the Carolina Shores Golf Course. Thank you. Nancy Larkin, 39 Gate 6: Mrs. Larkin stated throughout this whole process residents of the Carolina Shores Community along with other residents throughout the town, have expressed concerns and are opposed to the rezoning. However, to this day, they have not heard the Board’s thoughts, concerns and there have been very few questions. The residents have spent an extensive amount of time looking into the town’s CAMA Land Use Plan, today has all been input and no output. Mrs. Larkin stated that the town’s CAMA Plan comes from the Planning Board, the Board of Commissioners and citizen input. Mrs. Larkin read the vision statement which reads: “Carolina Shores will be a community, that is safe and accessible to all age groups and interests. Existing neighborhoods will be preserved. The town will provide the community facilities infrastructure services and establishes that will promote the quality of life in a well-planned physically responsibly manner.” Mrs. Larkin asked if this request to rezone will have an adverse impact on fire, police presence, safety and traffic. Does the request raise legal questions such as spot zoning or hardship for residents? Does the request hurt the natural resources? Mrs. Larkin stated they expect to see some meaningful discussion among the board, and your feedback for purposes of transparency is what you have been charged to do. This transparency is vital as you do not meet behind closed doors to discuss this. They are a committee appointed and sworn in by the town to represent the best interests of all citizens of the community within it. Please tell us why this is consistent or inconsistent with the CAMA Plan and our UDO and more importantly why you feel the need to rezone. There should not be silence from those who make these decisions, and it should not be a big secret until the final vote here. Mrs. Larkin thanked the Planning Board for their consideration, and respectfully but strongly recommends this board does not recommend this rezoning to the Board of Commissioners because of its inconsistencies and contradictions of their own plan. As concerned and hearing residents they will be waiting, watching and listening to your discussion and your decisions. Lon Forehand, 19 Brassie Drive: Mr. Forehand discussed a previous meeting that the developer, owner, engineering firm and lawyer had held over the summer. Mr. Forehand stated the residents were left distraught after that meeting. As a result, the residents put together the Carolina Shores Residents Liaison Committee to go against the rezoning. Mr. Forehand stated that this morning they had sent a letter that formally addresses the significant technical deficiencies of the developer’s stormwater management study, the Phase 1 environmental site assessment, material of omissions, hydrological analysis, and the substantial legal liability the town will incur if they approve this rezoning without requiring a comprehensive independent study of these critical issues. Mr. Forehand stated the stormwater study has fundamental flaws that make the conclusions just unreliable. The fundamental issue is the failure to account for the hydraulic soil throughout the property. These soils have severely strict drainage. At the meeting on Friday (1/16/2026), G3 Engineering proposed that the retention ponds are gravity fed systems. Water will filter through surrounding soils, water will drain throughout, and into Persimmon Swamp. Thirdly, the ponds will drain within 24-48 hours after storm events. Hydraulic soil with clay does not allow water to percolate through impermeable substrates it stays in place. This changes retention ponds from temporary storage to permanent water features. When the next storm arrives, the water will overflow onto adjoining neighbors’ properties. At this time, Mr. Forehand’s three minutes for public comment were reached. John Sbardelli, 35 Carolina Shores Drive: Mr. Sbardelli is here to discuss the severe issues with the Phase 1 environmental site assessment. Mr. Sbardelli said he hopes you can make the correct decision after you hear what he has to say, and these are all facts. The Phase 1 ESA (Environmental Site Analysis) expired under ASTM 1527, the report is only valid for 180 days. This report expired July 30, 2025, and cannot be relied upon for any development or rezoning until it is updated. Secondly, and more importantly, there is noncompliance with regulations and standards, so if you guys decide to do this, you are making the wrong decision. The assessment does not comply with the ASTM 1527 revision 21. That standard overrides federal regulation 4312, both these standards require environmental professionals to evaluate and determine the standard, and he does not expect anyone in here to totally understand standards, because it is difficult to interpret them. The term is likely present substances, not just the term contamination, so he thinks it is common knowledge a golf course over 50 years has used chemicals. That is a well-documented presumption of contamination. Historically, golf courses used chemicals that are now banned, heavily regulated, such as mercury, isochromanone, lead and you can read more on file. The report you’re looking at shows the soil consists of sand, silt and clay. Sand allows movement, silt and clay trap contaminants especially after 50 years of using it. These contaminants are invisible and cannot be detected by a visual assessment alone. Additionally, the report admits that portions of the site were not visible due to brush cover up. Under ASTM standards that they are following, this constitutes as a significant data gap, one that directly affects the ability to identify and recognize environmental conditions. When contamination cannot be seen and historical land use strongly suggests its presence, the only appropriate next step is Phase 2 soil sampling and lab testing. This is the requirement; this is the law. 2 Julia Lally, 97 Carolina Shores Drive: Ms. Lalley stated she was here to talk about the trees. Carolina Shores has the honor of being named a Tree City, it’s one of the reasons she chose to move here. We love trees. This is a national recognition for urban forestry with efforts focused on tree planting, protection and management of the trees. The residents of Carolina Shores question how this recognition aligns with the development of clear cutting the trees. Philippe and Jennifer Bureau never allowed the removal of any tree, dead or alive, everyone here knows that. It’s because they respected the importance of trees for our environment, for wildlife and for absorbing rainwater. Now Philippe and Jennifer’s philosophy have seemed to change. The new building code calls for the clear cutting of land to raise the ground level 18”, you cannot do this without removing the trees. On January 12, 2026, our Mayor Dan Conte and Commissioners proclaimed that March 20th will be observed as Arbor Day. On this day, all Carolina Shores citizens are urged to support efforts to protect our trees. Citizens are encouraged and she quotes “to plant trees, to gladden the heart, and promote wellbeing of this and future generations.” This Arbor Day Proclamation identifies trees as essential infrastructure for stormwater, flood reduction, temperature moderation and property values. Trees reduce erosion by wind and water, they cut heat and cooling costs, they clean the air, they produce oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife. These functions will end the moment trees are cleared in Carolina Shores. That outcome is not incidental, it is a direct result of the rezoning decisions made by this board. She’s hoping the Commissioners’ Arbor Day philosophy hasn’t changed. If the values of Arbor Day Proclamation are not applied to rezoning decisions by this board, then this proclamation has no meaning. Why have Arbor Day? Every vote for rezoning in Carolina Shores is a choice between standing trees and bare ground, and this board is responsible for these changes. To the board she thanks you for the consideration not to change the zoning and save our trees. Keep Carolina Shores a Tree City, do not change your philosophy. Julie MacDowall, 9 Niblick Court: Ms. MacDowall stated that her property is directly adjacent to the proposed rezoning area, and she’s here to formally oppose the request to move this property from CRD to PRD. We believe this zoning is important for the environmental stability of this community. When she stood before this board in October, she presented a petition with over 2,000 signatures against rezoning and today that number has grown to 2,125. This is a clear unified mandate from your citizens against rezoning. This request is inconsistent with the town’s own data. According to the recent land use study, our community overwhelmingly favors low density development and green space. 81% of residents prioritize minimizing new housing. 57% desire a low-density pattern for future growth. 72% identify traffic as a primary concern. Our UDO states that large lot zoning is an effective way to preserve natural and community open space. This community supports its current CRD zoning, it is premature to increase density while the effects of the Walmart and Publix complexes are unknown. It is prudent to adopt a wait and see approach requiring a cite and traffic analysis after these projects are complete. Furthermore, 19 retention ponds represent a massive engineering liability. If the new HOA fails to maintain these ponds, the Town of Carolina Shores and its taxpayers will foot the bill. The UDO and the CAMA Plan define usable open space as preserved natural areas and recreation. Retention ponds are infrastructure and are not open space. Replacing a Conservation District with a series of drainage basins is an engineering failure, not a community benefit. Under North Carolina Law, the Planning Board is required to ensure that their decision is consistent with the adopted plans. If you vote yes, you are violating your own rules. Rezoning usually requires a changed condition. There is no such changed condition here. This land is as environmentally vital today as it was the day it was purchased. The developer’s profit margin is not a valid legal basis for a zoning change in North Carolina. The board’s duty is to the public interest and the comprehensive plan, not the applicant’s bottom line. I respectfully ask you to find this request inconsistent and to deny the zoning request. Thank you. Timothy Blatch, 44 & 42 Calabash Drive & 37 Gate 1: Mr. Blatch said with the land under consideration for development, the drainage system surrounding Calabash Drive including areas identified by FEMA as AE and X are flood areas. These are medium flood risks. All of these comments 3 come from minutes of the town and from studies provided to support the minutes. These are not theoretical models; they reflect documented stormwater behavior and known hazard patterns affecting that part of Carolina Shores. CRD zoning was applied here specifically because of natural wetlands. Existing vegetation act as flood buffers. They slow down and absorb run-off and prevent existing drainage systems from being overwhelmed during heavy rain events. Residents here have seen firsthand even today the current development levels the systems operate at capacity. Longer term residents may recall the catastrophic flooding that occurred in October 2015. As result of Hurricane Joaquin when up to 24” of rain fell, 39 homes were flooded. Some of those residents on Calabash Drive were left in unsafe conditions for 4 days. $574,000 was issued as hurricane reimbursement to the town for repairs. It is worth noting that this storm reached 1,000 storm expectations whereas G3 are only planning for a 100-year storm. East Coast Engineering, who was commissioned in 2018 as a result of this storm, reported that the drains go east to the CawCaw then north via the Waccamaw River which backs up during severe flooding. Improving this drainage would cost between $4-30 million and would not have any impact on the next storm. This was reported by East Coast Engineering studies. None of the options were adopted by the town, it was outside of the town’s jurisdiction. This is why having stormwater run- off to roads and drives makes this worse and must not be approved. G3’s updated plan gives no detailed studies of stormwater drainage, floodplain obstruction or analysis have been provided to support the plan development. Rezoning at this stage would be premature. At this point, Mr. Blatch’s 3 minutes were reached for public comment. David Berger, 4 Egret Court: Mr. Berger said he holds in his hands a copy of the proposed developers submitted as a traffic study for the proposed 119 home development in Carolina Shores. This document is not a breach, not a TIS (16:57) nor is it TIA. This is simply a trip count, that is not a study. The developer says continually that this is a study and it is not. North Carolina DOT requires a TIS and TIA for a trip count of over 3,000 trips. Our Town of Carolina Shores Land Use Map 4.1 annual average daily traffic clearly shows that at the intersection of Carolina Shores Parkway, Carolina Shores Drive, and Country Club Road, a trip count of 4,400-4,700 trips per day. That is current because it comes from the Publix complex that they just did the study for. This is before the proposed rezoning for the 119 homes. NCDOT requires that TIS and TIA studies be submitted with the proposed development plan when they are submitted. However, what concerns him the most is the trip count that was submitted is completely inaccurate. The first pages state the golf course is to be rezoned into 80 lots, that’s not true. The new proposal is for 119. It also shows a conceptual site plan for 1 acre lots in a completely different builders name is on that document. This developer should be on that document. How is it possible for you the board to make a decision knowing that this is false and inaccurate information? How much other information are you getting that is inaccurate and false? How much other information are you accepting by word of mouth without written documentation? Just because they say they have a contract doesn’t mean they do, unless it is in your hands and you can see it. Last meeting they spoke about having a contract for the maintenance of the retention ponds. They have not even been built yet, so he knows there is no contract for that. The owner and developer should be able to produce all documentation they have mentioned. There are so many red flags in this proposal. How will you address these issues before you vote? All life, health and safety questions should be addressed in writing before voting. It’s critical information for this town and community. At this time, Mr. Berger’s 3 minutes were reached for public comment. Sue Nelson, 7 Niblick Court: Ms. Nelson said this concerns wastewater. Intentional dumping of hazardous waste can be classified as a Class 1 felony. Violators could be fined up to $15,000, per day per violation. Illegal discharges could also trigger federal charges for the Clean Water Act. There are situations where discharge might occur, but it must be regulated. For example, an emergency overflow. This is when a wastewater facility may legally bypass treatment during extreme wet weather like during hurricanes. Raw sewage may be dumped to prevent plant failure. These sewer overflows must be recorded and have violations if excessive and poorly managed. In the Planning Board minutes from April 18, 2018, a sewer overflow was mentioned. Member O’Reilly stated “it never made the 4 newspapers, and no board of health investigations. There was a lot of raw sewage in houses that flooded. Nothing was done about it and no one ever sued. God forbid we have another major storm; somebody has to start asking these tough questions.” In searching through minutes for this follow-up event, nothing was found. It seems that the event was not carried forward on a new agenda for discussion. This event occurred almost 8 years ago. Since then, the county has exploded with growth and now there is a request to add more housing within the development of the Carolina Shores Community. More housing means more waste. More housing also means more impervious surfaces and therefore, more flooding. With that said, the likelihood of the raw sewage overflow occurring again is very real. Homes that flood with a combination of stormwater and raw sewage are an outright health hazard and require immediate remediation. The new proposed plan and rezoning will directly contribute to this existing problem. Additionally, the new plan shows approximately 17 new homes being added in general by the wastewater facility. What type of safeguard would be in place for these new additions? Does the owner and developer really intend to sell new homes which are $400,000 knowing a reoccurring problem is occurring of sewage overflow? What type of safeguards would be in existence for current Carolina Shores residents with adding these new homes and sewage? How can the proposed plan be approved with no answers to these immanent conditions? Such consideration appears to be negligent. It’s your job as our Planning Board to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the Town of Carolina Shores community. We are counting on you. Negligence is not an option here. This is a very real public health concern. Julie Turner, 4 Egret Court: Ms. Turner said rather than improving stormwater management, the 19 unaerated retention ponds are a serious health and safety risk to most residents in Carolina Shores. Stated previously, retention ponds pose drowning risks, and are a breeding ground for mosquito born diseases, and toxic bacteria. According to a 17-year drowning study completed in 2020 by the National Institute of Health, half of all drowning deaths in America were children less than 5 years old. Of those deaths, 59% of them were retention pond drowning deaths. When we look at the adult population of Carolina Shores, the statics for mosquito born diseases rise. The median age of residents in Carolina Shores is approximately 66, as supported by the US Center for Disease Control. The likelihood of adults aged 65+ with at least one chronic health condition such as cancer, heart disease or diabetes is 90%. That means in Carolina Shores, with its approximate 2,500 residents, that possibly 2,250 of its residents could have one chronic health condition. Now consider the sheer volume of these retention ponds at approximately 85,500 sq feet by 6 feet deep, they could breed billions of mosquitoes. Therefore, if not maintained properly, the 19 retention ponds in the rezoning plan could exacerbate mosquito borne diseases to most of the residents in Carolina Shores such as West Nile Virus and encephalitis. Retention ponds can also produce the following: blue green algae known to kill pets within 15-20 min, E. coli known to cause kidney failure, and legionella bacteria known to cause legionnaires' disease. Residents over 50 with chronic lung disease with weakened immune systems or those with recent hospitalizations are those with even higher risk. In 2026, the town will place a lien on the Carolina Shores Golf Course since its owner failed to maintain the property. Based on this fact, the Planning Board cannot assume that 19 retention ponds will be maintained. Is the board willing to risk the health of over 2,200 residents for the prosperity of one landowner? Quoting our Attorney Eldridge from October 2025, regarding our CAMA Land Use Plan “avoid risk of public health, safety and welfare”. This report was sent to Brunswick County Health Services in December who recommended submission to the State Department of Environmental Quality. Residents of Carolina Shores refuse to be your science experiment. Negligence is not an option; rezoning should be denied. Deb Courtemanche, 27 Carolina Shores Drive: Ms. Courtemanche said a UDO is a legally binding local law regarding development rules like zoning, subdivision design and stormwater. Our UDO states that the UDO and Zoning Map are made within accordance with a comprehensive plan designed to promote public health, safety and general welfare. As shown within the research we have presented to you, the proposed plan and rezoning are in direct conflict with the following UDO laws: prevention of overcrowding of the land, avoidance of dense concentration of population, avoidance of street 5 congestion, provision of security and safety from fire, panic and danger; such as hurricanes, 100-year and 1,000-year storms, and control development of flood prone areas. Additionally, the proposed plan and zoning are in direct conflict with the fundamentals of the town’s CAMA Plan preservation of the Carolina Shores Golf Course. As quoted the center piece of the town’s unique identity as a golf community. Preservation of the natural environment where growth must be balanced, with mitigation of flooding, while preserving the trees and turf for absorption and limiting impervious surface. We have had two recent town meetings to discuss the proposed plan and rezoning with the owner, developer and engineers. Town Hall was packed with concerned residents at both meetings. This act of representation by our community is sending a clear message to the Planning Board. Our residents oppose rezoning and reject the proposed plan with a passion. It is in direct conflict with what the town has promised us under the protection of the UDO and the CAMA Plan. The residents of Carolina Shores are counting on their community boards to do the right thing by protecting our health, safety and general welfare. We ask that the Planning Board uphold the laws that are written in their UDO and uphold the guidance of the CAMA Land Use Plan. Thank you. Lauren Nigro, 40 Swamp Fox Drive: Ms. Nigro said I am a member of the Golf Course Committee and have been following the events in the meetings that have brought us to this point. As a concerned resident of Carolina Shores, she urges that the committee take head in the research that has been presented and the consensus of the majority of the current residents and deny the rezoning request. We understand the rights of the current owner of the golf course. We are not trying to deny those rights. Those rights do not include the right to change the zoning for purely profit motives while injuring the property owners’ rights of current residents. It has been presented that the proposed PRD would be a benefit to the existing community, there is no proof of this. Current residents are being asked to trust the proposal, yet we will have to suffer the consequences if proven false. It has been presented that the new community will increase revenue to the Town of Carolina Shores. The current tax base of the town far outweighs the increase of the PRD, and that current tax base opposed the rezoning request. She’ll defer to others who are better versed with the potential problems caused by the proposed development: environmental, flooding, traffic etc. Suffice to say the increase in revenue will fall short when compared to the real potential problems that will arise. The CAMA Plan for the town shows that CRD should be preserved. The residents survey reflects the first concern of the residents is the protection of quality of life. With the addition of the new shopping centers, this small-town feel is already at risk. Again, current residents are being asked to trust the plan while we will be the owners who will suffer the consequences. Considering the environmental and propelled safety concerns and overwhelming consensus of the residents, this rezoning request should be denied. Thank you. Dennis Breen, 13 Gate 12: Mr. Breen said good morning, folks. He is an attorney and he has already threatened to sue everybody including the town regarding the rezoning. The reason being is because it affects us all. He urges the committee to vote against this and the reason being is very simple. They are going to give us retention ponds. That’s nice, they are going to give us a million mosquitoes; and what do they get? They get a million bucks in return. So, what you are voting for is for them to get a million dollars. Mr. Matheney had the golf course first and it went into bankruptcy under his tutelage. Phil bought it out of bankruptcy for $800,000, he’s run it into the ground. The golf course is now unusable as a golf course. Now, what he wants to do is build a community within our community, to put 120 new homes in the community, which means approximately 240 new people. They are also going to build a clubhouse, pool, and pickleball courts for their community, and they are going to mow the lawn, which is nice of them, and retention ponds, but other than that, what is the Town of Carolina Shores getting out of this? $60,000 in extra taxes? We can’t even buy a dumpster for the dump with that kind of money. So, it does you no good. The reason this is bad, it’s bad on so many levels, like even Mr. Matheney, he has asked him several times to identify the developers, he won’t. Show us the floor plans, he won’t. He says of the prices of our houses are going to be $450,000, he has shown nothing to support that allegation. The thing about it is they are giving you the short stick and they want you to give them a million dollars for it. So, it’s your decision and it’s going to be up to you, and besides for a million extra 6 mosquitoes we don’t need… I really don’t see the benefit to the Town of Carolina Shores. All the residents are against it, at least 80% of them are against it, so the only thing you are going to do is create uproar, and for what, for them to make money? Is that what you want? It makes no sense to me, so he urges you to vote against this because it is not for anyone else’s benefit except Phil and Mr. Matheney. And we shouldn’t give them that opportunity and burden ourselves with all that extra that we don’t need. Thank you all. Richard Gagliano, 52 Calabash Drive: Mr. Gagliano said he has been a resident here for approximately 25 years. He holds in his hands a 50-page document that we gave to you at the October 15, 2025, Planning Board Meeting. He wonders just about how many people have read this. We spent a lot of time putting that information together to give you a chance to make an informed decision. Incorporated into this plan we added more robust content, we vetted more facts, in some of the topics that we covered in this. In addition to this, is preserving community character, doing a traffic study, impacts on public safety, infrastructure and environment. We have looked into spot zoning. We are looking at the CAMA Plan, the guidance plan and land use best practices, the UDO laws, the sewage discharge, the financial risks and the public health and safety. CRD zoning was adopted to preserve open space and community character. While the ordinance allows for very minimal housing i.e., 1-acre homes by right that allowance was a safeguard, not as an entitlement. It was designed to ensure that if housing occurred it would remain sparce and incidental not to justify converting large conservation areas into subdivisions. Using that language to argue to put 120 homes on land zoned CRD violates the intent on the zoning and undermines public trust and the planning process. If property is zoned CRD, it is lawful for residents to expect the land to remain CRD. If by right, is a shield for developers, then it is also a shield for the community. Rezoning is discretionary. It should not serve as a loophole to eliminate protected open spaces defined as CRD zoning, our CAMA Land Use Plan, and the CRD laws. Rezoning should be denied. You have heard all this data from us; we worked long and hard to put this together. We put this forward to assist you, the Planning Board, in making an informed, intelligent, and responsible decision. We didn’t just band together for the purpose of crying and collectively complaining about what we like and how we would like to see the golf course stay intact. We put a lot of work into this. We did a ton of research. We spent numerous hours gathering all our facts. He knows the Board can respond. They (owner/developer) filled out all of the information; they dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s. Just move forward and get this behind us. It simply isn’t applicable. At this time, Mr. Gagliano’s 3 minutes were reached for public comment. Josh Phanco, Attorney for Carolina Shores Residents Liaison Committee: Attorney Phanco said he is representing the Golf Course Committee that you might have heard about, that has been organized through the CS POA. He was hired to advise them as to what their options are when fighting the golf course development. So, what he is here to suggest to you all is this, he has a rhetorical question for you. How do you think the Planning Board at Ocean Isle Beach feels today? The reason he asks is that at the east end, there are homeowners who have lost their homes, lost roads and the entire east end is washing away less than a year after development. No one saw it coming. The Planning Board has two thoughts: they can either not care, in which case you should not be on the planning board, or you can care and say, “wow maybe we should stop rubber stamping what people who are trying to make money are selling us”, because it’s not true. In less than a year, your roads will wash away. In less than a year, your front lawn will wash away because the developers are making money. We have two businessmen spear heading this who could not even run a golf course and now we are going to have them be the protectors of this town. Seems crazy. I understand what your vote is, your vote at best is “well we are going to vote in favor of this because if we rezone, at least we can control that they will have 14 retention ponds, it’s the best option out of a lot of bad options, so we are going to vote for the best option out of a lot of bad options.” That is not a good argument, and he is going to tell you why, because the fact of the matter is they want to build 14 different retention ponds because developing on that piece of land is probably negligent, and then they are like, so we’ll do it better because we acknowledge doing it the other way is terrible. Then they are holding a gun to your head saying do it, give us the rezoning so we can do it the 7 right way. The question should be why should you do it at all? So no, we are not going to rubber stamp this and give you approval to rezone, to make it easier for you to develop when you shouldn’t be developing in the first place. Your vote isn’t to approve them or disapprove them. We understand that it is going to go for another vote anyway. Your vote is to tell these people whether you stand with them or against them. He advises you to remember that when you put your vote up. Thank you. Approval of Minutes: MEMBER BAKER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 19, 2025, PLANNING BOARD MEETING. MEMBER STEELE SECONDED THE MOTION. CHAIRPERSON JOHNSON CALLED FOR A VOTE AND MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. Administrative Reports: None New Business: Chairperson Johnson announced that they were going to give the developers and the engineers a chance to talk. Chairperson Johnson said they would appreciate it if the audience remained quiet and allowed them to speak, they gave you a chance to talk and you must give them the chance to speak. The team presented the plan and layout of the proposed PRD. They discussed stormwater, the open acreage along with the retention ponds. They stated how the town’s third-party engineers reviewed the plans and where in agreement with G3’s conclusions. G3 stated this is a design plan that is unprecedented. G3 stated in their professional opinion this rezoning would not count as spot zoning because they will be matching up to land plots that are adjacent and existing. G3 explained with the stormwater it would benefit the town as a whole and allow for better drainage to get the water off the golf course and into the canals and retention ponds. They stated that with the design plan they had, the water runoff would not go to existing homeowners’ properties. The developer brought a package of the amenities that would be offered in the new HOA along with bylaws of the new HOA. The owner discussed contracts that they had in place for landscape, maintenance for the retention ponds along with the treatment of mosquitos. Chairperson Johnson asked the Town Administrator if the information that has been provided to the town is accurate. Mr. Hicks stated that the information that was provided to him was reviewed by the town’s engineers. Mr. Hicks cannot speak to it as he is not a PE, but the engineers relayed to Mr. Hicks that the information was accurate. Mr. Hicks stated before any construction would start, the stormwater plans would have to be reviewed and approved by the state and could/would most likely change somewhat. The team then answered questions that were proposed by the Planning Board. Consideration of Carolina Shores Golf Course Proposed Rezoning from CRD (Conservation Recreation District) to PRD (Planned Residential District): Attorney Eldridge stated the Planning Board needed to vote either to recommend or not recommend rezoning to the Board of Commissioners and they also needed to adopt a Consistency Statement to decide if the rezoning and plan are consistent or inconsistent with the 2018 CAMA Land Use Plan. The Planning Board must cite examples in the CAMA Plan to support their decision. 8 Member Baker stated that when she was going over the CAMA Plan these were her questions: pg. 5-11 number 23 “Town will cooperatively with NC DOT approve traffic flow throughout Carolina Shores to promote orderly evacuation procedures.” Another question on that same section is number 25 regarding best management practices regulating stormwater, and 26 was to minimize hazards to health, life, safety and property, Carolina Shores will discourage development within flood hazard areas. Member Steele stated he did believe there are still inconsistencies with the stormwater. Member Steele stated the inconsistencies are on page 5-8, 5-9 with goal number 5 and 7. Chairperson Johnson stated that these are all valid concerns, but he questions how far do we go here. What he means by that is do we trust our engineers to recognize what they are asking for and that they would stand on top of them. MEMBER STEELE MADE A MOTION NOT TO RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION PROPOSAL ON THE BASIS OF INCOMPATABILITY WITH THE CAMA LAND USE PLAN. MEMBER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. CHAIRPERSON JOHNSON CALLED FOR A VOTE AND IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD 3-0 NOT TO RECOMMEND REZONING. Consideration of Golf Course Subdivision and PRD (Planned Residential District Plat): As the planning board voted to not recommend the proposed rezoning, this item was not necessary. Attorney Eldridge stated that with the comments Consistency Statement of the inconsistencies, he will use that to write up the statement for the Planning Board to present to the Board of Commissioners. Public Comment: There was applause from the audience thanking the Board. Ken Gifford, 15 Inlet Place: Mr. Gifford said with all the other comments that were made, he wants to bring up something else that has to do with the number of governing entities with regards to maintaining the basins. We have the current stormwater system. He has been living in the community for a little over 2 years, he has seen flooding taking place in the community, as well as other residents here. He has seen the ditch in front of his house fill up and overflow. He has seen the ditch behind his house which backs up to Hole 1 also fill up and overflow. Right now, there are 4 governing entities over the current maintenance of the drainage system. You have Brunswick County, Carolina Shores POA, the Town of Carolina Shores, and NCDOT. So, his question is of these 4 governing authorities which one has the overall responsibility for ensuring the maintenance and the operations of the current stormwater system? He wants to reference an article that was in the Brunswick Beacon that was published September 11, 2025, that discussed the flooding in Bolivia that took place September 16, 2024. He would highly encourage you to read this article titled “County Evaluates PTC8 Response” PTC8 stands for Potential Tropical Cyclone Number 8” in which the National Weather Service stated that it would probably dump about 2-5 inches of rain in that area, it dumped 24” of rain into that area. If you read that article at the end of it, you have one of the Brunswick County Commissioners pointing the finger at NCDOT and basically stating that if NCDOT had been doing its job this wouldn’t have happened. So, now we have a governing authority pointing the finger at another governing authority, and what is going, to happen with that? At this point Mr. Giffords’ three minutes were reached for public comment. Julie Turner, 3 Egret Court: Ms. Turner stated she would just like to thank you all for listening to all of our research and we appreciate you taking everything into consideration today. Ms. Turner stated she 9 just wanted to respond to Mr. Bureau’s comment about her research being inaccurate. She is an expert in researching and compiling data and information. She has been doing this for over 40 years. She has spent her career working for global organizations such as the military and the corporate health care industry. She stands by her research; she stands by her calculations. Brunswick County Health Services would not have recommended her report be submitted to the state otherwise. Thank you. John Sbardelli, 35 Carolina Shores Drive: Mr. Sbardelli thanked the board for hearing all their issues. Three minutes does not explain a lot of non-compliances, especially to a 300-page document. He just wants to reiterate that the non-compliance it seems like we are skipping over this a lot but, the non- compliance to the standard itself is not adhering to what the standard tells you to do. So, as he’s sure you know, standards are all for interpretation, they are on broader standards. There isn’t a standard out there in the world that says how do you test soil for contamination from a golf course; it’s just a standard for testing soil for contamination. Within that standard, as he mentioned before, there’s a term of likely presence. This is in the Code of Federal Regulations as well and it says the degree of obviousness of presence or likely presence of contamination of the property. Basically, this evaluation of Phase 1 isn’t just to check off a box, it’s to say is sampling needed? It’s not saying that it is contaminated, it’s saying that we need to sample soil so we can make a determination if there is a health risk here. That to him is the most important thing, and with not following that procedure, the engineering company that did it misinterpreted the standard. He will stand by that. He has been in engineering services and quality management for 40 years; he has reviewed standards his whole life and there is a problem here. Just know that. Timothy Blatch, 44 & 42 Calabash Drive & 37 Gate 1: Mr. Blatch would like to raise the point that seems to him to be a glaring problem. Looking at the plan here on Calabash Dr. where there is a series of houses that are going to be built, from the center of the plan down to the first retention pond to the bottom of the plan. That is approximately half of a mile long. The level of the ground is exactly flat. How is the water going to run down there to the retention drain? Deb Courtemanche, 27 Carolina Shores Drive: Ms. Courtemanche wants to thank you for listening to us. We don’t mind that Mr. Bureau wants to build 120 houses, custom homes, on one acre lots. We would welcome that tax revenue. We just don’t like fact that he wants to build in such a small area. She lives on Carolina Shores Dr. Getting onto Country Club Rd is already difficult, and he wants to put 80 more houses on our side, we won’t be able to get in and out of there. So please just put that into the recommendation too. Julie MacDowall, 9 Niblick Court: Ms. MacDowall said we were talking about the CAMA Plan and the CRD designations which are designed to preserve open space and recreational areas. If you look at this map, every access to these fairways has a house at the end of it, so that greenspace is basically all inaccessible. You would have to walk through someone’s back yard to actually be able to use the greenspace. While maybe it looks like a lot of greenspace, really it is inaccessible. The other thing I wanted to bring up, Mrs. Baker mentioned if there were any concerns by the fire chief in the area. At the Board of Commissioners meeting on September 8, 2025, both Fire Chief McGee and Commissioner Randy Thompson expressed concerns about the level of growth in Carolina Shores citing that too much is irresponsible. Thank you again everyone. Philippe Bureau, Representative for the Carolina Shores Golf Course: Mr. Bureau stated that he does appreciate the residents’ concerns. As far as access to the green space, it is private property today, it will be private property in the future. It is not a recreational area for the residents of Carolina Shores POA. Not today, not tomorrow, it never has been and my property has been treated as such. Thank you. 10 Adjourn: MEMBER STEELE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE JANUARY 21, 2026, PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 12:22 P.M. MEMBER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. CHAIRPERSON JOHNSON CALLED FOR A VOTE AND MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. _____________________________ Chairperson Submitted by: Corey F. Childers, Deputy Town Clerk/Administrative Assistant 11