The New Hanover County Planning Board on Dec. 4 heard a preliminary presentation for Special Use Permit S‑25‑05, the proposed Big Apple RV Resort, a privately developed RV campground located off Stevens Church Road in an R‑15 zoning district.

Amy Dawson, planning staff, told the board the vacant property is consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan place type and the Unified Development Ordinance standards for campground and RV parks (see UDO Section 4.30.4 E2). The staff presentation noted the applicant proposed a 50‑foot tree‑retention buffer along property lines, parking and an amenity cluster, and that proposed stormwater facilities use an existing pond on the southern boundary. Dawson also said staff had received two written public comments in opposition. “This is a special use permit for an RV campground in our R‑15 District,” Dawson said during her overview.

Developer representative Jonathan Washburn described the project as an RV resort operated by Big Apple RV Resort LLC and emphasized proposed amenities: a pool, amenity center, playgrounds, kayak and canoe access to a roughly 4.5‑acre pond, a resort store and programmed events. Washburn said the design seeks to preserve site trees and wetlands and comply with erosion‑control and emergency‑access standards. “We want to keep everything as natural as we can,” he said, noting the team does not plan to seek wetlands mitigation to expand developable area.

Board members used the non‑decision preliminary forum to press the applicant on operations and technical details. Questions focused on whether the site would have on‑site supervision (Washburn said he intends to live in the manager’s unit and the park will have staff), whether the dump station would connect to sewer rather than septic (Washburn confirmed it will connect to sewer), and what limits would be imposed on length of stay. Washburn said the applicant’s intended policy is a 30‑day maximum stay, but multiple board members encouraged a shorter limit — one member called two weeks “very reasonable.”

Members also urged the applicant to prepare clearer materials for the commissioners’ hearing, including renderings, employment estimates and more detailed stormwater and traffic analysis. Staff noted the applicant’s traffic estimate would not trigger the county’s traffic‑impact analysis threshold because it is not expected to generate more than 100 AM/PM peak‑hour trips; nonetheless, board members recommended addressing potential turning movements and U‑turn concerns in the commissioners presentation.

On wetlands and stormwater, Washburn told the board the project would impact “less than one‑tenth of an acre” of wetlands in two small road crossings; he framed that impact as limited and said the design avoids wholesale clearing. The applicant proposes a 50‑foot tree retention buffer and said no trees in that buffer would be removed.

Because this meeting was a preliminary forum, the planning board took no vote and made no formal recommendation; staff emphasized that the final decision will be made at a quasi‑judicial Board of Commissioners hearing tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026 at approximately 4 p.m. in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse. Dawson advised that evidence for the quasi‑judicial hearing must be presented in person and be factual rather than opinion, and that staff will post the commissioners packet on the county’s development activity page prior to the hearing.

Next steps: the applicant will present to the Board of Commissioners in January; staff encouraged the applicant to bring technical experts (stormwater and traffic engineers) and suggested the applicant incorporate the board’s feedback on stay limits, renderings and employment impacts into the commissioners presentation.