Last summer, Wilmington Housing Authority Executive Director Tyrone Garrett said the Phase I redevelopment of Hillcrest would start in the summer of 2026; however, shovels have not hit the ground yet, and the project is at a “standstill,” according to documents provided by WHA, pending completion of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Because WHA must complete its environmental review before issuing the MOA, along with other financing items, the project is now expected to start sometime in 2027. Meanwhile, the City of Wilmington is asking the developers, including WHA, to keep the trees they have slated for cutting.
Project now starting in 2027
The Hillcrest neighborhood is one of the region's oldest housing authority projects, built as temporary housing for shipbuilders in the 1940s. While the homes have been renovated repeatedly, they’ve struggled with mold infestation and feature outdated design.
The Hillcrest Redevelopment is a planned 550-home project that spans 26 acres and will occur over five phases. It will more than double the number of units as part of a mixed-use, mixed-income project.
Phase I, Hillcrest Village, will construct 84 units for those over the age of 55. As of February, this initial phase won’t be completed until January 2028 – residents will likely move in around April that year. The Endowment gave $5.7 million in gap financing for Phase I. Phase II is slated to replace some of the 13 public housing buildings. Phases III-V will have workforce and some market-rate housing.
Garrett’s previous goal couldn’t be met, likely because they had to undergo an environmental review related to the Rental Assistance Demonstration, or RAD conversion. As a result, they have no firm construction start date.
WHA spokesperson Elena Camacho wrote in an email that timing will depend on completing the environmental review and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA): “Until that process is completed, the RAD Conversion Commitment and related steps necessary to advance the transaction cannot proceed as originally anticipated.” They also anticipate further approvals from the U.S. Department of Housing, as well as financing and closing, before starting construction.
The next step for WHA is to circulate the proposed mitigation measures for comment, which mainly relate to historic preservation of the Hillcrest community and public housing in Wilmington.
In a letter sent to North Carolina’s State Preservation Office on September 14, the State said Hillcrest’s MOA should include installing a historical display of public housing in Wilmington, including Hillcrest’s history. They will also need to create a Story Map with this information and archival photographs.
The state also acknowledged the variance the developers received for removing trees from the site: “The trees at the Hillcrest Complex are not specifically listed as a character-defining feature of the historic property. For these reasons, the MOA will not include the preservation of existing trees as outlined in the language of the tree variance.”
Then once those are agreed upon, WHA can take the next steps with the MOA.
Garrett wrote in an email about the project not starting until next year that it’s “not necessarily a sign that anyone has failed; it is part of coordinating a complex transaction among multiple independent entities.”
He added, “Our responsibility is to provide accurate information and appropriate context regarding WHA’s actions.”
While WHA has repeatedly noted the importance of the public having accurate information about several ongoing projects, it has not provided an interview to offer context.
City concerns over tree removal plan
Part of the contention with the Hillcrest redevelopment project is the removal of several 100-year-old live oak trees from the property. Wilmington City Council member JC Lyle is not happy that the developers got the variance from the City of Wilmington’s Board of Adjustment.
“Cutting down trees to accommodate more public housing may seem like a win for housing affordability. But it is not,” she wrote to WHQR.
“When we look at housing affordability, we have to look beyond construction costs and rental rates. The shade provided by mature trees could help cool the property in summer and save on energy costs. Trees also positively impact health; healthcare is likely to be the number one expense of the seniors who will call Hillcrest home,” she added. “Eliminating these mature live oaks instead of designing around them increases the tension between tree preservation and housing affordability.”
On September 16, City manager Becky Hawke sent a letter to WHA about their plans for tree preservation and mitigation. She wrote, “We believe the current extent of the proposed tree removal is unnecessary and that opportunities exist to adjust the site designs to preserve more existing trees.”
She then outlined the costs of removing 13 trees from the property. “If mitigation cannot be accomplished through planting of new trees or credits for other activities, the payment-in-lieu of planting [those] replacement trees would exceed $122,000.” She added that they will not waive any mitigation fees for the initial phase of the Hillcrest development.
Hawke added that “staff remains available to discuss alternatives with your design team that may reduce or eliminate impacts to [the] trees on site.”
She finished the letter by inviting Garrett to speak at an upcoming meeting to discuss the project and the loss of the trees. A city spokesperson said they’re checking whether he has agreed.
Pushback on tree removal variance
Developers Wilmington Housing Authority, Urban Trends Real Estate Incorporated, and TedC received a variance back in February to cut down six live oaks, which were considered specimen trees. This also included encroaching on some of the Hillcrest trees' root systems, which means they might not survive construction. The city’s Board of Adjustment, a quasi-judicial body that reviews government decisions and regulations, granted the variance.
Along with the City of Wilmington, the decision prompted public pushback, including from long-time arborist Joshua Shields and members of the Alliance for Cape Fear Trees (ACFT).
Camacho wrote in an email that the “parties now raising concerns regarding the trees were aware of the Hillcrest site plan did not participate in the Board of Adjustment proceeding.”
Notably, it seems unlikely those parties could have meaningfully affected the proceedings. Unlike public comment periods for other government bodies, at Board of Appeals hearings, people must show they have “standing” to bring an appeal of a decision.
That’s not a black-and-white determination, according to a city spokesperson, “Whether an individual has standing is determined by the Board on a case-by-case basis at the hearing, so there is no way to say in advance who has standing to participate as a party. [...] On whether it could be a resident or part of a local interest group – maybe, [...] but a person has to ‘prove’ they have standing, and the Board has to agree. There aren’t necessarily direct guidelines.”
According to the UNC School of Government, physical proximity to the property in question matters but isn't enough. To have standing, people often indicate how their property value would be damaged, and case law also shows allegations of parking, stormwater runoff, and crime problems have also been used as ‘damages’ to establish standing. Neither Shields nor ACFT live immediately near the Hillcrest project area in a way that would let them make these claims.
Without standing, people can attend but have a much smaller role.
“Members of the general public are not “parties” for the purposes of an appeal to the board of adjustment. A person who is interested in the matter but who does not have a personal stake in the outcome may attend and observe the hearing, but they have no legal right to initiate an appeal. The board may allow non-parties to testify, but they cannot question witnesses, make objections, or otherwise actively participate in the hearing,” according to David Owens, writing for Coates’ Cannon, the local government law blog of the School of Government.
Camacho said of the variance in an email that “Revisiting an already approved local land-use matter at this stage has consequences beyond the issue of trees. Continued delays affect HUD approval, financing commitments, construction timing, and ultimately our ability to deliver needed housing to the community.”
Concerns about the tree study, removal plan
Shields has also taken issue with the assessment conducted of the Hillcrest trees, saying he found inconsistencies and shared them with the city.
According to emails provided by Shields, City Planning Manager Patrick O’Mahony wrote to Shields on September 14, saying the city agreed with some of his findings. They disagreed on one tree, based on how the city measures diameter – a factor in determining what counts as ‘specimen’ trees, which have special protections.
“The City Arborist inspected the site and noted your findings as correct, except that the live oak does not meet the specimen threshold since the trunk splits under the DBH (diameter at breast height) measurement point. We’ve relayed those changes to the project team, and they are updating their plans/calculations. Thanks again for passing this along,” O’Mahony wrote.
Shields also shared his concerns at the September 23 City of Wilmington Tree Commission meeting, saying, “It seems like you guys are finding a loophole to keep this tree from being classified as a specimen tree because, as I said, there's no real definition of a multi-stem tree in the land development code.”
At the meeting, he also said he found some misidentified trees.
“Tree 6 is not a hickory, and Tree 24 is not a live oak. Tree 7 is still listed as a live oak on the most recent site plan, despite being identified as a sand laurel oak prior to the variance approval,” Shields said.
A city spokesperson wrote of Shields’ assessment, “City staff has provided the identified inaccuracies to the applicant, and they must be addressed prior to site plan approval.”
Everett Jones of Bartlett Tree Experts told WHQR that errors are not uncommon in a surveyor’s report, someone the developer hires to assess what’s on the property, which includes trees, but that his company found three errors in their Hillcrest Phase I original survey. According to Jones, “They [the surveyor] did have to correct some misidentifications from the original report that were caught internally, corrected, and sent to the architect and city arborist earlier in the process.”
Shields also asked whether the city checks developers' work when they submit tree surveys.
A city staffer responded, “We do not review every single thing,” adding that they have to rely on the expertise of those professionals completing these surveys.
“Yeah, they're certifying the information. If there's a mistake, they have to correct it. If there's a violation based on that mistake, then we would follow through on that violation,” another staffer said.
City of Wilmington Tree Commission member Susie Rivadeneyra reiterated about the missing tree from the survey, “The tree does not meet the [specimen] criteria. So the fact that it didn't make it onto the survey doesn't actually make any difference.”
Shields responded, “Well, it does make a difference on the tree mitigation data. I mean, they're going to have to mitigate that tree.”
Tree Commission Chair Thomas Boland said, “We'll see if there's any way that we could potentially save this type of tree, but yeah, we'll see what we can do to work with the city and see if there’s anything we can do to maybe change this.”
According to an email Shields shared, the city contacted him to say they’d consider new definitions that accommodate large trees that, because they have multiple trunks, don’t fit the current technical definition of a specimen tree.
On September 24, Sally Thigpen, assistant director of asset and property management, wrote to Shields, “We appreciate your comments at the Tree Commission meeting and your suggested definitions for multi-stem in a previous email. I support including a definition of multi-stem trees in the proposed code update to help address any confusion.”
