At 7:55 p.m. Friday, August 28, the Town of Lake Lure posted an "Updated Public Response Regarding Second Mountain, LLC" along with a short-form settlement agreement. The terms: Second Mountain permanently abandons any claim to the police boathouse at 2662 Memorial Highway, and pays the Town all past-due rent on its lease at 2654 Memorial Highway — $3,218.00 — by Monday, August 31. In exchange, the existing lease continues, at the existing rent, with nothing adjusted for the amenity Second Mountain is giving up. The document itself is unsigned — it carries blank signature lines for Paul Brock and Town Manager Olivia Stewman, not actual signatures — meaning what the Town released Friday is a proposed settlement, not an executed one. There's no Council resolution attached to it either, and no record of an open-session vote. Lured Market & Grill has since posted its own response calling the offer exactly what its terms suggest: not a compromise, but, in the business's own words, "an ultimatum."

This is a follow-up to our August 28 report, The Meeting No One Saw End, and our August 27 report, The Attorneys Are Talking. For every document and on-record statement behind this whole story, see our running source-document index.

The offer, in plain terms

Strip away the framing and the settlement document does two things. First, Second Mountain gives up, permanently, any claim that its lease entitles it to use the police boathouse — the subject of the Superior Court lawsuit that's been running alongside the eviction case. Second, Second Mountain pays the Town $3,218.00 in back rent on the Suite A lease by Monday morning, and agrees to keep paying full rent on time going forward, under the terms of the lease as it already exists.

What Second Mountain does not get, anywhere in the document: any adjustment to the rent, any credit, any transition period, or any acknowledgment that the amenity it's giving up was ever worth anything. The number the Town settled on for what it's owed is precise to the dollar. Nothing about what it's taking away is priced at all.

Paul Brock says he asked for a rent concession — and didn't get one

Paul Brock told this reporter directly that he and his attorney proposed exactly that: giving up the boathouse claim in exchange for some consideration on rent — a reduction, a credit, something — because losing boathouse access means losing a piece of what Second Mountain built its business plan around in the first place. That's his account of a private negotiation this outlet hasn't independently verified against a document. But it's a reasonable thing to have asked for, and the settlement the Town posted Friday night shows the answer was no.

Here's one way to think about why that request wasn't unreasonable. Imagine a landlord leases you a house for $4,000 a month, and the garage is part of the deal — you're told upfront you can park there, store your gear there, use it. A year in, the landlord changes their mind: they need the garage back after all. Maybe they have a good reason. But would you still feel right paying the same $4,000 you were paying when the garage was part of what you were getting? Most people wouldn't — not because the landlord doesn't have the right to make that call, but because the price was never just for the house. It was for the house plus the garage. Take away the garage and leave the price exactly where it was, and you've quietly renegotiated the deal in one direction only.

That's the shape of what's happening here, and the next section is why it isn't a stretch.

It was never an add-on: three years of the Town's own records

The Town's framing — echoed in comment sections and at recent meetings — often treats the boathouse as something Second Mountain reached for, an overreach on top of a straightforward retail lease. The Town's own paper trail says otherwise, going back to before Second Mountain existed as a bidder for this property at all.

The former ABC Store building at 2654 Memorial Highway came open in April 2023, when the state store relocated. The Town issued an RFP, and by the August 16, 2023 work session, Town Manager Hank Perkins presented four proposals to Council: George Wittmer for Lake Lure Tours ("Lake Lure Outdoors," retail only, at that stage), John Venuto (a restaurant), Sonny Carter of Dogwoods Enterprise LLC (a general store — and per the minutes, Carter's proposal specifically asked for "additional parking spaces and the use of docks"), and Wade Oppliger of the Lake Lure Rowing Club (an outfitters concept). Council decided Lake Lure Tours' proposal was the strongest fit, and Town Manager Perkins and Mayor Pro Tem David DiOrio met privately with Wittmer to work out details.

What came back is worth reading in full. At a September 6, 2023 special meeting, Perkins told Council that in those follow-up conversations, "Mr. Wittmer had expressed desire to update the proposal to further address the use of the Town's covered boat house slips, to include the use of Pool Creek for a mobile food vendor court." Lake Lure Tours' revised written proposal, presented that day, included a section titled "Connector Pedestrian Bridge between Beach and Pool Creek Food Court": "LLT will re-place former pedestrian bridge across Pool Creek, connecting East end of Beach with Pool Creek Food Court." The proposal noted this would occupy "the same location as the connecting foot bridge formerly occupied" — there had been a bridge there before, removed at some point, and Lake Lure Tours wanted to put one back. The same proposal covered the parcel described as including "dry land portion of police dockage" — the boathouse itself.

Council's reaction, per the minutes: Commissioner DiOrio "summarized that LLT proposal was almost double the financial amount of other proposals and that LLT proposal had fully incorporated the full space for recreational activities for the community," and called it "more comprehensive than the other proposals." On the boathouse specifically, Town Manager Perkins explained that "LLT was interested in utilizing the boat house located on the property," and that after discussion, "Mr. Wittmer expressed that LLT would be willing to allow Police to continue to use the boat house until a second phase occurs and the Town has the ability to relocate the boat." And on the bridge itself: "Mayor Pritchett asked about LLT replacing the bridge in Pool Creek Park... Commissioner Proctor noted that when the bridge was built, it was a part of the beach and it was removed whenever the two were separated and anyone could access the beach without payment."

That's Commissioner Jim Proctor, on the record, three years before he'd become the name attached to "if Second Mountain stops pursuing the boathouse... that's the solution" — discussing, in detail, the same stretch of shoreline, the same bridge, the same question of who gets to use it and on what terms.

Council didn't vote to accept Lake Lure Tours' expanded proposal that day; Commissioner Proctor himself asked to wait for input from the Parks and Recreation Board first. That input came a week later: the board passed a motion to "protect the viewshed, to expand parking and to avoid an impact to the South side of the park." Shortly after, Lake Lure Tours rescinded its proposal. By the time the field narrowed to two finalists at the November 29, 2023 work session, Lake Lure Tours' remaining bid had shrunk to just the building and parking signage — no water, no bridge, no boathouse — and it lost. The winning proposal, from Wade Oppliger, Paul Brock, and Cara Brock together with Leslie Rowland, explicitly included "the use of the building, [scull] area, and boat docks," at $4,000 a month. The Town's Council formalized that lease in April 2024. The ABC Store, the building's previous tenant, had paid $1,500 a month for the space with no water rights attached at all.

Put plainly: for a period in September 2023, the Town's own manager and a majority of Council actively preferred a boathouse-and-bridge-centered plan from a different operator entirely. It didn't fall apart because the boathouse was a bad idea — it fell apart over viewshed and parking concerns raised by the Parks and Recreation Board, and because Wittmer chose to scale back rather than fight for it. The version of the idea that survived — water access as part of the deal — is the one the Brocks, Oppliger, and Rowland won with two months later. Second Mountain didn't invent the idea that this building comes with the water. They inherited the version of it that made it through a fight the Town itself hosted, before they were even the winning bidder.

So what exactly is the Town compromising on?

Go back to the settlement terms with that history in mind, and "compromise" starts to look like the wrong word for what's on the table.

Second Mountain gives up: any claim to boathouse access, permanently, ending the litigation over it; $3,218.00 in back rent, paid in full within roughly three business days of the offer going public; and continued full rent going forward, at the same rate that was set when the water access was still part of the deal.

The Town gives up: the eviction. That's it. Nothing in the document changes the rent Second Mountain pays, credits anything toward the amenity it's losing, or extends any timeline. The Town isn't lowering its number to meet Second Mountain somewhere in the middle — it's holding its number exactly where it was when the deal included the water, while removing the water.

Whether that's fair is a judgment call, and we're making ours plainly here: a settlement where one side gives up a lawsuit, a physical amenity, and every dollar it owes on a fixed deadline, in exchange for the other side agreeing not to keep evicting it, isn't obviously a compromise in the sense most people mean the word. It reads more like a surrender with a due date attached.

The "solution" the Town is citing — and the sentence it left out

The Town's Friday statement leans on a specific, applauded moment from Wednesday's meeting as evidence that this deal already had buy-in in the room. It quotes: "Commissioner Proctor: 'If Second Mountain stops pursuing the boathouse and they adhere to their lease, that's the solution.' Followed by Cara Brock nodding on camera and applause across the room. Paul Brock: 'I'm happy to let the boathouse go, and we'll do it. But we need to stop this litigation.'"

We checked that against Commissioner Proctor's own August 27 Facebook post — written specifically because he felt press coverage of the meeting had gotten the exchange wrong — and against the meeting's own transcript. Two parts of the Town's version check out: Cara Brock did nod; this reporter was in the room and can confirm it. And Paul Brock's quoted words are accurate as far as they go — the transcript backs up "I'm happy to let the boathouse go and we'll do it. But we need to stop this litigation" almost word for word. Proctor's own quote is close too, though his Facebook post adds a closing line the Town's version leaves out: "So, let's do it."

None of that is the real problem. The real problem is what comes immediately before the sentence the Town starts quoting from. Here is Paul Brock's full statement, from the meeting transcript, in order:

"You guys were going to tell the gym that they owe $4,000. We have a $4,000 lease. We're not getting something that we think we bargained for. I'm happy to let the boathouse go and we'll do it. But we need to stop this litigation. This town is being torn apart." — Paul Brock, per the meeting transcript

Read the whole statement and Paul Brock isn't offering to give up the boathouse for free. He's saying it in the same breath as "we're not getting something that we think we bargained for" — his own, on-the-record statement that the $4,000 lease price and the boathouse were never separate things to him. That's the exact point the Town's own 2023 records back up from a different direction: the winning $4,000-a-month proposal for this building included the boat docks from the day the Council picked it. The Town's Friday statement quotes the sentence where Brock agrees to give up the boathouse. It leaves out the sentence, seconds earlier, where he explains why that isn't nothing.

That's a bigger problem than a dropped "so, let's do it." It's the difference between quoting someone's agreement and quoting someone's agreement with the condition attached to it removed.

The bigger point still holds, too: this exchange, in full, never mentions the $3,218 back-rent figure or a Monday deadline. Brock is talking about the boathouse and the ongoing rent relationship, not a specific past-due balance with a 72-hour clock on it. Earlier that same meeting, the rent question had already been handled a different way — Cara Brock held up a check for the Market's rent and asked the Council to take it on the spot, no back-rent gap, no deadline, paid in full, right there in the room. The version of "the boathouse for the lease" that got applause on Wednesday came with the rent side already resolved, and with Brock's own words making clear he didn't consider the boathouse a freebie to hand over. The version the Town put in writing Friday adds a hard deadline, drops any concession, and quotes Brock's willingness without the sentence that explains its terms.

No one has signed this, and the Council hasn't voted on it either

The copy released Friday has blank signature lines for Paul Brock and for Town Manager Olivia Stewman — spaces for signatures, not signatures. That makes this, formally, a proposed settlement the Town is asking Second Mountain to sign, not an agreement either side has actually entered into.

Nothing in the Friday statement says the Council voted on these terms in open session before they went out, either. That's the same open question this outlet has been asking since before this offer existed: as we reported in The Meeting No One Saw End, North Carolina law is clear that a binding decision on this lease — accepting a settlement, reinstating the lease, dropping the eviction — has to happen in open session, in public, by a Council vote. If the Council voted on these specific terms in open session at some point we haven't seen reported, we'd like to know when and where. If it hasn't, this settlement offer sits in the same unresolved place as the termination decision that started this dispute: a proposal drafted by staff, given a hard deadline, and released to the public — without a disclosed public vote behind it, and without the other side's signature on it either.

Lured Market responds: "This is not an offer... it is an ultimatum"

Lured Market & Grill posted its own response on Facebook this weekend, rejecting the Town's framing outright. The business confirms the boathouse was part of its original lease, and that giving it up was a real concession, not a formality: "We did offer to give up our claim to the boathouse, even though it a part of our original lease. We did so in an effort to end this litigation and the cost associated with it and to find a win-win for everyone. Lake recreation and boathouse-related access were very much part of the plan negotiated with the Town, and the high rent and additional concession fees reflected that broader agreement." That's the tenant's own account lining up with everything in the 2023 records above: the water was priced into the deal from the start, and giving it up was never going to be free.

The post also surfaces a detail that changes the math on what's being asked. Lake Lure Gym, which shares the building at Suite B, is leaving — and per the post, Lured Market's lease structure means that when the gym goes, Lured Market becomes responsible for the full rent on the entire building, not just its own space, plus the associated concession fees. That's the context behind the line in Paul Brock's Wednesday comment about "the gym" owing $4,000 — not a rhetorical aside, but a specific, near-term jump in what Lured Market would owe on top of the settlement's existing terms.

The post says Lured Market has made "several proposals" to the Town seeking rent relief and a renegotiated lease, and that "the Town has refused good faith negotiations." Its characterization of the settlement offer: "This is not an offer or even a good faith proposal, it is an ultimatum." It says the business expects the Town to attempt to evict it "next Thursday."

The post makes one more claim worth flagging clearly as unverified: that three commissioners individually approached Cara Brock after Wednesday's meeting to personally assure her the Town would find a solution, and that Commissioner Dave DiOrio visited the Market later that day to repeat the same assurance. We were not present for either of those conversations, and we have not independently confirmed them. We're reporting that Lured Market is making this claim publicly, not that we've verified it.

We reached out to the Town for comment on Lured Market's response and will update this piece if we hear back.

Dropped at 7:55 p.m. on a Friday

However the terms shake out, the timing is worth naming plainly. The Town posted this offer at 7:55 p.m. on a Friday evening, with a deadline that falls on the following Monday morning — roughly two and a half business days later, across a weekend when Town Hall is closed, the Council isn't in session, and there's no realistic way for Second Mountain, the public, or this outlet to get a public answer to a single question before the clock runs out. We're not asserting that timing was chosen deliberately to limit scrutiny — we don't know that, and we're not claiming to. What we can say is that it had that effect, and that a deadline this tight, landing this late on a Friday, leaves almost no room for anything but acceptance or default.

What we're not saying

We're not asserting the Town acted in bad faith, or that Friday's timing was intentional rather than incidental. We're not independently verifying Paul Brock's account of what he and his attorney proposed in the private rent-concession conversation he described to this reporter — that's his account, clearly labeled as such, not a confirmed fact from a document. We're not asserting the Town deliberately altered Commissioner Proctor's quote — it may be an honest paraphrase that drifted from the source, and we're naming the specific differences so readers can judge that for themselves. And we're not asserting this settlement is unlawful; we're asking, as we have throughout this story, whether the Council has actually voted on it in the open, which is a different question from whether the terms themselves are permissible.

Sourcing Note

The August 16, 2023, September 6, 2023, September 12, 2023, and November 29, 2023 Council meeting records — including Lake Lure Tours' full revised written proposal — were read directly from the Town's own meeting minutes and packets; two of these documents were supplied directly to this outlet and quotations from them are verbatim. The December 12, 2023 meeting packet and the $1,500 prior-tenant rent figure were likewise read from the Town's own published records. Commissioner Jim Proctor's quoted exchange with Paul Brock is drawn from Proctor's own August 27 Facebook post, as previously reported in our coverage of Wednesday's meeting. Paul Brock's fuller statement — including the "we're not getting something that we think we bargained for" line — is drawn directly from the meeting's own transcript. Cara Brock's nod is confirmed by this reporter's own presence at the meeting. The Town's August 28 settlement offer and accompanying statement, including its quotations of Proctor and Paul Brock, were read directly from the Town's own published statement and settlement document. Paul Brock's account of proposing a rent concession was relayed directly to this reporter by Paul Brock and has not been independently verified against a written proposal or confirmed by the Town. Cara Brock's rent-check offer at Wednesday's meeting is drawn from this reporter's own account of that meeting. Lured Market & Grill's response — including its account of the gym's departure, its "several proposals" and "ultimatum" characterization, and its claim about individual commissioners' assurances to Cara Brock — is drawn directly from the business's own public Facebook post. We have not independently verified the commissioners'-assurances claim, and we say so above. The Town of Lake Lure had not been reached for comment on the specific claims in this piece — including the quote discrepancies identified above and Lured Market's response — at the time of publication. This piece will be updated if the Town responds or if additional documents surface.

Last updated: 2026-08-29