Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
March BOA Agenda Packet
March 28, 2023, 5:30 PM I. Call Meeting to Order (Vice Chairman William Mitchell) II. Approval of December 6, 2022, Minutes (Attendees at December Meeting – Chair Cameron Moore, William Mitchell, Richard Kern, Michael Sanclimenti, Ed Trice) III. Old Items of Business IV. Regular Items of Business Case BOA-978 – Jeremy R. Blair, PE, applicant on behalf of Englebright & Long Holdings, LLC, property owners., are requesting a variance of 5.0’ from the 50’ maximum height requirement per Section 3.4.10 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. V. Other Business VI. Adjourn MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Cameron Moore, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair Michael Keenan, Sr. | Maverick Pate | Luke Waddell BOARD ALTERNATES Richard Kern | Michael Sanclimenti | Ed Trice Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use | Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, LUCIE HARRELL CONFERENCE ROOM WILMINGTON NC 28403 MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The New Hanover County Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30 P.M. at the New Hanover County Government Center Complex, 230 Government Center Drive, in the Lucie Harrell Conference Room, Wilmington, NC, on Tuesday, December 6th, 2022. Members Present Members Absent Cameron Moore, Chairman Maverick Pate William Mitchell, Vice-Chair Michael J. Keenan, Sr. Richard Kern Luke Waddell Ed Trice Michael Sanclimenti Ex Officio Members Present Rebekah Roth, Planning Director Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney Wendell Biddle, Zoning Compliance Official Jeiny Tisbert, Administrative Specialist The meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Cameron Moore. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Chairman Moore began the meeting with the election of the 2023 officers. Mr. Moore served as the chair for 2022 and Kristin Freeman, vice-chair, is no longer on the Board since her term limit has expired. All were in favor to have Mr. Moore continue to be Chairman. Mr. William Mitchell was nominated and accepted to serve as the vice-chair. Chairman Moore made a motion to adopt the 2023 Board of Adjustment calendar. Motion was seconded by Mr. Kern. All were in favor. Mr. Moore welcomed two new Board members, Ed Trice and Michael Sanclimenti. Mr. Moore motioned to adopt the September 27th minutes. Mr. Kern seconded the motion. The Board unanimously adopted the minutes. Mr. Moore explained that the Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial Board appointed by the Board of Commissioners to consider ordinance variances from residents in New Hanover County where special conditions would create unnecessary hardships. He said the Board also hears appeals of the County’s interpretation in enforcement of the Unified Development Ordinance. The appellants have thirty days in which to appeal any decision made by the Board to Superior Court. Mr. Moore swore in Wendell Biddle, Zoning Compliance Official. CASE BOA-976 Mr. Biddle presented the case, stating that the request is for a variance of approximately 17.7 feet from the minimum 30-foot interior side set back requirement established in Table 3.1.3.C.1 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. The parcel is in the northern portion of New Hanover County, specifically at 5406 Castle Hayne Rd. Mr. Biddle referred to a zoning map showing that the parcel is zoned as R-15, residential and is adjacent to both residential districts and a B-2, Regional Business district. Mr. Biddle provided an image detailing the current land use pattern. The existing structure is set back 12.3 feet away from the northern property boundary. The applicant’s proposed site plan depicts the current setback of 12.3 feet from the northern property boundary. In the event of a successful rezoning to a B-2 district, the applicant’s intention is to convert the existing structure into a “bottle shop” which is also characterized as a Bar/Nightclub by the UDO. Mr. Biddle continued by stating that the meeting being held was not to consider a rezoning request (which would be required to go through a public hearing process before determination would be made); rather, the meeting is to consider the applicant’s request for a variance of 17.7 feet for the existing structure. Mr. Biddle stated that the definition of a Bar/Nightclub is “A non-restaurant establishment that generates more than 49% of its quarterly gross receipts from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. Bars and nightclubs may provide live music (bands) and other music, dancing, and games of skill such as pool or darts for use by the patrons of the establishment.” Mr. Biddle stated that per Table 4.2.1 of the UDO, the applicant’s intent of creating a “bottle shop” would be permitted by right in the B-2 district. Mr. Biddle concluded his presentation by stating that the applicant is requesting a variance of 17.7 feet to accommodate the existing structure in the event of the parcel becoming rezoned from R-15 to B-2. Mr. Moore asked if there were any questions from the Board to the staff. Mr. Sanclimenti asked if the structure is on one side of the property. Mr. Biddle responded that he did not observe this structure during his site visit, but this parcel is partially zoned R-15 and then right next to it is the B-2. Mr. Moore asked if what was being shown was a lot line in which Mr. Biddle confirmed that it was. Mr. Mitchell asked if the current structure is within 12.5 feet of the boundary line and if they are asking to move it closer by 5 feet. Mr. Biddle stated that they are asking to be given an adjustment of 17.3 feet since it currently is at 12.7 feet. Mr. Moore asked Wendell to clarify for the Board, the zoning, and the use. Mr. Biddle clarified that from the UDO if something is a B-2 zone and it is adjacent to a residential use it would be required to have a 30-foot setback. However, due to the 12.3-foot set back that would create an issue should a potential rezoning be considered in that it would be creating a nonconforming situation. Mr. Kern asked if the structure was in conformity residentially to which Mr. Biddle said it was since the current setback is 10 feet and the structure is already at 12.3. Mr. Sanclimenti asked if it were to be approved as a “bottle shop” where the parking would be located. Mr. Biddle responded that that was something that would be addressed with the Technical Review Committee. A determination would be made after the eventual rezoning if it were approved. Mr. Moore stated that this has come up in some cases dealt with previously, where a potential rezoning case could be heard, known as a “conditional use rezoning” that would have to go through a legislative process before the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. All that is being looked at is a setback adjustment of the 17.5 feet. If the Board moved forward with it, staff would suggest to make it contingent upon it being rezoned. The applicant would have to go through another process so all of this would be a condition that would go along with the rezoning. Mr. Biddle stated that the condition is a part of the draft order. Mr. Kern asked if the variance was approved, would there be anything to prevent them from tearing down the structure and building a new structure. Mr. Biddle stated that that would be a question for the applicant since he could not speculate on whether they intend to tear down the structure. Mr. Kern questioned if the variance was granted would it run with the land. Mr. Biddle clarified that the variance would stay with the land contingent of the rezoning. Mr. Kern asked if it could be made contingent on them not increasing the footprint of that structure. Mr. Biddle stated that he was unaware if contingencies could be added. Mr. Kern asked if the variance would bring the structure into conformity, and if the Board can make it conditional on the applicant not increasing that building so that there are no issues if there was an old oak tree on the property. Mr. Biddle stated that the tree would be protected by the variance, and it could not be removed without the Board’s approval. Mr. Moore wanted to clarify that the house was built in the 1940’s which predates zoning regulations. Mr. Moore asked if there were any other questions for staff. Mr. Moore swore in the applicant Douglas “Brandon” Paluck. Mr. Paluck stated that his plans are to open a “bottle shop” but it would be a retail place to get wine and craft beer which does not exist in Castle Hayne or any further towards Pender County since the town is growing. He stated that he has owned this property as a rental house for 3½ years but decided that he wanted to do something different. Mr. Paluck stated that he and his father bought the property almost 4 years ago for investment property. He owns a B-2 property as well on the other side of Ash Street, so he owns residential and business properties. The structure on the adjacent property is no longer there although it was shown in the photographs presented. Mr. Moore asked if that was the structure that has a line going through it. Mr. Paluck stated that the picture shown does have a house in it, but it was torn down about a year ago. Mr. Paluck continued to state that 95% of the property around there is commercial which was one of the reasons why he bought it for an investment in the future. He stated that it will not be a club. It will be something he believes is needed in the town. The property is a unique building from 1940. The oak tree is staying. He went with the 2.8 acres because he wanted to separate the business from Blossom Street so there's no through traffic. Anyone that exits out of the site will be on Castle Hayne Road and will not affect Blossom Street at all. Mr. Sanclimenti asked Mr. Paluck if he believed the bottle shop could be within the footprint of the existing structure. Mr. Paluck stated that the house will be remodeled. Mr. Moore asked the Board if there were any additional questions for the applicant. Mr. Moore swore in Mr. Rudy Dixon, Mrs. Elizabeth Dixon, and Mr. Keith McQueen. Mrs. Dixon is the property owner of 5412 Blossom St. She asked if there be a patio put in, are there any noise ordinances and will it change if the bottle shop does get granted. She also asked, if there was any way to estimate the traffic flow and would this effect county water and sewer services. Mr. McQueen, owner of 5406 Blossom St, questioned the layout of the lot and structure. Mr. Paluck demonstrated on a map where he intended on putting a fence. Mr. Moore swore Director of Planning & Land Use Rebekah Roth in. Mr. Moore circled back to Ms. Dixon’s questions, beginning with the question regarding noise. Mrs. Roth stated that there is a county ordinance regarding noise. She also stated that this was the first step in a two-step process, even if a variance were to be granted tonight to Mr. Paluck, he would have to go through a rezoning process with both the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners who would make sure that the plan that he has proposed with the fencing, limitation of uses, and additional conditions potentially placed on the project could make sure that any sort of music is over at a certain time. There could be hours of operations conditions placed on the request if it were to be approved because even if you were to be approved for a variance tonight the Board of Commissioners still may not ultimately approve the rezoning and staff has recommended that this variance only go into effect if that rezoning were approved. Some of the questions being asked will probably be considerations during the rezoning process more than during tonight's variance procedure. Mrs. Dixon asked if she would have to go to the rezoning meeting and if a letter would be mailed. Mrs. Roth answered that if Mr. Paluck were to go through the rezoning process after a variance were granted, staff would probably recommend that it be a conditional request so it would only be limited to a certain type of use and the Board would be able to place conditions on the request. If that were to happen, Mr. Paluck would have to hold a community meeting and notify the folks who lived adjacent to the property to go over what he had planned. The public can ask questions and provide some ideas to make sure it does not negatively impact them. Then it would go to the Planning Board and then to the Board of Commissioners. Letters will be mailed before both of those meetings and the public would have an opportunity to speak and ask questions and provide any comments. Mr. Moore asked if there were any further questions. Mr. Moore moved to motion and close the public hearing and move into deliberation. Mrs. Roth reminded the Board members that they had discussed placing an additional condition beyond the one recommended by staff so that the variance would only apply to the existing structure and no new structures or expansions to the structure and so if that could be included in the motion if you were to make one for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DELIBERATION Mr. Moore motioned to approve the variance. Mr. Kern seconded the motion. The Board agreed unanimously to close the public hearing. The Board's decision was based on the following conclusions and findings of fact: 1. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically the 30’ interior side yard setback requirement per Table 3.1.3.C.1, of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would/would not result. (It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • The applicant feels this property should be rezoned to a commercial district similar to other properties on Castle Hayne Road. • Without the variance, the property would be underutilized. • It is in the County’s Land Use Plan that this property should be commercial and the current ordinance is restricting that. 2. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results/does not result from unique circumstances related to the subject property, such as location, size, or topography. (Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • The property is unique with a 1940’s home and includes a 250 year old tree in the front; the applicant believes it would be a good place for a bottle shop. • There is not a similar business nearby and as the area is growing, the applicant senses a need for the business. 3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did/did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. (The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • The existing house was built in 1943 and setbacks were not enforced at the time, thus resulting in the house being too close to the property line for a business use. 4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance will/will not be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • The variance is in line with the County’s Land Use Plan. The variance was approved subject to the following conditions: • Approval of the accompanying Conditional Use Request consisting of a rezoning of the property from an R-15 Residential District to a B-2, Regional Business District. • This variance shall only apply to the existing structures on the property not to any expansion of the structures or any new structures. There being no further business before the Board, it was properly moved and seconded by to adjourn the meeting. All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED. Please note the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings. Executive Secretary Chairman Date BOA-978 Page 1 of 5 VARIANCE REQUEST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 28, 2022 CASE: BOA-978 PETITIONER: Jeremy R. Blair, PE, applicant on Behalf of Englebright & Long holdings, LLC, property owners. REQUEST: Variance of 5.0’ from the 50’ maximum height requirement per Section 3.4.10 (D)(3) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance. LOCATION: 215 N Green Meadows Drive PID: R04300-007-006-001 ZONING: I-1, Light Industrial District ACREAGE: 11.51 Acres BACKGROUND AND ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum height requirement of 50’ in the I-1, Light Industrial District in order to construct a 55’, 40,750 square foot studio and sound stage at the subject property. The proposed building site is located at 215 N Green Meadows Drive, which consists of 11. 51 acres within the Dutch Square Industrial Park. Figure 1: Parcel with Proposed Approximate Location of New Facility Approximate Location of Proposed Studio and Sound Stage Access to Subject Property from N Green Meadows BOA-978 Page 2 of 5 The proposed studio and sound stage will be located on the undeveloped northeastern portion of the parcel. Consistent with development on the adjoining properties, the subject parcel is partially developed with parking, marine detailing services and self-contained buildings with offices, warehouses, storage, uses which are in accordance with the I-1, Light Industrial District. Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan with Staff Markups As per Section 3.4.10. of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the purpose of the I-1 Light Industrial District is to provide lands to accommodate light industrial development and associated operations, including assembly, fabrication, packaging and transport, where operations are conducted primarily indoors and where suitable sites are served by rail, a waterway, and/or a highway transportation system as well as readily available utilities. I-1 Districts are intended to support the development of commerce and employment clusters as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is defined by the UDO as Broadcasting and Production Studio and is permitted by right. Proposed Studio and Sound Stage Existing I-1 uses - Offices, Storage, Warehouse Access to Subject Property from N Green Meadows BOA-978 Page 3 of 5 District standards for building height in the I-1 district are a maximum of 3 stories OR 50’ maximum or 100 feet for government offices and buildings, hotel or motel, offices for private business and professional activities, research and development facility structures. As per section 3.1.3.C of the UDO, additional standards apply when adjacent to residential properties. The subject parcel is not adjacent to any residential district nor eligible for an administrative additional height allowance for the proposed use. BOA-978 Page 4 of 5 As indicated, the applicant, is requesting a variance of 5’ in order to construct a 40,750-square foot studio and sound stage, 55’ in height, at the subject property, citing that: 1. A building height of 55’ is required to accommodate the film industry’s desired standard for clear interior height. Strict application of the ordinance limiting the height to 50’ would create an unnecessary hardship and limit the use of the studio/sound stage space for various productions. 2. The adjacent properties with I-2 zoning designations could support buildings with unlimited height and certain uses on the subject property and adjacent properties with similar I-1 zoning designations could be developed at a height of 100 feet. The location of the subject property is contained within an area designated for large industrial buildings; however, studio/sound stage is not a use provided for in the ordinance to be developed at a height of 100 feet. The ordinance cannot provide a comprehensive list of all uses which may or may not benefit from the additional height, so this variance would eliminate a hardship for the studio/sound stage use on this particular property. [Staff note: Reference attached Zoning Map showing the location of adjacent properties within the I- 2 Heavy Industrial District, north and east of the subject parcel]. 3. The limitation of building height to 50 feet for I-1 zoning nor the exclusion of studio/sound stage from a list of uses allowed to be developed at a height up to 100 feet were not a result of action taken by the applicant or the property owner. 4. Light Industrial (I-2) zoning allows certain uses to be developed with a building height up to 100 feet. While this list of uses cannot be considered comprehensive, these uses, including offices, hotels, and research and development facilities, could be considered lower intensity uses on industrial properties. A studio/sound stage could also be considered a lower intensity use on industrial property. 5. Also, the subject property is not located adjacent to residential properties, however, is bound by similarly zoned I-1 parcels as well as more intensive I-2 zoning. The requested variance would only increase the allowable building height by 5 feet, or 10%, and is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. In summary, the applicant on behalf of the property owner is requesting a variance of 5’ from the maximum height requirement of 50’ in order to construct a 40,750-sf studio and sound stage, 55’ in height, at 215 N Green Meadows Drive. BOA-978 Page 5 of 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT POWER AND DUTY: The Board of Adjustment has the authority to authorize variances from the terms of the Unified Development Ordinance where, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the regulations would result in unnecessary hardship. In granting any variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the Unified Development Ordinance. A concurring vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the voting members of the Board shall be necessary to grant a variance. A variance shall not be granted by the Board unless and until the following findings are made: 1. Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. 2. The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance. 3. The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. 4. The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. ACTION NEEDED (Choose one): 1. Motion to approve the variance request based on the findings of fact (with or without conditions) 2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or documentation (Specify). 3. Motion to deny the variance request based on specific negative findings in any of the 4 categories above. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Cameron Moore, Chair | William Mitchell, Vice Chair Michael Keenan, Sr. | Maverick Pate | Luke Waddell BOARD ALTERNATES Richard Kern | Michael Sanclimenti | Ed Trice Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use | Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE, LUCIE HARRELL CONFERENCE ROOM WILMINGTON NC 28403 ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE – Case BOA-978 The Board of Adjustment for New Hanover County, having held a public hearing on March 28, 2023 to consider application number BOA-978, submitted by Jeremy R. Blair, PE, applicant, on behalf of Englebright & Long Holdings, LLC, property owner, a request for a variance of 5’ from the 50’ maximum building height requirement per section 3.4.10(D)(3) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to use the property located at 215 N Green Meadows Drive in a manner not permissible under the literal terms of the UDO and having heard all the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT and draws the following CONCLUSIONS: 1. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically the 50’ maximum building height requirement per section 3.4.10(D)(3) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would/would not result. (It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. 2. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results/does not result from unique circumstances related to the subject property, such as location, size, or topography. (Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. 3. It is the Board’s conclusion that the hardship did/did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. (The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self- created hardship.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. 4. It is the Board’s conclusion that, if granted, the variance will/will not be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. • _______________________________________________________________________. THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the application for a VARIANCE from the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to allow an increase of 5’ from the 50’ maximum building height requirement per section 3.4.10(D)(3) of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance be GRANTED/DENIED, subject to the following conditions, if any: ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2023. ____________________________________ Cameron Moore, Chairman Attest: ________________________________ Kenneth Vafier, Executive Secretary to the Board OAK 22 OAK 18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X OHE OHE OHE OHE OH E OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OH E LP LPLP TR X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X OHE OHE OHE OHEOHEOHEOHEOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHEOHE OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OH E OHE OHE OH E OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE LP ELEC. PANEL P J MANAGEMENT GROUP INC R05006-003-002-000 110 HARLEY RD RB-REGIONAL BUSINESS DB 4301, PG 313 US A T O W E R I N C R0 5 0 0 6 - 0 0 3 - 0 0 9 - 0 0 0 11 2 H A R L E Y R D RB - R E G I O N A L B U S I N E S S DB 2 4 1 5 , P G 1 6 6 MU R R A Y M A R L I N G J J A N E T S R0 5 0 0 6 - 0 0 3 - 0 0 5 - 0 0 62 0 9 M A R K E T S T RB - R E G I O N A L B U S I N E S S DB 2 3 2 4 , P G 1 3 8 MARAPESE MICHAEL T KATHERINE T R05006-003-006-000 6211 MARKET ST RB-REGIONAL BUSINESS DB 1584, PG 840 R & M RESTOROATIONS LLC R05006-003-007-000 6213 MARKET ST RB-REGIONAL BUSINESS DB 5247, PG 847 GG PLEASANT LLC R05000-002-005-000 6245 MARKET ST RB-REGIONAL BUSINESS DB 1225, PG 782 HALL LARRY L R05000-002-006-000 6301 MARKET ST RB-REGIONAL BUSINESS DB 3968, PG 790 CROCKER CHARLES R04319-008-001-000 197 GREEN MEADOWS DR N I-1-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DB 1678, PG 113 CROCKER CHARLES R04319-008-002-000 201 N GREEN MEADOWS DR I-2-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DB 1678, PG 113 CAVENAUGH DUNCAN B ALICE G R04319-008-005-000 217 N GREEN MEADOWS DR I-2-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DB 4879, PG 2713 SEECO PROPERTIES LLC R04319-008-004-000 291 N GREEN MEADOWS DR I-2-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DB 4658, PG 981 N & W INVESTMENTS LLC R04300-007-019-000 293 N GREEN MEADOWS DR I-2-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DB 5875, PG 1184 HORISONS DEVELOPMENT LLC R04300-007-028-000 301 N GREEN MEADOWS DR I-1-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DB 2336, PG 662 SMITH PROPERTIES OF WILM LLC R04300-007-006-008 301 N GREEN MEADOWS DR I-2-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DB 1402, PG 1630 FILIPPINI FAMILY LTD PTNRP R04318-006-002-000 136 HARLEY RD I-1-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DB 1318, PG 1184 REGISTER PHILLIP S SUSAN C R04318-006-001-000 128 HARLEY RD I-1-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DB 2323, PG 846 HINTON JOHN ROBERT KRIS A R05006-003-001-004 I-1-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DB 5691, PG 2456 G GAS TANK ENCLOSURE UELEC. PANEL ELEC. PANEL ELEC. PANEL PROPANE TANK U U UU SS S S SS S S SS S S S S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS PUMP FLAG POLE FUEL PUMPS ELEC. PANEL ELEC. PANEL ELEC. PANEL U ELEC. PANEL GATE GA T E ELEC. PANEL KEY PAD KEY PAD U GENERATOR GA T E UTIL. VAULT UTIL. VAULT UTIL. MANHOLE UTIL. VAULT GLP GAS TANK EXPANDED STORMWATER POND ±1.13 AC TOTAL EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BE USED SHARED ACCESS DRIVE 47 EXISTING PARKING SPACES TO REMAIN STAGE ±44,000 SF MILLWORK ±11,000 SF STORAGE ±7,000 SF OFFICE ±11,000 SF EX. BUILDING AND PROPOSED ADDITION (OFFICE & WAREHOUSE) ±6,700 SF HA R L E Y R O A D 60 ' P U B L I C R / W 47 25 83 40 30 . 0 ' 28 . 0 ' 17.8'24.9'18.0'18.0'34.1'18.0' 25 . 7 ' 24.0' 18 . 0 ' 50 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K N. G R E E N M E A D O W S D R I V E 75 ' P U B L I C R / W 24 . 0 ' 30.0' 14.0' 27 6.4' 11 . 3 ' 250.0' 16 3 . 0 ' 51 39.5' 24.0'24.0' 16.0' 3. 5 ' 3.5'3.5' 16 . 0 ' 18 . 0 ' LOADING 4. 0 ' 3 Xref ..\From Others\Architect\080322\DHS SD to Paramounte 220803.dwg PROPOSED STAGE ±40,750 SF (250'x163') 48 EXISTING GARAGE TO BE REMAIN SITE INFORMATION PARCEL (PIN):R04300-007-006-001 TOTAL SITE AREA:±11.51 ACRES CLIENT INFORMATION:DARK HORSE STUDIOS EXISTING ZONING: I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) CURRENT LAND USE:INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED LAND USE:BROADCASTING & PRODUCTION STUDIO DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FRONT SETBACK:50' MIN. SIDE SETBACK:0' MIN. SIDE STREET SETBACK:50' MIN. REAR SETBACK:0' MIN. DEVELOPMENT DATA STUDIO BUILDINGS / PROPOSED USES: SOUND STAGES:± 84,750 SF OFFICES:± 11,000 SF MILLWORK SPACE:± 11,000 SF STORAGE (NOT PARKED):± 7,000 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA:± 113,750 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA PARKED:± 106,750 SF MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED:267 SPACES 2.5 SPACES / 1,000 SF PARKING PROVIDED:310 SPACES MATTRESS COMPANY PROPOSED USES: OFFICE SPACE:± 4,000 SF 2.5 SPACES / 1,000 SF 10 SPACES WAREHOUSE SPACE:± 2,700 SF 1.5 SPACES / 1,000 SF 4 SPACES MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED:14 SPACES 2.5 SPACES / 1,000 SF PARKING PROVIDED:14 SPACES NOTE: PLAN HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF, BUT A REVIEW IS RECOMMENDED. N O R T H 0 SCALE: 1"=50' at 24"x36" 25'50'100' Prepared by: Date: 16 NOVEMBER 2022 Conceptual Site Plan Dark Horse Studios New Hanover County, North Carolina Preliminary; Not For Construction. This site plan is a graphic representation and should be utilized for discussion purposes only. This site plan approximates existing conditions relating to structures, wetlands, roads, parking, vegetation and property boundaries. Plan componentsmay change based upon regulatory and municipal regulations and requirementsat the time of approvals and/or development activity. EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND GATED ACCESS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOCK HEIGHT LOADING AREA TO REMAIN EXISTING LOADING BAY TO BE REMOVED TO PROVIDE FULL ACCESS DRIVEWAY TO REAR OF BUILDING & PARKING AREA RETROFIT SITE TO MAINTAIN OPEN DRIVEWAY ACCESS AS NEEDED REMOVE EXISTING GAS TANK AND FUEL PUMPS MATTRESS COMPANY OFFICE & WAREHOUSE BUILDING EXISTING LOADING AREA TO BE CONVERTED AT GRADE LOADING/DRIVE IN ACCESS ZONING: I-2 ZONING: I-2 ZONING: I-2 PROPOSED STUDIO/SOUND STAGE SUBJECT TO VARIANCE REQUEST FOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF 55 FEET ZONING: I-2 ZONING: I-1 ZONING: I-1 ZONING: I-1 ZONING: I-1 EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TO REMAIN Sheet of 55' Elevation Sound Stages 3 & 4 New Construction ©pghARCHITECTURE, PC 2022 301 Harley Road Wilmington, NC 28405 Schematic Design December 13, 2022 : Revisions Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 910-297-9570 4006 PARK AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA pgharchitecture@gmail.com ARCHITECTURE h pg 1 BD02 1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 55'-0" 50'-0" ROOF LINE w/o VARIANCE TOP OF PARAPET w/o VARIANCE ROOF LINE w/ VARIANCE TOP OF PARAPET w/ VARIANCE South Elevation BD01 1 NTS