2021-09 PB AGENDA PACKET NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA
Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse
24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC 28401
Members of the Board
Jeffrey P Petroff, Chair | Donna Girardot, Vice-Chair
Paul Boney | Hansen Matthews | Jeffrey Stokley Jr. | H. Allen Pope | Colin J. Tarrant
Rebekah Roth, Director| Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 6:00 PM
PLEASE NOTE:
According to New Hanover County’s Administrative Policy for Face Coverings on County Property, individuals
from the public who participate in indoor meetings of the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board, Health and
Human Services Board, Board of Elections, or any other county board or committee are required to wear face
coverings, and exemptions will not be recognized. Individuals who attend without a face covering will be
offered a face covering. If they refuse to wear a face covering, they will not be allowed to attend the meeting
in person but will be able to view and or listen to the meeting remotely. The live meeting will be available on
NHCTV.com and NHCTV’s cable stations: Spectrum channel 13 and Charter channel 5.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
For the upcoming Planning Board meeting, individuals can submit public comments in advance to
https://planning.nhcgov.com/public-comment-form/ by Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at noon. Written
comments will be provided to the board and the board chair will acknowledge receipt during the public hearing
or submit comments into the record during the public hearing and/or public comment period.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of Minutes
REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The Planning Board may consider substantial changes in these petitions as a result of objections, debate, and
discussion at the meeting, including rezoning to other classifications.
1 Rezoning Request (Z21-11) - Request by Craig Johnson, applicant on behalf of the property owner,
SOCOL, LLC, to rezone approximately 5.1 acres of land located at 4606, 4618, & 4626 South College
Road from R-15, Residential District to (CZD) R-5, Conditional Residential Moderate-High Density
District, in order to develop a 40-unit development. This request was continued from the August 5, 2021
meeting.
2 Public Hearing
Text Amendment Request (TA21-03) – Request by New Hanover County to amend Articles 2, 3, and 5
of the Unified Development Ordinance to update height standards and setback requirements for multi-
family and non-residential structures and provide for additional height allowances to accommodate
changing construction standards and structure types envisioned for multi-family, mixed use, and
nonresidential zoning districts.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 9/2/2021
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Nicole Smith, Senior Planner
CONTACT(S): Nicole Smith, Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Rezoning Request (Z21-11)- Request by Craig Johnson, applicant on behalf of the property owner, SOCOL, LLC, to
rezone approximately 5.1 acres of land located at 4606, 4618, & 4626 South College Road from R-15, ResidenAal
District to (CZD) R-5, CondiAonal ResidenAal Moderate-High Density District, in order to develop a 40-unit single-
family development.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The applicant is seeking to rezone 5.1 acres of land located at 4606, 4618, & 4626 South College Road from R-15 to
(CZD) R-5 (Condi-onal Residen-al Moderate-High Density District). The applicant is proposing to construct a 20-lot
residen-al development, containing a maximum of 40 dual-unit a3ached homes. In response to some of the concerns
expressed at the Planning Board's August 5th mee-ng, the applicant revised the conceptual plan. The revised proposal
includes the a3ached housing structures, a reduced number of lots from 40 to 20, an increase in the minimum lot
width, and replaces the concrete parking pads with garages. The proposed performance development would be subject
to a 20-foot perimeter setback along the Fortune Place development and a minimum dedica-on of 20% open
space. Primary access to the development will be provided on Jasmine Cove Way.
Under the County’s performance residen-al standards, the subject parcel would be permi3ed up to 13 dwelling units at
a density of 2.5 du/ac. The proposed 40 lots equate to an overall density of 7.8 du/ac.
As currently zoned the site would generate about 33-42 trips during the peak hours, for an increase of 19-28 trips
during the peak hours. The es-mated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers
the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis.
Based on the current general student genera-on rate, staff would es-mate that the increase in homes would result in
approximately 6 addi-onal students than would be generated under current zoning. The general student genera-on
rate provides only an es-mate of an-cipated student yield as different forms of housing at different price points yield
different numbers of students. Please refer to the Schools sec-on included in this report for addi-onal informa-on
on school enrollment and capacity.
While the area was zoned for low density housing in 1969, and the 2016 Comprehensive Plan encourages lower density
housing in this par-cular area, the recommended density range is up to approximately 8 du/ac. The rezoning will result
in an increase in density from 2.5 du/ac to 7.8 du/ac.
The revised proposal includes two family dwelling products and will provide an alterna-ve housing op-on to the
immediate vicinity. The change in design reduces the total number of lots from 40 to 20, increases the minimum lot
width, and removes concrete parking pads.
The intent of the R-5 zoning district is to serve as a transi-on between mixed-use or commercial development and low
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1
to moderate density residen-al development. T he site is situated between residen-al development to the north,
south, and west and a place of worship to the east. Silver Creek Village at Jasmine Cove, north of the request, is
zoned R-15 and contains a density of 8.7 units per acre. Fortune Place II, south of the request, located within
the municipal limits, is zoned MF-L(CD) and contains a density of 2.6 units per acre.
Common features to mi-gate similar infill projects impact on adjacent neighborhoods, include enclosed private
backyards, buffers to reduce visibility, propor-onal off-street parking facili-es, appropriate ligh-ng and compa-ble
eleva-ons. This proposal does not provide addi-onal buffers; however, both established neighborhoods maintain their
own vegetated buffers along the shared property boundaries. The eleva-ons provided by the applicant include a similar
architecture of the adjacent neighborhood homes and a3ached garages.
The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representa-on of the vision for New Hanover
County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and func-on of the different types of
development that make up the community. These place types are intended to iden-fy general areas for par-cular
development pa3erns and should not be interpreted as being parcel specific. The subject parcel is General Residen-al.
The proposed (CZD) R-5, Condi-onal Residen-al Moderate-High Density District rezoning is generally CONSISTENT
with the intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the project provides for the types of uses and
density recommended in the General Residen-al place type and the proposal will provide a transi-on between a place
of worship and the established low and moderate residen-al neighborhoods.
The Planning Board considered this applica-on at their August 5, 2021 mee-ng. At their mee-ng six residents spoke in
opposi-on to the request, ci-ng concerns regarding density, parking, traffic, and drainage.
Following the discussion, on the applicant's request, the Planning Board approved a mo-on to con-nue the hearing
un-l the September 2, 2021 mee-ng to allow the applicant -me to revise the proposed conceptual plan.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends approval of this applica-on and suggests the following mo-on:
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the
purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provides for the types of uses and
density recommended in the General Residen-al place type and the proposal will provide a transi-on
between a place of worship and the exis-ng low and moderate density housing. I also find APPROVAL of
the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal supports the County’s
goals of providing for a range of housing types and opportuni-es for households of different sizes and
income levels.
(Op-onal) Note any condi-ons to be added to the district.
1. Each residen-al structure shall include an a3ached garage consistent with the eleva-ons submi3ed with the
revised pe--on.
Alterna-ve Mo-on for Denial:
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1
purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provides for the types of uses
recommended in the General Residen-al place type, the residen-al densi-es are in-line with those
recommended for the property, and the project will provide an appropriate transi-on between a place of
worship and exis-ng low and moderate density housing, I find DENIAL of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the desired character of
the surrounding community and the density will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip-on
Z21-11 PB Script
Z21-11 PB Staff Report
Z21-11 Zoning Map
Z21-11 Future Land Use Map
Z21-11 Neighboring Properties
Z21-11 Applicant Materials CS
Z21-11 Application Package
Z21-11 Concept Plan CS
Z21-11 Proposed Concept Plan
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1
SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z21-11)
Request by Craig Johnson, applicant on behalf of the property owner, SOCOL, LLC, to rezone
approximately 5.1 acres of land located at 4606, 4618, & 4626 South College Road from R-15,
Residential District to (CZD) R-5, Conditional Residential Moderate-High Density District, in order to
develop a 40-unit single-family development.
1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes
for rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Applicant’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
3. Close the public hearing
4. Board discussion
5. Vote on the application. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or
is not, consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Example Motion for Approval
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provides for the
types of uses and density recommended in the General Residential place type, the proposal
will provide a transition between a place of worship and the existing low and moderate density
housing. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because the proposal supports the County’s goals of providing for a range of housing types
and opportunities for households of different sizes and income levels.
[Optional] Note any conditions to be added to the district.
1. Each residential structure shall include an attached garage consistent with the elevations
submitted with the revised petition.
Example Motion for Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project
provides for the types of uses recommended in the General Residential place type and the
residential densities are in-line with those recommended for the property, and the project will
provide an appropriate transition between a place of worship and existing low and moderate
density housing, I find DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 1 - 1
because the proposal is not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community
and the density will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed rezoning to a conditional R-5 district. I find it to be
[Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because [insert
reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
I also find [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 1 - 2
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 1 of 17
STAFF REPORT FOR Z21-11
CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z21-11
Request:
Rezoning to a (CZD) R-5, Conditional Residential Moderate-High Density District
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Craig Johnson with River Birch Investments, LLC SOCOL, LLC
Location: Acreage:
4606, 4618, & 4626 South College Road 5.1
PID: Comp Plan Place Type:
R07100-003-567-000
R07100-003-568-000
R07100-003-046-000
General Residential
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Undeveloped Single-family residential development
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
R-15, Residential (CZD) R-5
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North Single-Family Residential R-15
East Single-Family Residential R-15
South Single-Family Residential City MF-L (CD)
West
Single-Family Residential R-15
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 1
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 2 of 17
ZONING HISTORY
October 15, 1969 Initially zoned R-15 (Masonboro)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer Water and sewer services are available through CFPUA.
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Southern Fire
District, New Hanover County Myrtle Grove Station
Schools Williams Elementary, Myrtle Grove Middle, and Ashley High School
Recreation Echo Farms Park, Myrtle Grove Athletic Complex
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation No known conservation resources
Historic No known historic resources
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 2
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 3 of 17
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN
• The applicant is proposing to rezone 5.1acres to (CZD) R-5, Conditional Residential
Moderate-High Density District.
• The original proposal included a 40- lot single family detached residential development.
• In response to some of the concerns expressed at the Planning Board’s August 5th meeting,
the applicant revised the conceptual plan. The revised proposal includes dual unit
attached structures, a reduced number of lots from 40 to 20, an increase in the minimum
lot width and replacing the concrete parking pads with garages.
• The proposed performance development would be subject to a 20-foot perimeter setback
and is also required to dedicate a minimum of 20% open space.
• Primary access to the development will be provided on Jasmine Cove Way.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 3
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 4 of 17
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 4
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 5 of 17
FORMER CONCEPTUAL PLAN
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The R-15 district in this area was established in 1969. The purpose of the R-15 district is to
provide lands that accommodate very low to low density residential development that can
serve as a transition between very low-density residential development patterns and
smaller lot, more dense residential areas of the County.
• Under the County’s performance residential standards, the subject parcel would be
permitted up to 13 dwelling units at a density of 2.5 du/ac. The proposed 40 units equate
to an overall density of 7.8 du/ac.
• The purpose of the R-5, Residential Moderate-High Density District is to provide lands that
accommodate moderate to high density residential development on smaller lots with a
compact and walkable development pattern. The R-5 district allows a range of housing
types and can be developed in conjunction with a non-residential district to create a vertical
mixed-use development pattern as well as serve as a transition between mixed-use or
commercial development and low to moderate density residential development.
• The site is situated between residential development to the north, south and west and a
place of worship to the east.
• While the adjacent residential developments are zoned R-15 and MF-L(CD), the
development patterns deviate from the traditional densities of these districts. Silver Creek
Village at Jasmine Cove, north of the request, contains a density of 8.7 units per are. Fortune
Place II, south of the request, is located within the municipal limits, and contains a density of
2.6 units per acre.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 5
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 6 of 17
AREA SUBDIVISIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 6
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 7 of 17
TRANSPORTATION
• Primary access to the development will be from Jasmine Cove Way, a public local street.
• As currently zoned the subject site would be permitted up to 13 dwelling units at 2.5 du/ac
under the performance residential standards. A development of this scale is estimated to
generate about 33-42 trips during the peak hours, for an increase of 19-28 trips during
the peak hours. The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour
threshold that triggers the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 7
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 8 of 17
• A driveway permit will be required to be obtained from NCDOT prior to the issuance of
any building permits. This permit may require roadway improvements if determined to be
necessary during permit review.
Comparison of Potential Trip Generation Scenarios
Intensity Approx. Peak Hour Trips
Existing Zoning
(R-15)
13 single family units 14 / 14 (AM / PM)
Proposed Development
(CZD)R-5)
40 single family units 33 / 42 (AM / PM)
Net Change 27 single family units 19 / 28 (AM / PM)
• Because a TIA is not required to analyze transportation impacts, staff has provided the
volume to capacity ratio for the adjacent roadway. While the volume to capacity ratio,
based on average daily trips, can provide a general idea of the function of adjacent
roadways, the delay vehicles take in seconds to pass through intersections is generally
considered a more effective measure when determining the Level of Service of a roadway.
NCDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic (ADT) -2019
Road Location Volume Capacity V/C
S. College Road 4600 Block 32,500
AADT
41,368 .76
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 8
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 9 of 17
Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses
Nearby NC STIP Projects
• STIP Project U-5702B
o Project to make access management improvements to S. College Road from
Shipyard Boulevard to Carolina Beach Road.
o The project is currently scheduled to begin after 2029.
Nearby Traffic Impact Analyses:
Traffic Impact Analyses are completed in accordance with the WMPO and NCDOT standards.
Approved analyses must be re-examined by NCDOT if the proposed development is not completed
by the build out date established within the TIA.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 9
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 10 of 17
Proposed Development Land Use/Intensity TIA Status
• Whiskey Branch • 510 multifamily units
• 50,000 square feet of
general office
• 122,700 square feet of
shopping center
• The Addendum was
approved on June 15,
2020
• Full build 2024
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of
• Installation of a new signalized northbound to southbound u-turn lane at S. College Road,
north of Weybridge Lane (at Lansdowne Road)
• Installation of turn lanes and signalized directional cross over at S. College Road and northern
access point
• Signalization of northbound to southbound movement at the existing u-turn lanes on S. College
Road
• Installation of a turn lane at S. College Road and the southern access point
▪ Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
• None
Development Status: Underway
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The property does not contain any Special Flood Hazard Areas or Natural Heritage Areas.
• The property is within the Bernards Creek watershed.
• Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class III (severe limitation). However, the site is expected to be served
by Cape Fear Public Utility Authority when developed.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SCHOOLS
• Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Williams Elementary,
Myrtle Grove Middle, and Ashley High Schools. Students may apply to attend public
magnet, year-round elementary, or specialty high schools.
• Under the current zoning, density would be limited to a maximum of 13 dwelling units. A
maximum of 40 units could be developed under the proposed rezoning.
• Based on the current general student generation rate*, the increase in homes would result
in approximately 6 additional students than would be generated under current zoning.
• The general student generation rate provides only an estimate of anticipated student
yield as different forms of housing at different price points yield different numbers of
students. Over the past four years, staff has also seen a decline in the number of students
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 10
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 11 of 17
generated by new development. Student numbers remained relatively stable between
2015 and 2020 (excepting the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic), while 14,500 new
residential units were permitted across the county. In addition, the student population is
anticipated to only grow by approximately 1,300 students over the next 10 years based
on the recent New Hanover County Schools Facility Needs Study.
Development Type Intensity Estimated Student Yield
(current general student generation rate)*
Existing Development Undeveloped Approximate**Total: 0
(0 elementary, 0 middle, 0 high
Typical Development under
Current R-15 Zoning 13 residential units Approximate**Total: 3
(1 elementary, 1 middle, 1 high)
Proposed (CZD) R-5 Zoning 40 residential units Approximate**Total: 9
(4 elementary, 2 middle, 3 high)
*The current general student generation rate was calculated by dividing the projected New Hanover County public school student
enrollment for the 2021-2022 school year by the number of dwelling units in the county. Currently, there are an average of 0.22
public school students (0.09 for elementary, 0.05 for middle, and 0.08 for high) generated per dwelling unit across New Hanover
County. These numbers are updated annually and include students attending out-of-district specialty schools, such as year-round
elementary schools, Isaac Bear, and SeaTech.
**Because the student generation rate often results in fractional numbers, all approximate student generation yields with a fraction
of 0.5 or higher are rounded up to a whole number and yields with a fraction of less than 0.5 are rounded down. This may result
in student numbers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels not equaling the approximate total.
• Given the size of the proposed development, it may have a build-out date within 5 years,
so staff has outlined existing school capacity to provide a general impact of the potential
impact on public schools. These numbers do not reflect any future capacity upgrades that
may occur over the next five years or trends in student population changes.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 11
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 12 of 17
School Enrollment* and Capacity** (2021-2022 School Year)
* Enrollment is based on the New Hanover County Schools enrollment that was projected for the 2021-2022 school
year.
**Capacity calculations were determined based on the projected capacities for the 2021-2022 school year, and
funded or planned capacity upgrades were those included in the Facility Needs Study presented by New Hanover
County Schools to the Board of Education in January 2021. This information does not take into account flexible
scheduling that may be available in high school settings, which can reduce the portion of the student body on campus
at any one time.
• The recent facility needs survey that has been prepared by Schools staff indicates that,
based on NC Department of Public Instruction (DPI) student growth projections and school
capacity data, planned facility upgrades, combined with changes to student enrollment
patterns, will result in adequate capacity district wide over the next five years if facility
upgrades are funded.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN
• One of the goals of the New Hanover County Strategic Plan for 2018-2023 is to encourage
the development of complete communities in the unincorporated county by increasing
housing diversity and access to basic goods and services.
• The proposed R-5 zoning district would allow for new residents to utilize existing goods and
services within one mile of the subject property.
• The predominant housing type in the area is single family detached. Under the proposed
R-5 district, single family detached would decrease (78.9% to 78.5%) and single family
attached units would increase (7.5% to 7.9%).
• The subject property is located in the Monkey Junction community area, where 67% of
residents currently live within one-mile of a convenience need (grocery store, retail staples,
pharmacies, etc.), a support service (urgent care, primary doctor’s office, child & adult care,
etc.), and a community facility (public park, school, museum etc.).
• With the proposed number of units and a recently approved mixed use project nearby
incorporating housing and retail/commercial, the number of residences within one-mile of
goods and services would increase (67% to 69%).
Level
Total
NHC
Capacity School
Enrollment
of Assigned
School
Capacity
of
Assigned
School w/
Portables
Capacity
of
Assigned
School
Funded or
Planned
Capacity
Upgrades
Elementary 95% Williams 412 412 100% None
Middle 108%
Myrtle
Grove 740 738 100% None
High 100% Ashley 1,990 1,896 105% None
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 12
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 13 of 17
REPRESENTATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Representative Developments of R-15
Cottage Grove
Clay Crossing
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 13
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 14 of 17
Representative Developments of R-5
Context and Compatibility
• While the area was zoned for low density housing in 1969 and the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan encourages lower density housing in this particular area, the recommended density
range outlined in the plan includes up to approximately 8 du/ac . The rezoning will result
in an increase in density from 2.5 du/ac to 7.8 du/ac.
• The revised proposal includes two family dwelling products and will provide an alternative
housing option to the immediate vicinity. The change in design reduces the total number
of lots from 40 to 20, increases the minimum lot width, and removes concrete parking pads.
• The intent of the R-5 zoning district is to serve as a transition between mixed-use or
commercial development and low to moderate density residential development. The site is
situated between residential development to the north, south and west and a place of
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 14
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 15 of 17
worship to the east. Silver Creek Village at Jasmine Cove, north of the request, is zoned R-
15 and contains a density of 8.7 units per acre. Fortune Place II, south of the request,
located within the municipal limits, is zoned MF-L(CD) and contains a density of 2.6 units
per acre.
• Common features to mitigate similar infill projects impact on adjacent neighborhoods
include enclosed private backyards, buffers to reduce visibility, proportional off-street
parking facilities, appropriate lighting and compatible elevations.
• This proposal does not provide additional buffers; however, both established
neighborhoods maintain their own vegetated buffers along shared property boundaries.
• The elevations provided by the applicant include a similar architecture of the adjacent
neighborhood homes and attached garages.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for
New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and
function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are
intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be
interpreted as being parcel specific.
Future Land Use
Map Place Type
General Residential
Place Type
Description
Focuses on lower density housing ranging up to approximately 8 du/ac and
typically consisting of single-family or duplexes. Types of appropriate uses
include single-family residential, low-density multi-family residential, light
commercial, civic and recreational.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 15
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 16 of 17
Analysis
The proposed (CZD) R-5 zoning would provide a transition in density and
intensity between the place of worship along S. College Road frontage,
designated as Community Mixed Use development, and the variety of
densities within the established single-family neighborhoods north, west, and
east of the subject site. Providing options for alternative housing types in
direct relationship to single-family detached development is one of the
stated intents for this district.
While connectivity is difficult for this location due to the existing
development pattern and roadway configuration in the area, the proposed
development will connect with Jasmine Cove Way. Future residents will also
have access to an existing Wave Transit stop on South College Road,
located between Jasmine Cove Way and Pine Hollow Drive to access goods
and services in close proximity.
The proposal is in line with the preferred density range for the General
Residential place type. This place type envisions lower density residential
development up to 8 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing
40 units, for an overall density of 7.8 units per acre.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed (CZD) R-5, Conditional Residential Moderate-High Density
District rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the intent of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because the project provides for the types of uses and
density recommended in the General Residential place type and the
proposal will provide a transition between a place of worship and the
established low and moderate residential neighborhoods.
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
The Planning Board considered this application at their August 5, 2021 meeting, At the meeting,
six residents spoke in opposition to the request, citing concerns with density, parking, traffic, and
drainage.
Upon the applicant’s request, the Planning Board voted to continue the item until their September
2, 2021 meeting (5-0).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
While this area was zoned for low density housing in 1969, and the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
encourages lower density in this particular area, the proposed 7.8 du/ac density is consistent with
the recommended range of approximately 8 du/ac envisioned on the plan. Adjacent land uses
include established neighborhoods, to the north, west and south, with density ranging from 2.6 units
per acre to 8.7 units per acre, and a place of worship to the east. The intent of the proposed R-5
zoning district is to serve as a transition between mixed-use or commercial development and low to
moderate density residential development. As a result,
Staff recommends approval of this application and suggests the following motion and condition:
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 16
Z21-11 Staff Report PB 9.2.2021 Page 17 of 17
project provides for the types of uses and density recommended in the General
Residential place type and the proposal will provide a transition between a place of
worship and the existing low and moderate density housing. I also find APPROVAL of
the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal
supports the County’s goals of providing for a range of housing types and opportunities
for households of different sizes and income levels.
(Optional) Note any conditions to be added to the district.
1. Each residential structure shall include an attached garage consistent with the elevations
submitted with the revised petition.
Alternative Motion for Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
project provides for the types of uses recommended in the General Residential place
type, the residential densities are in-line with those recommended for the property, and
the project will provide an appropriate transition between a place of worship and
existing low and moderate density housing, I find DENIAL of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the
desired character of the surrounding community and the density will adversely impact
the adjacent neighborhoods.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 17
Gate
PostLn
PineviewDr
G o o d w o o dWay
College
Rd
SplitRail
Dr
Jasmine C o v e W a y
TrumpetVine Wa y
C l o verlandWay
Private
Pine Hollow Dr
New Hanover County, NCSHODIncorporated Areas
Indicates Conditional Zoning District (CZD)
See Section 5.7 of the UDOCOD
B-1 AC R-5 EDZD
CB I-1 R-7 PD
B-2 I-2 R-10 RMF-X
CS AR R-15 RMFU
SC RA R-20 UMXZ
O&I R-20S
Zoning Districts
CZD R-5/
Single-Family
R-15/
Single-Family Home
4600 block
College Rd S
Z21-11
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:R
525
Feet
Subject Site
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 3 - 1
G a t e Post Ln
PineviewDr
Co
l
l
e
g
e
R
d
SplitRailDr
JasmineCoveWay
Tru
m
p
e
t
V
i
n
e
W
a
y
Cloverlan
d
W
a
y
Private
PineHollowDr
General
Residential
Community
Mixed Use
New Hanover County, NCCONSERVATION
RURAL RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY MIXED USE
URBAN MIXED USE
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL
EMPLOYMENT CENTER
COMMERCE ZONE
Place Types
CZD R-5/
Single-Family
R-15/
Single-Family Home
4600 block
College Rd S
Z21-11
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:R
525
Feet
Subject Site
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 4 - 1
G a t e P o s t L n
Pin
e
v
i
e
w
D
r
G o o d w o o dW
ay
College
Rd
SplitRailDr
JasmineCoveWay
T
r
u
mpetVineWay
Private
PineHollowDr
460146244609
4626
4607
4210 4214
4604
4615
4600
4607
4216
4602
4313
4604
4306
4309 4626
4614
4416
4414
4606
4201
4407
4612
4608
4619
4628
4702
4616
4310 4403
4400 4402
4311
4512
4315
46004620
4409
4608
4622
4603
4508
4410
4405
46094611
4616
46184622
4412
4503
4605
4509
4510
4614
4507
4515
4624
4610
4503
4511
4523
4618
4415
4519
4408
4601
4324
4303
4308
4615
4305
4307
4318
4630
4612
4314
4504
4506
4505
4507
4606
4511
4316
4606
42004513
4600
4620
4602
4601
4609
4615
4205
4609
4613
4605
4603
4617
4207
4611
4611
4619
4602
4520
5005
5024
5112
4510
45155151
4706
4704
4803
4611
4609
4607
4621
4614
4605
4640
4616
4615
4617
4617
4613
4580
4202
4612
4613
4604
4621
5035
5028
51395131
5109
4702
4707
5036
5138
5134
5130
4703
5031
5039
5032
5126
5135
5105
5043
5150
5143
5147
515450155019
5023 5027
51275123
51175113
5040
5144
4604
4606
4818
4618
4626
5155
5159
5171 51795166
5101
5109
5125
5129
5135
5139
5130
5273
5308
5301
5305
5309
5143
5270
5163
5167
5300
5304
5150
4530
51755158
5162
5105
4610
CO
L
L
E
G
E
R
D
B-1 R-15
O&IB-2
R-10
CITY
PD
Site
Neighboring Parcels
CZD R-5/
Single-Family
R-15/
Single-Family Home
4600 block
College Rd S
Z21-11
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:R
525
Feet
Subject Site
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 5 - 1
APPLICANT
MATERIALS
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 6 - 1
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 6 - 2
Page 1 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165
FAX (910) 798-7053
planningdevelopment.nhcgov.com
CONDITIONAL ZONING APPLICATION
This application form must be completed as part of a conditional zoning application submitted through the county’s
online COAST portal. The main procedural steps in the submittal and review of applications are outlined in the flowchart
below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the
application, are set out in Section 10.3.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Public Hearing Procedures
(Optional)
Pre-Application
Conference
1
Community
Information
Meeting
2
Application
Submittal &
Acceptance
3
Planning
Director Review
& Staff Report
(TRC Optional)
4
Public Hearing
Scheduling &
Notification
5
Planning Board
Hearing &
Recom-
mendation
6
Board of
Commissioners
Hearing &
Decision
7
Post-Decision
Limitations and
Actions
1.Applicant and Property Owner Information
Applicant/Agent Name Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent)
Company Company/Owner Name 2
Address Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Phone Phone
Email Email
Craig Johnson
River Birch Investments, LLC
PO Box 538
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
910.442.7500
craig@herringtonclassichomes.com
SOCOL, LLC
Richard Yang
5087 Edinboro Lane
Wilmington, NC 28409
910.470.0188
rsyebellsouth.net
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 1
Page 2 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
2.Subject Property Information
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s) Future Land Use Classification
3.Proposed Zoning, Use(s), & Narrative
Proposed Conditional Zoning District: Total Acreage of Proposed District:
Please list the uses that will be allowed within the proposed Conditional Zoning District, the purpose of the
district, and a project narrative (attach additional pages if necessary). Note: Only uses permitted in the
corresponding General Use District are eligible for consideration within a Conditional Zoning District.
4.Proposed Condition(s)
Note: Within a Conditional Zoning District, additional conditions and requirements which represent greater
restrictions on the development and use of the property than the corresponding general use district regulations may
be added. These conditions may assist in mitigating the impacts the proposed development may have on the
surrounding community. Please list any conditions proposed to be placed on the Conditional Zoning District below.
Staff, the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners may propose additional conditions during the review process.
4606, 4618, 4626 S. College Rd
R07100-003-046-000;
R07100-003-567-000; R07100-003-568-000
5.1 acres R-15 & vacant & house General Residential
R-5 5.1 acres
See attached.
See attached.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 2
Page 3 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
5.Traffic Impact
Please provide the estimated number of trips generated for the proposed use(s) based off the most recent version of
the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must be completed for
all proposed developments that generate more than 100 peak hour trips, and the TIA must be included with this
application.
ITE Land Use: single family house
Trip Generation Use and Variable (gross floor area, dwelling units, etc.)
AM Peak Hour Trips: PM Peak Hour Trips:
6.Conditional Zoning District Considerations
The Conditional Zoning District procedure is established to address situations where a particular land use would be
consistent with the New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the objectives outlined in the Unified
Development Ordinance and where only a specific use or uses is proposed. The procedure is intended primarily for
use with transitions between zoning districts of dissimilar character where a particular use or uses, with restrictive
conditions to safeguard adjacent land uses, can create a more orderly transition benefiting all affected parties and
the community at-large.
The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed Conditional
Zoning district meets the following criteria.
1.How would the requested change be consistent with the County’s policies for growth and development, as
described in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, applicable small area plans, etc.
See attached.
40 single family units
33 42
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 3
Page 4 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
2.How would the requested Conditional Zoning district be consistent with the property’s classification on the
2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map.
3.What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is
the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning?
See attached.
See attached.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 4
Page 5 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
Staff will use the following checklist to determine the completeness of your application. Please verify all of the
listed items are included and confirm by initialing under “Applicant Initial”. If an item is not applicable, mark as
“N/A”. Applications determined to be incomplete must be corrected in order to be processed for further review;
Staff will confirm if an application is complete within five business days of submittal.
Application Checklist Applicant Initial
This application form, completed and signed
Application fee:
•$600 for 5 acres or less
•$700 for more than 5 acres
•$300 in addition to base fee for applications requiring TRC review
Community meeting written summary
Traffic impact analysis (if applicable)
Legal description (by metes and bounds) or recorded survey Map Book and Page
Reference of the property requested for rezoning
Conceptual Plan including the following minimum elements:
Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels and roads
•Proposed use of land, building areas and other improvements
o For residential uses, include the maximum number, height, and type
of units; area to be occupied by the structures; and/or proposed
subdivision boundaries.
o For non-residential uses, include the maximum square footage and
height of each structure, an outline of the area structures will
occupy, and the specific purposes for which the structures will be
used.
•Proposed transportation and parking improvements; including proposed
rights-of-way and roadways; proposed access to and from the subject site;
arrangement and access provisions for parking areas.
•All existing and proposed easements, required setbacks, rights-of-way, and
buffers.
•The location of Special Flood Hazard Areas.
•A narrative of the existing vegetation on the subject site including the
approximate location, species, and size (DBH) of regulated trees. For site
less than 5 acres, the exact location, species, and sized (DBH) of specimen
trees must be included.
•Approximate location and type of stormwater management facilities
intended to serve the site.
•Approximate location of regulated wetlands.
•Any additional conditions and requirements that represent greater
restrictions on development and use of the tract than the corresponding
general use district regulations or additional limitations on land that may be
regulated by state law or local ordinance
One (1) hard copy of ALL documents and site plan. Additional hard copies may be
required by staff depending on the size of the document/site plan.
One (1) digital PDF copy of ALL documents AND plans
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 5
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 6
3. Proposed Zoning, Use(s), & Narrative
Please list the uses that will be allowed within the proposed Conditional Zoning District, the
purpose of the district, and a project narrative (attach additional pages if necessary). Note:
Only uses permitted in the corresponding General Use District are eligible for consideration
within a Conditional Zoning District.
River Birch Investments, LLC is requesting the property, including parcels R07100-003-046-000,
R07100-003-568-000, and R07100-003-567-000, be rezoned to from R-15 to Residential
Moderate-High Density (R-5) District for a forty (40) lot, single family residential use of the
property to provide a necessary missing middle housing opportunity. The R-5 district allows a
range of housing types and can be developed in conjunction with a non-residential district to
create a vertical mixed-use development pattern as well as serve as a transition between
mixed-use or commercial development and low to moderate density residential development.
The project is proposed on three tracts of mostly vacant land with one residence. The proposed
project is an infill site currently surrounded by developed properties of single family and a
church and conveniently located between two commercial centers with the Pine Valley library
and shopping to the north and Monkey Junction to the south.
The Future Land Use Map identifies this site as General Residential. General Residential focuses
on lower density housing ranging up to approximately 8 units per acre and typically consisting
of single-family or duplexes. The proposed project is for single-family residential at under 8
units per acre which aligns with the properties’ classifications on the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan’s Future Land Use Map.
We will amentize the pond by placing walking trails and a dog park adjacent therefore having
the pond be a vital part of our active open space. The proposed project will plant street tress in
addition to other landscape amenities to enhance the visual appeal of the neighborhood.
The project will have access via of the public right of way of Jasmine Cove Way and a WAVE
transit stop is conveniently located at the intersection of Jasmine Cove Way and College Road.
There are no wetlands or waters of the US present within the boundaries of the project parcels.
Water and sewer are available to the property line of the project site.
4. Proposed Condition(s)
Note: Within a Conditional Zoning District, additional conditions and requirements which
represent greater restrictions on the development and use of the property than the
corresponding general use district regulations may be added. These conditions may assist in
mitigating the impacts the proposed development may have on the surrounding community.
Please list any conditions proposed to be placed on the Conditional Zoning District below. Staff,
the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners may propose additional conditions during the
review process.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 7
We will amentize the pond by placing walking trails and a dog park adjacent therefore having
the pond be a vital part of our active open space.
6. Conditional Zoning District Considerations
1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County’s policies for growth and
development, as described in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, applicable small area plans, etc.
The proposed project is currently classified General Residential on the Future Land Use Map
and boarded by General Residential and Community Mixed Use. General Residential focuses on
lower density housing ranging up to approximately 8 units per acre and typically consisting of
single-family or duplexes. The proposed project is for single-family residential at under 8 units
per acre which aligns with the properties’ classifications on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan’s
Future Land Use Map.
The single family residential would assist with the County’s Strategic Plan Objective of
enhancing the self-sufficiency of individuals and families and Goal XV of providing a range of
housing types, opportunities, and choices. This project will provide a safe and conveniently
located community and provides another housing type near the employment centers as it is
located between two commercial centers with the Pine Valley library and shopping to the north
and Monkey Junction to the south.
2. How would the requested Conditional Zoning district be consistent with the property’s
classification on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map.
The proposed project is currently zoned General Residential and boarded by general residential
and community mixed use. General Residential focuses on lower density housing ranging up to
approximately 8 units per acre typically consisting of single family or duplexes. The proposed
project is for single-family residential at under 8 units per acre which aligns with the properties’
classifications on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 8
3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning
inappropriate, or how is the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the
existing zoning?
The project site is boarded on the north by Jasmine Cove, a townhome community, Cedar Cove
Assisted Living Facility, and the Wilmington Shrine Club; to the east by religious institutions and
the Wilmington Shrine Club, the south by a religious institution; and to the south and west by
single family residential. The surrounding properties have not been developed in the typical R-
15 purpose of very low to low density residential development and the R-5 zoning with single
family lots would be a proper transition to the surrounding uses.
The R-5 district allows a range of housing types and can be developed in conjunction with a
non-residential district to create a vertical mixed-use development pattern as well as serve as a
transition between mixed-use or commercial development and low to moderate density
residential development. Due to the unique dimension of this tract, the proximity to College
Road, the proximity to transit and services, this site lends itself to meet the purpose of the R-5
zoning district.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 9
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 10
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 11
132
EIP
ECM ECM
EX. REBAR
EIPEIPPT
EIPO
EX. REBAR EX. REBAR EIP
NMP EIPPT
IRS
ECM
EIPO
LOCATION MAP
SITE
NOTES
LEGEND
4002 1/2 OLEANDER DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
PHONE (910) 799-4916
SUITE 203DANFORD
ASSOCIATES
LAND SURVEYING, P.C.
FIRM LIC# C-2797
HERRINGTON CLASSIC HOMES
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 12
EX. REBAR
EX. REBAR EIPPT
EIP
IRS
TBM
ECM
ECM EX. REBAR EIPPT
EIP
EIPO NMP
4002 1/2 OLEANDER DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
PHONE (910) 799-4916
SUITE 203DANFORD
ASSOCIATES
LAND SURVEYING, P.C.
FIRM LIC# C-2797
HERRINGTON CLASSIC HOMES
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 13
ECM
EIPO
4002 1/2 OLEANDER DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
PHONE (910) 799-4916
SUITE 203DANFORD
ASSOCIATES
LAND SURVEYING, P.C.
FIRM LIC# C-2797
HERRINGTON CLASSIC HOMES
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 14
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 15
Community Meeting Summary
for Conditional Rezoning Request by River Birch Investments, LLC
Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday June 29, 2021, 6:00 PM
Meeting Location: Zoom
Representatives from River Birch Investments, LLC, Intracoastal Engineering, PLLC, and
DAVENPORT Engineering (collectively, “Development Team”) hosted a meeting to introduce
the proposed development including parcels R07100-003-046-000, R07100-003-568-000, and
R07100-003-567-000, which is proposed to be rezoned to from R-15 to Residential Moderate-
High Density (R-5) District for a forty (40) lot, single family residential use currently known as
“Jasmine South”. Property owners within 500 ft. of Jasmine South, as required by New Hanover
County, were notified of the community meeting by mail on June 18, 2021.
The meeting allowed people to view a context aerial for general site location purposes and
a concept of the overall proposed conditional rezoning. The Development Team also provided a
brief overview of the public hearing process and technical review process for development projects
in New Hanover County.
The community asked the Development Team questions about the plans, and many of the same
questions were discussed repeatedly during the meeting. The following is a synopsis of the
comments heard at the meeting.
• A few people mentioned receiving the notice of the community meeting late and possible
difficulty of accessing the Zoom meeting. The Development Team agreed to set up a
separate email account for Jasmine South and to follow up with the neighbors after the
meeting.
• Attendees were most concerned about the density of the project. The Development Team
explained the project is intended to serve as workforce housing.
• Neighbors expressed worry about what type of housing product would be built. The
Development Team stated the proposed request will be for detached, single family housing.
• Questions were presented regarding homes sizes and sale prices. The Development Team
explained the exact product type is still under consideration, but the home size is estimated
to be 1600 sq feet with a price range starting at $250,000.
• One participant expressed concerns over potential air, light, and noise pollution. The
Development Team explained the proposal is for single family residential and any street
lights will be required to shine down on Jasmine South.
• Concerns were raised over the potential for Jasmine South to lower the property value of
the adjacent neighborhoods. Again, the Development Team explained the exact product
type is still under consideration, but the home size is estimated to be 1600 sq feet with a
price range starting at $250,000.
• Neighbors asked if the project would seek government assistance or subsidies. The
Development Team said no.
• Concerns were raised regarding the project's impact on the school system and bus stops.
The Development Team agreed to discuss this concern with New Hanover County staff.
• Neighbors expressed concern over the visibility of the structures from their properties. The
Development Team is going to work on potential elevations of the proposed single family
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 16
detached homes. The project site has few trees and it appears most are within the adjacent
Homeowner Association areas.
• A question was asked if Jasmine South would be fenced. The Development Team stated
that due to the desire for workforce housing, the proposal does not include a fence.
However, homeowners could certainly install them if they chose.
• Neighbors had concerns over the current stormwater issues, ponds, and ditches as well as
the potential hazards of a pond. It was explained that the state stormwater regulations
require the project to treat all water on site and not contribute to flooding in the area. The
ponds are not required to be fenced under New Hanover County code requirements.
• Concerns centered around traffic that will be created by the development and the proposed
access. The Development Team explained a traffic impact analysis was not warranted but
they did study the traffic and found 33 AM Peak Hour Trips and 42 PM Peak Hour Trips.
The Development Team explained that Jasmine Cove Way is a public road and that is why
it will be used for access to the project instead of access through third party private
property.
• Jasmine South proposed a dog park and neighbors were concerned over noise and fencing.
The proposed dog park would be fenced and was proposed as an additional amenity to
Jasmine South.
• A question was asked if there had been an environmental study completed and if there was
any endangered wildlife. The Development Team stated they had completed an
environmental survey to determine if there were any wetlands or waters of the U.S. present
within the boundaries of the parcels and there were none found. A study had not been done
for wildlife but the Development Team would check with New Hanover County since there
is other recent development in the area.
• One neighbor asked about Native American camps on the site. The Development Team had
no knowledge of such but agreed to check with New Hanover County since there is other
recent development in the area.
• Questions arose regarding the water and sewer capacity and connection areas. CFPUA has
stated there is capacity and connections are located on Jasmine Cove Way.
Attached, please find the sign-up sheet and a copy of emails received regarding the proposed
meeting.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 17
PROPOSED
SITE PLAN
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 1
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 2
JA
S
M
I
N
E
C
O
V
E
W
A
Y
(5
0
'
P
U
B
L
I
C
R
/
W
)
CLOVERLAND WAY(40' PUBLIC R/W)80' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTDB 1417, PG 1306AMB 40, PG 327
DB
6
3
8
9
,
P
G
1
0
5
1
VIN
E
Y
A
R
D
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
C
H
U
R
C
H
DB
5
1
0
9
,
P
G
8
0
2
DB
2
5
3
7
,
P
G
8
6
7
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
KO
R
E
A
N
B
A
P
T
I
S
T
CH
U
R
C
H
DB 5793, PG 2287 CEDAR COVEPROPERTIES, LLC1
(144.83'6
(
6
:
1
:
1
:
1
:
SILVER CREEK AT JASMINE COVE DB 2091, PG 757 COMMON AREAOPEN SPACE & DRAINAGE EASEMENT HENDERSON PARKEAT JOHNSON FARMSDB 5349, PG 1196
GY
24" CPP I.E. 20.79FES I.E. 20.79'
24"
C
P
P
FES
I
.
E
.
2
1
.
2
7
'
FES
I
.
E
.
2
2
.
0
2
'
I.E
.
2
1
.
8
4
'
I.E.
2
1
.
7
9
'
I.E.
2
1
.
7
9
'
18"
C
P
P
18"
C
P
P
1
:
6
(38.99'6
(
15.4
9
'
FO
R
T
U
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HO
M
E
O
W
N
E
R
S
AS
S
O
C
I
A
T
I
O
N
,
I
N
C
.
6" P
V
C
CITY OF WILMINGTONMUNICIPAL LIMITS
RE
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
PO
N
D
CIT
Y
O
F
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
MU
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
L
I
M
I
T
S
AT JOHNSON FARMSMB 40, PG 327CAMBRIDGE HEIGHTS
NE
W
H
A
N
O
V
E
R
C
O
U
N
T
Y
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
DB
1
1
1
6
,
P
G
2
4
5
AR
A
B
S
H
R
I
N
E
R
S
CL
U
B
O
F
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
N
.
C
.
,
I
N
C
.
WHITE IB
I
S
C
T
SONG
S
P
A
R
R
O
W
C
T
TURTL
E
D
O
V
E
C
T
TRUMPET VINE WAY
CI
T
Y
O
F
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
MU
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
L
I
M
I
T
S
15' PRIVAT
E
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
EASEMENT (E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
D
I
T
C
H
)
(MB 6
1
,
P
G
2
2
2
)
30
'
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
&
AC
C
E
S
S
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
(M
B
6
1
,
P
G
2
2
2
)
30
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
&
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
30
'
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
E
W
E
R
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
(M
B
3
9
,
P
G
5
6
15' PRIVATE DRAINAGEEASEMENT (EXISTING DITCH)(MB 61, PG 222)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
4
5
'
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
20 OPEN SPACE&STORMWATER POND AREA
6
(
1
:
6
(
1
:
6
(
SPLIT RAIL ROAD(50' PUBLIC R/W)1918171615
14
13
12
11
10
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
OP
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
C-
1
1
1"
=
1
0
0
'
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
DR
A
W
I
N
G
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
CH
E
C
K
E
D
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
:
DR
A
W
N
:
DA
T
E
:
SC
A
L
E
:
SH
E
E
T
S
I
Z
E
:
CL
I
E
N
T
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
:
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
(
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
)
:
20
2
1
-
0
3
0
CL
I
E
N
T
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
:
Ri
v
e
r
B
i
r
c
h
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
L
L
C
PO
B
o
x
5
3
8
Wr
i
g
h
t
s
v
i
l
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
,
N
C
2
8
4
8
0
Ph
.
9
1
0
-
3
9
9
-
5
6
8
8
O
F
1
JA
E
CD
C
CD
C
24
x
3
6
8/
1
7
/
2
0
2
1
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
D
O
N
O
T
U
S
E
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
JA
S
M
I
N
E
C
O
V
E
W
A
Y
CL
O
V
E
R
L
A
N
D
W
A
Y
MO
H
I
C
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
CR
O
S
S
W
I
N
D
S
D
R
.
WED
G
E
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
.
S. COLLEGE RD.
PIN
E
H
O
L
L
O
W
R
D
.
SI
T
E
SI
T
E
D
A
T
A
PA
R
C
E
L
I
D
:
R0
7
1
0
0
-
0
0
3
-
0
4
6
-
0
0
0
,
R
0
7
1
0
0
-
0
0
3
-
5
6
8
-
0
0
0
,
R
0
7
1
0
0
-
0
0
3
-
5
6
7
-
0
0
0
CU
R
R
E
N
T
Z
O
N
I
N
G
:
R-
1
5
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
Z
O
N
I
N
G
:
R-
5
(
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
)
PR
O
J
E
C
T
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
:
46
0
6
,
4
6
1
8
,
4
6
2
6
S
.
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
R
D
.
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
N
C
2
8
4
1
2
CU
R
R
E
N
T
O
W
N
E
R
:
SO
C
O
L
L
L
C
50
8
7
E
D
I
N
B
O
R
O
L
N
.
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
N
C
2
8
4
0
9
TO
T
A
L
A
C
R
E
A
G
E
I
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
:
6
)
$
&
MA
X
I
M
U
M
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
:
8
D
.
U
.
/
A
C
R
E
(
8
X
5
.
1
8
=
4
1
D
.
U
.
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
U
N
I
T
S
:
20
D
U
P
L
E
X
L
O
T
S
(
4
0
U
N
I
T
S
)
MA
X
I
M
U
M
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
:
40
'
ON
-
S
I
T
E
I
M
P
E
R
V
I
O
U
S
A
R
E
A
S
:
20
L
O
T
S
80
,
0
0
0
S
.
F
.
(
4
,
0
0
0
S
.
F
.
P
e
r
L
o
t
)
AS
P
H
A
L
T
R
O
A
D
37
,
2
2
0
S
.
F
.
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
6
,
1
5
0
S
.
F
.
FU
T
U
R
E
4
,
0
0
0
S
.
F
.
TO
T
A
L
12
7
,
3
7
0
S
.
F
.
(
5
6
.
6
%
)
TO
T
A
L
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
:
(
2
0
%
O
F
S
I
T
E
A
R
E
A
)
5.
1
8
A
C
.
X
2
0
%
=
1.
0
4
A
C
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
20
0
'
10
0
'
50
'
10
0
'
0'
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
1
0
0
'
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
RI
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
AD
J
O
I
N
E
R
S
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
T
L
I
N
E
EX
.
E
O
P
LE
G
E
N
D
SI
T
E
N
O
T
E
S
:
1.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
U
R
V
E
Y
D
A
T
A
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
V
E
R
N
O
N
D
E
R
E
K
D
A
N
F
O
R
D
,
P
L
S
L
-
4
5
2
8
.
2.
TH
E
S
E
L
O
T
S
A
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
I
N
Z
O
N
E
"
X
"
P
E
R
F
R
I
S
O
N
F
I
R
M
M
A
P
N
U
M
B
E
R
3
7
2
0
3
1
3
5
0
0
K
&
3
7
2
0
3
1
3
4
0
0
K
D
A
T
E
D
:
0
8
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
8
.
3.
TH
E
S
E
L
O
T
S
A
R
E
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
A
L
L
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
S
,
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
,
O
R
C
O
V
E
N
A
N
T
S
O
F
R
E
C
O
R
D
.
4.
TH
I
S
S
U
R
V
E
Y
W
A
S
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
T
H
E
B
E
N
E
F
I
T
O
F
A
T
I
T
L
E
R
E
P
O
R
T
,
W
H
I
C
H
M
A
Y
R
E
V
E
A
L
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
CO
N
V
E
Y
A
N
C
E
S
,
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
S
O
R
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
S
N
O
T
S
H
O
W
N
H
E
R
E
I
N
.
5.
"B
E
S
T
F
I
T
M
O
D
E
L
"
U
T
I
L
I
Z
E
D
B
A
S
E
D
U
P
O
N
T
H
E
P
R
E
P
O
N
D
E
R
A
N
C
E
O
F
E
V
I
D
E
N
C
E
F
O
U
N
D
.
6.
NC
G
R
I
D
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
D
E
R
I
V
E
D
U
S
I
N
G
T
O
P
C
O
N
U
N
I
T
,
U
T
I
L
I
Z
I
N
G
N
O
R
T
H
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
V
R
S
S
Y
S
T
E
M
.
7.
AL
L
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
S
H
O
W
N
A
R
E
N
C
G
R
I
D
(
N
A
D
8
3
2
0
1
2
B
)
E
X
C
E
P
T
A
S
S
H
O
W
N
.
8.
AL
L
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
S
A
R
E
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
G
R
O
U
N
D
.
9.
BE
N
C
H
M
A
R
K
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
D
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
D
U
S
I
N
G
T
O
P
C
O
N
G
P
S
U
N
I
T
,
U
T
I
L
I
Z
I
N
G
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
V
R
S
S
Y
S
T
E
M
.
10
.
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
N
A
V
D
8
8
D
A
T
U
M
.
11
.
CO
M
B
I
N
E
D
F
A
C
T
O
R
:
1
.
0
0
0
0
6
5
4
2
.
12
.
AL
L
L
O
T
S
A
S
D
E
P
I
C
T
E
D
O
N
T
H
E
P
L
A
T
M
E
E
T
O
R
E
X
C
E
E
D
T
H
E
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
A
R
E
A
D
I
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
A
L
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
O
F
T
H
E
ZO
N
I
N
G
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
I
N
W
H
I
C
H
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
.
13
.
TR
E
E
S
U
R
V
E
Y
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
N
E
W
H
A
N
O
V
E
R
C
O
U
N
T
Y
T
R
E
E
O
R
D
I
N
A
N
C
E
.
14
.
TH
I
S
T
O
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
U
R
V
E
Y
R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
S
A
B
O
V
E
G
R
O
U
N
D
V
I
S
U
A
L
E
V
I
D
E
N
C
E
.
I
T
I
S
N
E
C
E
S
S
A
R
Y
T
O
C
A
L
L
A
N
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
L
O
C
A
T
O
R
B
E
F
O
R
E
A
N
Y
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
.
15
.
NO
W
E
T
L
A
N
D
S
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
A
S
P
E
R
L
E
T
T
E
R
B
Y
D
A
V
I
D
S
C
I
B
E
T
T
A
O
F
S
O
U
T
H
E
R
N
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
G
R
O
U
P
,
I
N
C
.
(
S
E
G
I
)
,
D
A
T
E
D
JU
N
E
2
1
,
2
0
2
1
.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021ITEM: 1- 9 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 9/2/2021
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director
CONTACT(S): Rebekah Roth
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Text Amendment Request (TA21-03) - Request by New Hanover County to amend Ar7cles 2, 3, and 5 of the
Unified Development Ordinance to update height standards and setback requirements for mul7-family and non-
residen7al structures and provide for addi7onal height allowances to accommodate changing construc7on
standards and structure types envisioned for mul7-family, mixed use, and nonresiden7al zoning districts.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
This amendment includes proposed height increases in three types of districts: Residen al Mul -Family (RMF), Mixed
Use Zoning Districts (specifically Urban Mixed Use Zoning and Planned Development), and several Commercial and
Industrial districts. The key intent is to adjust height standards that serve as barriers to accessible housing and the
types of development envisioned in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
The key concepts included in this amendment include:
Increasing height standards for Residen al Mul -Family (RMF) districts to allow for four-story buildings in all
RMF districts;
Adjus ng height limits in commercial and industrial districts to allow for the building heights recommended in the
2016 Comprehensive Plan;
Providing addi onal height allowances for par cular types of structures to allow for the types of uses permi4ed
in these districts;
Establishing mi ga on op ons to reduce the impacts of taller structures on adjacent residen al proper es; and
Allowing height maximums to be established in Master Development Plans for Planned Development and Urban
Mixed Use Zoning districts.
The proposed amendment has been revised to reflect public comments regarding the poten al impact of taller
buildings on exis ng neighborhoods and some technical concerns regarding ordinance dra7ing. Requests or concerns
that would not be in line with the recommenda ons of the Comprehensive Plan were not incorporated, but all
comments received are included in this packet.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggest the following mo on:
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance to increase height in mul family, mixed use, and commercial and industrial districts. I find it to
be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it supports accessible housing
and is in line with the height recommenda ons of the plan. I also find APPROVAL of the proposed amendment
reasonable and in the public interest because it incen vizes the types of commercial development desired in the
unincorporated county and mi gates poten al impacts of taller buildings on adjacent residen al neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip on
TA 21-03 Planning Board Script
TA 21-03 Staff Report
TA 21-03 Text Amendment Draft
TA 21-03 Text Amendment Summary
RMF-L Summary Sheet-PB Public Hearing Draft
RMF-M Summary Sheet-PB Public Hearing Draft
RMF-MH Summary Sheet-PB Public Hearing Draft
RMF-H Summary Sheet-PB Public Hearing Draft
UMXZ Summary Sheet-PB Public Hearing Draft
PD Summary Sheet-PB Public Hearing Draft
B-1 Summary Sheet-PB Public Hearing Draft
CB Summary Sheet-PB Public Hearing Draft
B-2 Summary Sheet-PB Public Hearing Draft
O&I Summary Sheet-PB Public Hearing Draft
I-1 Summary Sheet-PB Public Hearing Draft
TA 21-03 Public Comments
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2
SCRIPT for Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment (TA21-03)
Request by New Hanover County to amend Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance
to update height standards and setback requirements for multi-family and non-residential structures
and provide for additional height allowances to accommodate changing construction standards and
structure types envisioned for multi-family, mixed use, and nonresidential zoning districts.
This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then any supporters and any opponents
will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentations and an additional 5 minutes for rebuttal.
1. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff/Applicant presentation
b. Supporters’ presentation(s) (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponents’ presentation(s) (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponents’ rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
2. Close the public hearing
3. Board discussion
4. Vote on amendment. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or is not,
consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is reasonable
and in the public interest.
Example Motion of Approval:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance to increase height in multifamily, mixed use, and commercial and industrial
districts. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
because it supports accessible housing and is in line with the height recommendations of the plan. I also
find APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it incentivizes
the types of commercial development desired in the unincorporated county and mitigates potential
impacts of taller buildings on adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance to increase height in multifamily, mixed use, and commercial and industrial districts. I find it
to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because [insert
reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
I also find [Approval/Denial] of the proposed amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because
[insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1
STAFF REPORT FOR TA21-03
TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: TA21-03
Request:
To amend Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to update height standards
and setback requirements for multi-family and non-residential structures and provide for
additional height allowances to accommodate changing construction standards and structure
types envisioned for multi-family, mixed use, and nonresidential zoning districts.
Applicant: Subject Ordinances:
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance
Purpose & Intent
The key intent of this amendment is to adjust height standards that serve as barriers to
accessible housing and the types of development envisioned in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND
As part of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) code update project intended to implement
the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, height maximums were increased in some districts in summer 2020.
Since that time, staff has received questions about potential projects, and current height limits have
come up as barriers in several nonresidential districts, not allowing for the structures that uses
permitted in the district now require, for instance hospitals in the Office and Institutional district and
some warehouses in Light Industrial. Even the Planned Development (PD) district, which was intended
to allow for integrated mixed-use projects and requires compensating community benefits and
approval of a Master Development Plan as part of the rezoning process, would not accommodate
the heights needed for some of these structures. In addition, the findings of the City of
Wilmington/New Hanover County Comprehensive Housing Study and Master Aging Plan have
indicated a need for more accessible rental housing, such as elevator-served structures, which are
generally at least four stories in height.
This amendment includes proposed height increases in three types of districts: Residential Multi-
Family (RMF), Mixed Use Zoning Districts (specifically Urban Mixed Use Zoning, or UMXZ, and PD),
and several Commercial and Industrial districts.
The public hearing draft of the amendment has been revised to reflect public comments regarding
the potential impact of taller buildings on existing neighborhoods and some technical concerns
regarding ordinance drafting. Requests or concerns that would not be in line with the
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan were not incorporated, but all comments received are
attached to this staff report.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 1
Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Districts
The county’s four RMF districts were created in 2019 to allow for the full range of residential
densities outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and to provide districts where multifamily development
(primarily apartments) could be anticipated. At the time, most of the county’s residential districts
allowed for multifamily projects, but only at limited densities without a special use permit. The
possibility of multifamily housing in these districts was contrary to adjacent residents’ expectations,
and the densities permitted were not supportive of what was identified as needed to support
affordability and to transition between higher intensity and lower intensity areas of the community.
When first designed, the RMF-L and RMF-M districts—because of their lower densities (10 du/acre
and 17 du/acre respectively)—were also anticipated to be built at a lower scale, so building
heights were limited to 3 stories. At the time, it was thought that the higher densities allowed in the
RMF-MH (25 du/acre) and RMF-H (36 du/acre) would be the trigger for needing four-story
structures, which open up additional units for seniors and people with mobility issues as they require
elevators. Since 2019, staff has found that due to rising residential demand in this region, four-
story buildings are still possible for the lower density RMF districts.
The proposed amendment provides an additional height allowance for four-story structures in the
RMF-L and RMF-M
districts. To mitigate
impacts on adjacent
residential properties
(platted lots in the
general R Residential
districts—RA, AR, R-
20, R-20S, R-15, R-
10, R-7, and R-5—
and those with
existing single family
and duplex homes), 3
different mitigation
options are outlined
for those taller structures. These options consist of 2:1 structure setbacks or architectural stepbacks
(where the setback is approximately 2x the height of the building in feet) in order to incentivize
site design that places taller buildings further from adjacent residential properties. This is also the
distance where existing buffer requirements start to visually block the view of taller buildings from
adjacent properties. Because site specific characteristics or other site or architectural design
features could also effectively mitigate the impact of these taller structures, alternative techniques
are also allowed when the structures are included as part of a conditional zoning district, which
requires a full public review and hearing process. Other setbacks are also modified to balance
the impact on adjacent properties with limiting the changes to current permissions.
Currently, the RMF-MH and RMF-H districts both allow four-story buildings, though the maximum
height of those structures is capped at 50 ft. At the July Planning Board meeting, board members
directed the removal of that maximum in feet. This maximum in feet has been removed in the current
amendment draft, but 2:1 structure setbacks or architectural stepbacks have been proposed in
response to public concerns about the potential impacts of taller buildings. Flexibility in mitigation
techniques as part of conditional zoning approvals is also available for these two districts. In
addition, in order to ensure the full spectrum of building scales outlined in the Comprehensive Plan
are possible, five-story structures are proposed to be allowed in the RMF-H district, the multifamily
Figure 1. Structure Setbacks and Architectural Stepbacks
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 2
district least likely to be located adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods, if part of a
conditional zoning district and subject to mitigation standards.
Mixed Use Districts
The proposed amendment impacts height maximums in two mixed use districts: Urban Mixed Use
Zoning (UMXZ) and Planned Development (PD). These two districts can only be applied to a piece
of property with an approved Master Development Plan and have been designed and modified
since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan as the primary tools for new integrated
developments, and to ultimately replace the Riverfront Mixed Use (RFMU) and Exceptional Design
Zoning District (EDZD), which have not been applied for several years due to complex requirements
not calibrated for the current market.
The UMXZ district is designed to require high quality design and encourage a mix of uses. It allows
residential densities that range from 15 to 36 units per acre, depending on the type of residential
structure, which would make it potentially appropriate in Community Mixed Use, Employment
Center, and Urban Mixed Use places as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, all of which have
different building height recommendations. Because height—and any setbacks or other design
features to mitigate that height—would be outlined in a Master Development Plan (MDP) as part
of a rezoning review and approval process, the proposed amendment removes the current height
restrictions and allows height to be established in the MDP.
Similarly, the PD district also requires a Master Development Plan and could be appropriate in an
even wider variety of Comprehensive Plan places, making it difficult to determine the most
appropriate height maximum. The proposed amendment also removes the current maximum height
limit for PD and allows the MDP to establish it.
Commercial and Industrial Districts
The final type of districts where height changes are being considered include several business
districts, along with Office and Institutional (O&I) and Light Industrial (I-1). The height maximums
included in the proposed amendment are based on the story recommendations included in the
Comprehensive Plan and height assumptions for nonresidential and mixed-use buildings that were
prepared by a consultant in 2018.
A maximum height is established for each district to allow the
building scales recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
Additional height allowances for also provided for certain uses
that are permitted in the district that could generally require more
stories. Like the RMF districts, three different mitigation options are
outlined for those taller structures. These options consist of 2:1
structure setbacks or architectural stepbacks in order to incentivize
site design that places taller buildings further from adjacent
residential properties. This is also the distance where existing
buffer requirements start to visually block the view of taller
buildings from adjacent properties. Because site specific
characteristics or other site or architectural design features could
also effectively mitigate the impact of these taller structures,
alternative techniques are also allowed when the structures are
included as part of a conditional zoning district, which requires a
full public review and hearing process.
Figure 2. Scale of Tall Building from 2:1
Setback with Red Line indicating
approximate height of buffer plantings
within 1 year of installation (6 ft.)
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 3
The Neighborhood Business, or B-1, district, is currently applied to a number of properties along
major and minor roadways in the county. It allows for a wide range of commercial uses and is
intended to allow for smaller scale, low intensity development with no more than 2-story buildings.
The proposed amendment would increase its height maximum to 2 stories OR 40 ft. Modifications
to setbacks have also been included in the draft amendment to make all business districts consistent
and to remove current standards that apply differently to different roadway types.
The Community Business, or CB, district, is currently applied to only three properties, all of which
are subject to conditional zoning approvals. The uses allowed in this district are limited and
designed to be less intense so they could be appropriate in close proximity to existing residential
neighborhoods. The proposed amendment establishes its maximum height as 2 stories OR 40 ft.
because of the district’s current small setbacks. However, an additional height allowance of 3
stories OR 50 ft. is also allowed. Because of the lower intensity of the potential uses in this district
and the relatively small scale of potential structures, those mitigation requirements are much less
than those required for other zoning districts where additional height is allowed.
The most common commercial zoning district in the county’s jurisdiction is Regional Business, or B-2.
It is applied along major and minor roadways and to properties surrounded by residential
development. It also allows a wide range of uses including retail, auto-oriented sales, lodging,
heavy commercial, and some manufacturing. The only permitted uses likely to need more than 3
stories are hotels.
This district does currently allow unlimited height for properties meeting certain criteria; however,
this provision has not been used to-date to staff’s knowledge and only applies to certain areas,
some of which may not be preferable due to the proximity to existing neighborhoods and no
mitigation requirements.
The general maximum height for this district has been increased slightly to 3 stories OR 50 ft., and
an additional height allowance of up to 100 ft. has been provided for Hotel and Motel structures,
which must meet the mitigation standards outlined above. In addition, front and street side setbacks
for the district have been adjusted to make sure they are consistent with the other commercial
districts possible along the county’s roadways.
The Office and Institutional, or O&I, district is currently applied to a number of properties along
major and minor roadways and has served a dual purpose for the county—acting as both a
transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses in some cases and to accommodate
larger institutional uses. Overall, the uses allowed in the district are relatively limited. Typical uses
include offices, medical facilities, and institutional facilities, and it also allows residential
development in order to make mixed use employment center-type development possible. For the
proposed amendment, staff has focused on the institutional uses allowed in the district, as the
transitional purpose can also be served by other districts, such as Community Business (CB).
Proposed height limits are intended to support 3-story structures but also allow for 5-story senior
living and office buildings, which would be appropriate for this district. The only uses that
potentially would need more stories are hospitals and colleges, so an additional height allowance
with mitigation standards would make that possible.
The final district where height changes are proposed is the Light Industrial, or I-1 district. This district
is currently applied to a number of properties, primarily in the northern part of the county. It allows
a wide spectrum of uses, including office, commercial, manufacturing, waste and salvage, and
wholesaling operations. The current district dimensional standards are designed for manufacturing
and wholesale uses but, based on ongoing economic development conversations and the
Comprehensive Plan’s guidance, this district is needed to support more tech-related and other light
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 4
industrial uses, which generally need taller buildings. As a result, an additional height allowance is
proposed to allow up to 100 ft. for warehouses, offices, research and development, and hotels.
While the existing large setbacks from adjacent residential properties were originally thought to
be sufficient to mitigate the additional height, in response to public concerns, mitigation standards
are also required for additional height in this district when adjacent to residential properties.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposed text amendment and supplemental summary sheets are attached, with red italics
indicating new language and strikethrough indicating provisions that are removed. Any changes to
the summary sheets and drafts made in response to public review comments are shown in either red
strikethrough or blue italics.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggests the following motion:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County
Unified Development Ordinance to increase height in multifamily, mixed use, and
commercial and industrial districts. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent
of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it supports accessible housing and is in line with
the height recommendations of the plan. I also find APPROVAL of the proposed
amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it incentivizes the types of
commercial development desired in the unincorporated county and mitigates potential
impacts of taller buildings on adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 5
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
1
Section 2.1 Measurements
Building Height (in feet)
The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the
proposed finished grade at the front of the structure to one of the
following (See Figure 2.1: Building Height Measurement):
1. The midpoint between eave and ridgeline on a simple
sloped roof (e.g., gable or hip roof) or curved roof (e.g., barrel roof);
2. Where there are multiple roof planes (e.g., gambrel or mansard roof), the highest midpoint on a
sloped or curved roof surface or the highest flat roof plane, whichever is highest; or
3. The highest roof plane on a flat roof (not including any parapet wall).
Appurtenances usually required to be placed above the roof level and not intended for human
occupancy (e.g., antennas, chimneys, solar panels) shall not count toward the building height (see
Section 3.1.3.B, Structural Appurtenances).
Height in Stories
1. The number of stories having their finished floor surface entirely above the base plane, or in
which the finished surface of the floor next above is:
a. More than 6 feet above the base plane.
b. More than 6 feet above the finished ground level for more than 50 percent of the total
building perimeter.
c. More than 12 feet above the finished ground level at any point.
2. Attic Story
a. An attic story is any story situated wholly or partly in the roof, so designated, arranged,
or build as to be used for storage or habitation.
Note: While the amendment
clarifies that this is the way
height in feet is measured, no
changes are proposed to this
definition. It is included for
informational purposes and
additional context only.
Changes made to Public Comment draft are noted with
strikethrough or in blue text.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 1
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2
b. If an attic which is accessible by a fixed stairway has a 7-foot clear height for greater
than 50 percent of the floor area of the story below, then the space shall be considered
as a story.
Section 2.3 Definitions and Terms
Architectural Stepback
An architectural design element where portions of a building, above a certain height, excluding structural
appurtenances, are located further away from property lines to push height toward the center of a
property and allow for transitions between taller heights and rooflines of smaller neighboring structures.
Story
The portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor
or roof next above. That portion of a building between the surface of any floor and the floor or roof
above it. The following are considered stories:
a. Mezzanines exceeding one-third of the total floor area of the story immediately below it;
b. Penthouses; and
c. Basements more than 6 feet above the finished ground level for more than 50 percent of the
total building perimeter.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 2
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
3
Section 3.1 General
3.1.3 Superseding Dimensional Standards
C. Setback Requirements Additional Standards in Certain Commercial and Industrial Districts when
Adjacent to Residential Properties
Interior side setbacks and rear setbacks in the B-1, B-2, O&I, AC, I-1, and I-2 districts shall be as
follows:
1. No interior side or rear setbacks are required for nonresidential structures from lot
lines shared with abutting nonresidential uses where the structure and the abutting
use are located within the B-1, B-2, O&I, AC, I-1, and I-2 districts.
2. A setback of 20 feet is required for any structure in the B-1, B-2, O&I, AC, I-1, and I-2
districts from any lot line adjacent to a lot in a residential district occupied by a
nonresidential use.
3. 1. Table 3.1.3.C(1): Interior Side and Rear Setbacks from Residential Properties,
establishes the setback requirements for structures in the B-1, CB, B-2, O&I, AC, I-1,
and I-2 districts from lot lines shared with abutting single family or duplex
residential uses and/or platted lots located within a general residential (RA, AR, R-
20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5) zoning district. The setbacks in Table 3.1.3.C may
be reduced in the AC, I-1, and I-2 Districts in accordance with Section 5.4.3,
Transitional Buffer Standards, but may not be reduced below the absolute minimum
setback specified in Table 3.1.3.C (by use of the language “in no case less than”).
Table 3.1.3.C(1): Interior Side and Rear Setbacks from Residential Properties
Zoning
District
Residential Uses and Platted Lots Nonresidential
Uses in a
Residential District
Side (Interior) Setback Rear Setback
B-1 25 ft. 30 ft.
20 ft.
CB 20 ft. 25 ft.
B-2 30 ft. 35 ft.
O&I 25 ft. 30 ft.
AC 45 ft., in no case less than 35 ft. 50 ft., in no case less than 40 ft.
I-1 50 ft., in no case less than 35 ft. 50 ft., in no case less than 40 ft.
I-2 100 ft., in no case less than 40 ft. 100 ft., in no case less than 45 ft.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 3
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
4
2. Table 3.1.3.C(2): Additional Standards for Taller Structures with Additional Height Allowance,
establishes the additional structure setback, building stepback/architectural stepback
architectural stepback, or opaque landscape buffers mitigation outlined in conditional zoning
districts required for lot lines shared with abutting general residential (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15,
R-10, R-7, or R-5) districts for structures using the additional height allowance for that district.
Table 3.1.3.C(2): Additional Standards for Taller Structures with Additional
Height Allowance
Zoning
District
Option 1: Structure
Setback
Option 2: Building
Stepback or
Architectural Setback
Architectural Stepback
Option 3: Opaque Landscape
Buffer Mitigation Outlined in
Conditional Zoning District
Approval
RMF-L
RMF-M
• 4 story structures:
100 ft.
• Portions of
structures with 4
stories: 100 ft.
Conditional zoning district outlines
technique(s) to mitigate impacts of
taller buildings (i.e., site design,
architectural design)
RMF-H
• 5 story structures:
125 ft.
• Portions of
structures with 5
stories: 125 ft.
Conditional zoning district outlines
technique(s) to mitigate impacts of
taller buildings (i.e., site design,
architectural design)
CB
• Structures over 40
ft. tall: 30 ft.
• Portions of
structures over 40
ft. tall: 30 ft.
Conditional zoning district outlines
technique(s) to mitigate impacts of
taller buildings (i.e., site design,
architectural design)
B-2
• Structures 51-75 ft.
tall: 40 150 ft.
• Structures 76-100
ft. tall: 50 200 ft.
• Structures 101-125
ft. tall: 60 250 ft.
• Portions of
structures 51-75 ft.
tall: 40 150 ft.
• Portions of
structures 76-100
ft. tall: 50 200 ft.
• Portions of
structures 101-125
ft. tall: 60 250 ft.
• Structures 51-75 ft. tall: 25 ft.
vegetative buffer/15 ft.
vegetative buffer with fencing
• Structures 76-100 ft. tall: 30
ft. vegetative buffer/20 ft.
vegetative buffer with fencing
• Structures 101-125 ft. tall: 35
ft. vegetative buffer/25 ft.
vegetative buffer with fencing
Conditional zoning district
outlines technique(s) to mitigate
impacts of taller buildings (i.e., site
design, architectural design)
O&I
I-1
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 4
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
5
D. Performance Residential Development
Performance Residential Developments are not subject to the minimum lot size, minimum lot
width, and front, rear, and side setback requirements in the zoning district where they are
located. Performance Residential Developments shall comply with the standards in this section
and with all other applicable standards in this Ordinance.
1. Setbacks and Spacing
a. Buildings on the periphery of a Performance Residential Development shall setback a
minimum of 20 feet from the adjoining property line.
b. In the Residential Multifamily (RMF) districts, the minimum setback from adjoining
property lines shared with abutting single family or duplex residential uses and/or
platted lots located within a general residential (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or
R-5) zoning district will be 30 ft. for any structure over 2 stories in height.
c. Multi-family dwelling units shall be spaced a minimum of 20 feet from any part of
another dwelling unit. All other dwelling units shall be spaced a minimum of 10 feet
from each other.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 5
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
6
Section 3.2 Residential Zoning Districts
3.2.12 Residential Multi-Family Low Density (RMF-L) District
D. District Dimensional Standards [11-16-2020]
Standard Single Family
Detached Duplex Triplex Quadraple
x Multi-Family
Lot area, minimum (square
feet)* 5,000 7,500 12,500 17,500 20,000
1 Lot width, minimum (feet)* 50 100
2 Front setback (feet)* 20 35
3 Side setback, street (feet)* 10 30
4 Side setback, interior
(feet)* 5 1 to 2 stories: 20
3 stories: 25
5 Rear setback (feet)* 15 1 to 2 stories: 25
3 stories: 30
Density, maximum
(dwelling units/acre) 10
Building height, maximum 3 3 stories, with a maximum of 45 feet**
Additional height allowance
4 stories for structures setback at least 25 ft. from adjacent RA, AR,
R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, and R-5 properties
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when adjacent to residential
properties
* Does not apply to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
** Heights over 35 feet subject to additional setback of 4 additional feet
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 6
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
7
3.2.13 Residential Multi-Family Moderate Density (RMF-M) District
D. District Dimensional Standards [11-16-2020]
Standard Single Family
Detached Duplex Triplex Quadraplex Multi-Family
Lot area, minimum (square
feet)* 5,000 7,500 12,500 17,500 20,000
1 Lot width, minimum (feet)* 50 100
2 Front setback (feet)* 20 35
3 Side setback, street (feet)* 10 30
4 Side setback, interior (feet)* 5 1 to 2 stories: 20
3 stories: 25
5 Rear setback (feet)* 15 1 to 2 stories: 25
3 stories: 30
Density, maximum
(dwelling units/acre) 17
Building height, maximum 3 3 stories, with a maximum of 45 feet**
Additional height allowance
4 stories for structures setback at least 25 ft. from adjacent RA,
AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, and R-5 properties
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when adjacent to residential
properties
* Does not apply to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
** Heights over 35 feet subject to additional setback of 4 additional feet
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 7
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
8
3.2.14 Residential Multi-Family Medium-High Density (RMF-MH) District
D. District Dimensional Standards [11-16-2020]
Standard Single Family
Detached Duplex Triplex Quadraplex Multi-Family
Lot area, minimum (square
feet)* 4,000 7,500 12,500 17,500 20,000
1 Lot width, minimum (feet)* 40 90
2 Front setback (feet)* 15 30
3 Side setback, street (feet)* 10 30
4 Side setback, interior (feet)* 5
1 to 2 stories: 20
3 stories: 25
4 stories: 30
5 Rear setback (feet)* 15
1 to 2 stories: 25
3 stories: 30
4 stories: 35
Density, maximum
(dwelling units/acre) 25
Building height, maximum** 4 stories, with a maximum of 50 feet [09-08-2020]
* Does not apply to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
** Heights over 35 feet subject to additional setback of 4 additional feet Structures, or portions thereof, over 3
stories 4 stories in height must be setback a minimum 25 100 ft. from adjacent RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-
10, R-7, and R-5 properties, unless within a conditional zoning district with approved alternative technique(s)
to mitigate impacts of taller buildings (i.e., site design, architectural design)
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 8
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
9
3.2.15 Residential Multi-Family High Density (RMF-H) District
D. District Dimensional Standards [11-16-2020]
Standard Single Family
Detached Duplex Triplex Quadraplex Multi-Family
Lot area, minimum (square
feet)* 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000
1 Lot width, minimum (feet)* 40 80
2 Front setback (feet)* 15 30
3 Side setback, street (feet)* 10 30
4 Side setback, interior
(feet)* 5
1 to 2 stories: 20
3 stories: 25
4 stories: 30
5 Rear setback (feet)* 15
1 to 2 stories: 25
3 stories: 30
4 stories: 35
Density (maximum
dwelling units/acre) 36
Building height,
maximum** 4 stories, with a maximum of 50 feet [09-08-2020]
Additional height
allowance, maximum
5 stories when approved as part of a conditional zoning district
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when adjacent to residential
properties
* Does not apply to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
** Heights over 35 feet subject to additional setback of 4 additional feet Structures, or portions thereof, over 3
stories 4 stories in height must be setback a minimum 25 100 ft. from adjacent RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-
10, R-7, and R-5 properties, unless within a conditional zoning district with approved alternative technique(s)
to mitigate impacts of taller buildings (i.e., site design, architectural design)
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 9
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
10
Section 3.3 Mixed Use Zoning Districts
3.3.4 Urban Mixed Use Zoning (UMXZ)
E. District Dimensional Standards
Standard All Uses
Minimum district size (acres) 5
Setbacks
Minimum distance from single family
residential zoning districts
35 feet for buildings ≤ 35 feet in height
45 feet for buildings > 35 feet in height
1 Maximum distance from any street
(feet) 10*
Maximum height along arterial streets
4 stories or 45 feet by-right
75 feet with Additional Height Allowance special use
permit
Maximum height along residential &
collector streets 2 stories or 35 feet
Maximum height along arterial &
collector streets
5 stories or 55 feet if structured parking is provided
within project
Maximum single family residential
density (dwelling units/acre) 15
Maximum multi-family residential
density (dwelling units/acre) 25
Maximum vertically integrated mixed-
use building density (dwelling
units/acre)
36
Building height, maximum Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with
Section 3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
*Front setbacks are not required along alleyways; TRC may waive strict adherence to requirement
where an existing easement or significant natural feature exists.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 10
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
11
3.3.7 Planned Development (PD) District
F. District Dimensional and Density Standards [09-08-2020]
Standard Residential Uses Commercial Uses Industrial Uses
Minimum district size, under common ownership or joint petition: 10 acres
Building setback from PD District
boundary (feet) 20 CB Setback
Requirements
I-1 Setback
Requirements
Building setback from pedestrian
and bicycle paths (feet) 10
Front setback (feet) Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with Section
3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
Side setback, street (feet)
Side setback, interior (feet)
Rear setback (feet)
Density, maximum (du/acre) *
Intensity, maximum Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with Section
3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
Building height, maximum (feet)
40**
Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with Section
3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
* Maximum density in Urban Mixed Use areas identified on the New Hanover County Future Land Use Map shall
be established in the MPD Master Plan. Maximum Density in areas outside of the Urban Mixed Use areas
shall also be established in the MPD Master Plan but shall not exceed 17 dwelling units per acre.
** There is no maximum building height for Agricultural or Industrial uses. The maximum building height is 80 feet
for buildings located within the Urban Mixed Use, Community Mixed Use, or Employment Center areas
identified on the New Hanover County Future Land Use Map and fronting along a collector, minor arterial, or
principal arterial as indicated on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington Urban Area MPO functional
classification map. [05-03-2021]
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 11
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
12
Section 3.4 Commercial and Industrial Districts
3.4.3 Neighborhood Business (B-1) District
G. District Dimensional Standards
Standard All Uses
Lot area, minimum (square feet) None
Lot width, minimum (feet) None
1 Front setback (feet)
50 along highways and major thoroughfares;
35 along all other public highways or streets
25
2 Side setback, street (feet)
50 along highways and major thoroughfares;
35 along all other public highways or streets
25
Side setback, interior (feet)
*
0 adjacent to commercial & industrial districts to districts in
the RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial & Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3.C for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
Rear setback (feet)
*
0 adjacent to commercial & industrial districts to districts in
the RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial & Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3.C for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
Building height, maximum (feet) 35 40 2 stories OR 40 ft.
Additional height allowance, maximum
(feet) 50 if required for structure no more than 2 stories in height
* Determined in accordance with Section 3.1.3.C.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 12
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
13
3.4.4 Community Business (CB) District
H. District Dimensional Standards
Standard All Uses
Lot area, minimum (acres) ½
1 Lot width, minimum (feet) 80
2 Front setback (feet) 20
3 Side setback, street (feet) 20
Side setback, interior (feet)
None*
0 adjacent to commercial & industrial districts to
districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial &
Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3.C for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
4 Rear setback (feet)
10** adjacent to commercial & industrial districts to
districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial &
Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3.C for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
Building height, maximum (feet)
3 stories, not to exceed 45 feet***
50 2 stories OR 40 ft.
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when adjacent
to residential properties
Additional height allowance, maximum (feet)
65 if required for structure no more than 3 stories in
height
3 stories OR 50 ft.
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when adjacent
to residential properties
Floor area per development site, maximum
(square feet) 100,000
* Interior side setback is 20 feet from abutting residentially zoned land or lots on which there is residential
development.
** Rear setback is 25 feet from abutting residentially zoned land or lots on which there is residential development.
*** Buildings with heights over 35 feet are subject to an additional setback requirement of 4 additional feet.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 13
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
14
3.4.5 Regional Business (B-2) District
I. District Dimensional Standards
Standard All Uses
Lot area, minimum (square feet) None
Lot width, minimum (feet) None
1 Front setback (feet)
50 along highways and major thoroughfares;
35 along all other public highways or streets
25
2 Side setback, street (feet)
50 along highways and major thoroughfares;
35 along all other public highways or streets
25
Side setback, interior
*
0 adjacent to commercial & industrial districts to
districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial &
Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3.C for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
Rear setback
*
0 adjacent to commercial & industrial districts to
districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial &
Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3.C for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
Building height, maximum (feet)
40** 50 3 stories OR 50 ft.
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when adjacent to
residential properties
Additional height allowance, maximum
(feet)
100 if required for structure no more than 3 stories in
height OR for Hotel or Motel structures no more than 5
stories in height for Hotel or Motel structures
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when adjacent to
residential properties
* Determined in accordance with Section 3.1.3.C.
** Buildings located within the Employment Center, Community Mixed Use, Urban Mixed Use, or Commerce Zone
place types and fronting along a collector, Minor Arterial, or Principal Arterial as indicated on the most recent
officially adopted Wilmington MPO Functional Classification Map, may exceed 40 feet in height provided their
FAR does not exceed 1.0. The FAR may exceed 1.0, but shall not exceed 1.4 if (1) the ratio of the total building
footprint to the total buildable site area does not exceed 40% and (2) the required parking (exclusive of off-
loading and service parking) is included within the building footprint. If all surface parking (excluding visitor drop-
off and pick-up) is within the building footprint, additional floor area can be added at the rate of one foot of floor
per one foot of parking area. The total height of the parking structure shall be excluded from the height limit. [05-
03-2021]
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 14
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
15
3.4.6 Office and Institutional (O&I) District
J. District Dimensional Standards
Standard Residential Uses Nonresidential Uses and Mixed
Use Structures
Lot area, minimum (square
feet)* 15,000
1 Lot width, minimum (feet)* 90
2 Front setback (feet)* 25
3 Side setback, street (feet)* 25
Side setback, interior*
**
0 adjacent to commercial & industrial districts to districts in the
RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial & Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3.C for setbacks when adjacent to residential
properties
Rear setback*
**
0 adjacent to commercial & industrial districts to districts in the
RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial & Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3.C for setbacks when adjacent to residential
properties
Density, maximum (dwelling
units/acre) 2.5***
Building height, maximum
(feet) [09-08-2020]
40 45 3 stories OR 45 ft.
See Section 3.1.3.C for
standards when adjacent to
residential properties
52 75 3 stories OR 50 ft.
See Section 3.1.3.C for
standards when adjacent to
residential properties
Additional height allowance,
maximum (feet)
75 for Senior Living
50 if required for structure
no more than 3 stories in
height
See Section 3.1.3.C for
standards when adjacent to
residential properties
75 for Government Offices and
Buildings; Bank and/or
Financial Institutions; and
Offices for Private Business
and Professional Activities
125 if required for structure no
more than 5 stories in height
OR for Colleges, University, &
Professional School and
Hospital structures no more
than 7 stories in height
See Section 3.1.3.C for
standards when adjacent to
residential properties
* Does not apply to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
** Determined in accordance with Section 3.1.3.C.
*** Applies only to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 15
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
16
3.4.10 Light Industrial (I-1) District
K. District Dimensional Standards
Standard All Uses
Lot area, minimum (square feet) None
1 Lot width, minimum (feet) None
2 Front setback (feet) 50
3 Side setback, street (feet) 50
Side setback, interior *
Rear setback *
Building height, maximum (feet) [09-08-2020]
45** 50 3 stories OR 50 ft.
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when
adjacent to residential properties
Additional height allowance, maximum (feet)
100 if required for structure no more than 3
stories in height OR for Government Offices &
Building, Hotel or Motel, Offices for Private
Business and Professional Activities, and
Research and Development Facility structures
no more than 7 stories in height
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when
adjacent to residential properties
* Determined in accordance with Section 3.1.3.C.
** Buildings located within the Employment Center or Commerce Zone place types and fronting along a Collector,
Minor Arterial, or Principal Arterial as indicated on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington MPO Functional
Classification Map, may exceed 45 feet in height provided their FAR does not exceed 1.0. [05-03-2021]
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 16
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
17
Section 5.4.3 Transitional Buffer Standards
Table 5.4.3.B.2: Landscape Buffer Types
Buffer Type Minimum Width and Plantings Required
Type A: Opaque Buffer†
Option 1: Vegetation Only
The minimum buffer width shall be 50 percent of the minimum required setback as set forth in
Article 3: Zoning Districts, or 20 feet, or 25 percent of the minimum structure setback for structures
with an additional height allowance, whichever is greater.**
Planted materials shall be a minimum of six feet in height and provide approximately full opacity
within one year of planting.*
A minimum of three rows of planted material are required.
Option 2: Combination
Berm & Vegetation
The minimum buffer width shall be 50 percent of the minimum required setback as set forth in
Article 3: Zoning Districts, , or 20 feet, or 25 percent of the minimum structure setback for structures
with an additional height allowance, whichever is greater.**
The berm shall be constructed of compacted earth. The slope of the berm shall be stabilized with
vegetation and shall be no steeper than 3:1. The height of the berm shall be six feet or less with a
level or rounded area on top.
The combined height of the berm and planted vegetation shall provide approximately full opacity
to a minimum height of six feet within one year of planting. The height of the berm and vegetation
shall be measured from the ground level at the nearest lot boundary line.*
Option 3: Combination
Fencing & Vegetation
The minimum buffer width shall be 50 percent of the minimum required setback as set forth in
Article 3: Zoning Districts, , or 10 feet, or 20 percent of the minimum structure setback for structures
with an additional height allowance, whichever is greater.**
Fencing shall be between 6 and 10 feet in height.
Required planted materials shall be located between the fence and the common property line
unless otherwise specified.
If solid fencing is used, planted materials a minimum of three feet in height and providing a
minimum of approximately 50 percent visual opacity at initial planting shall be required. Vegetation
shall be planted between the fence and the nonresidential or attached structure if the required
buffer is 15 ft. or less in width to accommodate regular maintenance.*
If permeable fencing is used, a minimum of two rows of planted materials providing approximately
full opacity within one year of planting are required.*
Type B: Aesthetic Buffer
Option 1: Vegetation Only
Width: 20 ft. minimum
Planted materials shall provide approximately 50 percent opacity within one year of planting.*
A minimum of three rows of planted material, using a minimum of two plant species that will result
in different heights at maturity, are required.
Option 2: Combination
Fencing & Vegetation
Width: 10 ft. minimum
Planted materials shall provide approximately 50% opacity within one year of planting.*
Fencing shall be between 4 and 10 feet in height.
Planted materials shall be planted between the fence and the industrial use with sufficient space
to accommodate regular maintenance.
If permeable fencing is used, at least one row of planted materials is required. Chain link or wire
fencing cannot be used to meet the fencing requirement.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 17
2021-08 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
18
Table 5.4.3.B.2: Landscape Buffer Types
Buffer Type Minimum Width and Plantings Required
Type A: Opaque Buffer†
*Plants and spacing to achieve the height and opacity requirements of this buffer option are outlined in the “Tree and Plant
Materials for Landscaping” manual.
**If the applicant increases the required buffer width, an equivalent reduction in a building’s setback is allowed, except for
interior side and rear setbacks from residential properties in the B-1, B-2, and O&I districts.
†See Section 3.1.3.C for landscape buffer options for structures using additional height allowance in certain districts.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 18
Multi-family & Nonresidential Height Standards Update
(Planning Board Public Hearing Draft)
Code Sections Affected
Section 2.1,
Measurements
Section 2.3,
Definitions & Terms
Section 3.1.3,
Superseding Dimensional
Standards
Section 3.2.12,
Residential Multi-Family Low
Density (RMF-L) District
Section 3.2.13,
Residential Multi-Family
Moderate Density (RMF-M)
District
Section 3.2.14,
Residential Multi-Family
Medium-High Density (RMF-
MH) District
Section 3.2.15,
Residential Multi-Family High
Density (RMF-H) District
Section 3.3.4,
Urban Mixed-Use Zoning
(UMXZ)
Section 3.3.7,
Planned Development (PD)
District
Section 3.4.3,
Neighborhood Business (B-1)
District
Section 3.4.4,
Community Business (CB)
District
Section 3.4.5,
Regional Business (B-2)
District
Section 3.4.6,
Office and Institutional (O&I)
District
Section 3.4.10,
Light Industrial (I-1) District
Section 5.4.3,
Transitional Buffer Standards
Key Intent
• Allow 4-story buildings, which require elevators, in all multi-family districts to
increase housing access and opportunities for seniors and residents with
reduced mobility
• Adjust height standards in nonresidential and mixed-use districts to allow for the
building scale recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, ensure structure
heights needed for permitted uses can be accommodated, and provide for more
flexibility in building design, while offsetting impacts of tall structures directly
abutting residential property
• Modify setbacks in nonresidential districts to ensure consistency
Changes
• A building height allowance has been established for the RMF-L and RMF-M
districts where 4-story structures are allowed. Additional standards to mitigate
the impact of taller structures are required when the 4-story structures are
adjacent to single family homes and general R Residential districts (RA, AR, R-
20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, and R-5). Existing setback provisions have also
been adjusted slightly as the maximum height in feet cap is no longer applied.
(See Sections 3.1.3, 3.2.12, and 3.2.13)
• Additional standards to mitigate the impact of taller structures when adjacent to
general R Residential districts have been outlined for 4-story structures in the
RMF-MH and RMF-H districts. Existing setback provisions have also been
adjusted slightly as the maximum height in feet cap is no longer applied. (See
Sections 3.2.14 and 3.2.15)
• A provision has been added to allow up to 5-story structures in the RMF-H district
as part of a conditional zoning approval, subject to additional standards to
mitigate the impact of taller structures adjacent to single family homes and
general R Residential districts (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, and R-
15). (See Sections 3.2.15 and 3.1.3)
• Because Master Planned Developments (MPDs) are subject to Planning Board
and Board of Commissioners review and consideration through the public
hearing process, the building height maximum in the Urban Mixed Use Zoning
and Planned Development districts has been removed and the MPD Master Plan
is allowed to establish the maximum height for a particular project. (See Sections
3.3.4 and 3.3.7)
• Maximum height limits for nonresidential districts are adjusted to allow for the
scale of buildings intended for the district. (See Sections 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.45, 3.4.6,
and 3.4.10)
• Additional height allowances, and additional standards to mitigate greater heights
when adjacent to general R Residential districts, are established for
nonresidential districts to ensure the number of stories intended for the district
can be accommodated and to allow specific permitted uses that generally require
structures with greater height. (See Sections 3.1.3, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.45, 3.4.6, 3.4.10,
and 5.4.3)
• A definition for story is added. (See Section 2.3)
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2021 HEIGHT STANDARDS AMENDMENT CONCEPTS:
RMF-L RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY LOW DENSITY DISTRICT
CONCEPT SUMMARY: Allow 4-story buildings, which
require elevators, to increase housing access and
opportunities for seniors and residents with reduced
mobility.
DISTRICT INTENT: To provide lands that accommodate
moderate density single family and low density multi-family
development of varying types and designs. The intent is that the
RMF-L district will provide options for alternative housing types
near or in direct relationship to single-family detached
development.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE: While the plan does
not directly relate place types with specific zoning districts, the
housing types and densities outlined for this district (up to 10
units per acre) mean that it is appropriate in Community Mixed
Use areas and some General Residential areas, both of which
anticipate development scaled similarly to existing residential
development at around 1-3 stories. It may also be appropriate
in other areas with site-specific conditions. This district is most
likely to be applied along roadway corridors to provide a
transition to existing single family neighborhoods, near
intersections, and near low intensity commercial uses and
community services.
Considerations:
• This district has only been applied to a small number of properties since its creation in 2019, most of which were conditional projects.
• Because this district is intended to be located near existing residential neighborhoods, height and setbacks should balance providing an
appropriate transition with the need for allowing taller structures for improved housing access.
See the back of this page for proposed amendments.
Indicates changes to provisions
in Public Comment drafts
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT CONCEPT
Current Standards
Height Maximum
Setbacks*
Conventional Subdivisions
Performance Subdivisions Single Family
(Detached & Attached) Multi-Family
3 stories, with a maximum of 45
ft.
Front—20 ft.
Side (street)—10 ft.
Side (interior)—5 ft.
Rear—15 ft.
Front—35 ft.
Side (street)—30 ft.
Side (interior)—20 ft.
Rear—25 ft.
20 ft. peripheral setback
*Heights over 35 ft. subject to additional setback of 4 additional feet
Proposed Standards
Height
Maximum
Setbacks* Additional Height Allowance
Conventional Subdivisions
Performance
Subdivisions
Peripheral Setback
Allowance
Maximum Additional Standards Single Family
(Detached &
Attached)
Multi-Family
3 stories
Front—20 ft.
Side (street)—10 ft.
Side (interior)—5 ft.
Rear—15 ft.
Front—35 ft.
Side (street)—30 ft.
Side (interior)—
-1 to 2 stories: 20 ft.
-3 stories: 25 ft.
Rear—
-1 to 2 stories: 25 ft.
-3 stories: 30 ft.
20 ft.
3 stories: 30 ft. 4 stories
4 story structures must be setback a
minimum of 25 ft. from adjacent R
properties (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10,
R-7, R-5)
When adjacent to R residential properties
(RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, R-5),
additional standards apply:
-Option 1 and 2: Additional setback or step
back of 100 ft. for portions of buildings that
have 4 stories
-Option 2: Conditional zoning district
outlines technique(s) to mitigate impacts of
taller buildings (i.e., site design,
architectural design, etc.)
• As part of the original proposed amendment, the existing height in feet maximum of 45 ft. has been removed, potentially increasing the
amount of height possible for a structure. To balance staying consistent with existing provisions but mitigating any additional impacts on
adjacent residential properties, the minimum periphery setback from adjacent residential lots for performance subdivision projects has been
increased to 30 ft.—which would be applied in conjunction with a vegetative buffer a minimum of 20 ft. (vegetation only) or 15 ft. (with fence).
• Setbacks for multi-family structures for conventional subdivisions have also been adjusted, but this type of development is not as common in
the county’s jurisdiction.
• The additional setbacks and architectural stepbacks to mitigate taller buildings subject to an additional height allowance have been increased
to an approximately 2:1 setback to height ratio. Based on field surveys, this is the setback ratio where existing buffering standards mitigate
the impacts of taller structures. It is intended to incentivize site design that pushes taller structures and parts of buildings further away from
adjacent residential properties.
• Because specific site topography or other site design or architectural features that cannot be fully anticipated by an ordinance could also
achieve similar mitigation for taller buildings, a provision has been added to allow other mitigation alternatives for 4-story structures as part of
conditional zoning districts, which have to go through a full public review and hearing process.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 2
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2021 HEIGHT STANDARDS AMENDMENT CONCEPTS:
RMF-M RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT
CONCEPT SUMMARY: Allow 4-story buildings, which
require elevators, to increase housing access and
opportunities for seniors and residents with reduced
mobility.
DISTRICT INTENT: To provide lands that accommodate
moderate density single-family and multi-family
development. The intent of the RMF-M district is to
function as a transitional district between intensive
nonresidential development and higher density residential
areas. The district is designed to provide a reasonable
range of choice, type, and location of housing units.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE: While the plan
does not directly relate place types with specific zoning
districts, the housing types and densities outlined for this
district (up to 17 units per acre) mean that it could be
appropriate in Community Mixed Use areas, Employment
Centers, and Urban Mixed Use areas, which anticipate
multi-family development scaled from around 3 to 5 stories
depending on the location. It may also be appropriate in
other areas with site-specific conditions. This district is
most likely to be applied along roadway corridors to provide
a transition to existing neighborhoods, near job centers, and
near commercial and service nodes.
Considerations:
• This district has only been applied to a small number of properties since its creation in 2019, most of which were conditional projects.
• This district could be located near existing residential neighborhoods and/or integrated into areas of more intensive development.
Indicates changes from Public
Comment drafts
See the back of this page for proposed amendments.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 6 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT CONCEPT
Current Standards
Height Maximum
Setbacks*
Conventional Subdivisions
Performance Subdivisions Single Family
(Detached & Attached) Multi-Family
3 stories, with a maximum of
45 ft.
Front—20 ft.
Side (street)—10 ft.
Side (interior)—5 ft.
Rear—15 ft.
Front—35 ft.
Side (street)—30 ft.
Side (interior)—20 ft.
Rear—25 ft.
20 ft. peripheral setback
*Heights over 35 ft. subject to additional setback of 4 additional feet.
Proposed Standards
Height
Maximum
Setbacks* Additional Height Allowance
Conventional Subdivisions
Performance
Subdivisions
Peripheral Setback
Allowance
Maximum Additional Standards Single Family
(Detached &
Attached)
Multi-Family
3 stories
Front—20 ft.
Side (street)—10 ft.
Side (interior)—5 ft.
Rear—15 ft.
Front—35 ft.
Side (street)—30 ft.
Side (interior)—
-1 to 2 stories: 20 ft.
-3 stories: 25 ft.
Rear—
-1 to 2 stories: 25 ft.
-3 stories: 30 ft.
20 ft.
3 stories: 30 ft. 4 stories
4 story structures must be setback a
minimum of 25 ft. from adjacent R
properties (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10,
R-7, R-5)
When adjacent to R residential properties
(RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, R-5),
additional standards apply:
-Option 1 and 2: Additional setback or step
back of 100 ft. for portions of buildings that
have 4 stories
-Option 2: Conditional zoning district
outlines technique(s) to mitigate impacts of
taller buildings (i.e., site design,
architectural design, etc.)
• As part of the original proposed amendment, the existing height in feet maximum of 45 ft. has been removed, potentially increasing the
amount of height possible for a structure. To balance staying consistent with existing provisions but mitigating any additional impacts on
adjacent residential properties, the minimum periphery setback from adjacent residential lots for performance subdivision projects has been
increased to 30 ft.—which would be applied in conjunction with a vegetative buffer a minimum of 20 ft. (vegetation only) or 15 ft. (with fence).
• Setbacks for multi-family structures for conventional subdivisions have also been adjusted, but this type of development is not as common in
the county’s jurisdiction.
• The additional setbacks and architectural stepbacks to mitigate taller buildings subject to an additional height allowance have been increased
to an approximately 2:1 setback to height ratio. Based on field surveys, this is the setback ratio where existing buffering standards mitigate
the impacts of taller structures. It is intended to incentivize site design that pushes taller structures and parts of buildings further away from
adjacent residential properties.
• Because specific site topography or other site design or architectural features that cannot be fully anticipated by an ordinance could also
achieve similar mitigation for taller buildings, a provision has been added to allow other mitigation alternatives for 4-story structures as part of
conditional zoning districts, which have to go through a full public review and hearing process.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 6 - 2
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2021 HEIGHT STANDARDS AMENDMENT CONCEPTS:
RMF-MH RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT
CONCEPT SUMMARY: Reduce potential barriers to
4-story buildings, which require elevators, to increase
housing access and opportunities for seniors and
residents with reduced mobility.
DISTRICT INTENT: To accommodate lands for medium
to high density residential development of varying types
and designs, with emphasis on midrise structures, near
suburban shopping centers and employment centers. The
district is intended to function as a transition between
intensive nonresidential development and lower density
residential development.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE: While the plan
does not directly relate place types with specific zoning
districts, the housing types and densities outlined for this
district (up to 25 units per acre) mean that it could be
appropriate in Urban Mixed Use areas, which anticipate
multi-family development scaled at around 5 stories, and
in other areas with site-specific conditions. This district is
most likely to be applied along roadway corridors to
provide a transition to existing neighborhoods and near
commercial and service nodes.
Considerations:
• This district approved the first RMF-MH zoning for a conditional project (Comet Apartments) on August 2, 2021. The proposed amendment
would not impact this development.
• This district could be located near existing residential neighborhoods and/or integrated into areas of more intensive development.
Indicates changes to provisions
in Public Comment drafts
See the back of this page for proposed amendments.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT CONCEPT
Current Standards
Height Maximum
Setbacks*
Conventional Subdivisions
Performance Subdivisions
Single Family (Detached & Attached) Multi-Family
4 stories, with a maximum of 50
ft.
Front—15 ft.
Side (street)—10 ft.
Side (interior)—5 ft.
Rear—15 ft.
Front—30 ft.
Side (street)—30 ft.
Side (interior)—20 ft.
Rear—25 ft.
20 ft. peripheral setback
*Heights over 35 ft. subject to additional setback of 4 additional feet.
Proposed Standards
Height
Maximum
Setbacks*
Additional Standards when
Adjacent to Residential
Additional Height
Allowance
Conventional Subdivisions
Performance
Subdivisions
Peripheral Setback
Single Family
(Detached &
Attached)
Multi-Family
4 stories
Front—20 ft.
Side (street)—10 ft.
Side (interior)—5 ft.
Rear—15 ft.
Front—35 ft.
Side (street)—30 ft.
Side (interior)—
-1 to 2 stories: 20 ft.
-3 stories: 25 ft.
-4 stories: 30 ft.
Rear—
-1 to 2 stories: 25 ft.
-3 stories: 30 ft.
-4 stories: 35 ft.
20 ft.
3 stories: 30 ft.
Structures or portions thereof 4
stories in height must be a minimum
of 100 ft. from adjacent RA, AR, R-
20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, and R-5
properties, unless within a
conditional zoning district with
approved alternative technique(s) to
mitigate impacts of taller buildings
(i.e., site design, architectural
design, etc.)
None
• To balance staying consistent with existing provisions but mitigating any additional impacts on adjacent residential properties, the minimum
periphery setback from adjacent residential lots for performance subdivision projects has been increased to 30 ft. for 3-story structures—
which would be applied in conjunction with a vegetative buffer a minimum of 20 ft. (vegetation only) or 15 ft. (with fence).
• Setbacks for multi-family structures for conventional subdivisions have also been adjusted, but this type of development is not as common in
the county’s jurisdiction.
• The additional setbacks and architectural stepbacks to mitigate taller buildings subject to an additional height allowance have been increased
to an approximately 2:1 setback to height ratio. Based on field surveys, this is the setback ratio where existing buffering standards mitigate
the impacts of taller structures. It is intended to incentivize site design that pushes taller structures and parts of buildings further away from
adjacent residential properties.
• Because specific site topography or other site design or architectural features that cannot be fully anticipated by an ordinance could also
achieve similar mitigation for taller buildings, a provision has been added to allow other mitigation alternatives for 4-story structures as part of
conditional zoning districts, which have to go through a full public review and hearing process.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 2
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2021 HEIGHT STANDARDS AMENDMENT CONCEPTS
RMF-H RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT
CONCEPT SUMMARY: Reduce potential barriers to 4-
story buildings, which require elevators, to increase
housing access and opportunities for seniors and residents
with reduced mobility.
DISTRICT INTENT: To provide lands for high density
residential development of varying types and designs, with
emphasis on midrise and high-rise structures. This district is
designed to be located in close proximity to major population
centers, areas identified for targeted growth, employment
centers, and destination nodes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE: While the plan does
not directly relate place types with specific zoning districts, the
housing types and densities outlined for this district (up to 36
units per acre) mean that it could be appropriate in Urban
Mixed Use areas, which anticipate multi-family development
scaled at around 5 stories, growth nodes, and in other areas
with site-specific conditions. This district is most likely to be
applied along roadways near commercial and service nodes and
in areas targeted for growth.
Considerations:
• This district has not been applied to any properties since its creation in 2019.
• This district is less likely to be located immediately adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods and would more likely be integrated into areas of
more intensive development.
Indicates changes from Public
Comment drafts
See the back of this page for proposed amendments.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 8 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT CONCEPT
Current Standards
Height Maximum
Setbacks*
Conventional Subdivisions
Performance Subdivisions Single Family (Detached &
Attached) Multi-Family
4 stories, with a
maximum of 50 ft.
Front—15 ft.
Side (street)—10 ft.
Side (interior)—5 ft.
Rear—15 ft.
Front—30 ft.
Side (street)—30 ft.
Side (interior)—20 ft.
Rear—25 ft.
20 ft. peripheral setback
*Heights over 35 ft. subject to additional setback of 4 additional feet.
Proposed Standards
Height
Maximum
Setbacks* Additional Height Allowance
Conventional Subdivisions
Performance
Subdivisions
Peripheral
Setback
Additional Standards
when Adjacent to
Residential
Allowance
Maximum Additional Standards Single Family
(Detached &
Attached)
Multi-Family
4 stories
Front—20 ft.
Side (street)—10 ft.
Side (interior)—5
ft.
Rear—15 ft.
Front—35 ft.
Side (street)—30 ft.
Side (interior)—
-1 to 2 stories: 20 ft.
-3 stories: 25 ft.
-4 stories: 30 ft.
Rear—
-1 to 2 stories: 25 ft.
-3 stories: 30 ft.
-4 stories: 35 ft.
20 ft.
3 stories: 30 ft.
Structures or portions
thereof 4 stories in height
must be a minimum of 100
ft. from adjacent RA, AR,
R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-
7, and R-5 properties,
unless within a conditional
zoning district with
approved alternative
technique(s) to mitigate
impacts of taller buildings
(i.e., site design,
architectural design, etc.)
5 stories
when
approved as
part of a
conditional
zoning
district
When adjacent to R residential
properties (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-
15, R-10, R-7, R-5), additional
standards apply:
-Option 1 and 2: Additional setback
or step back of 125 ft. for portions of
buildings that have 5 stories
-Option 2: Conditional zoning
district outlines technique(s) to
mitigate impacts of taller buildings
(i.e., site design, architectural
design, etc.)
• To balance staying consistent with existing provisions but mitigating any additional impacts on adjacent residential properties, the minimum
periphery setback from adjacent residential lots for performance subdivision projects has been increased to 30 ft. for 3-story structures—
which would be applied in conjunction with a vegetative buffer a minimum of 20 ft. (vegetation only) or 15 ft. (with fence).
• Setbacks for multi-family structures for conventional subdivisions have also been adjusted, but this type of development is not as common in
the county’s jurisdiction.
• The additional setbacks and architectural stepbacks to mitigate taller buildings subject to an additional height allowance have been increased
to an approximately 2:1 setback to height ratio. Based on field surveys, this is the setback ratio where existing buffering standards mitigate
the impacts of taller structures. It is intended to incentivize site design that pushes taller structures and parts of buildings further away from
adjacent residential properties.
• Because specific site topography or other site design or architectural features that cannot be fully anticipated by an ordinance could also
achieve similar mitigation for taller buildings, a provision has been added to allow other mitigation alternatives as part of conditional zoning
districts, which have to go through a full public review and hearing process.
• An option has also been provided that could allow up to 5 stories as part of a conditional zoning district approval to allow for the full
spectrum of multifamily building scales outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 8 - 2
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2021 HEIGHT STANDARDS AMENDMENT CONCEPTS
URBAN MIXED USE ZONING (UMXZ) DISTRICT
CONCEPT SUMMARY: Allow Master Development Plans approved in
conjunction with Urban Mixed Use Zoning (UMXZ) rezoning requests
determine height maximums.
DISTRICT INTENT: To meet the following objectives in the areas of
New Hanover County in proximity to the City of Wilmington and those
intended for urban or community scale mixed use development:
• To encourage the efficient mixed use development pattern
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan;
• To result in quality design and a variety of built forms of lasting
value that result in a pedestrian scale;
• To provide a mix of housing options;
• To promote and enhance transportation options, particularly
those that are pedestrian-oriented, while reducing demand for
automobile trips; and
• To encourage a mix of uses to foster a sense of community.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE: While the plan does not directly
relate place types with specific zoning districts, this district could be
appropriate for the full spectrum of place types, including the highest intensity Urban Mixed Use and Employment Center areas, which both anticipate heights of
up to 7 stories.
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT CONCEPT
Current Standards
Proposed Standards
Height Maximum Additional Height
Allowances Setbacks Height
Maximum
Additional Height
Allowances Setbacks
Along arterial streets: 4 stories
or 45 ft.
Along residential & collector
streets: 2 stories or 35 ft.
Along arterial streets: 75
ft. with Special Use Permit
Along arterial & collector
streets: 5 stories or 55 ft.
if structure parking is
provided within project
35 ft. for
buildings ≤ 35 ft.
in height
45 ft. for
buildings > 35 ft.
in height
Established in
MDP Master
Development
Plan
N/A
35 ft. for buildings ≤ 35 ft. in
height
45 ft. for buildings > 35 ft. in
height
Considerations:
• This provision would not apply to existing approved UMXZ developments, as they are governed by the master development plans approved at the
time of their rezoning.
• This district allows a wide variety of residential, commercial, and office uses.
• The current height maximum in the district only allows buildings of 5 stories or 55 ft. along major roadways if structured parking is required.
Otherwise, the maximum height allowed without a special use permit is 4 stories or 45 ft.
• 5-story nonresidential building currently require about 75 ft.
• 7-story nonresidential buildings currently require about 100 ft. in height.
• The current height allowances are applied only to properties located in particular Comprehensive Plan Place Types and along particular roadways.
However, place types were not developed to be property specific, which could cause difficulties in determining the application of the additional
height allowance for some properties, and the General Statutes indicate that all parcels within a particular zoning district should have the same
dimensional standards.
Example of a Master Development Plan approved as part of a UMXZ rezoning.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 9 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2021 HEIGHT STANDARDS AMENDMENT CONCEPTS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT
CONCEPT SUMMARY: Allow Master Development Plans
approved in conjunction with Planned Development (PD)
rezoning requests determine height maximums.
DISTRICT INTENT: To encourage innovative, integrated, and
efficient land planning and site design concepts that achieve a
high quality of development, environmental sensitivity, and
adequate public facilities and services, and that provide
community benefits, by:
• Reducing the inflexibility of zoning district standards that
sometimes result from strict application of the base
district, and development standards;
• Allowing greater flexibility in selecting the form and
design of development, the ways by which pedestrians
and traffic circulate, how the development is located
and designed to respect the natural features of the land
and protect the environment, the location, and integration of open space and civic space into the development, and design amenities;
• Encouraging a greater mix of land uses within the same development;
• Allowing more efficient use of land, with smaller networks of streets and utilities;
• Providing pedestrian connections within the site and to the public right-of-way; and
• Promoting development forms and patterns that respect the character of established surrounding neighborhoods and other types of land uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE: While the plan does not directly relate place types with specific zoning districts, this district could be appropriate for the
full spectrum of place types, including the highest intensity Urban Mixed Use and Employment Center areas, which both anticipate heights of up to 7 stories.
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT CONCEPT
Current Standards
Proposed Standards
Height
Maximum
Additional Height Allowances Height
Maximum
Additional Height Allowances
Allowance Maximum Additional
Standards Allowance Maximum Additional
Standards
40 ft.
There is no maximum building height for
Agricultural or Industrial uses.
The maximum building height is 80 ft. for
buildings located within the Urban Mixed
Use, Community Mixed Use, or Employment
Center areas identified on the New Hanover
County Future Land Use Map and fronting
along a collector, minor arterial, or principal
arterial as indicated on the Wilmington
Urban Area MPO functional classification
map.
None
Established in
MDP Master
Development
Plan
N/A N/A
Example of a Master Development Plan approved as part of a Planned Development rezoning.
Considerations:
• This provision would likely not apply to existing approved planned developments, as they are governed by the master development plans
approved at the time of their rezoning.
• This district allows a wide variety of residential, commercial, office, and industrial uses.
• The current height maximum in the district, without the additional allowance outlined, would limit buildings to no more than 2 stories. This would
limit height to less than currently allowed in our general Residential (RA, R-20, R-15, etc.) for single family homes.
• The current height allowance in the district only allows up to about 5 stories even in the highest intensity place types outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan.
• 7-story nonresidential buildings currently require about 100 ft. in height.
• The current height allowances are applied only to properties located in particular Comprehensive Plan Place Types and along particular roadways.
However, place types were not developed to be property specific, which could cause difficulties in determining the application of the additional
height allowance for some properties, and the General Statutes indicate that all parcels within a particular zoning district should have the same
dimensional standards.
• Minimum setbacks are outlined for the district, but any proposed Master Development Plan could include larger setbacks, design elements, or
vegetative buffers depending on the context of the property proposed for rezoning.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 10 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2021 HEIGHT STANDARDS AMENDMENT CONCEPTS
B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT
CONCEPT SUMMARY: Adjust height standards to allow for 2-story
commercial structures and modify setbacks to allow consistent
development patterns.
DISTRICT INTENT: To provide lands that accommodate a range of
small-scale, low-intensity, neighborhood-serving commercial
development that provide goods and services to residents of adjacent
neighborhoods. District regulations are intended to ensure uses,
development intensities, and a development form that is consistent
with a pedestrian-friendly, walkable, and neighborhood scale. Mixed
use development is allowed that is consistent with district character.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE: While the plan does not
directly relate place types with specific zoning districts, this commercial
district could be appropriate for small-scale commercial services in
carefully located General Residential areas, in Community Mixed Use
areas, as transitions between higher intensity and lower intensity
development patterns, and in other areas with site-specific conditions.
This district is most likely to be applied along roadways and at minor
intersections.
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT CONCEPT
Current Standards
Proposed Standards
Height
Maximum
Setbacks Additional Height
Allowances Height
Maximum
Setbacks Additional Height
Allowances
General Adjacent to
Residential
Allowance
Maximum
Additional
Standards General Adjacent to
Residential
Allowance
Maximum
Additional
Standards
35 ft.
Front—50 ft.
or 35 ft.
depending on
roadway
Side (street)—
50 ft. or 35 ft.
depending on
roadway
Side
(interior)—
None
Rear—None
Side—25 ft.
Rear—30 ft. N/A N/A 2 stories OR
40 ft.
Front—25 ft.
Side (street)—25
ft.
Side (interior)—
None
Rear—None
Side—25 ft.
Rear—30 ft.
None None
Considerations:
• This district is currently applied to a number of properties
along major and minor roadway corridors that any
amendment could impact.
• A wide range of uses are allowed in this district, none of
which should require more than a 2-story building.
• 2-story nonresidential and mixed use buildings currently
require about 38 ft. in height.
• In the Community Business district front yard setbacks are
25 ft., street side setbacks are 25 ft., side setbacks from
residential properties are 20 ft. and rear setbacks from
residential properties are 25 ft.
Indicates changes to provisions
in Public Comment drafts.
• The height maximum of 2 stories OR 40 ft. has been clarified
and replaces the previous maximum height and additional
height allowance for 2 stories if necessary for a structure.
• Because of the possibility of taller buildings, the existing side
setback from residential—which would be applied in
conjunction with a vegetative buffer a minimum width of 20
ft. (vegetation only) or 12.5 ft. (with fence)—is retained.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2021 HEIGHT STANDARDS AMENDMENT CONCEPTS
CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT
CONCEPT SUMMARY: Adjust height standards to allow for 3-story
commercial structures and modify setbacks to allow consistent
development patterns.
DISTRICT INTENT: To provide lands that accommodate the
development, growth, and continued operation of businesses that serve
surrounding neighborhoods with goods and services needed for a
variety of daily and long-term purposes. Development in the CB district
should be designed in a form and at a scale that is both walkable and
accessible to vehicles and located at intersections and along streets that
will allow multiple neighborhoods access to the district’s businesses. CB
district lands can serve as a buffer between higher density/intensity
development and moderate or low density multi-family and single
family neighborhoods.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE: While the plan does not
directly relate place types with specific zoning districts, this commercial
district could be appropriate for Community Mixed Use areas, which
anticipates heights around 2-3 stories, as transitions between higher
intensity and lower intensity development patterns, and in other areas
with site-specific conditions. This district is most likely to be applied
along roadways and at intersections.
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT CONCEPT
Current Standards
Height Maximum
Setbacks Additional Height Allowances
General Adjacent to
Residential Allowance Maximum Additional Standards
3 stories, not to
exceed 45 ft.
Front—25 ft.
Side (street)—25 ft.
Side (interior)—None
Rear—None
Side—20 ft.
Rear—25 ft. N/A Buildings with heights over 35 ft. are subject to an
additional setback requirement of 4 additional feet
Proposed Standards
Height Maximum
Setbacks Additional Height Allowances
General Adjacent to
Residential Allowance Maximum Additional Standards
2 stories OR 40 ft.
Additional Standards
for Additional Height
Apply for Structures
over 40 ft.
Front—25 ft.
Side (street)—25 ft.
Side (interior)—None
Rear—None
Side—20 ft.
Rear—25 ft.
3 stories OR 50 ft.
When adjacent to R residential properties (RA, AR,
R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, R-5), additional
standards apply:
-Options 1 and 2: Additional setbacks or stepbacks
of 30 ft. for buildings, or portions thereof, greater
than 40 ft. tall
-Option 3: Conditional zoning district outlines
technique(s) to mitigate impacts of taller buildings
(i.e., site design, architectural design, etc.)
Considerations:
• This district is currently applied to only three properties, all
subject to conditional zoning approvals.
• The uses allowed in this district are limited and designed
to be appropriate in close proximity to existing residential
neighborhoods. Typical uses include retail and offices.
• 3-story nonresidential buildings currently require about 50
ft. in height.
• In the Neighborhood Business district, rear setbacks from
residential properties are 30 ft.
Indicates changes to provisions
in Public Comment drafts.
In order to balance keeping current provisions neutral but mitigating the impact of taller heights that might result from the amendment as drafted, the
height maximum has been lowered slightly but current setbacks are retained at that lower height. Additional setbacks or other mitigation options are
required for the taller buildings but are currently drafted to be similar to the current rear setback of 29 ft. currently applied to structures of that height.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 12 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2021 HEIGHT STANDARDS AMENDMENT CONCEPTS
B-2 REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
CONCEPT SUMMARY: Adjust height standards to allow for 3-story
commercial structures, allow for 5-story hotels and motels, and modify
setbacks to allow consistent development patterns and adequately
protect adjacent residential properties.
DISTRICT INTENT: To provide for the proper site layout and
development of larger format or larger structure size business uses,
including big box stores and automobile dealers. It is also designed to
provide for the appropriate location and design of auto-oriented uses
that meet the needs of the motoring public or that rely on pass-by
traffic.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE: While the plan does not
directly relate place types with specific zoning districts, because of the
range of uses allowed, this commercial district could be appropriate for
a wide variety of areas, including:
-Community Mixed Use areas, which anticipates heights around 2-
3 stories,
-Urban Mixed Use areas, which anticipates up to 7 stories for some
uses,
-Employment Centers, which anticipates up to 7 stories for some
uses, and
-Other areas with site-specific conditions.
This district is most likely to be applied along roadways and at
intersections.
Considerations:
• This district is the most common commercial district in the county’s jurisdiction. It is applied along major and minor roadways and to
properties surrounded by residential development.
• This district allows a wide range of uses including retail, auto-oriented sales, offices, lodging, heavy commercial, and some manufacturing. The
only permitted uses likely to need more than 3 stories are hotels and motels.
• 3-story nonresidential buildings currently require about 50 ft. in height.
• 5-story nonresidential buildings currently require 75 ft.
• An additional allowance for unlimited height is currently provided for in this district for qualifying properties. No additional setbacks are
required, though the floor-to-area ratio standard was intended to ensure more open space. This provision has not been used for a project at
this point to staff’s knowledge.
• The draft amendment concept would reduce some current height allowances for properties located in particular Comprehensive Plan Place
Types and along particular roadways. However, place types were not developed to be property specific, which could cause difficulties in
determining the application of the additional height allowance for some properties.
• In order to allow for the full scale of development intensity envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, an additional commercial district that would
allow for uses appropriate at a more intense urban scale (i.e., retail, mixed-use, offices but not industrial) could be useful.
See the back of this page for proposed amendments.
Indicates changes to provisions
in Public Comment drafts
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 13 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT CONCEPT
Current Standards
Height
Maximum
Setbacks Additional Height Allowances
General Adjacent to
Residential Allowance Maximum Additional Standards
40 ft.
Front—50 ft. or
35 ft. depending
on roadway
Side (street)—50
ft. or 35 ft.
depending on
roadway
Side (interior)—
None
Rear—None
Side—30 ft.
Rear—35 ft.
Buildings located within the Employment Center,
Community Mixed Use, Urban Mixed Use or Commerce
Zone place types and fronting along a collector, minor
arterial, or principal arterial have no limit as long as their
floor-to-area ratio does not exceed 1.0.
Floor-to-area ratio allowed up to 1.4 if the ratio of the
total building footprint to the total buildable site area
does not exceed 40% and the required parking is included
within the building footprint.
If all surface parking is within the building footprint,
additional floor area can be added at the rate of 1 ft. of
floor per 1 ft. of parking area. The total height of the
parking structure shall be excluded from the height limit.
N/A
Proposed Standards
Height
Maximum
Setbacks Additional Height Allowances
General Adjacent to
Residential Allowance Maximum Additional Standards
3 Stories OR 50
ft.
Additional
Standards for
Additional
Height Apply
for Structures
over 50 ft.
Front—25 ft.
Side (street)—25
ft.
Side (interior)—
None
Rear—None
Side—30 ft.
Rear—30 ft.
100 ft. for the following situations:
• Structure no more than 3 stories
• Hotel or Motel no more than 5 stories
When adjacent to R residential properties
(RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R -15, R-10, R-7, R-5),
additional setbacks, step backs, OR buffers
standards apply:
-Options 1 and 2: Additional setbacks or step
backs for portions of buildings
-40 150 ft. for structures, or portions
thereof, 51-75 ft. tall
-50 200 ft. for structures, or portions
thereof, 76-100 ft. tall
-Option 3: Additional buffering
-25 ft. vegetative buffer/15 ft. vegetation
w/fencing for structures 51-75 ft. tall
-30 ft. vegetative buffer/20 ft. vegetation
w/fencing for structures 76-100 ft. tall
Conditional zoning district outlines
technique(s) to mitigate impacts of taller
buildings (i.e., site design, architectural
design, etc.)
• The height maximum has been clarified to allow for 3 stories OR 50 ft. This replaces the previous maximum height and additional height
allowance for 3 stories if necessary for a structure.
• The story provision for the additional height allowance has been removed as the impact of tall structures would be similar regardless of the
number of stories, and there can be variability in the number of feet required per story.
• The additional setbacks and architectural stepbacks to mitigate taller buildings have been increased to a minimum approximately 2:1 setback
to height ratio. Based on field surveys, this is the setback generally necessary to allow existing buffer standards to mitigate height. It is
intended to incentivize site design that pushes taller structures and parts of buildings further away from adjacent residential properties.
• The buffer standards outlined in the public comment amendment draft are unnecessary with the larger structure setbacks in conjunction with
existing opaque buffer standards, so this mitigation option has been removed.
• Because specific site topography or other site design or architectural features that cannot be fully anticipated by an ordinance could also
achieve similar mitigation for taller buildings, a provision has been added to allow other mitigation alternatives for tall buildings as part of
conditional zoning districts, which have to go through a full public review and hearing process.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 13 - 2
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2021 HEIGHT STANDARDS AMENDMENT CONCEPTS
O&I OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT
CONCEPT SUMMARY: Adjust height standards to allow for 3-
story residential structures, 5-story nonresidential and mixed uses
structures, 7-story selected institutional uses, and to modify
setbacks to adequately protect adjacent residential properties.
DISTRICT INTENT: To provide lands that accommodate
institutional, professional office, and other compatible uses. The
O&I district should be located in areas with more intense uses and
higher density development patterns to support economic clusters
in appropriate locations
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE: While the plan does
not directly relate place types with specific zoning districts,
because of the range of uses allowed, this commercial district
could be appropriate for a wide variety of areas, including:
-Community Mixed Use areas, which anticipates heights
around 2-3 stories,
-Urban Mixed Use areas, which anticipates up to 7 stories for
some uses,
-Employment Centers, which anticipates up to 7 stories for
some uses, and
-Other areas with site-specific conditions.
This district is most likely to be applied along roadways and as part
of integrated special-purpose developments (i.e., schools, medical
facilities, office parks, etc.).
Considerations:
• This district is currently applied to a number of properties along major and minor roadways.
• The uses allowed in this district are relatively limited. Typical uses include offices, medical facilities, and educational institutions.
• 3-story nonresidential buildings currently require about 50 ft. in height.
• 5-story nonresidential and mixed use buildings currently require about 75 ft. in height.
• 7-story nonresidential buildings currently require about 100 ft. in height.
• O&I districts are commonly used as transitions between higher intensity and lower intensity uses, as well as for large-scale institutional uses.
The draft amendment concept would be most appropriate for the institutional uses, though the small size of other properties currently zoned
O&I should not increase impacts on adjacent parcels. However, an additional office district that could serve as a transition between higher
intensity and lower intensity places may be necessary to specifically allow for smaller-scale office uses. The Community Business (CB) district
may also serve that function.
See the back of this page for draft amendment concept.
Indicates changes to provisions
in Public Comment drafts
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 14 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT CONCEPT
Current Standards
Height
Maximum
Setbacks Additional Height Allowances
General Adjacent to
Residential Allowance Maximum Additional Standards
Residential
Uses—40 ft.
Nonresidential
& Mixed Use
Structures—
52 ft.
Front—25 ft.
Side (street)—25 ft.
Side (interior)—
None
Rear—None
Side—25 ft.
Rear—30 ft. N/A N/A
Proposed Standards
Height
Maximum
Setbacks Additional Height Allowances
General Adjacent to
Residential Allowance Maximum Additional Standards
Residential
Uses—45 ft. 3
stories OR 45
ft.
Nonresidential
& Mixed Use
Structures—
75 ft. 3 stories
OR 50 ft.
Additional
Standards for
Additional
Height Apply
for Structures
over 50 ft.
Front—25 ft.
Side (street)—25 ft.
Side (interior)—
None
Rear—None
Side—25 ft.
Rear—30 ft.
See Additional
Standards for
structures >50
ft. in height
Residential Uses—50 ft. for the following situations
• Structure no more than 3 stories
• 75 ft. for Senior Living
Nonresidential & Mixed Use Structures:
• 75 ft. for Government Offices and Buildings;
Bank and/or Financial Institutions; Offices for
Private Business and Professional Activities
• 125 ft. for the following situations:
o Structure no more than 5 stories
o Colleges, University, & Professional Schools
and Hospital structures no more than 7
stories
When adjacent to R residential properties
(RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R -15, R-10, R-7, R-5),
additional setbacks, step backs, or buffers
apply:
-Options 1 and 2: Additional setbacks or step
backs for portions of buildings
-40 150 ft. for structures, or portions
thereof, 51-75 ft. tall
-50 200 ft. for structures, or portions
thereof, 76-100 ft. tall
-60 250 ft. for structures, or portions
thereof, 101-125 ft. tall
- Additional buffering
-25 ft. vegetative buffer/15 ft. vegetation
w/fencing for structures 51-75 ft. tall
-30 ft. vegetative buffer/20 ft. vegetation
w/fencing for structures 76-100 ft. tall
Conditional zoning district outlines
technique(s) to mitigate impacts of taller
buildings (i.e., site design, architectural
design, etc.)
• The height maximum has been clarified to allow for 3 stories OR 45 ft. for residential uses and 3 stories OR 50 ft for nonresidential and mixed
use structures. This replaces the previous maximum height and additional height allowances for 3 stories if necessary for a structure.
• Rather than allowing structures no more than 5 stories a height allowance of up to 125 ft., that 5 story OR 75 ft. provision has been outlined
only for particular uses where more than 3 stories may be necessary and appropriate for this district.
• The story provision for the additional height allowance has been removed as the impact of tall structures would be similar regardless of the
number of stories, and there can be variability in the number of feet required per story.
• The additional setbacks and architectural stepbacks to mitigate taller buildings have been increased to a minimum approximately 2:1 setback
to height ratio. Based on field surveys, this is the setback generally necessary to allow existing buffer standards to mitigate height. It is
intended to incentivize site design that pushes taller structures and parts of buildings further away from adjacent residential properties.
• The buffer standards outlined in the public comment amendment draft are unnecessary with the larger structure setbacks in conjunction with
existing opaque buffer standards, so this mitigation option has been removed.
• Because specific site topography or other site design or architectural features that cannot be fully anticipated by an ordinance could also
achieve similar mitigation for taller buildings, a provision has been added to allow other mitigation alternatives for tall buildings as part of
conditional zoning districts, which have to go through a full public review and hearing process.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 14 - 2
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2021 HEIGHT STANDARDS AMENDMENT CONCEPTS
I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
CONCEPT SUMMARY: Adjust height standards to allow for
3-story structures and allow for 7-story office buildings and
hotels and motels.
DISTRICT INTENT: 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 also
intended to support the development of commerce and
employment clusters as recommended in the Comprehensive
Plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE: While the plan does
not directly relate place types with specific zoning districts, this
district could be appropriate for Employment Centers and
Commerce, which both anticipate heights around 7 stories for
office buildings, and in other areas with site-specific conditions.
This district is most likely to be applied near existing employment
and commerce nodes and near major roadways or other
transportation corridors.
Considerations:
• This district is currently applied to a number of properties, primarily in the northern portion of the county’s jurisdiction.
• This district allows a wide variety of uses, including office, commercial, manufacturing, waste and salvage, and wholesaling operations.
• 3-story nonresidential buildings currently require about 50 ft. in height.
• 7-story nonresidential buildings currently require about 100 ft. in height.
• The I-1 district currently requires large setbacks from adjacent residential properties. While it was originally thought it would not be
necessary to amend setbacks to mitigate the impact of taller buildings on existing homes, based on the field survey that determined a
minimum 2:1 setback to height ratio would best mitigate the impact of taller structures, mitigation options have been provided that align
with those proposed for other districts.
• The current dimensional standards are designed primarily for manufacturing uses, limiting the types of office uses that may otherwise be
appropriate for employment centers in the county.
• The draft amendment concept would be most appropriate for larger pieces of property or integrated developments, though the small size
of other properties currently zoned I-1 should not increase impacts on adjacent parcels.
See the back of this page for proposed amendments.
Indicates changes to provisions
in Public Comment drafts
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 15 - 1
2021-09 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENT CONCEPT
Current Standards
Height
Maximum
Setbacks Additional Height Allowances
General Adjacent to
Residential Allowance Maximum Additional Standards
45 ft.
Front—50 ft.
Side (street)—50
ft.
Side (interior)—
None
Rear—None
Side—50 ft.
(may be
reduced to no
more than 35
ft. with
additional
buffering)
Rear—50 ft.
(may be
reduced to no
more than 40
ft. with
additional
buffering)
Buildings located within the Employment Center or
Commerce Zone place types and fronting along a
collector, minor arterial, or principal arterial have no
height limit provided their floor-to-area ratio does not
exceed 1.0.
None
Proposed Standards
Height
Maximum
Setbacks Additional Height Allowances
General Adjacent to
Residential Allowance Maximum Additional Standards
3 stories OR
50 ft.
Additional
Standards for
Additional
Height Apply
for Structures
over 50 ft.
Front—50 ft.
Side (street)—
50 ft.
Side (interior)—
None
Rear—None
Side—50 ft.
(may be
reduced to
no more than
35 ft. with
additional
buffering)
Rear—50 ft.
(may be
reduced to
no more than
40 ft. with
additional
buffering)
100 ft. for the following situations:
• Structure no more than 3 stories
• Government Offices & Buildings, Hotel or Motel,
Offices for Private Business and Professional
Activities, and Research and Development Facility
structures no more than 7 stories
None
When adjacent to R residential properties
(RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R -15, R-10, R-7, R-5),
additional setbacks, step backs, or buffers
apply:
-Options 1 and 2: Additional setbacks or step
backs for portions of buildings
- 150 ft. for structures, or portions thereof,
51-75 ft. tall
- 200 ft. for structures, or portions thereof,
76-100 ft. tall
-Option 3: Conditional zoning district
outlines technique(s) to mitigate impacts of
taller buildings (i.e., site design, architectural
design, etc.)
• The height maximum has been clarified to allow for 3 stories OR 50 ft. This replaces the previous maximum height and additional height
allowance for 3 stories if necessary for a structure.
• The story provision for the additional height allowance has been removed as the impact of tall structures would be similar regardless of the
number of stories, and there can be variability in the number of feet required per story.
• Warehouses have been added to the list where an additional height allowance is provided, as the design standards for some warehouse
facilities may exceed 50 ft. This use classification does not include self-storage facilities or dry stack boat storage (which would best achieve
additional height in the I-2 zoning district).
• Additional setbacks and architectural stepbacks to mitigate taller buildings have been provided at a minimum approximately 2:1 setback to
height ratio. Based on field surveys, this is the setback generally necessary to allow existing buffer standards to mitigate height. It is intended
to incentivize site design that pushes taller structures and parts of buildings further away from adjacent residential properties.
• Because specific site topography or other site design or architectural features that cannot be fully anticipated by an ordinance could also
achieve similar mitigation for taller buildings, a provision has been added to allow other mitigation alternatives for tall buildings as part of
conditional zoning districts, which have to go through a full public review and hearing process.
Planning Board - September 2, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 15 - 2
TA
2
1
-
0
3
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
No
t
e
:
P
a
r
a
p
h
r
a
s
e
d
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
p
h
o
n
e
o
r
in
-
p
e
r
s
o
n
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
it
a
l
i
c
s
.
W
r
i
t
t
e
n
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
q
u
o
t
e
s
.
P
u
n
c
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
se clarity, but comments are otherwise
ve
r
b
a
t
i
m
.
A
f
u
l
l
l
i
s
t
o
f
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
a
t
e
s
c
o
m
me
n
t
s
w
e
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
t
h
i
s
d
o
c
um
e
n
t
.
Re
l
e
v
a
n
t
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
So
u
r
c
e
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Pa
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ba
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
w
a
y
t
h
e
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
i
s
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
,
f
u
t
u
r
e
t
e
x
t
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
a
r
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
i
n
d
i
v
id
u
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
o
a
d
d
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
u
s
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
l
i
s
t
o
f
exceptions for more stories.
Ri
c
h
S
.
“T
h
e
r
o
a
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
f
r
o
m
M
o
n
k
e
y
J
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
C
a
r
o
li
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
a
r
e
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
o
v
e
r
c
r
o
w
d
e
d
.
A
t
t
h
i
s
p
o
i
n
t
,
a
d
d
i
n
g
m
o
r
e
‘
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
’
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
w
i
l
l
o
n
l
y
m
a
k
e
m
a
tters worse. Traffic has become dangerous, and we no
lo
n
g
e
r
l
e
a
v
e
o
u
r
h
o
m
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
d
ay
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
n
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
L
E
S
S
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
n
o
t
m
o
r
e
.
T
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
.
”
Ja
m
e
s
H
a
n
s
e
n
“A
s
a
l
i
f
e
l
o
n
g
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
a
n
d
n
a
t
i
v
e
o
f
W
i
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
N
C,
I
h
a
v
e
w
a
t
c
h
e
d
m
y
b
e
l
o
v
e
d
t
o
w
n
g
r
o
w
b
y
l
e
a
p
s
a
n
d
b
o
u
n
d
s
.
M
o
s
t
o
f
w
h
i
c
h
,
I
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
b
e
n
e
f
i
c
ial growth. But as time goes by, I see more and more
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
a
n
d
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
p
o
p
u
p
,
s
e
e
mi
n
g
l
y
o
v
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
.
I
t
r
u
l
y
b
e
l
i
e
v
e
w
e
a
r
e
a
t
a
p
o
i
n
t
w
h
e
r
e
i
f
w
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
a
t
h
o
f
c
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
l
a
n
d and paving it over for new building projects [t]hat our
pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
w
i
t
h
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
o
w
e
r
l
y
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
d
o
w
n
s
tr
e
a
m
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
l
l
o
n
l
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
g
e
t
w
o
r
s
e
.
L
e
a
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
o
r
s
e
n
i
n
g
p
o
llution of our rivers, creeks, streams and ground water.
Ki
l
l
i
n
g
o
u
r
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
a
n
d
r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
A
ll
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
a
k
e
o
f
t
h
e
a
l
l
m
i
g
h
t
y
d
o
l
l
a
r
.
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
e
n
r
i
c
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
w
e
a
l
t
h
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
a
n
d
f
l
o
o
d
i
ng
t
h
e
n
o
t
s
o
w
e
a
l
t
h
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
l
a
n
d
o
w
n
e
r
s
d
o
w
ns
t
r
e
a
m
.
S
o
m
e
o
f
w
h
i
c
h
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
l
i
v
i
n
g
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
i
r
whole lives. All to feed their greed. Please do not
al
l
o
w
t
h
e
s
e
p
e
o
p
l
e
t
o
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
r
u
i
n
m
y
b
e
l
o
v
e
d
h
om
e
t
o
w
n
.
A
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
is
s
u
r
e
l
y
n
o
t
g
o
i
n
g
t
o
h
e
l
p
.
I
’
m
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
true ‘answer’ to this issue. Although, by possibly making it
mo
r
e
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
a
n
d
m
u
c
h
m
o
r
e
e
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
t
o
o
b
t
a
i
n
p
e
rm
i
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
w
e
a
l
t
h
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
a
n
y
t
h
i
n
g
a
t
a
l
l
i
n
o
r
a
r
o
u
n
d
o
u
r
b
e
a
u
t
i
f
u
l
a
n
d
b
e
l
oved hometown. Maybe, it will possibly help keep them
fr
o
m
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
g
t
o
r
u
i
n
o
u
r
l
o
c
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
ur
t
o
w
n
a
t
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
d
i
z
z
y
i
n
g
p
a
c
e
t
h
e
y
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
a
s
t
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
d
e
c
a
d
e
s
.
R
a
n
t
o
v
e
r
.
T
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
.
”
Ja
c
q
u
e
M
c
A
l
l
i
s
t
e
r
,
J
r
.
“B
e
i
n
g
a
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
o
f
N
e
w
H
a
n
o
v
e
r
,
i
t
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
m
e
a
n
yo
n
e
c
o
u
l
d
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
t
h
i
n
k
a
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
re
q
u
e
s
t
t
h
e
m
a
x
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
f
o
o
l
i
s
h
[
a
s
]
t
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
perties are investment tools. Land is at a premium,
ch
e
a
p
e
r
t
o
g
o
u
p
t
h
a
n
o
u
t
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
t
h
a
t
i
s
c
r
e
at
e
d
f
o
r
c
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
i
t
c
r
e
a
t
e
s
h
i
g
h
e
r
t
a
x
m
o
n
e
y
fo
r
N
H
C
o
.
b
u
t
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
.
Y
o
u
must choose who to placate. Wilmington is a town on the
gr
o
w
a
n
d
d
e
c
i
d
e
w
h
i
c
h
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
g
o
.
P
l
e
a
s
e
c
h
o
o
se
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
.
We
a
l
l
k
n
o
w
w
h
i
c
h
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
o
w
n
t
h
e
p
r
e
m
i
u
m
l
a
n
d
;
p
u
t
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
i
n
t
o
u
c
h
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
m
,
d
o
n
’
t
b
u
i
l
d
o
v
er
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
s
o
m
e
b
o
d
y
’
s
b
a
c
k
y
a
r
d
.
Y
o
u
d
o
n
’
t
w
a
n
t
it in yours; I don’t want it in mine.”
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p
Th
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
l
a
n
d
d
i
c
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
—
g
i
v
e
n
t
h
e
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
c
o
s
t
s
,
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
de
c
k
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
.
Us
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
c
a
n
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
v
e
r
y
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
c
a
l
e
s
.
S
t
o
r
y
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
s
q
u
i
t
e
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
—
it
a
l
l
d
e
p
e
n
d
s
o
n
h
o
w
t
a
l
l
c
e
i
l
i
n
g
s
a
r
e
.
Fo
r
s
i
t
e
s
n
o
t
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
s
i
n
g
l
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
u
s
e
s
—
w
h
a
t
a
bo
u
t
w
h
e
n
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
g
o
e
s
i
n
f
i
r
s
t
?
Mo
r
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
c
a
n
b
e
a
n
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
—
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
O
&
I
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
s
a
b
o
u
t
5
0
-
5
5
%
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
,
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
6
5
%
,
e
t
c
.
M
a
ybe if a development includes more greenspace, it
ca
n
b
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
m
o
r
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
.
De
m
a
n
d
f
o
r
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
m
a
r
k
e
t
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
m
o
r
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
c
o
m
me
r
c
i
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
w
h
e
r
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
i
s
n
’
t
a
s
g
r
e
a
t
.
Mi
x
e
d
u
s
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
l
y
n
e
e
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
h
e
ig
h
t
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
s
a
s
w
e
l
l
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
1
IT
E
M
:
2
-
1
6
-
1
Re
l
e
v
a
n
t
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
So
u
r
c
e
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Ro
n
a
l
d
a
n
d
L
i
n
d
a
Ba
y
l
e
s
s
“Y
e
s
t
o
g
r
o
w
t
h
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
o
3
a
n
d
4
s
t
o
r
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
n
ea
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
:
A
s
m
y
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
s
t
a
t
e
s,
I
r
e
a
l
i
z
e
o
u
r
t
o
w
n
i
s
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
b
u
t
w
e
n
e
e
d
t
o
m
a
n
age the growth so that Wilmington remains a town that
pe
o
p
l
e
w
a
n
t
t
o
l
i
v
e
i
n
.
L
e
t
’
s
n
o
t
t
u
r
n
i
t
i
n
t
o
a
m
in
i
c
i
t
y
.
I
t
’
s
a
b
e
a
c
h
t
o
w
n
e
n
j
o
y
e
d
b
y
c
o
l
l
e
g
e
k
i
d
s
a
n
d
m
a
n
y
r
e
t
i
r
e
d
p
e
o
p
l
e
l
i
k
e
m
y
s
e
l
f
.
T
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
f
or your consideration.”
Bo
b
b
y
R
u
d
d
e
r
“I
a
m
m
a
n
y
(
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
s
)
o
f
m
y
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
,
f
r
i
e
n
d
s
a
n
d
fa
m
i
l
y
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
A
G
A
I
N
S
T
r
a
i
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
a
n
y
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
n
e
a
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
.
I
t
’
s
n
o
t
n
e
e
d
e
d
,
wanted or welcome in our residential areas, particularly near
th
e
c
o
a
s
t
.
”
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
C
e
a
a
n
d
Ke
l
l
y
B
a
k
e
r
“…
N
e
a
r
l
y
a
l
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
G
r
o
v
e
a
n
d
M
o
tt
s
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
t
o
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
4
s
t
o
r
y
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
c
a
u
s
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
i
s
s
ues, create even more problems with schools that are
al
r
e
a
d
y
o
v
e
r
-
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
d
e
s
t
r
o
y
l
o
c
a
l
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
h
a
b
i
t
at
,
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
o
u
r
v
u
l
n
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
h
u
r
r
i
c
a
n
e
s
,
a
n
d
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
l
o
w
e
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
ng community.”
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
D
a
v
i
s
“…
R
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
t
h
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
n
e
e
d
s
to
b
e
v
o
t
e
d
d
o
w
n
.
A
d
d
i
n
g
a
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
v
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
h
e
l
p
a
n
y
t
h
i
n
g
o
r
b
u
f
f
e
r
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
from the eye sore. The last thing we want is to see giant
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
f
r
o
m
o
u
r
p
o
r
c
h
o
r
b
a
c
k
y
a
r
d
.
N
o
t
h
i
n
g
s
a
y
s
w
e
l
c
o
m
e
h
o
m
e
l
i
k
e
d
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
y
o
u
r
m
o
r
n
i
n
g
c
o
f
f
e
e
w
i
t
h
a
f
a
m
i
l
y
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
d
o
w
n
i
n
t
o
y
o
u
r
h
o
m
e
…
W
i
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
h
as become a concrete jungle. We need more natural
ar
e
a
s
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
s
.
I
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
w
e
a
r
e
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
a
n
d
n
ee
d
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
r
e
h
a
s
t
o
b
e
a
b
e
t
t
e
r
w
a
y
.
P
l
e
a
s
e
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
t
h
e
r
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
t
o
a
l
l
ow taller buildings…”
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2
.
1
Me
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pa
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Th
e
t
e
r
m
s
“
b
a
s
e
p
l
a
n
e
”
a
n
d
“
f
i
n
i
s
h
e
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
”
us
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
d
r
a
f
t
H
e
i
g
h
t
i
n
S
t
o
r
i
e
s
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
un
c
l
e
a
r
.
W
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
a
s
i
m
p
l
e
r
w
a
y
t
o
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
w
i
t
h
illustrating graphic(s).
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2
.
3
De
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
Te
r
m
s
Pa
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
A
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
“
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
s
t
e
p
b
a
c
k
”
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p
It
i
s
n
o
t
c
l
e
a
r
w
h
a
t
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
n
d
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
“
s
t
o
r
y
,
”
i
.
e
.
,
m
e
z
z
a
n
i
n
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
T
a
ke
a
l
o
o
k
a
t
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
’
s
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
—
i
t
s
e
e
m
s
s
t
r
a
i
g
h
tforward.
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
.
3
Su
p
e
r
s
e
d
i
n
g
Di
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Pa
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Re
m
o
v
i
n
g
T
a
b
l
e
3
.
1
.
3
.
C
(
1
)
a
n
d
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
i
t
i
n
t
o
e
a
c
h
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
p
r
o
f
i
l
e
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
u
s
e
r
s
t
o
n
a
v
i
g
a
t
e
t
w
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
s
e
c
tions to determine one setback. This Table isn’t as necessary
no
w
t
h
a
t
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
f
i
x
e
d
a
n
d
n
o
t
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
he
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r
u
s
e
d
b
e
f
o
r
e
2
0
2
0
.
Th
e
C
B
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
3
.
1
.
3
.
C
(
1
)
d
o
e
s
n
’
t
b
e
l
o
ng
i
n
t
h
i
s
t
a
b
l
e
a
s
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
m
p
o
s
e
d
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
(
s
a
m
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k for a 15 ft. tall building and a 30 ft. tall building) and this
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
g
o
n
e
x
t
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
i
s
t
ri
c
t
s
a
n
d
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
o
n
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
l
o
t
s
.
T
h
e
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
a
ls
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
o
f
t
h
e
C
B
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
f
rom residential properties from 25 feet to 30 feet regardless of
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
.
Th
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
2
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
3
.
1
.
3
.
C
(
2
)
s
h
o
u
l
d
j
u
s
t
sa
y
“
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
s
t
e
p
b
a
c
k
”
o
r
o
n
e
t
e
r
m
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
c
on
f
u
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
i
n Option 1.
Op
t
i
o
n
3
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
m
o
r
e
p
r
o
m
i
n
e
n
t
l
y
i
n
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
e
v
e
n
i
f
i
t
m
e
a
n
s
d
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
i
n
f
or
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
s
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
e
a
s
y
f
o
r
U
D
O
u
s
e
r
s
t
o
m
i
s
s
the footnote in the buffer standards. It is also preferable to
av
o
i
d
h
a
v
i
n
g
u
s
e
r
s
n
e
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
t
w
o
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
or
d
e
r
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
o
n
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
.
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p
Th
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
o
p
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
h
e
i
gh
t
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
a
t
i
c
—
o
n
s
o
m
e
l
o
t
s
,
l
a
rg
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
a
r
e
n
’
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
l
o
t
’
s
s
hape or dimensions.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
1
IT
E
M
:
2
-
1
6
-
2
Re
l
e
v
a
n
t
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
So
u
r
c
e
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
Sa
r
a
h
H
o
o
t
o
n
“I
f
M
F
u
n
i
t
s
a
r
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
t
o
b
e
5
0
f
e
e
t
t
a
l
l
,
t
h
e
y
s
ho
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
R
1
5
/
R
2
0
z
o
n
e
d
n
e
ig
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
—
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
n
o
t
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
i
m
p
o
s
i
n
g
a
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
cantly larger buffer. A 25-foot setback is insufficient to
pr
o
t
e
c
t
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
h
o
m
e
s
f
r
o
m
5
0
-
f
o
o
t
-
t
a
l
l
b
u
i
l
d
in
g
s
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
m
.
”
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p
It
m
a
y
m
a
k
e
s
e
n
s
e
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
m
o
r
e
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
w
h
e
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
pe
r
s
a
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
o
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
a
s
i
t
e
t
o
r
e
du
c
e
s
p
r
a
w
l
a
n
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
.
Fo
u
r
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
e
n
o
u
g
h
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
m
a
r
k
e
t
d
e
m
a
nd
—
5
o
r
6
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
St
e
p
h
a
n
i
e
S
h
r
e
i
n
e
r
“
P
l
e
a
s
e
d
o
n
o
t
a
l
l
o
w
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
b
ui
l
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
3
o
r
m
o
r
e
f
l
o
o
r
s
b
e
b
u
i
l
t
n
e
x
t
d
o
o
r
t
o
si
n
g
l
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
h
o
m
e
s
,
a
s
i
s
b
e
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
C
a
r
olina Beach Road and Jacob Motts Road.”
Ja
m
e
s
T
a
y
l
o
r
“
A
n
y
R
M
F
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
a
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
i
s
tr
i
c
t
n
e
e
d
s
a
4
0
-
5
0
’
b
u
f
f
e
r
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
.
”
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
3
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p
Pl
e
a
s
e
c
l
a
r
i
f
y
h
o
w
p
e
r
m
i
t
c
h
o
i
c
e
w
o
u
l
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
m
a
s
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
.
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
.
3
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
(
B
-
1
)
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Pa
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Th
e
‘
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
’
i
n
ad
v
e
r
t
e
n
t
l
y
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
w
h
e
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
O
&
I
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
u
rr
e
n
t
l
y
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
.
A
l
s
o
n
e
e
d
t
o
c
l
a
r
i
f
y
t
h
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
adjacent to mixed uses and zoning.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
r
e
w
o
r
d
i
n
g
‘
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
’
w
h
i
ch
i
s
c
o
n
f
u
s
i
n
g
.
Th
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
b
e
h
i
n
d
t
h
e
4
0
f
t
.
b
a
s
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
5
0
ft
.
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
f
n
e
e
d
e
d
i
s
u
n
c
l
e
a
r
.
W
o
u
l
d
li
k
e
l
y
j
u
s
t
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
d
e
f
a
c
t
o
5
0
f
t
.
h
e
i
g
h
t
l
i
m
i
t.
50
f
t
.
s
e
e
m
s
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
f
o
r
a
t
w
o
-
s
t
o
r
y
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
It
i
s
n
o
t
c
l
e
a
r
w
h
y
a
5
0
f
t
.
t
a
l
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
2
s
t
o
ri
e
s
a
n
d
a
5
0
f
t
.
t
a
l
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
3
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
t
r
e
a
t
e
d
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
y
.
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p
It
i
s
u
n
c
l
e
a
r
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
5
0
f
t
.
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
f
o
r
a
tw
o
-
s
t
o
r
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
s
t
r
y
i
n
g
t
o
d
o
a
s
2
-
s
t
o
r
y
b
u
i
l
d
in
g
s
a
r
e
n
’
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
t
h
a
t
t
a
l
l
.
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
.
4
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
(
C
B
)
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Pa
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Th
e
‘
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
’
i
n
ad
v
e
r
t
e
n
t
l
y
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
w
h
e
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
O
&
I
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
u
rr
e
n
t
l
y
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
.
A
l
s
o
n
e
e
d
t
o
c
l
a
r
i
f
y
t
h
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
adjacent to mixed uses and zoning.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
r
e
w
o
r
d
i
n
g
‘
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
’
w
h
i
ch
i
s
c
o
n
f
u
s
i
n
g
.
Th
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
b
e
h
i
n
d
t
h
e
5
0
f
t
.
b
a
s
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
6
5
ft
.
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
h
e
i
g
h
t
i
f
n
e
e
d
e
d
i
s
u
n
c
l
e
a
r
.
W
o
u
l
d
li
k
e
l
y
j
u
s
t
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
d
e
f
a
c
t
o
5
0
f
t
.
h
e
i
g
h
t
l
i
m
i
t.
It
i
s
n
o
t
c
l
e
a
r
w
h
y
a
6
5
f
t
.
t
a
l
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
3
s
t
o
ri
e
s
a
n
d
a
6
5
f
t
.
t
a
l
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
4
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
t
r
e
a
t
e
d
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
y
.
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p
It
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
’
t
m
a
t
t
e
r
h
o
w
m
a
n
y
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
y
o
u
c
a
n
g
e
t
w
i
th
a
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
1
IT
E
M
:
2
-
1
6
-
3
Re
l
e
v
a
n
t
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
(
s
)
So
u
r
c
e
Co
m
m
e
n
t
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
.
5
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
(B
-
2
)
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Pa
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Th
e
‘
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
’
i
n
ad
v
e
r
t
e
n
t
l
y
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
w
h
e
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
O
&
I
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
u
rr
e
n
t
l
y
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
.
A
l
s
o
n
e
e
d
t
o
c
l
a
r
i
f
y
t
h
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
adjacent to mixed uses.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
r
e
w
o
r
d
i
n
g
‘
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
’
w
h
i
ch
i
s
c
o
n
f
u
s
i
n
g
.
It
’
s
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
g
e
t
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
i
n
1
0
0
f
t
.
,
a
n
d
i
t
’
s
n
o
t
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
a
3
-
s
t
o
ry
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
t
1
0
0
f
t
.
a
n
d
5
-
s
t
o
r
y
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
t
1
0
0 ft. if the mass/visual impact or obstruction is the main concern
wi
t
h
h
e
i
g
h
t
n
e
x
t
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
It
i
s
n
o
t
c
l
e
a
r
w
h
y
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
i
f
t
h
e
y
’
r
e
n
o
t
b
e
i
n
g
l
i
m
i
t
ed
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
b
a
s
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
.
Mo
r
e
t
h
a
n
5
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
f
o
r
h
o
t
e
l
s
o
r
mo
t
e
l
s
i
n
t
h
e
B
-
2
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p
It
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
’
t
m
a
t
t
e
r
h
o
w
m
a
n
y
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
y
o
u
c
a
n
g
e
t
w
i
th
a
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
.
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
.
6
O
f
f
i
c
e
&
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Pa
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Th
e
‘
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
’
i
n
ad
v
e
r
t
e
n
t
l
y
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
w
h
e
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
O
&
I
,
w
h
i
c
h
c
u
rr
e
n
t
l
y
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
.
A
l
s
o
n
e
e
d
t
o
c
l
a
r
i
f
y
t
h
e
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
adjacent to mixed uses and zoning.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
r
e
w
o
r
d
i
n
g
‘
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
’
w
h
i
ch
i
s
c
o
n
f
u
s
i
n
g
.
Th
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
b
e
h
i
n
d
t
h
e
b
a
s
e
h
e
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
h
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
5
0
f
t
.
i
f
n
e
e
d
e
d
i
s
u
n
c
l
e
a
r
.
W
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
ly
j
u
s
t
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
d
e
f
a
c
t
o
t
a
l
l
e
r
h
e
i
g
h
t
l
i
m
i
t
.
It
i
s
n
o
t
c
l
e
a
r
w
h
y
a
1
2
5
f
t
.
t
a
l
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
5
s
t
or
i
e
s
a
n
d
o
f
7
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
t
r
e
a
t
e
d
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
y.
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p
It
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
’
t
m
a
t
t
e
r
h
o
w
m
a
n
y
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
y
o
u
c
a
n
g
e
t
w
i
th
a
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
.
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
.
1
0
L
i
g
h
t
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
(
I
-
1
)
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Pa
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
r
e
w
o
r
d
i
n
g
‘
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
’
w
h
i
ch
i
s
c
o
n
f
u
s
i
n
g
.
St
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p
It
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
’
t
m
a
t
t
e
r
h
o
w
m
a
n
y
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
y
o
u
c
a
n
g
e
t
w
i
th
a
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
h
e
i
g
h
t
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
•
8-
1
1
-
2
0
2
1
,
P
a
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
v
i
a
p
h
o
n
e
c
a
l
l
•
8-
1
2
-
2
0
2
1
,
S
u
s
a
n
H
o
o
t
o
n
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
•
8-
1
5
-
2
0
2
1
,
R
i
c
h
S
.
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
•
8-
1
6
-
2
0
2
1
,
J
a
m
e
s
H
a
n
s
e
n
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
•
8-
1
6
-
2
0
2
1
,
J
a
c
q
u
e
M
c
A
l
l
i
s
t
e
r
J
r
.
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
•
8-
1
7
-
2
0
2
1
,
S
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
G
r
o
u
p
o
f
H
o
m
e
b
u
i
l
d
e
r
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
at
i
o
n
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
A
l
l
i
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
a
S
t
r
o
n
g
E
c
o
n
o
m
y
m
e
mb
e
r
s
•
8-
1
7
-
2
0
2
1
,
S
t
e
p
h
a
n
i
e
S
h
r
e
i
n
e
r
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
•
8-
1
7
-
2
0
2
1
,
J
a
m
e
s
T
a
y
l
o
r
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
•
8-
2
1
-
2
0
2
1
,
R
o
n
a
l
d
a
n
d
L
i
n
d
a
B
a
y
l
e
s
s
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
•
8-
2
1
-
2
0
2
1
,
B
o
b
b
y
R
u
d
d
e
r
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
•
8-
2
2
-
2
0
2
1
,
C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
C
e
a
a
n
d
K
e
l
l
y
B
a
k
e
r
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
(
a
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
wh
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
)
•
8-
2
2
-
2
0
2
1
,
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
D
a
v
i
s
v
i
a
e
m
a
i
l
(
a
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
c
omments regarding a specific development proposal which were not
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
)
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
2
0
2
1
IT
E
M
:
2
-
1
6
-
4