2021-10 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
October 7, 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, October 6, 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 (Z21-12)- Request by James Yopp on behalf of Jack Carlisle and Rockhill Road
Investments LLC to rezone approximately 117.58 acres from R-20 to R-15.
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. This request was continued from the September 2, 2021 meeting.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 10/7/2021
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Nicole Smith, Senior Planner
CONTACT(S): Nicole Smith, Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Rezoning Request (Z21-12)- Request by James Yopp on behalf of Jack Carlisle and Rockhill Road Investments LLC
to rezone approximately 117.58 acres from R-20 to R-15.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The applicant is seeking to rezone approximately 117.58 acres from R-20 to R-15. The subject site is bisected by the
NC I-140 right-of-way, which is constructed above grade. Access will be provided to the subject site, east of the NC I-
140, by Rockhill Road, a local street. Access to the subject site, west of the NC I-140 interchange, will be provided
access off Alvernia Drive, a local street.
The subject site consists of three parcels bordering the Walnut Hills subdivision to the east. Adjacent zoning includes
Planned Development (PD), R-15, R-10, and R-20. There is also I-2 west of the site, across the Northeast Cape Fear
River.
The subject site is par7ally located within the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD). Any building constructed within
the SHOD limits would be required to be set back 25’ from any property line and subject to a maximum lot coverage of
50%.
Because this is a straight rezoning, a conceptual plan is not included as part of the applica7on and site specific
condi7ons cannot be placed as part of a rezoning approval. The subject site would be required to meet all of the
Unified Development Ordinance’s (UDO) requirements for development within the R-15 district.
The majority of uses are consistent between the two districts with the excep7ons of duplexes and mobile homes
require a special use permit in the R-20 district and are permi>ed by right in the R-15 district. Also, the rezoning to R-15
would allow for a mobile home park, convenience store, and fuel sales to be developed with a special use permit,
though residen7al uses are typical in both districts.
The intent of the R-15 district is to serve as a transi7on between very low-density residen7al development pa>erns
and smaller lot, more dense residen7al areas of the County.
Due to environmental constraints on the subject property, current zoning would permit up to 79 dwelling units at 1.9
du/ac under the performance residen7al standards. A development of this scale is es7mated to generate between 61
and 81 trips during the peak hours. The proposed rezoning would increase density to a maximum of 104 dwelling units
at 2.5 du/ac under the performance residen7al standards. A development of this scale is es7mated to generate
between 79 and 105 trips during the peak hours.
Based on the current general student genera7on rate, the increase in homes would result in approximately 6 addi7onal
students than would be generated under current zoning. The general student genera7on rate provides only an es7mate
of an7cipated 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 generated by new development.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1
Student numbers remained rela7vely stable between 2015 and 2020 (excep7ng the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic),
while 14,500 new residen7al units were permi>ed across the county. In addi7on, the student popula7on is an7cipated
to only grow by approximately 1,300 students over the next 10 years based on the recent New Hanover County
Schools Facility Needs Study.
While increased density is not encouraged in Conserva7on place types, the Comprehensive Plan is a bubble plan, so
the boundaries between place types are flexible. More technical informa7on, such as resource type and official
delinea7ons, is important to establish the actual line between Conserva7on and adjacent General Residen7al areas. In
addi7on, there are code provisions that allow for a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre in areas paired with
a Conserva7on place type and R-15 zoning. The exhibit included in the applicant’s materials indicates a significant
amount of wetlands are located on the property that would reduce the buildable envelope.
The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representa7on of the vision for New Hanover
County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and func7on of the different types of
development that make up the community. These place types are intended to iden7fy general areas for par7cular
development pa>erns and should not be interpreted as being parcel specific.
The proposed rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the goals and objec7ves of the Comprehensive Plan and the
types of uses encouraged in the General Residen7al and Conserva7on place types. The County’s conserva7on
resource provisions will provide limita7ons on future development once resources are iden7fied during technical
review of the project.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Therefore, staff recommends approval of this applica7on and suggests the following mo7on:
Example Mo7on for Approval
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to an R-15 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district allows the types of uses that would be encouraged in the
General Residen7al and Conserva7on place types and would serve as an appropriate transi7on between the river,
interstate, and adjacent residen7al neighborhoods. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in
the public interest because the site is located in an area with a variety of zoning districts and densi7es and will be
restricted due to the environmental constraints.
Example Mo7on for Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to an R-15, Residen7al district. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the
purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district allows the types of uses that would be encouraged
in the General Residen7al and Conserva7on place types and would serve as an appropriate transi7on between the
river, interstate, and adjacent residen7al neighborhoods, 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
intensity of the uses allowed within the proposed district will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip7on
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1
Z21-12 PB Script
Z21-12 PB Staff Report
Z21-12 Zoning Map
Z21-12 Future Land Use Map
Z21-12 Neighboring Properties
Z21-12 Applicant Materials CS
Z21-12 Applicant Materials
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1
SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z21-12)
Request by James Yopp, applicant, on behalf of the property owner, Jack Carlisle and Rockhill Road
Investments, LLC, to rezone approximately 117.58 acres of land located at 1320, 1330, and 1340
Rockhill Road from R-20, Residential District to R-15, Residential District.
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 an R-15 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district allows the types
of uses that would be encouraged in the General Residential and Conservation place types
and would serve as an appropriate transition between the river, interstate, and adjacent
residential neighborhoods. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and
in the public interest because the site is located in an area with a variety of zoning districts
and densities and will be restricted due to the environmental constraints.
Example Motion for Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to an R-15, Residential district. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district
allows the types of uses that would be encouraged in the General Residential and Conservation
place types and would serve as an appropriate transition between the river, interstate, and
adjacent residential neighborhoods, 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 intensity of the uses allowed within the proposed district will
adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 1 - 1
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-M 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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 1 - 2
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 1 of 13
STAFF REPORT FOR Z21-12
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z21-12
Request:
Rezone 117.58 acres from R-20, Residential to R-15, Residential
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
James Yopp Jack Carlisle and Rockhill Road Investments,
LLC
Location: Acreage:
1320, 1330, and 1340 Rockhill Road 117.58 acres
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
R02400-002-017-000
R02400-002-013-000 General Residential & Conservation
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Undeveloped The site would be allowed to be developed in
accordance with the R-15 district
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
R-20, Residential R-15, Residential
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 1
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 2 of 13
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North Undeveloped R-15, I-2
East Undeveloped, Single-Family Residential R-20, R-10
South Undeveloped R-20
West Northeast Cape Fear River, Undeveloped R-20, I-2
ZONING HISTORY
July 1, 1985 Initially zoned R-20 (Castle Hayne)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer Water and sewer services are available through CFPUA. May require a
mainline extension.
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire
District
Schools Castle Hayne Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and Laney High schools
Recreation Northern Regional Park at Castle Hayne
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 2
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 3 of 13
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation
The County’s Conservation Resources Map indicates that swamp forest may
be present on the site. Conservation space is required for swamp forest
when at least five acres of the resource exists on the property. Verification
of regulated swamp forests and pocosin wetlands will be required during
the site plan review process.
Historic No known historic resources
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 117.58 acres from R-20 to R-15.
• The subject site is bisected by the I-140 right-of-way, which is constructed above grade.
• The subject site consists of three parcels bordering the Walnut Hills subdivision to the east.
Adjacent zoning includes Planned Development (PD), R-15, R-10, and R-20. There is also I-
2 west of the site, across the Northeast Cape Fear River.
• Because this is a straight rezoning, a conceptual plan is not included as part of the
application and site specific conditions cannot be placed as part of a rezoning approval.
The subject site would be required to meet all of the Unified Development Ordinance’s
(UDO) requirements for development within the R-15 district.
• Dimensional differences for the current R-20 and proposed R-15 districts are outlined in the
chart below.
Conventional
Subdivision
Dimensional Standards R-20 (Existing) R-15 (Proposed)
Minimum lot size 20,000 sq.ft. (single
family)
15,000 sq.ft (single
family)
35,000 sq.ft. (duplex) 25,000 sq. Ft
(duplex)
Minimum Lot Width 90 ft. 80 ft.
Front setback (feet) 30 ft 25 ft
Side Setback (street) 22.5 ft 15 ft
Side setback (Interior) 15 ft 10 ft
Rear setback 25 ft 20 ft
Performance
Subdivision
Density 1.9 du/ac 2.5 du/ac
• The majority of uses are consistent between the two districts with the exceptions of duplexes
and mobile homes require a special use permit in the R-20 district and are permitted by
right in the R-15 district. Also, the rezoning to R-15 would allow for a mobile home park,
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 3
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 4 of 13
convenience store, and fuel sales to be developed with a special use permit, though
residential uses are typical in both districts.
• The subject site is partially located within the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD).
Any building constructed within the SHOD limits would be required to be set back 25’ from
any property line and subject to a maximum lot coverage of 50%.
• Any proposed development would be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee (TRC)
to ensure compliance with applicable County and State regulations, including applicable
site design and approval provisions within the UDO.
AREA SUBDIVISIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Area Subdivisions Under Development
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 4
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 5 of 13
TRANSPORTATION
Access
• Access will be provided to the subject site, east of the NC I-140, by Rockhill Road, a local
street. Access to the subject site, west of the NC I-140 interchange, will be provided access
off Alvernia Drive, a local street.
• Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs) are not required for a straight rezoning, as a specific
development proposal is required to thoroughly analyze access, potential trip generation,
and roadway improvements.
• Before any development can occur on this site, the Technical Review Committee will review
all plans for compliance with applicable land use regulations, including any recommended
roadway improvements from traffic impact analyses to ensure adequate traffic safety and
distribution. Recommended roadway improvements will be completed as required by a TIA
or through the NCDOT Driveway permitting process.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 5
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 6 of 13
• Due to environmental constraints on the subject property, current zoning would permit up to
79 dwelling units at 1.9 du/ac under the performance residential standards. A development
of this scale is estimated to generate between 61 and 81 trips during the peak hours. The
proposed rezoning would increase density to a maximum of 104 dwelling units at 2.5 du/ac
under the performance residential standards. A development of this scale is estimated to
generate between 79 and 105 trips during the peak hours.
Development Intensity Approx. Peak Hour Trips
Existing Zoning (R-20): 79 dwelling units
61 AM/81 PM
Proposed Zoning (R-15): 104 dwelling units
79 AM / 105 PM
25 dwelling units + 18 AM / + 24 PM
• Because a traffic impact analysis (TIA) is not required to analyze transportation impacts at
this time, staff has provided the volume to capacity ratio for the adjacent roadway near
the subject site. While 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 (AADT) - 2019
Road Location Volume Capacity V/C
Rockhill Road 1300 Block 2,312 8,000 .28(B)
Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses
Nearby NC STIP Roadway Projects:
• STIP Project U58-63: A multi-lane widening project is scheduled along NC -133 (Castle Hayne
Road), from I-140 to SR 1310 (Division Drive). The Right-of-way acquisition is expected to
occur in 2025.
Nearby Traffic Impact Analyses:
Traffic Impact Analyses are completed in accordance with the WMPO and NCDOT standards. Approved
analyses will expire if the proposed development is not completed by the build out date established within the
TIA.
There are no traffic impact analyses located within the typical one mile buffer.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 6
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 7 of 13
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The site does contain AE Special Flood Hazard Areas.
• The subject property is located within the Dock Creek watershed.
• Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class I (Suitable/slight limitation) soils, Class II (moderate limitations),
and Class III (Severe limitations) soils.
• The southern corner of the subject site appears to Staff to contain wetlands, and the County’s
Conservation Resources Map indicates that swamp forest areas may be present on the site.
Conservation space is required for swamp forest when at least five acres of the resource
exists on the property. Verification of regulated swamp forest area will be required during
the site plan review process. If the site is deemed to contain a regulated resource,
regulations can impact building envelope, limit density, and require additional setbacks.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SCHOOLS
• Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Castle Hayne
Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and Laney High School. Students may apply to attend
public magnet, year-round elementary, or specialized high schools.
• Under the current zoning, density would be limited to a maximum of 79 dwelling units. A
maximum of 104 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
generated by new development. Student numbers remained relatively stable between
2015 and 2020 (excepting the impacts of COVID-19pandemic), 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.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 7
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 8 of 13
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-20 Zoning
79 residential units Approximate**Total: 19
(8 elementary, 4 middle, 6 high)
Typical Development under
Proposed R-15 Zoning
104 residential units Approximate**Total: 25
(11 elementary, 6 middle, 8 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.
School Enrollment* and Capacity** (2021-2022 School Year)
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 97% Castle
Hayne 483 529 91% None
Middle 107% Holly
Shelter 917 934 98% None
High 105% Laney 2,063 1,903 108% None
* 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
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 8
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 9 of 13
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.
REPRESENATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Representative Developments of R-20:
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 9
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 10 of 13
Representative Developments of R-15
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 10
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 11 of 13
CONTEXT AND COMPATIBILITY
• The property is bisected by NC I-140, which is built above grade.
• Higher density residential projects are anticipated for vacant properties along major
roadways where they can can serve as a transition between the roadway and existing
single-family neighborhoods.
• There is a variety of zoning in the area, including R-15 and R-20 to the north. There is also
I-2 to the west, across the Northeast Cape Fear River, and R-10 to the east. The development
pattern in this area has continued to evolve over the last few years; at one time this area
was all zoned R-20.
• The intent of the R-15 district is to serve as a transition between very low-density residential
development patterns and smaller lot, more dense residential areas of the County.
• As part of the application materials, the applicant provided a conceptual plan illustrating
the envelopes of the site that are developable given the environmental constraints. While
this is a general rezoning and approval cannot be tied to a site-specific plan of
development, the conservation resources will limit density and impact product design.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE 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 and Conservation
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 11
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 12 of 13
Place Type
Descriptions
General Residential
Focuses on lower density housing ranging up to approximately 8 du/ac,
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.
Conservation
Covers areas of natural open space and are intended to protect the natural
environment, water quality, and wildlife habitats. They serve the public
through environmental education, low-impact recreation and in their natural
beauty. Protection may also extend to important cultural or archaeological
resources and to areas where hazards are known to exist.
Analysis
The subject site is located in an area the Comprehensive Plan generally
envisions as General Residential, though places close to the Cape Fear River
where environmental constraints are likely are designated as Conservation.
The intent is to reflect the existing residential development pattern while
protecting natural resources.
While increased density is not encouraged in Conservation place types, the
Comprehensive Plan is a bubble plan, so the boundaries between place
types are flexible. More technical information, such as resource type and
official delineations, is important to establish the actual line between
Conservation and adjacent General Residential areas. In addition, there are
code provisions that allow for a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per
acre in areas paired with a Conservation place type and R-15 zoning. The
exhibit included in the applicant’s materials indicates a significant amount
of wetlands are located on the property that would reduce the buildable
envelope.
The site is bisected by the NC I-140 interchange and is immediately
adjacent to a variety of residential zoning. The northern properties contain
R-15 and R-20 zoning. There is an R-10 subdivision to the east and the
Northeast Cape Fear River to the west.
The requested R-15 rezoning could allow for the types of uses that could be
appropriate in this area, and R-15 is one of the typical zoning categories
identified for the General Residential and Conservation place types.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed R-15 rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the
Comprehensive Plan because it allows the types of uses recommended in the
General Residential and Conservation place types and is identified as a
typical zoning category in both place types.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 12
Z21-12 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 13 of 13
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and the types of uses encouraged in the General Residential and Conservation
place types. The County’s conservation resource provisions will provide limitations on future
development once resources are identified during technical review of the project.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of this application and suggests the following motion:
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to an R-15 district. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
district allows the types of uses that would be encouraged in the General Residential
and Conservation place type and would serve as an appropriate transition between
the river, interstate, and adjacent residential neighborhoods. I also find APPROVAL of
the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the site is located
in an area with a variety of zoning districts and densities and will be restricted due to
the environmental constraints.
Alternative Motion for Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to an R-15, Residential district. While I find it
to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because
the district allows the types of uses that would be encouraged in the General
Residential and Conservation place types and would serve as an appropriate transition
between the river, interstate, and adjacent residential neighborhoods, 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
intensity of the uses allowed within the proposed district will adversely impact the
adjacent neighborhoods.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 13
Oa
k
l
e
y
C
i
r
OakleyRd
Ham p t onDr
A p p l e Rd
Lit
tleCreekRd
RockhillRd
Brier Rd
Ru
b
y
L
n
BountifulLn
ReminisceRd
Be
r
r
y
S
t
HeatherLn
St
o
ney
R
d
Memory
Ln
AlverniaDr
H a r v e st R d
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
Whit ted Cir
Cottage Pa r k Aly
Embe r Brook Ct
S alv a d o r W ay
Ke rr Landing Dr
ChairRd
Be
l
t
R
d
Er
v
i
n
s
P
l
a
c
e
D
r
I-14
0
R-15
I-2
PD
R-20
R-10
CZD
R-10
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
R-15R-20/ Undeveloped1320, 1330, 1340
Rockhill Road
Z21-12
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:R
1,000
Feet
Subject Site
Subject Site
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 3 - 1
Oa
k
l
e
y
C
i
r
Oak
l
e
y
R
d
Granite Ln
H ampton Dr
Apple R d
DiamondDr
L
ittleCreek
Rd
Rockhill Rd
Brier Rd
Ru
b
y
L
n
Jo
h
n
GradyRd
BountifulLn
ReminisceRd
Be
r
r
y
S
t
Co
t
t
o
n
w
o
o
d
L
n
HeatherLn
StoneyRd
Memory
Ln
A
lverniaDr
Harv e st R d
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
Whitted Cir
Cottage Pa r k Aly
Embe r Brook Ct
Salvad
o
r
W
a
y
Kerr L anding Dr
ChairRd I-14
0
BeltRd
Er
v
i
n
s
P
l
a
c
e
D
r
General
ResidentialConservation
New Hanover County, NCCONSERVATION
RURAL RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY MIXED USE
URBAN MIXED USE
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL
EMPLOYMENT CENTER
COMMERCE ZONE
Place Types
R-15R-20/ Undeveloped1320, 1330, 1340
Rockhill Road
Z21-12
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:R
1,000
Feet
Subject Site
Subject Site
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 4 - 1
Oa
k
l
e
y
C
i
r
Oak
l
e
y
R
d
HamptonDr
Apple R d
Granite Ln
Diamond Dr
FarmhouseRd
Rockhill Rd
Brier Rd
Ru
b
y
L
n
Jo
h
n
GradyRd
BountifulLn
Re
m
i
n
i
s
c
e
R
d
Be
r
r
y
S
t
Co
t
t
o
n
w
o
o
d
L
n
HeatherLn
Stoney
R
d
MemoryLn
Alv
e
r
n
i
a
D
r
Harves
t
R
d
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
Whitted Cir
Cottage Par k Aly
Emb e r Brook Ct
K e r r Landing Dr
ChairRd
Be
l
t
R
d
I-14
0
Er
v
i
n
s
P
l
a
c
e
D
r
1337
1401
30 22
18106
115
32
108
111
112
28
114
109
102
89
17
24
105
3005
3013
1340
1345
13301320
104
132
116
140
144
2713
120 124
27052709 1350
1351
2701
109
5
6 2
3022
112
3 1
1008
1000
104
1001
100
30043000108
3026
107
101
2704
13
17 21
604
608 616
628
632 640
644
656
110
203
10311009
1020
I-14
0
U
S
H
W
Y
4
2
1
R-15I-2
PD
R-20
R-10
Site
Neighboring Parcels
R-15R-20/ Undeveloped1320, 1330, 1340
Rockhill Road
Z21-12
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:R
1,000
Feet
Subject Site
Subject Site
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 5 - 1
APPLICANT
MATERIALS
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 6 - 1
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 6 - 2
Page 1 of 5
Zoning Map Amendment Application – Updated 12-2020
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
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION
This application form must be completed as part of a zoning map amendment 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 10.3.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
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
Public Hearing Procedures
(Optional)
Pre-Application
Conference
(Optional)
Community
Information
Meeting
1
Application
Submittal &
Acceptance
2
Planning
Director Review
& Staff Report
3
Public Hearing
Scheduling &
Notification
4
Planning Board
Hearing &
Recom-
mendation
5
Board of
Commissioners
Hearing &
Decision
6
Post-Decision
Limitations and
Actions
James Yopp
River Road Construction Company, LLC
7150 River Road
Wilmington, NC 28412
Wilmington, NC 28412
james@rockfordpartners.net
Jack Carlisle
Rock Hill Road Investments, LLC
8620 River Road
Wilmington, NC 28412
910-624-0564
e85michelle@gmail.com
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 1
Page 2 of 5
Zoning Map Amendment Application – Updated 12-2020
2. Subject Property Information
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s) Proposed Zoning
District(s)
Future Land Use
Classification
3. Zoning Map Amendment Considerations
Requests for general rezonings do not consider a particular land use but rather all of the uses permitted in the
requested zoning district for the subject property. Rezoning requests must be consistent with the New Hanover
County 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance. Zoning Map amendments reclassify
the land that is subject of the application to the requested zoning district classification(s) and subjects it to the
development regulations applicable to the district(s).
The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed Zoning Map
amendment meets the following criteria. (attach additional pages if necessary)
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.?
2. How would the requested zoning change be consistent with the property’s classification on the 2016
Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map?
1320, 1330 & 1340 Rockhill Road, R02400-002-013-000,R02400-002-017-000
117.58 R-20/ vacant R-15 General Residential
The policies for growth and development encourage safe and affordable housing to be available to every citizen.
This residential district allows increased density which improves diversity of product types and increases New Hanover
County's Tax Base.
These two tracts are defined as general residential with up to 2.5 units per acres, which is what is being requested.
An increase in density from 1.9 to 2.5 units per acre will allow more residents to enjoy this area with enhanced amenities
and diversified products and pricing.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 2
Page 3 of 5
Zoning Map Amendment Application – Updated 12-2020
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?
4. How will this zoning change serve the public interest?
The surrounding tracts are currently R-10,R-15 and PD. The construction of I-140 not only divided the tract, but
limits the highest and best use product type. The rezoning to R-15 is consistent with the surrounding zoning areas.
Accessibility to water, sewer and other utilities has made the zoning change appropriate.
The Comprehensive Plan and UDO promotes fostering sustainable growth where adequate services are available.
Allowing increased density will improve the form and function of an underutilized site, maximize land use efficiency,
and is a good economic development opportunity.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 3
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 4
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 5
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 6
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 7
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 8
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 9
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 10
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 11
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 10/7/2021
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. This
request was connued from the September 2, 2021 meeng.
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 scales 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 the Planning Board's comments during the September 2, 2021
public hearing. The dra: amendment now provides different mi ga on requirements when taller structures are next
to undeveloped residen ally zoned land and mul -family projects than when they are adjacent to exis ng homes. The
amendment also modifies the setbacks and stepbacks required for different ranges of heights and allows addi onal
flexibility to ensure appropriate mi ga on regardless of whether the structure height is known at the me of site
design.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggest the following mo on:
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
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - October 7, 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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 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.
This draft has been revised to reflect the Planning Board’s comments during the September 2, 2021
public hearing. The draft amendment now provides different mitigation requirements when taller
structures are next to undeveloped residentially zoned land and multi-family projects than when
they are adjacent to existing homes. The structure setback and stepback options are measured
from the shared property line unless the two parcels are separated by open space associated with
an adjacent residential subdivision. In such instances, the setback or stepback shall be measured
from the residential property line. There are no additional mitigation requirements proposed when
those structures are next to nonresidential uses in residential zoning district.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 1
2
The amendment also modifies the setbacks and stepbacks required for different ranges of heights
and allows additional flexibility to ensure appropriate mitigation regardless of whether the
structure height is known at the time of site design.
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.
The first two options consist of 2:1 structure setbacks or architectural stepbacks (where the setback
is approximately 2x the height of the building in feet) when the taller structure is adjacent to an
existing home (even if separated by open space). This is intended to both mitigate potential impacts
of the height and 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.
When taller
structures are
next to multifamily projects or undeveloped residentially zoned land, the mitigation ratio is reduced
to 1.5:1(where the setback/stepback is approximately 1.5x the height of the building in feet).
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
Figure 1. Structure Setbacks and Architectural Stepbacks
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 2
3
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 mitigation for structures taller than 50 ft. has 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 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 are 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. The
first two options consist of 2:1 structure setbacks or architectural stepbacks (where the setback is
approximately 2x the height of the building in feet) when the taller structure is adjacent to an
existing home (even if separated by open space). This is intended to both mitigate potential impacts
of the height and to incentivize site design that places taller buildings further from adjacent
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 3
4
residential properties. This is also the distance where existing buffer
requirements start to visually block the view of taller buildings from
adjacent properties. When taller structures are next to multifamily
projects or undeveloped residentially zoned land, the mitigation ratio
is reduced to 1:1(where the setback/stepback is approximately 1x
the height of the building in feet). 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.
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 3 stories OR 50 ft.
Additional mitigation is required for structures taller than 40 ft. 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, and the proposed
amendment is generally consistent with current district standards.
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
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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 4
5
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
makes 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
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 the Planning Board’s comments at the
September 2, 2021 meeting are shown in 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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 5
2021-10 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).
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 since the 09-2021 Public Hearing draft
are noted with red strikethrough or blue text.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 1
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
2
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
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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 2
2021-10 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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 3
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
4
2. Table 3.1.3.C(2): Additional Standards for Taller Structures, establishes the additional structure
setback, architectural stepback, or mitigation outlined in conditional zoning districts options for
mitigation of taller structures required for lot lines shared with adjacent general residential (RA,
AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5) districts for structure heights indicated in the district’s
dimensional standards. Setbacks or stepbacks shall be measured from the shared property line
unless the two parcels are separated by open space associated with the adjacent residential
subdivision. In such instances, the setback or stepback shall be measured from the residential
property line.
Table 3.1.3.C(2): Additional Standards for Taller Structures
Option 1: Structure Setback
Zoning
District
Adjacent Residential Use or Subdivision in General
Residential District*
Abutting Multi-Family Dwelling or Undeveloped in
General Residential District
RMF-L
RMF-M
RMF-MH
4 story structures: 100 ft. 4 story structures: 75 ft.
RMF-H 5 story structures: 125 ft. 5 story structures: 94 ft.
CB Structures >40 ft. tall: 30 ft. Structures >40 ft. tall: 25 ft.
B-2
O&I
I-1
2 ft. setback for every 1 ft. in height OR
Structures 51-63 ft. tall: 126 ft.
Structures 64-75 ft. tall: 150 ft.
Structures 76-88 ft. tall: 176 ft.
Structures 89-100 ft. tall: 200 ft.
Structures 101-113 ft. tall: 226 ft.
Structures 114-125 ft. tall: 250 ft.
1 ft. setback for every 1 ft. in height OR
Structures 51-63 ft. tall: 63 ft.
Structures 64-75 ft. tall: 75 ft.
Structures 76-88 ft. tall: 88 ft.
Structures 89-100 ft. tall: 100 ft.
Structures 101-113 ft. tall: 113 ft.
Structures 114-125 ft. tall: 125 ft.
Option 2: Architectural Stepback
Zoning
District
Abutting Residential Use or Subdivision in
General Residential District*
Abutting Multi-Family Dwelling or Undeveloped in
General Residential District
RMF-L
RMF-M
RMF-MH
Portions of structures with 4 stories: 100 ft. Portions of structures with 4 stories: 75 ft.
RMF-H Portions of structures with 4 stories: 100 ft.
Portions of structures with 5 stories: 125 ft.
Portions of structures with 4 stories: 75 ft.
Portions of structures with 5 stories: 94 ft.
CB Portions of structures over 40 ft. tall: 30 ft. Portions of structures over 40 ft. tall: 25 ft.
B-2
O&I
I-1
Taller portions of building stepped back 2 ft. for
every 1 ft. in height OR
Portions of structures 51-63 ft. tall: 126 ft.
Portions of structures 64-75 ft. tall: 150 ft.
Portions of structures 76-88 ft. tall: 176 ft.
Portions of structures 89-100 ft. tall: 200 ft.
Portions of structures 101-113 ft. tall: 226 ft.
Portions of structures 114-125 ft. tall: 250 ft.
Taller portions of building stepped back 1 ft. for every
1 ft. in height OR
Portions of structures 51-63 ft. tall: 63 ft.
Portions of structures 64-75 ft. tall: 75 ft.
Portions of structures 76-88 ft. tall: 88 ft.
Portions of structures 89-100 ft. tall: 100 ft.
Portions of structures 101-113 ft. tall: 113 ft.
Portions of structures 114-125 ft. tall: 125 ft.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 4
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
5
Option 3: Mitigation Outlined in Conditional Zoning District Approval
Conditional zoning district outlines technique(s) to mitigate impacts of taller buildings (i.e., site design, architectural
design)
*Excluding lots with multi-family dwellings.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 5
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
6
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 multi-family or nonresidential 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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 6
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
7
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 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) 10
Building height, maximum 3 3 stories, with a maximum of 45 feet**
Additional height allowance
4 stories
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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 7
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
8
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
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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 8
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
9
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]
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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 9
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
10
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]
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when adjacent to residential
properties
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, 4 stories
in height must be a minimum 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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 10
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
11
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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 11
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
12
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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 12
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
13
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 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 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 2 stories OR 40 ft.
* Determined in accordance with Section 3.1.3.C.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 13
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
14
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 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 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*** 2 stories, OR 40
ft.
3 stories, OR 50 ft.
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when adjacent
to residential properties
Additional height allowance, maximum
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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 14
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
15
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 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 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** 3 stories OR 50 ft.
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when adjacent to
residential properties
Additional height allowance, maximum
(feet)
100 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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 15
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
16
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 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 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 3 stories OR 45 ft.
See Section 3.1.3.C for
standards when adjacent to
residential properties
52 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
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 for Colleges, University, &
Professional School and
Hospital structures
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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 16
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
17
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** 3 stories OR 50 ft.
See Section 3.1.3.C for standards when
adjacent to residential properties
Additional height allowance, maximum (feet)
100 for Government Offices & Buildings, Hotel
or Motel, Offices for Private Business and
Professional Activities, and Research and
Development Facility 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 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 - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 17
2021-10 Planning Board Public Hearing Draft
18
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 taller structures outlined in
Section 3.1.3.C 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 taller structures outlined
in Section 3.1.3.C 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 taller structures outlined
in Section 3.1.3.C 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.
*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.
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 18
Multi-family & Nonresidential Height Standards Update
(October 2021 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
Offset impacts of taller structures on adjacent residential properties with a variety of mitigation options
Modify setbacks in nonresidential districts to ensure consistency
Amendment Features
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
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 ensure the scale of buildings intended
for the district can be accommodated. (See Sections 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.45, 3.4.6, and 3.4.10)
o Neighborhood Business, B-1
Maximum height increased from 35 ft. to 2 stories OR 40 ft.
o Community Business, CB
Maximum height increased from 3 stories, not to exceed 45 ft., to 3 stories OR 50 ft.
o Regional Business, B-2
Maximum height increased from 40 ft. to 3 stories OR 50 ft.
o Office & Institutional, O&I
Maximum height for residential uses increased from 40 ft. to 3 stories OR 45 ft.
Maximum height for nonresidential uses and mixed use structures adjusted from 52 ft.
to 3 stories OR 50 ft.
o Light Industrial, I-1
Maximum height increased from 45 ft. to 3 stories OR 50 ft.
Additional height allowances, and additional standards to mitigate greater heights when adjacent to
general R Residential districts (outlined on the back of this summary), are established for nonresidential
districts to allow specific permitted uses that generally require structures with greater height. (See
Sections 3.1.3, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.4.6, 3.4.10, and 5.4.3)
o Community Business, CB
Mitigation required for structures taller than 40 ft. when adjacent to residential
o Regional Business, B-2
Additional height allowance maximum of 100 ft. for Hotel or Motel structures
Mitigation required for structures taller than 50 ft. when adjacent to residential
o Office & Institutional, O&I
Additional height allowance maximum of 75 ft. for Senior Living, Government Offices
& Buildings, Bank and/or Financial Institutions, and Offices for Private Business and
Professional Activities
Additional height allowance maximum of 120 ft. for Colleges, Universities, &
Professional Schools and Hospital structures
Mitigation required for structures taller than 50 ft. when adjacent to residential
o Light Industrial, I-1
Additional height allowance maximum of 100 ft. for Government Offices & Buildings,
Hotel or Motel, Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities, and Research
and Development Facility structures
Mitigation required for structures taller than 50 ft. when adjacent to residential
A definition for story is added. (See Section 2.3)
Setbacks for nonresidential districts have been modified for greater consistency. (See Sections 3.4.3,
3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.4.6, and 3.4.10)
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 1
Mitigation Options
Option 1: Structure Setback
Idea: Taller structures are required to be located further away from adjacent residential properties than shorter buildings. Setbacks from properties
with existing single family or attached homes is about 2 feet for every 1 foot in height. Setbacks from vacant residentially zoned properties or
multifamily developments are about 1 foot for every 1 foot in height for nonresidential or mixed-use structures and 1 ½ feet for every 1 foot in height
for multi-family structures.
Examples:
Option 2: Architectural Stepback
Idea: Portions of the structure that are taller should be further away from adjacent residential properties than portions of the structure that are
shorter. Taller portions must be the same distance from residential properties as the setbacks described above: 2 feet for every 1 foot in height
when next to existing single family or attached homes and either 1 ½ feet or 1 foot for every 1 foot in height (depending on type of structures) from
vacant residentially zoned properties or multifamily developments.
Examples:
Option 3: Alternate Technique Approved in Conditional Zoning District
Idea: Site specific conditions or project design features, such as tall trees in an existing buffer or grade changes, may mitigate height without
additional setbacks or architectural stepbacks. This option provides flexibility for situations that are not easily anticipated by codified standards.
Examples:
Tall mixed use structure in Raleigh, NC with large setback
from adjacent residential
One Midtown
Apartments—4-story
building is further
from property line
that 3-story
buildings
Structure with taller portion further from property line
Illustration of architectural stepback providing a
transition in scale with existing homes
Tall existing vegetation at Mayfaire Flats
Illustration of taller structure mitigated by existing vegetation
and grade change
Planning Board - October 7, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 2