02-2010 February 2010 PBM
Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board February 4, 2010 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic
County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Jay Williams, Chair Jane Daughtridge, Planning & Zoning Manager Richard Collier, Vice-Chair
Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner Melissa Gott Shawn Ralston, Senior Environmental Planner Sue Hayes Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Sandra Spiers Ken Wrangell Jay
Williams opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Williams reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Richard Collier made a motion to approve the January Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Sue Hayes seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the minutes.
Item 1: Rezoning (Z-901, 2/10) – Request by Squires Timber Company to rezone approximately 1.58 acres at 5233 Castle Hayne Road from RA Rural Agricultural to B-2 Highway Business District.
The site is classified as Community on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map. Jane Daughtridge showed maps and photographs of the property and of the surrounding area. Ms. Daughtridge
provided information pertaining to land classification, access, level of service, zoning, and flood hazard areas. Ms. Daughtridge reported that the level of service directly in front
of this property is D, transitioning into F, which exceeds the design capacity of the roadway. She explained College Road and Castle Hayne Road, each with a level of service of D, merge
together in this area resulting in a level of service of F. She stated the property is vacant except for an office for Squires Timber Company. The property directly across Castle Hayne
Road is zoned B-2 and just south of the property is a parcel zoned Conditional B-2. Ms. Daughtridge showed a map of the Castle Hayne Plan identifying the site. Long term, there is hope
that a roundabout will be placed at the intersection of North College Road and Castle
Hayne Road. The roundabout is listed on the NCDOT’s improvement plan, but funding has not been available for the project. Ms. Daughtridge reported that the B-2 Commercial District is
described as one that provides for the proper grouping and development of roadside businesses, which will best accommodate the needs of the motoring public and businesses demanding high
volume traffic. The Castle Hayne Plan would support the notion of rezoning this property. Additionally, a traffic impact analysis would be required for any businesses proposed in this
location that would generate more than 100 peak hour trips per day. Ms. Daughtridge stated staff feels this request is consistent with the most recent plans for the area and would recommend
approval. Jim High, an employee of Squires Timber, addressed the board on behalf of the applicant. He noted company owner, Barbara Squires, was also present. Mr. High explained that
the building located on the property has always been used as an office for the tree farm. RA zoning is very restrictive and doesn’t leave room for them to use the building for other
purposes. Due to the current economy, Squires Timber has closed this office and would like to rent it to generate income. He noted there aren’t any bathing facilities in the building
so it would be costly to renovate the building into a residence. He stated the company feels their goals are in harmony with the Castle Hayne Land Use Plan. Mr. High explained that Castle
Hayne has changed quite a bit in the last twenty-five years. He stated the area is now proposed for commercial/mixed use; and with the changes and increased traffic flow, they feel their
property has fallen behind from a density standpoint. Mr. High stated they have approximately 300 feet of road frontage on Castle Hayne Road. He explained that their zoning doesn’t seem
consistent with the zoning of other area properties. The property directly north of their property is zoned O&I and the property to their east is zoned B-2. He stated there is also a
Conditional Conditional B-2 parcel south of their property. Mr. High stated that the applicants are making the request for re-zoning so that they can use their property. He said they
would like to maintain the property and the best way to do that is to rent it. Mr. High commented they have received a number of requests to rent office space on the property, but the
current zoning prohibits that use. He added their desire is to continue to be a good neighbor to the community. Joe Sutton, owner of the property directly behind the Squires Timber property
with frontage on Garden Place Road, spoke in opposition of the request. Mr. Sutton stated that the lot just across Garden Place Road was rezoned O&I five or six years ago and asked why
the Squires property would not be zoned O&I consistent with that property. Mr. Sutton stated that his 5-1/2 acres parcel is potentially lots for residential use so he is concerned about
rezoning the adjacent property to B-2. Jim High stated that he appreciated Mr. Sutton’s comments. Mr. High High said they applied for B-2 zoning in an effort to get the most flexibility
for their property. He added he understands the logic behind O&I and re-stated their goal is to be able to use their property in some way. Mr.
High said although he isn’t fully knowledgeable about the uses with O&I zoning or what they may lose by shifting to O&I, he would entertain any suggestions the board may offer. Mr. Sutton
stated his belief that Squires Timber is requesting B-2 zoning because it will make their property more valuable for re-sale. He again expressed concern about B-2 zoned property abutting
the full length of his property, which is comprised of potential residential lots. Jay Williams closed the public hearing. Richard Collier stated that B-2 zoning fits within the plan
for Castle Hayne. He acknowledged that Mr. Sutton’s property is set up for a medium density residential, but most of the area except the small parcel across Garden Place Road is zoned
B-2. He noted the O&I there is the odd zoning in the area. Mr. Collier stated he understood Mr. Sutton’s concern about the flexibility of uses in B-2. He commented that Mr. High has
indicated his intent to rent the property for another use, not sell it to someone else for B-2 use. Mr. Collier stated that B-2 is probably the appropriate zoning district for the area;
however, maybe they could work with staff to shorten the type of uses for the property. Mr. Williams stated he believes the O&I was done because the property backs up to residential
and is at the end of Castle Hayne. Mr. Williams expressed concern about allowing commercial zoning to continue inching along the corridor. He stated his belief that it would be more
appropriate to rezone the property O&I or at least conditional use B-2 limiting the uses since the property backs up to residential. Sue Hayes stated the applicant mentioned office use
during his presentation and O&I would be appropriate for that type of use. Sandra Spiers stated the plan that was approved previously shows commercial/mixed use and agreed the area is
surrounded by B-2, so she isn’t sure why the other property is zoned O&I in the middle of it. She commented she doesn’t think the applicant would have any problem if the B-2 use was
limited. Ms. Spiers stated her understanding that the Castle Hayne Land Use Plan had been really well thought out and approved by the community. Ms. Daughtridge stated Ms. Spiers was
correct and explained the peculiarity of the situation is that, in New Hanover County, the O&I has traditionally been a transition zone between higher intensity commercial uses and residential
and that was the thought behind previous re-zoning decisions. Ms. Daughtridge stated that since that time the Castle Hayne Plan was developed. She noted the anomaly about the Castle
Hayne Land Use Plan is that the long range plan calls for a district that is neo-traditional in design with buildings closer to the street and rear parking, lessening the impact of the
commercial/mixed use on the adjacent residential properties. Ms. Daughtridge stated that piece of the puzzle hasn’t happened yet, so we are in this transition of having a plan in place
that envisions the district will materialize in this long corridor and not having a mechanism in place to ensure the design meets those requirements.
Ms. Daughtridge stated the board’s discussion in terms of O&I or B-2 is legitimate and either one would fit into the intent of the Castle Hayne Plan. She explained the board couldn’t
limit the list of uses on the property because the applicant didn’t make a conditional request. Sue Hayes asked if B-1 would be more suitable next to the residential. Ms. Daughtridge
stated that the primary difference between B-1 and B-2 is that outdoor storage is prohibited in B-1 so they could still have a really wide range of uses. Mr. Williams added that it is
peculiar situation given the intersection at the location and the future plan for a turning circle. Ms. Daughtridge informed the board that the owner of the property south of the Squires
parcel made a request to piggyback on the Squires Timber rezoning request, but missed the deadline. She explained the owner has a “for sale” sign up listing their property as commercial
although it is currently zoned RA. Ms. Daughtridge stated she will be surprised if the owner doesn’t come forward with a rezoning proposal in the near future, noting the area is within
the boundary perceived to transition to commercial/mixed use. Ken Wrangell asked about the limitations of O&I related to office uses. Ms. Daughtridge stated the types of office uses
are widely varied, but the types of commercial uses would be significantly limited in O&I. Mr. Wrangell stated that a straight B-2 rezoning may open up a Pandora’s Box in the area. Mr.
Williams asked for a clarification from Ms. Daughtridge about Lot #3 to the south, whose owner wanted to piggyback on the request. Ms. Daughtridge state the neighboring tract did not
meet the deadline for application but would extend all the way to the Conditional B-2 tract to the south. Sue Hayes asked what type of business is currently on the B-2 CD tract shown
on the map. Ms. Daughtridge stated that the business is a motorcycle or car repair shop. Sue Hayes asked if the applicant would be willing to accept an O&I rezoning for the property.
Mr. High stated the applicant would be willing to accept either an O&I or B-1 rezoning. Mr. Williams commented he would be more comfortable with an O&I zoning and noted that the applicant
could come back to the board with a conditional request later. Mr. Williams asked for direction on the possible change in the rezoning request.
Ms. Daughtridge stated that Mr. Williams could ask the petitioner if he’d like to withdraw the request at this time, but the planning board could also vote on a less intensive zoning
than B-2. Melissa Gott Johnson asked Ms. Daughtridge to provide information about the blue block labeled as Institutional on the Castle Hayne Land Use Plan. Ms. Daughtridge stated that
area was designated for a town center, should the area incorporate, with true institutional uses such as a town hall, library, post office, etc. and would be an equivalent O&I. Ms. Gott
asked if rezoning to O&I in the southern portion of the plan would follow the recommendation of the Castle Hayne Land Use Plan. Ms. Daughtridge stated that the difficulty is that the
second piece of the land use plan hasn’t come to fruition yet which would have been the regulatory framework in which to make the master plan operate. She noted she doesn’t think it
would be inconsistent with the plan and commented that at the point the framework does come forward, it it would be easy to transition from O&I to a higher intensity. Mr. Williams commented
that in his opinion commercial zoning includes office uses. Melissa Gott agreed and noted the board should follow the Castle Hayne Plan as closely as possible. Sandra Spiers made a motion
to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-901, with a change of zoning to O&I Office & Institutional instead of B-2. Sue Hayes seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to
recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-901 to O&I Office and Institutional. Item: 2 Text Amendment (A-384, 2/10) – Request by Planning staff to amend various sections of the ordinance
relating to the Exceptional Design Zoning District, including acknowledgments and technical refinements. Jane Daughtridge provided information and background on the Exceptional Design
Zoning District, which was approved in November 2009. In the course of meeting with people interested in pursuing exceptional design, staff realized there were omissions made in terms
of cross references and acknowledging the district in various sections of the ordinance, as well as some technical refinements needed to understand the framework applicants must operate
within. Ms. Daughtridge stated the proposed amendment comes to the board as technical refinements and administrative corrections to the Exceptional Design Zoning District. Ms. Daughtridge
explained the first document consists of technical refinements to Section 53-6 of the ordinance, which is the Exceptional Design Zoning District. The changes proposed fall
under Section 53-6.7 regarding underlying standards. Ms. Daughtridge explained that in the course of discussions, she was asked about the minimum design standards for open space, buffers,
and setbacks. She stated staff realized they may not have been as descriptive as they might have been in the ordinance, but part of that was deliberate in order to leave the design standards
as flexible as possible so that if developers met the high bar for smart location, protection of environmental resources, proximity to commercial and jobs in the community, they would
have as much flexibility as possible inside that area to create an exceptional district. She noted they realized that developers want more comfort about the framework in which they have
to operate so the proposals brought forward in that regard do try to set a standard, but also give a flexible option so if a standard isn’t met, the developer can provide an explanation
of how their design is exceptional without meeting the standard. Ms. Daughtridge reviewed the following proposed changes to Section 53-6.7 Underlying Standards: 1) In Section 53-6.7(2),
staff addressed the potential for conflict with adjoining properties by providing guidance on the minimum building setback and separation. The minimum building setback would remain 20
feet, but if the proposed setback is less than the height of the buildings within 200 feet of the properties adjoining the EDZD, the “fringe area”, the applicant must include an explanation
of how they would address privacy, light, air and safety, demonstrating care for the community. The maximum building height within the fringe is 40 feet. Staff received comments from
the community and County Commissioners related to the height issue in the fringe area. Beyond the 200 feet fringe area, there is no height limit and that will be maintained. This would
provide a flexible option, but also a minimum standard to work within. 2) Staff suggested removing the building separation language in order to provide more internal design flexibility
in placing buildings. Fire Services would provide the standards to address fire safety and determine how far apart buildings must be. 3) Staff proposed adding a specific provision for
lighting that will require that light would not shine or reflect directly onto adjacent residential. This provision is already in the ordinance under the supplemental standards for buffering,
but is needed in this section for clarification. 4) Staff recommended a specific provision for open space. The minimum standard suggested here is the same as the current standard of
35% in the County’s Planned Development District, O&I and R-15, as well as in the City of Wilmington’s standards for their Multi-family zoning district. Staff feels this is a reasonable
standard. This proposal also allows flexibility to propose less than 35%, but the applicant must explain how the project will provide for a sense of community and quality of life if
it doesn’t meet the minimum standard. This provision also gives a broader definition of what constitutes open space, adding atriums, courtyards, plazas, and greenways. Staff felt that
guidance would be established with these standards in place, the standard is reasonable and consistent with other districts, and an explanation wouldn’t be difficult to produce if the
developer was providing an exceptional district. Ms. Daughtridge also reported that one new requirement is proposed in Section 53-6.13 Exceptional Design District Standards Converted
to Points -Core Requirement 4. Staff
recommends adding a requirement for pet waste stations in open space to protect surface waters. Ms. Daughtridge credited Shawn Ralston with suggesting this requirement to address apartment
residents who own dogs. Staff doesn’t feel this would be an onerous requirement. Ms. Daughtridge stated that Document #2 of the proposed amendment contains administrative refinements
needed throughout the ordinance. She noted the changes are needed because staff did not incorporate the new EDZD and cross reference it into other sections of the ordinance where districts
are stated. Those sections needing correction of omissions are: Sections 50-1, 50-3, 67B-2(3), 67B-4(1), 67B-10, 69-3, 107-3, and 110-1. She reviewed the following proposed additions/changes:
1) In Section 50-1, the EDZD would be added to the list of the established districts. 2) In Section 50-3, a clarification that EDZD would not be a conditional use district would be added.
3) In Section 67B-4(1) entitled Location of Buffers, a clarification that the required buffer is around the perimeter of the EDZD. 4) In Section 67B-10 Street Yard Landscaping, EDZD
would be added to the table that states the street yard requirements in each of the zoning districts. 5) In Section 69.3 Homeowners Associations, an EDZD reference would be added to
the list of districts where certain requirements must be met whenever a homeowners association is established. 6) In Section 107-3 Certificate of Occupancy, EDZD would be added to the
range of districts that require a homeowners association be established prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7) In Section 110-1 Amending the Ordinance, EDZD would be
added to the list of districts that have their own set of provisions. Ms. Daughtridge explained the following proposed deletions to the ordinance: 1) In Section 59.9-2: RFMU – Riverfront
Mixed Use, an outdated reference to exceptional design would be removed. The term can be found throughout the Land Use Plan with instructions to really define “exceptional design”, which
which has been accomplished with the Exceptional Design Zoning District. 2) In Section 72-38(9) Residential Uses In Commercial Districts (SUP) district, the reference to exceptional
design that is not consistent with the EDZD district would be removed. Ms. Daughtridge stated that staff feels these changes are straightforward and will benefit the process; therefore,
staff does recommend the changes. Ken Wrangell asked for a definition of “street yard factor”. Ms. Daughtridge stated that the street yard factor is used to measure how much street yard
will be required.
Melissa Gott expressed concern about the language in the building setbacks section, specifically the statement giving the applicant the ability to include an explanation of how their
project reasonably addresses privacy, lights, air, etc. She asked what would be considered a reasonable explanation. She was concerned that the decision to turn down an application because
the reviewer just doesn’t like it would become a problem. Ms. Gott stated she doesn’t want anyone to disagree with the decision and appeal it to Superior Court because they believe they
gave the County a reasonable explanation. She would like for the setback to be 20 feet and not subjective. Ms. Daughtridge stated that the minimum setback will always be at least twenty
feet, but the standard would be to setback the distance of their building height. If they can come up with a persuasive reason to be different than their building height, they can setback
less but will still have to meet the 20 foot setback. She noted the entire exceptional design district is a persuasive district and staff really wanted it to remain flexible so that
people could be creative. She explained that flexibility is subjective and we don’t want to focus on minimums. No flexibility would mean everything is a minimum. An exceptional minimum
is a high bar to achieve. Ms. Daughtridge stated it was the understanding of staff during the six months that they worked on this district that the building community didn’t want a rigid
high bar. She explained the purpose and intent of the district was to maintain some flexibility, which would naturally be subjective through the decision makers. Melissa Gott stated
that the language in the Open Space section concerns her also by giving the applicant a hard and fast minimum requirement of 35%. She noted that a developer may have a piece of property
that just can’t make cash flow because it’s unable to meet the 35% open space requirement. She stated she does realize there is an exception to that requirement also with that questionable
language stating “reasonably provides for open space”. As an attorney, she stated she doesn’t like that type of language in a document. Ms. Gott stated she is really concerned that a
lot of the tracts of land we’d like to see utilize these design standards are infill projects that will have difficulty meeting the 35% open space requirement. Ms. Gott commented that
setting the bar so high may prevent a lot of developers from even trying to comply with EDZD. Jane Daughtridge stated that developers will have to evaluate whether they can make EDZD
work and that is a business decision each one will have to make. Developers must already meet this requirement in a lot of districts so staff doesn’t feel the 35% open space minimum
is an onerous requirement. Melissa Gott stated that her preference is to encourage people to use EDZD as much as possible because she’d rather them opt into it than using their existing
zoning where so many aspects can’t be controlled. She noted she felt the same way about the Riverfront Mixed Use district. Shawn Ralston added that when staff crafted the core requirements
for open space and the additional requirements, they incorporated several ways to meet the open space requirement, including wetland and water body conservation. She noted wetlands can
be used to meet 10% of the open space requirement. With stormwater management, projects are required to be low impact development projects and some of those low impact development techniques
can be utilized as open space areas. She explained that the required bicycle and pedestrian access areas can also be used to meet the open space requirement. If a developer is meeting
the core
requirements and the additional requirements, he is either going to meet the 35% open space requirement or be well on the way to meeting it. Jay Williams commented that the statement,
“Open space… shall equal a minimum of 35% of the gross site area” seems to set an absolute floor, but then there is a later paragraph allowing applicants to go below that requirement
under certain reasonable circumstances. He feels there should be a reference to the opportunity to go below the standards incorporated into the first paragraph referring to open space.
Ken Wrangell stated that the 35% open space rule is standard in the other districts. Mr. Wrangell asked if the rule applies to the site or to the district. Jane Daughtridge stated that
in the case of EDZD, the site is the district. Mr. Wrangell stated that it appears that they have to meet 35% of the total district even if they only own one lot within the district
like the riverfront area. Melissa Gott stated she and Mr. Williams were in agreement that, in Underlying Standards #9 regarding the 35% open space requirement, the phrase “except as
provided in Subsection C below.” Mr. Williams added that phrase should be followed by “shall equal a minimum of 35%...” Jay Williams opened the public hearing. Tyler Newman, of Business
Alliance for a Sound Economy (BASE), which represents the Cape Fear Homebuilders Association, stated his members are supportive of the Exceptional Design Zoning District. He noted a
lot of his members were initially excited about the benefits of the exceptional design district, but believe the challenge is in the application. He said there are several people currently
in the process of applying who need some guidance. Mr. Newman explained that when addressed individually, some issues appear simple; however, all of the elements in this district work
in combination. He cited the example that the 35% open space requirement is in combination with a smart location and the district is primarily for infill development. Mr. Newman stated
his personal opinion is that exceptional projects should be embraced throughout the county, noting there are benefits in the ordinance that he’d like to see utilized county-wide. He
stated the primary goal is to have an ordinance people will actually use. Mr. Newman commented that it is the belief of many of his members that the County is making the process more
difficult before anyone has the chance to go through it. He stated the development community would like the opportunity to reflect on the proposed changes with the staff before clarifications
are made. He noted that the EDZD district is a collaborative process between staff, the Planning Commission, the County Commissioners, and the development community. On behalf of his
organizations, Mr. Newman asked the Planning Board to continue the item to the next meeting to give them the opportunity to review the proposed changes. Jay Williams closed the public
hearing.
Melissa Gott asked Mr. Newman if his group is opposed to the substantive changes or the technical refinements proposed. Mr. Newman stated that their concerns were about how the buffers
and 35% open space requirements interact with one another. He reported that he hadn’t received any comments or concerns about the cross references. Melissa Gott asked why the developers
didn’t attend the meeting tonight and commented that she would really like to hear some specific concerns. Sandra Spiers commented that the people involved in the process most likely
don’t want this discussion to be about their projects, but about the process itself. She believes the development community probably wants the board and staff to look at this process
with them. Mr. Williams stated he wasn’t concerned about them not attending the meeting. Sue Hayes made a motion to recommend approval of the EDZD amendments as proposed by staff. Melissa
Gott asked if the board could separate the two proposed amendments and address them individually for approval as technical refinements and substantive changes. Sue Hayes amended the
motion to recommend approval of A-384 EDZD Amendments -Document #2 Technical Refinements. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of A-384
EDZD Amendments -Document #2 Technical Refinements. Sue Hayes made a motion to recommend approval of A-384 EDZD Amendments -Document #1 Substantive Changes as proposed by staff. Richard
Collier expressed hesitancy to second the motion although he doesn’t completely disagree with it. He stated his willingness to vote on the issue next month in order to give the development
community time to review the changes. He noted for the record that the 35% open space requirement is not new, but has been in the ordinance. He also stated his belief that the buffering
is not a major issue. Mr. Collier understands that the EDZD is dynamic, that one requirement affects the other, and not every project is going to make it. Sue Hayes commented that the
board has has given one developer until April to come back with an exceptional design project. Mr. Williams noted that if Document #1 is continued, it won’t reach the Commissioners until
their April meeting.
Mr. Collier stated the developers accepted that risk when they requested the continuance. Mr. Williams expressed concern about denying that developer a continuance if the
board continues the EDZD amendment, noting the project’s neighbors have expressed concern about the number of continuances that developer has already received. Sue Hayes didn’t think
it would be fair to the citizens concerned about that project to have to attend additional meetings. Sandra Spiers agreed, but stated that the board needs to make sure the district works.
Ms. Daughtridge explained the EDZD requires that two meetings be held with residents within 500 feet of the property prior to the submittal of an application to give area residents an
idea of what the developer is proposing. Melissa Gott asked if the board was trying to allow the applicant to continue under the current standard or attempting to postpone the project
so it would comply with any new standards that are passed. Sue Hayes asked the attorney to clarify the rules regarding the issue if they make changes now. Sharon Huffman stated that
any application made under the current ordinance would only be required to comply with the ordinance as it now exists. She wondered if there was any reason the pending application couldn’t
be decided based on the current standards. Ms. Daughtridge stated that the proposed changes were generated by discussions with the second applicant, not by the applicant that will be
on the April agenda. She noted that these changes were to provide them with a better framework in which to work. Without any refinements, it is up to interpretation. Ms. Huffman explained
that the open space requirement in the ordinance as currently written is simply more subjective than it will be in the proposed changes. No one seconded the motion. Melissa Gott made
a motion to continue A-384 EDZD Amendments -Document #1 to the March 4, 2010 Planning Board meeting. Sandra Spiers seconded the motion. Sue Hayes asked what the board would hope to accomplish
between the February and March meetings. Mr. Williams stated that a continuance would give the building community an additional opportunity to review and consider the changes.
Ms. Daughtridge asked if the County would be including the citizen community in the review process as well. Mr. Williams commented that anybody that would care to comment would have
the opportunity. Melissa Gott stated that she would also like the opportunity to go through the proposed changes in more detail. Sandra Spiers stated that they are only looking at the
proposals that have been brought forward; they are not going backwards. Mr. Williams commented he would advise developers with applications that come before the Planning Board before
this issue is resolved give the intent of these changes grave consideration before they come to the board. The Planning Board voted 4-1 to approve the motion to continue the A-384 EDZD
Amendments -Document #1 to the March 4, 2010 Planning Board meeting. Sue Hayes voted against the motion. Technical Review Committee Report (January) Sam Burgess presented the TRC committee
report for January. The TRC met once on January 27, 2010, to review one revised performance residential project and discuss application guidelines for state road abandonment petitions
and private road closures. Mr. Burgess stated that a full explanation of the meeting was provided in the planning board packet, along with the maps and site plans of the residential
project. Mr. Burgess reported the following highlights of the meeting: 1) Hanover Lakes: The Performance Residential Project is located near the 2000 block of Castle Hayne Road and is
classified as Transition on the County’s Land Use Plan. Nearby is a smattering of commercial zoning along Castle Hayne Road. The site plan consists of 261 units, comprised of 171 single
family and 90 multi-family units. The project will be served by public water and sewer and will have two entrances. The developer requested the TRC consider changing the road designation
from “public” to “private” due to encroaching sewer utilities underneath the paved portion of the roads. NCDOT does not allow utilities to be placed within the right-of-way of a proposed
public road. road. The TRC voted 4-0 to approve the conversion of the road system in Hanover Lakes from “public” to “private”, with the following conditions added to the revised preliminary
approval: 1) All original terms and conditions remain from the December, 2007 plan which includes construction of the road stub to the north and connection to Arlington Drive
to the south to promote interconnectivity. TIA requirements will also remain in place. 2) No gates or other obstructions will be allowed in the project to promote safe entry by emergency
service delivery. 3) An updated fire plan must be presented to County Fire Services for review and approval. 4) All roads within the project will be offered for public utility use. 5)
The two newly adopted private road certificates will be required. 2) The TRC also reviewed road closing and road abandonment procedures in the unincorporated area of New Hanover County.
Staff presented information concerning road petition abandonments from state maintenance and road closures. A road closure petition to the County would involve the proposed legal closure
of a private road or easement. The procedure would require a Resolution of Intent considered by the County Commissioners. If adopted by the Board, a public hearing to consider the legal
closing of the road would take pace approximately one month later. Road abandonment involves involves a petition to the County through NCDOT requesting that a publically state maintained
road be abandoned from the state maintenance system. This procedure involves a resolution to the Board of Commissioners, but no public hearing. This procedure does not close the road,
but does convert the road from “public” to “private”. The TRC determined that key agencies such as County Engineering, CFPUA, Wilmington MPO, County Fire, and County Emergency Services
should review all road closing or abandonment requests and submit comments in writing to the Planning & Inspections Department, which will be incorporated into a staff write-up to be
presented for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. In the near future, this language will be included in the County Subdivision regulations and an update will be made
to the applications currently in place. Jay Williams adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. _______________________________________ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director