06-2010 June 3 2010 PBM
Page 1 of 24 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board June 3, 2010 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, June 3, 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 Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Richard Collier,
Vice-Chair Jane Daughtridge, Planning & Zoning Manager Melissa Gott Sam Burgess, Subdivision Review Planner Andy Heath Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Sandra Spiers Absent:
Sue Hayes 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. Richard Collier made
a motion to approve the May Planning Board meeting minutes with one recommended change by board member Ken Wrangell. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to
approve the May Planning Board minutes. Item 1: Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD) Rezoning Request (Z-904, 6/10) – Request by Flournoy Development Company, LLC to rezone approximately
17.93 acres at 7000, 7004, and 7008 Market Street; 1715, 1725, and 1731 Prospect Cemetery Road; and 75 Snug Harbour Drive from R-15 Residential District and B-2 Highway Business District
to Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD). The site is classified as Watershed Resource Protection 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. She also
reviewed the Core Requirements and Optional Standards proposed by the applicant to qualify for an Exceptional Design Zoning District, noting that list was included in the planning board
packet. Ms. Daughtridge reported that in addition to meeting the Core Requirements, the applicant earned the required twelve additional points plus ten bonus points in the following
areas: 1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access: They would provide two connections for bicycle and pedestrian access at: 1) Military Cutoff access road and 2) Snug Harbour Drive, earning them
2 points in this category.
Page 2 of 24 2. Housing and Jobs/Commercial Opportunity Proximity: They have conducted a survey of the businesses in the area and determined that there are 292 full-time equivalent jobs
currently in the area. They have earned 2 points in this category. 3. Diversity of Uses: There is a lot of commercial activity in the area. We ask that it cover several different categories.
They have identified a bank, retail, and services in the area for a total of seven uses; therefore, they have earned 4 additional points in this category. 4. Conservation Management
Plan: They have earned 2 points for having a plan to manage the onsite wetlands. 5. Transit Facilities: There is not a bus route that stops in this location now; but there is one within
the ½ mile circle in the Gordon Road area between the shopping centers. To achieve point, they are required to provide a shelter for transit. Because the route is not there yet, they
are proposing to make an agreement with WAVE Transit to offer a specific amount of amount to cover the cost of a covered shelter within proximity to serve this development. The received
4 points in this area. 6. Certified Green Building: They have proposed at least one building to be certified LEED, earning them 2 points. 7. Minimum Building Energy Efficiency: They
are proposing energy efficient buildings, which has earned them 4 points. 8. Water Efficient Landscaping: They will be installing water efficient landscaping, which has earned them 2
points. Ms. Daughtridge stated there are some challenges in this proposal for this location. One of those is the issue of unified control. She explained that currently the ownership
is primarily Phillips Properties of Wilmington, but there is a large piece and a smaller piece of property that are not within the control of the current owners. The proposed owners
won’t close on the property until they either have or are soon to have building permits. She noted that if for some reason that closing didn’t happen, it would result in three properties
owned by different individuals that are not really associated with one another being encumbered by all of these specific requirements. Ms. Daughtridge commented that situation added
to the uncertainties of the intersection improvements and the purchasing of right-of-way in relation to those improvements has the potential to complicate this proposal significantly.
In regard to the power line easement, she noted that a buffer would be required along the boundary with the other homes that must be perpetually maintained so they would need an agreement
with the power company to allow a buffer there that would be perpetually maintained and to allow them to place a parking area within that buffer. The applicant has had preliminary discussions
with the power company indicating they may be able to arrange for that, but we don’t know if they will agree to that since they clear under their power lines with some frequency. Ms.
Daughtridge stated that the largest challenge with this location is the interchange proposal for the extension of Military Cutoff at that location. She provided maps of the proposed
interchange alternatives for this project, which were obtained from the NCDOT website. She showed that one alternative cuts off the front and access portion of the proposed project.
In another alternative, the property is cut in two and there are controlled access points. She noted that there is a rule in EDZD that states the site can’t be bisected with major roadways.
She noted
Page 3 of 24 the third interchange alternative would have the most major impact, essentially running through the center of where the buildings would be located. She referred to a GIS
overlay of the site plan with the first interchange alternative that reflected the impact of the interchange on the site, which seems very significant. Ms. Daughtridge stated that staff
questions whether on these grounds the applicant would be able to meet the requirements for exceptional design. Chris O’Keefe stated this is the second exceptional design project to
be considered and the first that the team from Flournoy has worked with. He complimented the development team that worked with staff to a great degree to determine how the ordinance
can be applied to real world projects, noting they worked through a number of difficult issues and interpretations of some things that were thought to be very clear when the ordinance
was approved. In some cases, that wasn’t accurate. Mr. O’Keefe explained that the proposed alignments for for the Military Cutoff Extension came to us all late in the process, noting
staff had been working on assumptions of a previously proposed alignment which had the interchange on the northwest corner of Market Street and was unaware of the proposed preferred
alternative. He noted staff was not sure how it came to fruition, but this is the biggest issue regarding this project. He stated the development team did an excellent job trying to
meet the requirements and garner points to satisfy a rather stringent ordinance. Chris O’Keefe provided the following staff summary. STAFF SUMMARY (1) As to the suitability of the proposals
for the general type of function, the physical characteristics of the land, and relation of the proposed development to surrounding areas and existing and probable future development.
Staff concludes that this proposal suits the function and characteristics of the land but is inconsistent with future transportation plans for the area. (2) As to the sufficiency of
supporting evidence in the application showing that the proposed location can meet the basic criteria for exceptional design. Supporting evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient
to show that if the planned transportation improvements are not considered, the project can likely meet most of the requirements for an Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD). However,
when those planned improvements are taken into consideration, the proposed site plan would not be able to satisfy one of the district regulations which states that “a district may not
extend across any major or minor arterial roadway unless the district proposes multiple, unified phases of mixed uses having safe, signalized vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities
to connect the projects.” The project meets the six core requirements and accumulates the additional twelve (12) points, as well as the ten (10) bonus points as Ms. Daughtridge described
in her presentation.
Page 4 of 24 Staff concludes that this proposal meets the core requirements plus additional requirements required for the exceptional design zoning district but does not meet the district
requirements. (3) As to the relation to major roads and mass transit facilities, utilities and other facilities and services. Staff concludes that water and sewer infrastructure can
adequately serve the site but the provision of a gated entrance and the anticipated Hampstead Bypass (Military Cutoff Extension) Plan are weaknesses and barriers to successful implementation
of a viable EDZD as it relates to infrastructure support. Mr. O’Keefe also added that the proposal did include bike and pedestrian connections within the radius they were required to
provide them. (4) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions,
guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments, or for amendments in those those proposed. Staff concludes the applicant does not yet maintain unified control of
the property and the description of the point at which a sales contract will be executed leaves project unity uncertain until a stage well beyond approval of the rezoning. If the terms
and conditions of purchase do not materialize, there will be three otherwise unassociated owners encumbered by very stringent requirements for a unified development over their collective
property. Coupling uncertainty of the timing for unified ownership with the likely negative impacts on the properties as the transportation improvement project for Military Cutoff extension
moves forward, it appears rezoning the property would leave this area vulnerable to conflicts of disaggregated ownership and responsibility. Mr. O’Keefe stated he does anticipate the
applicant will be able to explain their plan for unified control in their presentation. (5) As to the suitability of plans proposed or the suggestion of conditions. Staff concludes that
the proposed site plan is a suitable concept plan to express the intentions of the applicant and, in general, showing satisfaction of required elements. However, the planned transportation
improvements relating to the Military Cutoff interchange have not been reflected in the plan nor have its likely impacts been credibly discussed. (6) As to the consistency with the County’s
adopted Land Use Plan and other adopted plans for development in the vicinity, and suggesting how the rezoning might be reasonable and in the public interest if approved.
Page 5 of 24 Staff concludes that the proposal has several positive features that conform to the spirit and intent of the Exceptional Design Zoning District, some that are marginal but
might be considered adequate, and a few that create challenges for implementing the project in conformity with the EDZD regulations. Knowing that significant changes are in store for
this intersection, staff is unable to recommend approval of this project. We cannot conclude that the rezoning is reasonable or in the public interest when intensifying the land use
so significantly will very likely result in increased public costs, whether related to buying right-of-way, realigning accesses to existing developments or relocating residents who must
be displaced to establish the safe and effective extension of Military Cutoff Road. Staff therefore recommends denial. Mr. O’Keefe stated staff does feel the effort put into this project
was great, but noted the timing of the presentation of the preferred alignment was unfortunate. He noted that Mike Kozlosky of the MPO was present to address specific transportation
questions from board members. Tom Johnson, an attorney with Nexsen Pruet, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Johnson noted that Jack Reel of Thomas & Hutton Engineering and Ryan Foster
of Flournoy Development were also present to provide information. He complimented staff for working with the applicant throughout the entire process and stated the applicant concurred
with staff’s findings other than those problem areas. He stated their presentation would primarily focus on the problem areas. Jack Reel, of Thomas & Hutton Engineering, thanked staff
and provided an overview. He presented a PowerPoint presentation reflecting the background of Flournoy Development. On the conceptual master plan, Mr. Reel pointed out a proposed paved
emergency access location to Covil. With the intent of moving the proposed entry access point further away from Market Street, they have proposed the other location be closed and removed.
In the initial scoping meeting with NCDOT and the MPO, the comment was made that this change would actually improve the situation of the existing frontage road because people quite often
tend to skip the red light there. Mr. Reel noted they are also proposing the use of the Low Impact Development techniques of permeable pavement, rainwater cisterns, constructed wetlands,
etc. He reviewed the project’s proximity to the WAVE Transit routes and the proposed bike and pedestrian connectivity plan. Mr. Reel presented the US Highway 17 Corridor Study plan currently
shown on the NCDOT website, noting as previously stated, the alignment of the Military Cutoff Extension has been combined with the alignment of the Hampstead bypass. Stating the proposed
interchange locations are not reflected on the graphic, Mr. Reel circled the proposed locations on the map. He explained in 2005, the official corridor map for Military Cutoff Extension
was filed with the New Hanover County Register of Deeds, noting the blue stars on the overlay map show the properties encumbered by that corridor preservation map. He pointed out the
text on sheet #2 which states, “Notes: Parcels 6, 7, 8 and 9 are not affected by proposed right of way”. Mr. Reel stated those parcels specifically represent the parcels comprised of
Pages Creek Marine and the Amberleigh project. In 2008, a project was brought before the planning board by other
Page 6 of 24 developers on the tract of land that is the center of this project. The MPO issued a letter that stating the MPO and the NCDOT had reviewed the TIA and it met the intent
or the minimum requirements for TIA submittal. There was no reference in 2008 to a proposed interchange. He provided another letter that stated in the first paragraph, “We the DOT and
the MPO have reviewed the TIA”. He stated to get that letter, they had to have a scoping meeting with staff from both agencies and prepare the traffic impact analysis based on their
input to be later provided this letter upon review. He noted the first reference to the proposed interchange is located at the bottom of the page and states, “Based on information provided
by DOT, it appears that this property may be significantly impacted by the construction of U-4751, the Military Cutoff Extension”. Mr. Reel stated that in February of 2009 there was
a Market Street Corridor Study prepared for the MPO that obviously encompassed much more of Market Street. He stated it was interesting that, in keeping with the progression of the documents
over the years, the Market Street Corridor Study map suggests development in that location would be encouraged and welcomed. Tom Johnson stated the DOT plan issue has been addressed
upfront in the staff report. The real question seems to be that the whole project is unfunded and may not ever be built. The proposals that are out there haven’t even gone to public
hearing. Not long ago, there was a proposal for some improvements at Oleander Drive and South College that were withdrawn because of the outcry at the public hearing. He noted that on
the positive side, this project will fund an improvement of the intersection and the service road that will help a known problem that exists at that intersection. Mr. Johnson stated
to tie up a project because of a currently unfunded DOT improvement that might happen many years down the road is really not fair to the property owners. Mr. Johnson stated the ordinance
speaks directly to the issue of unified control. The applicant must be the owner or owners of the property. His clients had to get the authority of the owners to proceed with the rezoning
request. The second requirement in 53-6.4 of the ordinance is that the property either be jointly owned or be subject to a formal agreement for unified control. He stated the formal
agreement for unified control is there, noting his clients have contracts with all property owners contingent upon getting through this rezoning process. He explained that even in the
current economic climate, his clients have funding for this project right now, but have to meet those prerequisites, i.e., zoning approval and the other permit approvals to go to closing.
Regarding the concerns about the power easement, he stated they have had discussions with Progress Energy, but Progress Energy requires the specific plan in order to make a final formal
agreement. The finalized plan is not yet ready. He noted they’ve had positive discussions with WAVE as well. Mr. Mr. Johnson stated this is a prime location that actually meets the requirements
of EDZD. He said they went the extra mile and actually did surveys of the businesses in the area at staff’s suggestion and found that those needs that are intended by EDZD to be met
have been met with this project. Mr. Johnson encouraged board members not to hold up the project because of a DOT project that might happen down the road.
Page 7 of 24 Sandee Spradley, the treasurer of Prospect Cemetery, spoke in opposition to the item, commenting that the plan looks beautiful, but she has questions about the inclusion
of Prospect Cemetery Road in the changeover. She asked how cemetery traffic would be able to use the road that is there; noting it appears the new access road goes straight into the
development. She asked if there would be a buffer, wall or any access along the entire proposed line that runs along Prospect Cemetery Road. Ms. Spradley expressed the cemetery group’s
concern regarding the care of the cemetery, noting her great-great-grandfather was one of the founding members of the cemetery and is buried there, along with her great-grandparents,
grandparents on both sides, and her dad so she personally holds a great interest in the cemetery. She stated concern about the layout of the access road and the access to the cemetery
with the number of cars that will be in the proposed development. Ms. Spradley feels it will be a nightmare for people in funeral processions and visiting the cemetery. As far as the
issue with the DOT overlay, she stated that if DOT decides to proceed with it, they will and there isn’t much anyone can do about it. She said DOT makes changes sometimes that don’t
make sense, but they study it and try to come up with the best answer. She stated she hasn’t seen some of these overlays and expressed concern that they appear to affect Prospect Cemetery.
She commented that if the project is approved based on “what if DOT doesn’t do anything,” something will have to be done to address the traffic issue because it is impossible right now
to travel on Military Cutoff going toward Market Street. She said traffic stops on Military Cutoff at the Harris-Teeter even with a green light and then the traffic bottlenecks again
at Middle Sound Loop. Ms. Spradley stated she didn’t ask the Prospect Cemetery members to attend the meeting because they would fill the room, noting they are waiting to see what decision
is made by the Planning Board. She also expressed concern about whether Prospect Cemetery Road is legally a state road or not, explaining there is some confusion about whether the County
had ownership of the road when they turned it over to DOT in the early 1950’s. During rebuttal, Jack Reel stated they would not impact the Prospect Cemetery Road, but have preserved
the integrity of the road and the cemetery. The proposed access road will be placed through what already exists as DOT right-of-way for Military Cutoff and will provide a provision for
the cemetery traffic to access and utilize the new road per DOT’s request. He stated there will be a deceleration lane so there will be two ways to get into the road and a minimum of
a 20’ buffer along the property to also protect the integrity of the cemetery. Mr. Reel noted this project generates just over 120 trips per peak hour barely qualifying it for the production
of a TIA so they are not concerned that the traffic, particularly at the time of day it would be coming in, would would prevent the same utilization currently enjoyed by the cemetery.
Mr. Reel stated they hosted three public meetings and the last meeting was held last night. He commented that they only had four attendees during a total of six hours of public meetings
for this project. Tom Johnson commented that DOT has a plan in place to handle that intersection that was protected in 2005. He stated DOT has floated these new plans that nobody knew
about until the last minute, but we don’t know how they will be funded or if they will ever happen. Ms. Spradley expressed concern that people could drive the loop around the cemetery
and come out on Military Cutoff to avoid that traffic light, which would turn Prospect Cemetery Road into a thoroughfare again. She noted people are already trying to do that and when
they realize they
Page 8 of 24 can’t get out, they drive over the graves. She stated that trash and debris are also being dumped in the cemetery. Jay Williams closed the public hearing. Richard Collier
asked that Mike Kozlosky address the board on behalf of the MPO. Mike Kozlosky, of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), stated the board has to work based on the
information available at the time. As stated by Mr. Reel and Mr. Johnson, the City, on behalf of New Hanover County, did file a transportation corridor map in 2005 based on the designs
they had at that time. They are currently working through the environmental process. Last month, they narrowed the alternatives for the Hampstead By-pass and Military Cutoff Extension
project from 17 down to 5. The alternative of upgrading the existing facility was taken off the table because, based on future traffic volumes at the intersection of Military Cutoff
and Market Street, there is a need for an interchange at that location. He stated they have received three conceptual designs from the DOT, which were presented earlier by Ms. Daughtridge,
and that is where we are today. Mr. Kozlosky noted those interchanges are functional in nature, are limited access, and would have a significant impact on this development. He also stated
the project is funded for right-of-way acquisition in 2014; however, there is no funding for construction at this time. He said this is one of the top 25 projects within the Wilmington
MPO and was actually in the top five that were submitted to the DOT for evaluation through their strategic prioritization process. This project is the top priority for Division 3, a
six county region that includes New Hanover County. Mr. Kozlosky said he does feel very confident that this project will be funded in the future and steps have already been taken to
preserve the corridor. The City of Wilmington has purchased property from Dallas Harris in order to preserve the corridor in West Bay. He noted they are feeling confident this project
will be funded based on that information. He explained that an interchange was identified in 2005 based on traffic volumes; however that design will not work now so based on the information
they have and the transportation models, the footprint of the interchange has been expanded to accommodate future traffic at that location. Richard Collier asked Mr. Kozlosky to clarify
his statement regarding the other residential area to the north for which a right-of-way preservation was created. Mr. Kozlosky responded that a corridor preservation map per GS 136-44.50
for the section north of Market Street that traverses West Bay Estates and Greenview Ranches and ties into Interstate 140 or the Wilmington By-pass was adopted in 2005. He explained
the corridor map preserves those corridors for three years from the time the applicant submits a building permit application or subdivision plat; then the department or municipality
has to step up and purchase those properties. He noted there is a project out there on which the clock has started. The City of Wilmington has purchased lots from Dallas Harris in West
Bay Estates to preserve the corridor. This project is currently moving through the environmental review process. He stated they expect to have a least environmentally damaging practical
alternative identified by November 2011 and then they will move forward with the finalization of the environmental document, as well as the record of decision. He reiterated that the
department plans to begin acquisition of properties in 2014 for the Military Cutoff Extension project.
Page 9 of 24 Mr. Collier asked what is involved in recording the corridor map and whether the property had to be purchased prior to recording it. Mr. Kozlosky explained that basically
the statute allows the recordation of a corridor map to preserve the corridor for three years. When the City preserved the corridor in 2005, they were working with the information that
was available at that time and the volumes of traffic at that location. He stated they developed a conceptual design for an interchange and have since run additional tests and models
looking at the growth that has occurred in New Hanover County and the surrounding communities and identified that the interchange as designed will not accommodate future traffic. Based
on that information, they had to redesign that interchange. Mr. Collier asked if any one of the conceptual designs was better than the others or was leading the way at this point. Mr.
Kozlosky stated he wouldn’t want to comment on that at the present time; however, they are moving forward with further development of those three conceptual designs to identify a preferred
alternative. Mr. Collier asked Tom Johnson to comment on the status of the project being able to connect to Snug Harbour Drive as an emergency access. Mr. Johnson stated Snug Harbour
Drive was proposed to be an emergency access from the beginning and noted they have two access points at the front to Market Street and Military Cutoff. Mr. Collier commented they have
only one access because there is no way to turn left at either location. Mr. Johnson explained traffic would have the opportunity to turn left because of the movement of the driveway
on Military Cutoff Road. Mr. Collier agreed that at certain times you can turn left at Market Street, but asked about the Snug Harbour Drive access, noting it is logically a stub street
from a subdivision to stub to this property for future extension and we’re back to the issue of connectivity. Mr. Johnson stated that part of the issue is that Snug Harbour Drive is
a private road and there has been some difficulty with providing interconnectivity on private roads. Mr. Collier asked if the issue was paying for the access or the property owners simply
not wanting traffic in front of their homes. Mr. Johnson explained that residents don’t want traffic in front of their houses based on the comments received during the public meetings.
Page 10 of 24 Mr. Collier agreed that the EDZD is very well placed and this is a good plan, but it just doesn’t have very good access regardless of the DOT interchange. He noted access
would be reasonably good if the project could get out to Market Street through the bowling alley access. Mr. Johnson stated that they’ve had discussions with the owners of the bowling
alley about access, but nothing has been finalized. They are willing to continue to explore that option as they move forward to the TRC, which would provide final approval of
plans. He noted they do have a letter of intent for further discussions about an exit access by the bowling alley. If the neighbors in Snug Harbour have concerns about connectivity via
their private road, it will be difficult for them to provide that connectivity. Mr. Johnson stated they do have an emergency access at Snug Harbour Drive, which will be a paved access.
Richard Collier asked if the emergency access would be handled with knock-down bollards. Jack Reel stated the developer reports that emergency access will be handled with a siren activated
arm. Mr. Johnson noted the gate would be activated in the event of an emergency by a siren similar to those in other areas of the county. He stated there is a detailed process for corridor
preservation set forth in state statutes that goes through public hearings, noting this particular property was excluded from that corridor. Richard Collier asked if the County had any
leverage to make the connection to provide access through Snug Harbour Drive versus an emergency access at that location. Jay Williams stated it appears that the road was stubbed to
the property line and asked if it was required when Snug Harbour was developed. Jane Daughtridge stated it would have been required, noting owners are required to stub to those roads
when large tracts of vacant property are subdivided. She noted this issue comes up with more frequency in relation to private roads and does interfere with the County’s ability to provide
interconnectivity. Ms. Daughtridge stated there was a court case recently where the courts upheld the requirement for a developer to have access to his property through that stub. Mr.
Burgess may be able to speak to that issue. She stated there isn’t a great deal of clarity on whether the County could require it, but there is some hope that it might be upheld if we
did. Mr. Johnson said he doesn’t oppose access through Snug Harbour Drive, but is aware of the obstacles. Sandra Spiers commented that regardless of which way they go on this issue,
someone will fight the decision. She said she agrees with Mr. Johnson that nothing has been planned and there is no funding for an interchange. Noting she also remembers the newspaper
articles about College Road, Ms. Spiers stated she didn’t know if the board should stop a project because of something that might happen. She also expressed concern that there isn’t
enough access for the project.
Page 11 of 24 Melissa Gott stated in regard to the uncertainty of DOT plans, it would be one thing if she knew in twelve months we would have an answer. She expressed concern about pushing
a project back for 4-5 years because DOT might build some type of interchange in the area but has no firm plans. Ms. Gott stated the unified control issue doesn’t bother her because
they have contracts in place and the sellers are well aware their property may get rezoned and nothing may happen out there. She also understands that the developer must have a finalized
plan to obtain the power line easement. Ms. Gott stated she is most concerned about access and as soon as she saw the Snug Harbour access, she thought it was ideal and would solve that
problem, but the private road issue throws a wrench in it. She would like to see access there or through the bowling alley. In response to a question from Ms. Gott, Mr. Johnson shared
that the proposed access through the bowling alley would be a gated exit for security purposes, purposes, noting the gate would help prevent unauthorized access of amenities and control
the speed of cars coming in and out of the project. Andy Heath asked Mr. Kozlosky if the ramp/loop combination road that would dissect this property would be controlled access. Mr. Kozlosky
stated that the ramp/loop road would be a controlled access road. Mr. Heath stated that across Market Street where you have the typical ramp and loop, everything within that loop would
obviously be inside the right-of-way. He asked what the intention was in that area and if the businesses would remain there with driveways to Market Street and this road running behind
them. Mr. Kozlosky stated the configuration of the intersection has not been finalized yet. He noted there are three different configurations staff is continuing to evaluate to determine
which is the most appropriate for that location. Mr. Kozlosky said he wasn’t comfortable answering that question about what properties would be purchased or would have access in the
future. Jay Williams asked Mr. Kozlosky if historically the large section inside the loop of Option M would be controlled access or if he had seen that situation before in another project.
Mr. Kozlosky stated the ramp would typically be controlled access. Regarding access to the cemetery property, he stated his opinion that the department would try to work with the cemetery
in order to provide access. He noted that Alan Pope, the DOT Division Engineer, had indicated DOT would be willing to work with the cemetery to provide access. Mr. Williams asked about
the possibility of something more intensive. Mr. Kozlosky stated he wouldn’t want to answer for Mr. Pope. Mr. Williams noted the headstones within the cemetery are plainly visible from
the intersection and asked Mr. Johnson to clarify if the proposed access would go inside the cemetery property. Mr. Johnson stated the access way is located completely within the DOT
right-of-way.
Page 12 of 24 Mr. Williams stated he feels the residents of the development, if approved, should be discouraged from using the cemetery roads. Mr. Johnson stated that the difficulty
in that is that the cemetery road is a public road. He explained the new road will be an improved access roadway which should encourage traffic to use it rather than going around the
cemetery; however, because the cemetery road is a public road, there is only so much they can do. He noted traffic calming procedures have been used in the past and they would be willing
to use them. They could also install signage directing traffic to Military Cutoff to discourage traffic through the cemetery. He commented they can’t install a gate because it is a public
road. Mr. Johnston stated they are in agreement with Ms. Spradley in that they don’t want to encourage traffic to go through the cemetery either. Mr. Williams asked staff about Ms. Spradley’s
comments regarding the history of the Prospect Cemetery Road, noting the Commissioners have ceded control of the road to NCDOT. Chris O’Keefe explained that counties don’t provide road
maintenance in North Carolina and as pointed out by Ms. Spradley, the majority of this road is under NCDOT maintenance. He commented that generally North Carolina doesn’t allow speed
bumps on state-maintained roads; however, they have recently made exceptions to that rule by allowing some speed control mechanisms on secondary streets and this road does qualify as
a secondary street. Mr. Johnson stated a median could also be put there if DOT would approve it as part of the driveway permit process. He said that would discourage left turn movements
onto that street. Mr. Williams echoed Ms. Spiers comments, stating either we decide to prevent the landowner from making more viable improvements to the property or we proceed and risk
making the interchange significantly more expensive for DOT and the taxpayers. Mr. Collier asked Mr. Foster if the project were to go forward how quickly the developer would begin constructing
buildings. Ryan Foster with Flournoy Development stated they are hoping to begin building by the end of the year or the first of next year and would construct all buildings at the same
time, pointing out that the pool and clubhouse would be incorporated into the building closest to Market Street. Mr. Collier asked Mr. Foster about Flournoy Development’s perspective
on the DOT situation. Mr. Foster stated Flournoy has diligently pursued all the information available to them and they aren’t sure if that project will ever happen. He stated since there
is no clear answer about the status of the DOT project, Flournoy Development would like to move forward with their project. In response to a question from Mr. Collier, Ryan Foster stated
his company was moving forward if the project was approved with the full knowledge that NCDOT or the City could put an easement map down on record stopping their development regardless
of whether they’d spent money on the project or not.
Page 13 of 24 Mr. Collier commented this is a no-win situation, noting the board can’t make a recommendation they can win with because it is in the public’s best interest that we have
a safe interchange at this intersection. He explained that unfortunately for Mr. Foster and his development, they are caught in the middle of something they didn’t ask for and the board
does recognize that fact. He stated they also want to protect the cemetery. Mr. Collier stated the applicant has done a great job and the project has been prepared very well, noting
if it were on 98% of the corners in New Hanover County, it would fit perfectly. He reiterated his issues with access to the project, but noted they appeared to be addressing those. Mr.
Collier stated he wanted to make sure the board said publicly to Mr. Foster that if we move forward with this project today it is based on merit, but your company has to understand that
if something happens two months from now and you’ve spent money on it, it is your risk moving ahead. Ms. Spiers asked if the board should add the condition about a second access if they
moved forward with the recommendation. Ms. Gott stated that she wouldn’t make it a condition, but felt very strongly that the project needs access through Snug Harbour Drive or another
road. She also suggested they prevent access through the Prospect Cemetery Road. Mr. Johnson stated they would be agreeable to both suggestions. Mr. Collier stated that if the board
offered the second access as a suggestion, they would like to at least get an exit out, but full access in and out would be better. He noted the project is missing an exit out of the
neighborhood. Chris O’Keefe stated Mr. Kozlosky had alluded to reasons why this quadrant was the best quadrant referring to the model, but he wondered if it would be beneficial if he
could elaborate on why. Mike Kozlosky explained they basically looked at the turning movement volumes at this location from both Military Cutoff and Market Street and looked at several
different interchange designs. He stated the interchange that likely would have been designed for this location would be a single point urban, which is a more condensed interchange;
however, looking at the left turn volumes from Market to Military Cutoff, those volumes would not accommodate that movement as well as the left turn volumes from Military Cutoff to Market
so based on those movements, they had to develop a more elaborate interchange design. These designs are a result of that process. Melissa Gott asked Mr. Johnson if they could reconfigure
their project to fit in if DOT funded the interchange in 2015 and used the least intrusive alternate. Mr. Johnson stated they don’t know if it would be possible to reconfigure the project.
He noted a lot of other people and existing businesses will be impacted by this project. He explained they don’t have the modeling information DOT is using, but obviously some traffic
will be taken off
Page 14 of 24 Market Street once the Hampstead bypass is in place. Obviously, if the plans were set and DOT had the money, they would be purchasing the property to preserve it. Mr. Johnson
said DOT isn’t at that point and hasn’t had any discussions with Flournoy about purchasing the property. He noted if they don’t do that, our property will be held in limbo without compensation.
Mr. Johnson stated that is of more concern to them. He reiterated that just five years ago, this property was specifically excluded from the preservation corridor for this project. In
five more years, this project could look totally different. Flournoy is willing to take the risk that DOT may take some steps to preserve, protect, or acquire property. Mr. Johnson stated
they have a plan in place, are willing to pay for some other improvements including protecting the cemetery road, and can be in the process of doing so by the end of the year or the
first of next year, including relocating a problem intersection on Military Cutoff Road, which will be a very positive thing for this area. Melissa Gott made a motion to approve Rezoning
Request Z-904 EDZD with the suggestion that the developer look into preventing access to the cemetery road and provide access either through Snug Harbour Drive or some alternative route.
Sandra Spiers seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-1 to approve Z-904 EDZD. Jay Williams voted against the motion. Jay Williams announced the meeting would be recessed for
five minutes. Item 2: Land Use Plan Amendment (LUP-13, 6/10) – Request by David Ward to amend the definition of “marina” as defined in Appendix A: Definitions of the 2006 Wilmington-New
Hanover County CAMA Plan to be consistent with the county’s zoning definition. Jane Daughtridge provided background information and explained the process for amending a Land Use Plan.
She stated amendment requests are not received often, noting the last one was generated by staff a few years ago to accommodate the creation of the Riverfront Mixed Use District, which
would have had some inconsistencies with the Land Use Plan. Ms. Daughtridge noted the process for amendments is dictated by the NC Division of Coastal Management and requires a public
hearing by the decision makers, which are the County Commissioners. She explained our Commissioners like to receive a recommendation from the Planning Board for land use issues. If the
Commissioners adopt the amendment, it would be sent forward to the CRC for certification because the CRC must certify Land Use Plans. She explained the schedule is a little more protracted
and the notice requirements for the hearing are a little longer. She stated the last comprehensive update of the Land Use Plan was done in 2006. Ms. Daughtridge noted updates to the
Land Use Plan are required to be done every five years and it typically takes about a year to complete a comprehensive update. Ms. Daughtridge stated this amendment is proposed to correct
an inconsistency in the plan. The plan itself contains information about policies and land classifications and has an appendix at the end of it that contains the definitions of terms
that appear throughout the plan. This amendment addresses the definition of “marina” in the plan. She explained this is a City-County Land Use Plan so both government entities are held
to the definitions in this section for the purposes of CAMA permitting. The proposal is to modify this section of the definitions, leaving the City of Wilmington under the current definition
within the Land Use Plan because they are not a party to
Page 15 of 24 this request. This would separate that definition, leaving the current definition of “marina” for the City of Wilmington and bringing the current Zoning definition of “marina”
for New Hanover County into the definitions. She noted this has been the definition of “marina” in the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance since the mid-1980s and is the definition we
operate off of in our permitting internally. Ms. Daughtridge stated the purpose of the proposed amendment is to make the definition consistent so that CAMA permits would be evaluated
based on the County’s definition of “marina”. Ms. Daughtridge reviewed the policies in the Wilmington-New Hanover County 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan that make reference to marinas. 1. Policy
3.18: Provide public access to public trust waters by allowing the development of marinas, dry stack storage, and moorings to the extent that their development shall not adversely affect
estuarine resources or public trust waters. The following standards shall apply: a. Marinas Marinas as defined in this plan shall not be allowed in Primary Nursery Areas (PNA), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), or open Shellfishing Waters (SA). Limited exceptions may be allowed in the urban waterfront district to the extent that they are consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Cape Fear River Corridor Plan (1997) and the Wilmington Vision 20/20 Plan (2004) and in designated areas zoned Waterfront Urban Mixed Use Districts. (One of our changes
was Riverfront Mixed Use Districts). Community boating facilities of any size that may be permitted by the Division of Coastal Management may be allowed for waterfront communities. b.
Moorings and mooring fields shall not be allowed where they have an adverse effect on navigational channels. c. Pump out facilities shall be required for existing marinas with more than
10 slips which have boats containing enclosed heads. 2. Policy 19.3: Support the water dependent marine economy. a. 19.3.3 -Implementation Strategies: Address the need for more public
boat slips and marinas to accommodate both local and traveling boaters. Ms. Daughtridge noted the change in definition would be positive in that particular case, but might be slightly
limiting in the case of staff preparing a write-up for a special use permit for a marina in an area zoned residential. When a permit goes through the review process for a CAMA permit,
they would be looking at the definition in our Land Use Plan to determine whether it was consistent or not. Ms. Daughtridge stated staff is supportive of removing inconsistencies from
the Land Use Plan so we have no objection to it and support the idea of advancing it. She noted the petitioner was present to provide his comments. David Ward, the petitioner, spoke
in favor of the amendment. He stated he had conducted research on other states, specifically Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida and found that those states have in the last
several years changed their policies for permitting marinas to fit
Page 16 of 24 the definition that New Hanover County currently uses in their zoning ordinance. Mr. Ward stated those state agencies changed their policies dealing with marinas based
on the increase in dry storage being built and the increase in the number of new marinas with less than ten wetslips. He noted in North Carolina there must be more than ten wetslips
to even be considered a marina and that is the current definition in our Land Use Plan. Mr. Ward reported the other states had also conducted research and found they were losing shellfish
areas and were closing shellfish areas by building marinas even with less than ten wetslips. He stated each of these states has recently changed their rules based on this research and
the State of North Carolina also appears to be looking at this issue. Mr. Ward presented background documentation obtained from the NC Division of Water Quality to support his amendment
regarding marinas as a source of nonpoint pollution. He expressed concern about the impact of marinas on wetlands and aquatic habitats, particularly the impact on shellfishing beds,
noting the documentation stating that marinas if not sited and constructed properly can destroy both and can also restrict or alter water flows. The documentation notes that improper
siting and construction can lead to decreased dissolved oxygen levels and increases in pollutant concentrations. He reported the article also states activities that occur at marinas
are potential sources of nonpoint pollution, including petroleum hydrocarbons such as fuel and oil. As noted in the documentation, other potential pollutants include copper and tin which
are used in biocides, iron and chrome which are contained in boats themselves that may enter the water during boat cleaning either directly or indirectly in runoff, and arsenic which
is used in pesticides, paint pigments and wood preservatives. Mr. Ward also presented statements contained in various documents from the NC Division of Water Quality and the Land Use
Plans and zoning ordinances of other counties and municipalities to support the amendment. He noted information regarding the lack of a comprehensive marina policy in North Carolina,
as well as letters from DENR regarding the impact Marinas, Docks, and Piers have upon our physical habitats. Mr. Ward commented the Wrightsville Beach Land Use Plan states, “Waters are
classified as SA but are subject to closure for shellfishing activities based on Division of Marine Fisheries classification. Bacterial pollution from stormwater runoff is the primary
water quality problem, along with marinas.” It also contains concerning statements about the status of hard clam fishery and oyster fishery in North Carolina and notes that is partly
due to the two marinas, poor water quality, increasing fishing pressure and loss of habitat. He noted a statement in Pender County’s Land Use Policy under Land Use Compatibility Policies
that reads, “Publicly or privately owned docks or facilities for more than 5 vessels and as additionally defined by the county are permitted.” Mr. Ward noted that Pender County defines
marina as five vessels in their Land Use Plan so they are more restrictive than New Hanover County. He stated Brunswick County’s Land Use Plan allows marinas and dry stack storage facilities
that are in compliance with their county zoning ordinance. Brunswick County defines a marina as “more than ten boats”, but also includes a statement that they must be in compliance with
their county zoning ordinance, which is similar to New Hanover County’s ordinance and states “two or more vessels”. He noted Brunswick County’s ordinance considers dry stack storage
facilities to be “marinas”.
Page 17 of 24 Referring to documentation from Marine Fisheries regarding revenue from shellfishing, Mr. Ward stated that New Hanover County has a lot to lose, noting people come here
because we have a reputation for shellfishing and seafood here, but that may soon dwindle away from us if we don’t do something now to try to help our shellfish and fishermen. He stated
we are quickly losing our PNAs and shellfish areas in North Carolina and particularly in New Hanover County. He noted New Hanover County has a large dependency on tourism. He also expressed
concern for the Gulf Coast and its people, who are dealing with the oil spill situation. Mr. Ward stated the country is going to look to the East Coast for shellfish. He commented on
a newspaper article about a 50% increase in the price of oysters. In conclusion, Mr. Ward expressed hope that New Hanover County would begin efforts to address the situation that would
spread to the entire state, noting the neighboring counties appear to be moving ahead. Mike Giles, of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, spoke in support of the amendment. He noted
they support waterfront access in New Hanover County and throughout the state. He stated we are in need of new marinas. The problem in New Hanover County is that we are almost developed
out so that what we have left are marginal lands and marginal waters for marinas. Our water quality and our water resources are at a premium and are under assault. He commented the he’s
not saying we don’t need new marinas. He stated he’d like to support the land use classification and the zoning being consistent with marinas. He said with industrial development on
the Northeast Cape Fear River, we have conservation lands that are zoned industrial and we have marinas in the land use plan and the zoning that aren’t consistent so we support changing
this classification of marinas to be consistent. Matt Nichols, an attorney with Shanklin & Nichols representing the Carolina Marina & Yacht Club and its principal Tim Ward, spoke in
opposition to the amendment. He stated that consistency sounds good, but the bigger question is what brought this issue to the forefront and necessitated it. He asked the board to consider
historically hearings before them and perhaps why they are here tonight. He commented he wasn’t sure if the general public knew about the public hearing and noted the application offers
no explanation and reads “to have the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan match New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance definition of commercial marina”. He said the County zoning ordinance does not
define marina. The New Hanover County Land Use Plan does not have a definition for commercial marina. He contended that the County zoning ordinance is set up and operated in a proper
manner and people have operated under it with the expectation of how it’s been interpreted over the years. He stated there is not a definition of marina, commercial marina, or private
residential boating facility in the county zoning ordinance; it all falls under “Boats and Boating Facilities”. He stated that if this land use plan amendment, which is much different
than a zoning text amendment, is passed, he doesn’t know fully what the impact of that would be. He also expressed his opinion that that is why there is a comprehensive process the County
goes through when the CAMA plan is updated every 6 or 7 years. When the plan was adopted in 2006 by the City Council and County Commissioners, both entities passed a citizen participation
plan, which included public opinion surveys of registered voters, advisory panels, public input meetings, brochures, cable TV, internet, public awareness, discussion forums, and public
hearings on the draft plan. Mr. Nichols noted that process will take place again in approximately one year and questioned the need to amend the land use plan now. He stated it is out
of the ordinary for a citizen to have suggested the proposal. Mr. Nichols contended that under this proposal anyone having more than one boat
Page 18 of 24 operating in a commercial manner would fall under the definition of marina and noted the majority, if not 90% of our coast, is PNA or Primary Nursery Area. He stated his
opinion that this amendment would be very detrimental to the family fishing commercial fisherman, who may operate off of a dock that is currently not considered a marina. He noted currently
if you have less than ten wetslips, you can be a community boating facility and won’t have CAMA plan consistency issues. Mr. Nichols expressed concern that changing the definition of
marina just a little without looking at it could have a very dramatic effect. He stated, at a minimum, the operators and owners of marinas in the area and the commercial fishermen should
have notice of this amendment and have input in the public process that is utilized for CAMA land use plan amendments. Mr. Nichols cited a scenario of two kayaks or rowboats on a creek
operated in any kind of commercial manner, stating that based on the definition of “boat”, they would now be considered a “marina”. He explained a boat doesn’t have to be motorized;
it can be powered by an oar. Mr. Nichols stated this is not simply correcting an inconsistency; it is changing the framework this county has operated under and the way developers, property
owners and people have utilized our waterways for a long, long time. He expressed concern about the impact changing this definition could have in the event of a major storm, noting there
would instantly be a large number of non-conforming uses. Tyler Newman, of BASE (Business Alliance for a Sound Economy) which represents the Wilmington Cape Fear Homebuilders Association,
stated they are generally supportive of consistency in definitions, but in this case, it seems time and staff intensive and unnecessary at this time. He suggested this may be the first
issue discussed when the regular review process goes forward and noted Mr. Nichols had identified all the stakeholders that need to be at the table to discuss a change that has this
significant of an impact. He stated concern about some exclusions left out of the proposed definition that are currently in the City definition. Mr. Newman expressed his view that there
would be significant unintended consequences, noting for example, a residential subdivision with a boat ramp and slips and a community dock would seem to be a marina based on the proposed
definition. Mr. Newman suggested that the board not move forward with the proposal that was in front of them and instead consider it during the upcoming CAMA land use plan revision process.
Tim Ward, owner and developer of Carolina Marina and Yacht Club, stated he has some specific ideas about why this text amendment is being proposed, pointing out this attempt is very
unilateral and that there is a process in place. He expressed concern about the cost to County taxpayers during a tight budget year for staff to attend the CRC
meeting for this text amendment. Mr. Ward stated as an avid boater he is concerned about this issue. Noting he sees docks with a couple of shrimp boats as he travels the waterway, he
asked the board to consider that a person that does commercial shellfishing will have two boats so they would be defined as a marina, which will impact their ability to get a CAMA permit
if they need to make modifications to their pier or dock. He stated he believes staff supports it because they want to protect the water quality, but pointed out that a water quality
certificate is required for any marina. Mr. Ward stated he doesn’t have ten wetslips at his facility so he isn’t deemed a marina by the Land Use Plan, but he does have a commercial marina
permit from New Hanover County because he has more than two wetslips. He commented there is almost a double filter there for the types of marine-related endeavors. Mr. Ward said owners
that apply for a CAMA permit must get a 401
Page 19 of 24 Water Quality Certificate that proves they have contained stormwater and aren’t having an adverse effect on water quality. Mr. Ward also explained the number of wetslips
is significant because over ten wetslips requires a shellfish closure. He stated he believes the impact on the residents of New Hanover County would not be the impact we want to make.
Mr. Ward stated his agreement with the scheduled review process, noting that is the appropriate time and place for these items to go forward and it allows the proper public input. He
acknowledged Mike Giles support of marinas and commented that one way to do that and make New Hanover County not just a place to shellfish is to provide an opportunity to recreate and
have a place to keep a boat and provide access to the public trust waters. He stated the County and the State are having problems with funding public access to the waters. He stated
there is a place for marinas, but they have to be managed and controlled. Mr. Ward stated that the cost and impact of this amendment on the residents of the county should be considered.
During rebuttal, David Ward stated if a commercial fisherman was going to build a pier and put two commercial vessels there, he would still have to go through the county ordinance. He
explained anything developed in New Hanover County has to go through the County’s zoning ordinance as it is now, noting this simply asks the State of North Carolina to address our ordinances
and take them into consideration, which they currently don’t do. Mr. Ward stated he doesn’t believe this will harm anyone, noting everyone must go through the process of obtaining a
permit from the County first and then from the State. Mr. Ward explained the LUP amendment will go to the CRC after review by the Planning Board and the Commissioners and the public
does have the opportunity to make comments to the CRC about it. He stated he doesn’t know why the opposition was present and noted the change won’t affect their project because they
already have a County County permit and have begun the CAMA process. Mr. Ward expressed his love for the county and his belief that the amendment will benefit New Hanover County as it
continues to grow. He stated this is a win-win situation for everyone. He commented he doesn’t believe two commercially-rented kayaks would be deemed a marina, noting there is more involved
than that for a marina, which includes “commercial storage of boats” and he doesn’t think a kayak is considered a boat in North Carolina. Matt Nichols reiterated that the current definition
of marina in the CAMA plan and the proposed definition are vastly different, noting the language being proposed speaks in terms of “a dock or basin and associated structures commercially
providing permanent or temporary harboring or storing”. He commented that there are issues to be contemplated with each of these words. He explained boats don’t even have to be in the
water so he questioned if the storage of two boats which are used in any commercial manner would be considered a marina. He noted the definition of boat in the county ordinance is “a
vessel or watercraft of any type or size specifically designed to be self-propelled whether by engine, sail, paddle, or other means which is used to travel from place to place by water”.
He commented that could be a water kayak you sit on top of with an oar that people use in the ocean or surf. Mr. Nichols expressed concern that they really hadn’t had the chance to analyze
the impact of this change and recommended a workshop be held before the proposed text amendment moved forward. Mr. Nichols stated his belief that this is a very significant change in
a complicated area that is regulatory.
Page 20 of 24 Tim Ward stated he agreed with Mr. Nichols that this is more significant than a trivial change to the text of the land use plan, noting it would impact every person’s ability
that has any commercial activity at a dock when they apply for a new CAMA permit for development if they have more than two boats and any commercial marine services “including but not
limited to..” which leaves some ambiguity as to what could be contended as a marine commercial application. He said if you have two boats, you fall into that category. He stated Mr.
Ward is correct that it wouldn’t change the perspective from New Hanover County; but it would change the application process for CAMA, which is huge if it’s a major development like
he is going through. He noted he has a lot of confidence in the staff at DENR, CAMA, the Division of Water Quality and the Marine Fisheries Division, both state and local and he thinks
they have New Hanover County’s interest in mind as much as the New Hanover County staff does. He commented, that being said, we really are going to create something we don’t want to
create with the change from “more than ten” to “more than one”. Tim Ward stated, in regard to Mr. Ward’s statement about other municipalities and states that had made changes in their
plans, he had checked out Carteret County/Morehead City, which has boating activity similar to New Hanover County. He said he found that their ordinances are consistent with the State.
He asked his project consultant if they had found any communication from the State as to any desire to change the State’s policy requiring more than ten slips to define a marina and
she said she had not heard anything to that effect. Mr. Ward commented that he believes we are all trying to get to the same place in protecting our coast, our wetlands, and our shellfish.
He stated he doesn’t think any marina owner or developer wants to purposefully harm any of that, but we might be creating something more than is necessary to help maintain the integrity
of the coastal waters. Jay Williams closed the public hearing. Mr. Williams reminded the board that this measure is not about any particular project and stated he would prefer that comments
not address any particular project if that was okay with the board. Sandy Spiers asked about staff’s opinion about Mr. Newman’s comments about public process and the timetable for the
regular Land Use Plan update. Chris O’Keefe stated staff isn’t sure when the update process for the CAMA plan will begin because the plan generally relies on funding from the State.
He noted this item typically receives a good deal of discussion during the CAMA planning process. He explained staff was taking the opportunity to not only bring consistency between
our Land Use Plan and our Zoning Ordinance in making those definitions the same, but also to put some strength in the CAMA plan to look a little more closely at marina uses. He stated
Mr. Nichols and Tim Ward had some good points about the potential residual impacts of this language, noting the possible impact on ecotourism, which is being promoted in the area. He
commented perhaps it may be more appropriate to have a more public process where we can consider some of these impacts. Mr. O’Keefe stated albeit it is a good idea for us to bring our
zoning ordinance and our Land Use Plan into consistency. Jane Daughtridge commented that Mr. (David) Ward’s statement that it really doesn’t change anything in the county’s permitting
is correct. She explained that currently two kayaks and
Page 21 of 24 commercial activity would be viewed as a marina. Ms. Daughtridge stated that a facility on the water in New Hanover County will fall into one of four categories: 1) a private
pier, 2) a private residential pier, 3) a community boating facility, and 4) a commercial marina. The effect of a Land Use Plan change in the definition will be about how the State treats
State CAMA permitting. Changing our language by tinkering with the wording being put into the Land Use Plan would create yet another inconsistency because our ordinance has used this
language since 1986. Chris O’Keefe explained that a special use permit would be required for a commercial marina and if you had five boats and commercial activity you would go through
that process, but staff would say your application is inconsistent with the CAMA plan, and therefore, recommend denial based on that. Mr. O’Keefe expressed concern and stated he would
revise staff’s recommendation to say that staff would recommend that we look at this issue more closely before approving it. Jay Williams said it is his understanding that the change
doesn’t affect New Hanover County, but would affect the CAMA permitting process; for example, a dry stack that doesn’t have a wetslip but has a dock where they put the boats in and out
is not presently a marina as far as CAMA is concerned because it is not in our Land Use Plan. If this change is approved, it will become a marina; and therefore, DCM will conduct a more
rigorous review process. Chris O’Keefe stated that was correct, but beyond that during the special use permit process, this Board would say it’s not consistent with the CAMA Land Use
Plan which is a negative “finding of fact” so staff would probably recommend denial of the special use permit. In general, the Planning Board has recommended denial when there have been
negative “findings of fact.” Mr. O’Keefe stated we might steer around that in the case of a kayak launch with a Coke machine, but nonetheless, there may be other similar examples. Mr.
Collier commented we would be creating a definition of marina at the CAMA level as two or more boats, not ten boats or more. He stated that the implications of reducing that number of
boats by such a large majority and pulling in dry stack storage are very large. Sandra Spiers stated she likes the idea, but she also believes in the public process. She noted it sounds
like staff may be waffling on their original recommendation and asked if that was correct. Ms. Spiers commented that a work session should be held so people who would be affected are
made aware and have the opportunity to provide input on this important issue. Jay Williams stated he was in favor of the proposal but expressed concern about the stakeholder process.
Richard Collier asked if the board votes for approval or denial or votes to send the amendment back to staff. Andy Heath stated the board doesn’t have that option based on the actions
sheet.
Page 22 of 24 Mr. Williams asked if the amendment could be brought back promptly for a lengthier review process if board objects to it. Ms. Daughtridge stated there will be another legal
advertisement for the public hearing before the Commissioners that states the definition that it being proposed for the unincorporated area of New Hanover County and states that it is
a Land Use Plan amendment. Sandra Spiers agreed this is a great idea, but stated her concern about making sure the public is made aware of the proposed change. She asked how owners of
docks that currently have more than one shrimp boat will be affected if this change is made. Mr. Williams stated that if the dock were destroyed to more than 50% for any reason, they
would have to get a new CAMA permit to rebuild and this change would have an effect on that process. Ms. Daughtridge stated they would be required to get a CAMA permit regardless, but
the extent of the review process would be affected. Ms. Spiers stated she likes the idea of a more extended review, but isn’t sure about rushing into this change without everybody knowing
about the process. Melissa Gott stated she doesn’t understand the long term complications or unintended consequences of the amendment so she isn’t comfortable agreeing to it, noting
Mr. O’Keefe’s statements made her more concerned about going forward without further review or research. Sandra Spiers commented it is her understanding that if the board objects, staff
can still bring the Land Use Plan amendment back. Sharon Huffman asked Ms. Daughtridge to confirm that regardless of the recommendation of the Planning Board, this item will be heard
by the County Commissioners on a date certain. Ms. Daughtridge confirmed Ms. Huffman’s statement. Mr. O’Keefe stated the hearing date can be changed. That decision would be up to Mr.
(David) Ward. If he wants to go forward, staff will bring the amendment forward. If Mr. Ward wants to postpone the hearing in order to make changes to it, staff will postpone it. Mr.
O’Keefe stated he doesn’t believe the amendment will go forward with staff’s recommendation without changes. Ms. Huffman stated that regardless of when the item goes forward to the County
Commissioners, they will hear the Planning Board’s recommendation, which will remain the same. Richard Collier stated that he was uncomfortable with the amendment prior to the meeting
and was more uncomfortable now so he would like more discussion before making a motion to approve it. Mr. Williams asked staff to clarify if the amendment would go forward to the Commissioners.
Page 23 of 24 Ms. Huffman confirmed the item will go forward to the County Commissioners unless the petitioner requests that the amendment be pulled from the agenda. Ms. Daughtridge
suggested that if the Planning Board was uncomfortable with the amendment, they recommend denial and let it proceed from there. Sharon Huffman stated that the Planning Board’s directive
is to either move to approve the change or move to object to the change. Sandra Spiers made a motion to object to the proposal of Case LUP-13 – Land Use Plan Amendment. Melissa Gott
seconded the motion. Ms. Spiers explained she doesn’t object to the plan, but she doesn’t feel there has been enough time for the public process to go through. She does feel it’s important
they understand that. She stated she thought they all like the idea, but there are ways to do things and we need to figure out what the implications are with the amendment. Sandra Spiers
offered a revised motion to object to the proposal of Case LUP-13 based on the need for additional stakeholder participation in the decision making process. Melissa Gott seconded the
revised motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to object to LUP-13 based on the need for additional stakeholder participation in the decision making process. Mr. Williams stated that the
item would go forward to the commissioners regardless of the Planning Board’s decision. Ms. Daughtridge explained that Mr. Ward could withdraw the request and come back with a different
request later if he desired. Mr. O’Keefe added the agenda package is widely distributed and available on the County’s website, but staff didn’t receive any comments about this item.
He stated it can be difficult to get the public to participate, but it is certainly worth the effort to get more input into the ordinance so we can protect the water quality and have
the right regulations on commercial marinas. Technical Review Committee Report Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee’s (TRC) activity for the month of May,
which included one new performance residential plan and one revised performance residential plan. Item 1: Wood @Murrayville (Performance Plan): The Woods @Murrayville is located in the
north central portion of the county and is classified as Transitional in the County’s 2006 Land Use Plan. Mr. Burgess provided a 2006 aerial map of the property and a site plan reflecting
14 single family lots that will be served by public water and sewer. He noted the road network is private with primary access being off Murrayville
Page 24 of 24 Road. The TRC voted 4-1 to approve the project with conditions that were included in the Planning Board package. Item 2: Park Ridge Manor @West Bay Estates (Performance
Revision): The project is located near the Ogden community and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection in the County’s 2006 Land Use Plan. Mr. Burgess provided a broad view of the
project via an aerial map which reflected the primary access as Putnam Drive. He noted other land use characteristics in the area including West Bay and Coastal Carolina Development.
He noted that adjacent to the left of the Park Ridge Manor project is the Military Cutoff Extension proposal. The developer for the project requested the TRC consider a reduction in
the pavement width to the private roads from 28’ back to back to 22’. The proposed reduction would conform to the road stub coming off of Putnam Drive leading into the project. The TRC
voted 5-0 to approve the petitioners request to reduce the road width with the conditions that were provided in the Planning Board package. Mr. Burgess reported the TRC will meet again
on Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 2pm. Jay Williams adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. _______________________________________ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director