01-2010 January 7 2010 PBM
1 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board January 7, 2010 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, January 7, 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, Principal Development Planner Sue Hayes Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Andy Heath 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. Sue Hayes made a motion to approve
the October Planning Board meeting minutes; Andy Heath seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the minutes. Item 1: Special Use Permit (S-598, 1/10) – Request by
Malcom Dean Johnson for Malcom L. and Shirley S. Johnson for a special use permit to allow a residential use within a commercial district at 2723 Castle Hayne Road. The site is in a
B-1 commercial zoning district and is classified as Transition 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 stated this property has consistently
been zoned B-1 since 1974 and was part of the original zoning for the area; however, the residential use of this property existed prior to the implementation of zoning in the area and
was non-conforming from the beginning. The two-story structure has an apartment upstairs and the downstairs apartment has been transitioned into a hair salon. Transitioning the property
to a mixed use brings it more into conformity with the intent of the ordinance, which allows for a residence in a commercial district by special use permit. By requesting a special use
permit, Mr. Johnson will legitimize the business and the apartment. Chris O’Keefe presented the following findings of fact. 1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger
the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved.
2 Staff states the evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed. 2. The Board must find
that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff states the evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use meets all
required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that
the use is a public necessity. Staff finds the evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property.
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located
and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. Staff finds the evidence in the record supports that the use will be in conformity with the plan of development
for New Hanover County. O. K. Pridgen, attorney for the applicant, thanked the Planning Board for their work, stated he was impressed by the professionalism of the Planning staff, and
offered to answer questions. No one spoke in opposition to the special use permit. Jay Williams closed the public hearing. Sue Hayes made a motion to recommend approval of Special Use
Permit S-598, based upon all findings of fact are positive. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-598. Item
2: Special Use Permit (S-599, 1/10) – Request by Withers & Ravenel for Gordon Road Development Partners for a special use permit to allow for a high-density 23 single-family residential
lot development on 6.095 acres at 6469 Gordon Road. The site is in an R-15 residential zoning district and is classified as Urban on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map.
3 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. Chris O’Keefe presented the following findings of fact. 1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if
located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. Staff finds the evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use may materially
endanger the public health or safety where proposed due to finding F, which is traffic level of service on Gordon Road, an urban minor arterial, is FF, meaning that traffic counts exceed
the capacity of the roadway. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance. Staff finds the evidence in the record at this
time supports a finding that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value
of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. Staff finds the evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not substantially injure
the value of adjoining or abutting property. 4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in
harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. The TRC reviewed and approved the preliminary site plan
on December 9, 2009 with the following technical conditions: 1. A new unduplicated development name will need to be issued for the project. Two unduplicated street names will also need
to be issued for the road stubs. The Hansbrough name is acceptable either as a street or development name. 2. The two road stubs within the project will be platted and improved to the
property line prior to final plat approval to prevent any misunderstanding from adjoining land owners. 3. Since Gordon Road Division is a high-density project, a special use permit will
be required. If the special use permit is not granted by the Board of County Commissioners, the site plan will become invalid. 4. With this project being a private development, no gates
or obstructions will be allowed that may inhibit emergency delivery. 5. Regulated and significant trees will need to be retained in accordance with the
4 County’s Zoning Ordinance. Two telephone inquiries were received in regard to this project. One was from a neighbor who would like to see a buffer added between the stormwater pond
and the adjacent residential neighborhood to the east. The other caller inquired as to the type of homes proposed for development and the possible impact of traffic in this location
in close proximity to the strawberry farm. Staff feels the preliminary findings are generally positive with the exception of the negative finding of Gordon Road’s FF traffic level of
service. Sue Hayes, noting the property is currently zoned R-15, asked how many single family lots could be developed without the high density zoning. Jane Daughtridge stated that fifteen
single family lots could be developed with the R-15 zoning. Cindee Wolf, landscape architect with Withers and Ravenel, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Gordon Road Development Partners.
Ms. Wolf explained that the property is long and narrow and would have yielded 15 lots if they’d chosen to produce a conventional R-15 development. She stated her belief that the property
could viably have been rezoned R-10 because of its proximity to Farrington Farms and some of the other uses along Gordon Road. She noted that would have yielded 20 lots, but in this
economic atmosphere, certain business decisions needed to be made concerning the viability of the investment. Ms.Wolf stated the developer opted for a high density development; and therefore,
put together this project consisting of 23 single family homes, which meets the high density criteria for maximum impervious surfaces, but well exceeds the recreation area requirement
for high density. Cindee Wolf stated, not to belittle the fact that Gordon Road is an extremely busy road, it is projects like these that have resulted in improvements to the road over
the years despite the lack of DOT funds available. She explained that as developments have been put in, DOT has required that a left turn lane be constructed. Ms. Wolf noted that DOT
will also require a left turn lane for this project; therefore, it’s just another piece of the puzzle for improving Gordon Road that might not happen in a standard development scenario.
She stated that Cape Fear Public Utility Authority is requiring utilities to be oversized and extended for the benefit of future development in the Gordon Road area. Ms. Wolf stated
that there is a 25’ perimeter setback around the entire project because it is high density and the existing drainage ditch will have a 15’ drainage easement applied as well. Melissa
Gott asked Ms. Wolf to explain the 5’sidewalk and pedestrian access shown on the plan. Ms. Wolf explained the TRC and MPO recommended the sidewalk although there is no other sidewalk
along Gordon Road because basically you have to start somewhere. The sidewalk is located on the property side of the right-of-way because Gordon Road does not have curb and gutter. Since
the sidewalk is on the homeowner’s side, there is a pedestrian easement to cover the right-of-way so that the sidewalk is “public” to everyone, not just to the lots it serves or solely
for this development.
5 Roland Banks, co-owner of Lot 69, 6801 Buckhurst Court in Farrington Farms, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Banks stated that his property, which is in a cul-de-sac, is
adjacent to this project. He expressed concern about the impact this project will have on traffic on Gordon Road, explaining that it is already very difficult to access Gordon Road from
Farrington Farms Road, especially in the morning and afternoon hours. Mr. Banks stated concern regarding the development’s impact on the existing drainage problems in Farrington Farms,
and on his property value due to the location of the stormwater retention pond and the proposed clearing of the vegetative buffer behind his property. Mr. Banks also shared his concerns
about the risk of injury to the children of Farrington Farms posed by the retention ponds, as well as the potential for odor problems related to those ponds. Mr. Banks requested an additional
15’ setback for the retention ponds, security fencing around the ponds, and the retention of more trees in the buffer adjacent to his property if the special use permit is granted. Mr.
Banks told the board he is not totally opposed to the development, but only to those aspects of the proposal. Dorothy Scutti, owner of Lot #72 and a resident of Farrington Farms whose
property backs up to the creek, stated concern about the development’s effect on water in the creek and the lack of a barrier fence between the proposed development and Farrington Farms
subdivision. She commented that high density will mean more children and pets and with no road between the subdivisions, residents will take shortcuts by her property to access the nearby
school and playgrounds. Ms. Scutti requested the developer put up a fence to address this issue. During rebuttal, Cindee Wolf explained that the developer could certainly understand
the need for a security fence along the bank of the pond, adjacent to those property owners, and could concede to that request. She explained that trees have been identified and only
underbrush will be removed in the vegetative buffer. Ms. Wolf also explained that the developer is providing a 25’ setback and only road rights-of-way, utility easements, and drainage
easements will be cleared. Jay Williams asked Ms. Wolf how close the stormwater pond would be to the property line. Ms. Wolf stated the pond is 10-15 feet from the property line because
there is a 10’ maintenance easement around the pond. Jay Williams asked Ms. Wolf to address the issue of odor raised by Mr. Banks and clarify the developer’s responsibility related to
future maintenance of the stormwater ponds. Ms. Wolf explained the County didn’t have rules for stormwater ponds when Farrington Farms was developed, but currently, stormwater ponds
are regulated by both the County and the State of North Carolina. Ms. Wolf is not aware of any odor problems that are inherent with stormwater ponds, but they are designed to meet state
standards for both the banks and vegetative shelves within the ponds. She stated the ponds in this project project would be wet ponds because of seasonal high water. Ms. Wolf stated
the maintenance of the stormwater ponds and other common areas will be turned over to the homeowners association upon completion of the development and the homeowners
6 association will then be required by the State to have the ponds certified every couple of years and to maintain them as they were designed to operate. Jan Banks, co-owner of Lot 69
and a resident of Farrington Farms, requested a clarification on the width of the area to be cleared of underbrush and requested confirmation that all trees would remain in the buffer.
Ms. Banks also asked for confirmation that the maintenance would be on the sides of the pond and on the front road side of the pond. Fred Whitman , owner of the trailer park adjacent
to the property, stated he is not against the rezoning of this property or the number of houses the developer would like to build, but he’d also like for the developer to erect a fence
between his property and the new development. Mr. Whitman commented that he’d like to have his property rezoned in the future and would like to see more property on Gordon Road rezoned.
Mr. Whitman stated his desire to build a bank or shopping center on his property, which is approximately 4-1/2 acres. He stated he’d been told that his property couldn’t be rezoned until
Gordon Road was improved. Jay Williams explained that Mr. Whitman’s property is located in a residential zone so it would be difficult to get approval for a commercial use. He stated
the application being considered tonight is simply an alteration to the existing residential zoning. Cindee Wolf stated she could add a note to the plan that the existing vegetation
not be removed in the 10’ buffer along all of the northernmost stormwater pond and Lots 16 & 17. The 25’ perimeter setback is still there. Along the pond bank, fencing would be added
to prevent children from walking into it through the buffer. Ken Wrangell asked if Ms. Wolf had spoken with DOT about putting more traffic on Gordon Road. Ms. Wolf explained the developer
had consulted with DOT and will be putting a left turn lane on Gordon Road to access the development. She stated that generally a 23-lot development wouldn’t require one, but the developer
will be constructing a left turn lane because of the heavy traffic on Gordon Road. Ms. Wolf said they will not be required to install a right turn lane. Richard Collier asked Planning
Staff if DOT has any plans to widen Gordon Road and if so, when. Chris O’Keefe stated DOT does have plans to widen Gordon Road and has included the project in their TIP. He noted the
section of Gordon Road that runs from the 132 Overpass to Wood Sorrell Road is funded, but DOT is behind schedule. Mr. O’Keefe reported the MPO has indicated construction will take place
in 2010, but some of DOT’s project funds are being reallocated. Mr. Collier commented that it is his understanding that Gordon Road is ultimately slated as a multi-lane roadway. He commended
Ms. Wolf on the subdivision design, noting she had done a nice job with the narrow parcel. He explained he has issues with the traffic and is concerned about putting another 230 trips
per day on Gordon Road, which is well over capacity.
7 Sue Hayes stated, in her opinion, it isn’t a good idea to put high density in an area that is rated FF. She stated it may be a good project, but she can’t support it because of the
traffic issue. Jay Williams agreed, noting although this is a good development, he has trouble supporting it on a road with a FF traffic rating. Sue Hayes made a motion to deny recommendation
of Special Use Permit S-599 based on the finding that the traffic on Gordon Road is FF and well over capacity. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-3 to recommend
denial of Special Use Permit S-599. Item 3: Conditional Rezoning Request (Z-900, 1/10) – Request by Withers & Ravenel for Beau Rivage Golf & Resort, L.L.C. et al to conditionally rezone
8.54 acres at 649 Rivage Promenade from R-15 residential district to CD (B-2) conditional district to convert an existing golf center and condominium complex into a 2-story golf resort
and function facility with an 80-room hotel and separate private clubhouse. The site is classified as Transition 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. Daughtridge stated that a Traffic Impact Analysis was required for this project and was approved by the MPO. Some road improvements will be required on Carolina Beach Road in
the Cathay Road area. Chris O’Keefe presented the following findings of fact. 1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed
and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. Staff states the evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not materially endanger the public
health or safety where proposed road improvements required by NCDOT are implemented. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff finds the evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Board
must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
8 Staff finds the evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. 4. The Board must find
that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity
with the plan of development for New Hanover County. Staff states the evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will be consistent with the land use plan and
in harmony with the neighborhood if developed within the limitations of the project as proposed and with the required road improvements outlined in the TIA approval letter for this project.
Cindee Wolf, of Withers & Ravenel, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Wolf explained that the project actually evolved from some condominium units which are now operating as a resort
venture. She stated the existing facility has become popular and expansion is now warranted economically. Ms. Wolf stated that with the County’s policies for growth and development encouraging
businesses to stay within the county and expand if possible, the owners of the club seek to rebuild and improve the club. Ms. Wolf explained they feel the redevelopment of the property
will provide an excellent opportunity to create an efficient, sustainable, and quality facility where this use really already exists. She stated the primary structure would house the
central resort, offices, and function facilities and would be flanked by the three-storey residential wings, noting the architectural character would remain low country in style and
the entire structure would basically appear three-storey because the central portion would have higher ceilings than a standard two-storey building. Don Weber, President of Beau Rivage
Homeowners Association, spoke in favor of the project, stating that the Beau Rivage HOA voted by an overwhelming majority of their homeowners in support of the plan at their annual meeting
in 2009. Matt Nichols, an attorney with Shanklin & Nichols, representing Dominion Land Corporation and Isabella Holding Company, LLC, developer and owner respectively of the adjacent
property, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Nichols stated his clients have concerns about how the project will impact them and their rights as the owners of all the remaining
undeveloped land in the Beau Rivage subdivision. He presented a map of the 1986 Beau Rivage updated preliminary plan which allocated density at 1,100 or so units. He noted there have
been more than 35 recorded plats for Beau Rivage over time and several lawsuits, including one in 2002 involving the County. Mr. Nichols stated that conditional district rezoning requires
a community meeting, but his clients were never notified of the meeting. Mr. Nichols said his clients, who learned of the proposal one week ago, would like an opportunity to meet with
the applicant to review the project. He stated the letter from the HOA was dated August 2009 so so the project has been known about for some time. Mr. Nichols commented that his clients
are not sure why they weren’t notified of the meeting because they own the adjacent property, as well as most of the
9 land between the proposed site and Carolina Beach Road. He stated that property is zoned residential, as well as the private entrance road. Mr. Nichols stated his client is also the
assignee of the allocated density of the Beau Rivage development. He asked the board for the opportunity to better understand the development proposal prior to their consideration of
the re-zoning case, explaining that one of their concerns is that a B-2 district requires a minimum front yard of fifty feet along a U.S. and N.C. numbered highway and major thoroughfare
as designated by the Wilmington Area Thoroughfare Plan, and/or 35’ along all other public highways and streets. Mr. Nichols commented these streets are private and are owned by his client.
Mr. Nichols stated that the ordinance, as he reads it, doesn’t allow a B-2 district on private streets. Matt Nichols stated the second point he wanted to make was related to the lawsuit
settlement agreement, Case # 02CVS3259, dated February 3, 2004, which establishes the density density in Beau Rivage. He explained the density is established at 530 units. Mr. Nichols
expressed concern that this project, which increases the number of hotel rooms from 32 to 80, might increase the density in Beau Rivage. He stated they need to determine how that would
impact his client as holder of the remaining density in Beau Rivage. Mr. Nichols stated that a continuance of this case would be beneficial to his clients and would give them the opportunity
to better understand the project. Mr. Nichols displayed another map that shows the entrance property in Beau Rivage designated for future development, which is currently zoned residential.
His clients would like to explore how this proposal to put B-2 traffic on the residential zoned street will affect their property. Jay Williams asked the staff to project the property
map on the video screen and asked Mr. Nichols to identify the tracts owned by his clients. Mr. Nichols pointed out that his clients own tracts 14 and 15, as well as the entrance road
shown on the adjacent property map. Melissa Gott asked Mr. Nichols to clarify which property is owned by Dominion Land Corporation. Candice Alexander, Vice President of Dominion Land
Corporation, explained that Dominion is the developer of the property and confirmed that Isabella Holdings owns the roads and the adjacent property. Ms. Alexander stated she works for
Dominion Land Company and Nathan Sanders, who is also the owner of Isabella Holdings. Ms. Alexander expressed concern that she met with the Beau Rivage HOA in December 2009, but was
not made aware of the proposed project until she received notice from New Hanover County regarding the public hearing. She commented that once they have discussed the project with the
owner of the golf course and the County and reviewed the agreement, they may or may not be in favor of the project. During the rebuttal period, John Wessell, attorney for the petitioner,
stated that he has worked with the applicant through this process and he thought they had complied with with the public meeting requirement. He explained they are certainly prepared
to do so if they have not. Mr. Wessell stated it is his understanding from Planning staff this proposal does not impact the remaining density in the Beau Rivage overall performance development
division.
10 Chris O’Keefe agreed that the proposed project in no way impacts the density in the Beau Rivage performance development division. Mr. Wessell commented that to his knowledge, there
are no existing plans for the development of the property between the project property and Carolina Beach Road, but the Traffic Impact Analysis indicates there would be little or no
impact on that property. Matt Nichols expressed appreciation for Mr. Wessell’s comments and stated his client would welcome the opportunity to clarify the density issue with County staff
and look at the Traffic Impact Analysis. Jay Williams asked Mr. Nichols what his clients would like to see the planning board do with this request. Matt Nichols asked the planning board
for a thirty-day continuance of this item to give his clients time to meet with the applicant and the County and determine their opinion on the project. Candice Alexander reiterated
Mr. Nichols’ concerns and also asked the board to continue the case for thirty days. She noted they may have a difference of opinion on the density issue and they’d like the opportunity
to review it. Jay Williams closed the public hearing. Ken Wrangell made a motion to continue Conditional Rezoning Request Z-900 for thirty days to allow adjacent property owners to meet
with the developer to satisfy the community meeting requirement of the ordinance. Jane Daughtridge advised board members that the next planning board meeting will be held on February
4th, which is less than thirty days from today; however, if both parties are satisfied with that date, the motion could be amended to continue the request to the February meeting. Ken
Wrangell amended the motion to continue Conditional Rezoning Request Z-900 to the February 4, 2010, planning board meeting. Sue Hayes seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0
to approve the motion to continue Conditional Rezoning Request Z-900 to the February 4, 2010 Planning Board meeting. Item 4: Technical Review Committee Report (December) Sam Burgess
presented an update update of the Technical Review Committee’s (TRC) activity for the month of December. Mr. Burgess explained that the full report from the TRC will be included in the
Planning Board package each month so his presentation will be limited to the general and
11 specific location of each project, the land use, the site map, the key elements, and the vote by the TRC. The TRC met on December 9, 2009, and reviewed the high density project for
Gordon Road Division, located near the Ogden area on the north side of Gordon Road. The project consists of 23 lots, which will be served by public water and sewer. The road network
is private, with sole access from Gordon Road. Two road stubs do exist on the property. One road stub goes into the strawberry farms and the other is located further north and east.
The TRC did require that the road stubs be paved prior to final plat approval to reduce misconceptions by adjoining landowners that the property would remain vacant. The TRC voted 5-0
to approve the high density project. The conditions state that if the special use permit is denied, the site plan will become invalid. There is opportunity for this special use project
to go forward if approved by the County Commissioners at their next meeting. The subcommittee created by
the Private Roads Task Force also met after the TRC meeting on December 9th to focus on developing a private road tier system, which will include local and collector residential streets.
They are continuing to work toward that means with the subtask force, which met on January 6th to work out the matrix and also adequate and specific definitions on the functions of the
different types of roads. The subtask force will meet the week of January 18th in hopes of submitting a package to the planning board very soon. Jay Williams adjourned the meeting at
7:05 p.m. ______________________________________ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director