Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08 August 1 2013 PBM Page 1 of 9 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board August 1, 2013 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, August 1, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Chairman Richard Collier Shawn Ralston, Planning Manager Andy Heath Ken Vafier, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Lisa Mesler Ben Andrea, Current Planner Ted Shipley, III David Weaver Absent: Dan Hilla, Vice Chairman Tamara Murphy Chairman Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Ken Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Collier reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Chairman Collier announced Tamara Murphy had been reappointed to the Planning Board and welcomed new board member Ted Shipley. Approval of the July 2013 Planning Board Meeting Minutes Lisa Mesler made a motion to adopt the July Planning Board minutes as drafted. Andy Heath seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 3-0 to approve the July 11, 2013 Planning Board meeting minutes. (Chairman Collier & Mr. Shipley were not present at the July meeting). Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-927, 08/13) - Request by Cindee Wolf on behalf of Monkey Junction Mini Storage, Monkey Junction Car Wash LLC, and AMJB Properties, LLC to rezone 9.4 acres located at 5042, 5042 ½, and 5044 Carolina Beach Road from CUD (B-2), Conditional Use District Highway Business to CZD (B-2), Conditional Zoning District Highway Business in order to construct a 12,000 sq. ft. storage building. The subject properties are classified as Urban according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Chairman Collier announced due to a technical difficulty, all neighboring property owners did not receive proper notification of the public hearing; therefore, the public hearing on Rezoning Request Z-927 would be continued to the September 5, 2013 Planning Board meeting. He apologized to the public for the inconvenience. Page 2 of 9 Discussion Item: Amending Ordinance Language for Child Day Care Centers – Planning Staff will present to the Planning Board for discussion a draft proposal to amend Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the uses of Family Child Care Homes and Child Day Care Centers by creating definitions for the uses within Article II Section 23 and including them in the Table of Permitted Uses per Article V Section 50.2. Ben Andrea presented the staff report on the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance with regard to child day care centers. Mr. Andrea explained staff would present information regarding child care services, including how they are defined under N. C. General Statute, how they are currently regulated through the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, and recommendations to amend the ordinance to better accommodate those uses. In general, New Hanover County has allowed child care services since 1982; however, the ordinance groups all types of child care services into one definition. Understanding there are different types of child care services, including in-home and more commercially oriented facilities, staff has evaluated the current regulations and feels there may be room for improvement to accommodate the different types of child care services. In North Carolina, child care services are defined under General Statute § 110-86 as Child Care Centers and Family Child Care Homes: Child Care Center – An arrangement where, at any one time, there are three or more preschool-age children or nine or more school-age children receiving child care. Family Child Care Home – An arrangement located in a residence where, at any one time, more than two children, but less than nine children, receive child care. Both of these types of facilities are regulated by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. In order to start a child care service facility, an applicant must receive local zoning approval. Through local zoning regulations, jurisdictions in North Carolina may regulate how these facilities are permitted in a jurisdiction’s different zoning districts. Currently, the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance groups all child care services into one definition, Child Day Care Center: Child Day Care Center – A place operated by a person, corporation, organization, or association which receives a payment, fee, or grant for the care of more than five (5) children thirteen (13) years of age or less for more than four (4) hours per day, without transfer of custody. Page 3 of 9 The ordinance also specifies in which zoning districts these facilities are permitted and whether they require a special use permit or are permitted by right. The Zoning Ordinance also imposes additional requirements for these facilities per Article VII, Section 72-20. These additional requirements address parking requirements and driveway improvements, as well as requiring a fenced play area. Additionally, the requirements address allowable signage and require that such facilities comply with all applicable regulations. Article VIII, Section 81-1 of the ordinance specifies the minimum parking requirements for child day care services, which is one space for each employee, plus four spaces for off-street drive-in and pick-up. Upon evaluation of the current ordinance regulations and requirements, staff recommends the use of Child Day Care Services be broken down into the two separate uses of Child Care Center for the commercial oriented facilities and Family Child Care Home for in-home uses. Research of previous Special Use Permit requests for Child Day Care Centers within residential structures reflects consistent concern from adjacent and neighboring property owners about the required parking and driveway improvements. In general, speakers at public hearings have not been opposed to the use of a child care facility within a petitioner’s home, but rather object to the required external parking and driveway improvements, which can transform the character of a residential property to more commercially natured. One previous petitioner in New Hanover County had to hire an engineer to attest that the physical size and layout of their property could not accommodate the required improvements. The petitioner then had to request a variance from the Board of Adjustment, and then was able to request a Special Use Permit for a Child Day Care Center within their home. Because both the in-home and commercial facilities are regulated through a single use definition, these additional requirements are applicable to both types of facilities. By separating the uses, specific regulations could be tailored to meet the uses more appropriately. Mr. Andrea presented the following staff recommendations for discussion and input from the Planning Board: 1) Remove the definition of Child Day Care Center and replace it with two new definitions, Child Care Center and Family Child Care Home, which mimics the definitions found within the N. C. General Statutes. Page 4 of 9 He noted NCGS § 110-82(2) defines exclusions to the definition of Child Care and those exclusions are incorporated into the proposed definitions. 2) Revise the Table of Permitted Uses to remove the Child Day Care Services use and replace it with the new uses of Family Child Care Home and Child Care Center. Allow the Family Child Care Home use by right in the Planned Development, R-15, R-20S, R-20, Airport Residential, and Rural Agricultural zoning districts. Require a special use permit for Family Child Care Homes within the R-10, R-7, B-1, B-2, and River Front Mixed Used zoning districts. Allow the more commercially oriented Child Care Centers by right in the Planned Development, B-1, B-2, Office & Institutional, and Shopping Center zoning districts. Allow Child Care Centers by special use permit in all residential and industrial districts, as well as in the Rural Agricultural and River Front Mixed Use districts. 3) Strike the additional requirements for Child Day Care Centers found in Article VII, Section 72-20. 4) Amend Article VIII, Section 81-1 to apply the existing minimum parking requirements to only the commercially oriented Child Care Centers. Mr. Andrea offered to address questions or comments from the board members. Chairman Collier thanked Mr. Andrea for providing a well prepared presentation and entertained questions from the board members. Ted Shipley stated appreciation for the presentation, but noted confusion about the Family Child Care Homes. He asked Mr. Andrea to provide an example of the typical types of uses for Family Child Care Homes. He noted the definition was rather broad. Mr. Andrea explained under N. C. General Statutes, Family Child Care Homes are facilities located within residential structures or in homes that provide care for up to eight children. Mr. Shipley inquired about the type of situations Family Child Care Homes are used in and whether they were foster care situations, for example. Mr. Andrea clarified that a Family Child Care Home is essentially an in-home day care where someone runs a day care out of their home with a maximum capacity of eight children. Shawn Ralston explained a Family Child Care Home is an in-home babysitting facility, but is a licensed daycare. From the outside, you wouldn’t be able to perceive it is a daycare facility Page 5 of 9 except for the requirements of the current ordinance. This type of facility is basically a home that functions as a daycare during the day. David Weaver stated after reviewing the definitions, it appeared to him that a Child Care Center could be located in a residence. While he didn’t think that was the intent, the definition sounded like it could be. Mr. Andrea agreed with Mr. Weaver that it did appear that they could be permitted as such through the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services. It certainly doesn’t preclude that type of facility from being in a residential structure or in a home. If an in-home daycare served more than eight children and fell under the definition of a child care center, it would have to meet certain specific regulations imposed by DHHS, including the size of the structure and specific safety requirements such as exits, locations of children during the day, etc. Mr. Weaver asked in regard to a Family Child Care Home if the use would be limited to single family residences or would also apply to attached residences. He commented it may be more of an issue if the use was taking place in an attached residence. Mr. Andrea acknowledged Mr. Weaver had made an excellent point. Ms. Ralston stated the Family Child Care Home would be permitted by right only in PD, R-20S, R-20, and R-15. In the smaller lot residential districts like R-10 and R-7 with higher density developments, it would require a special use permit. She inquired if Mr. Weaver was referring to townhomes. Mr. Weaver noted townhomes are sometimes located in R-15 districts so that would be a concern to him. He also commented the county currently has regulations on signage and fences. He stated understanding that fencing is regulated by the state, but inquired about signage regulations. Mr. Andrea explained signage is regulated at the local level. There are no signage regulations established by the State of North Carolina. Mr. Weaver stated the current regulations only allow a small sign and inquired if the applicant would be able to put up a larger sign if they desired. Chairman Collier commented he thought the ordinance provided for a two square foot maximum sign for the family home care use. Mr. Weaver noted the two square foot maximum sign requirement appeared to be removed from the proposed ordinance. Page 6 of 9 Mr. Andrea acknowledged the two square foot maximum sign allowance is in the existing regulations. If the board has the desire to regulate the size of the sign for a Family Child Care Home, staff could develop that language or retain the two square foot maximum sign language currently in the ordinance. In the information presented, the language has been removed. Andy Heath stated under the current regulations, up to five children is not considered daycare. The special use permit cases heard in the past applied to applicants that wished to babysit for more than five children. Ms. Ralston confirmed Mr. Heath was correct. Mr. Heath commented staff appears to be proposing to apply regulations to more than two children, but less than nine children. Mr. Andrea affirmed staff was proposing to apply the language to more than two children, but less than nine children to better align with the state’s definition. Lisa Mesler stated she felt the language restricting the size of the signage should be retained in the ordinance, noting most people who had spoken at the recent special use permit public hearing for the daycare were not opposed to the daycare, but expressed concern about the appearance of the neighborhood and the effect on their property values. Andy Heath asked if anyone felt it would be an issue to increase the number of children from five to eight in a residential neighborhood without a special use permit. Chairman Collier asked about the regulations on specific age children in in-home facilities. Mr. Andrea noted the new regulation would allow for a total of eight children in a residential neighborhood. Once a facility exceeds eight children, it would become a Child Care Center. Mr. Heath stated he was wondering about the effect on the neighborhood with the worst case scenario of eight unrelated preschoolers being dropped off and picked up on the same days. Chairman Collier agreed with Mr. Heath, but noted he felt they were heading in the right direction because it wasn’t fair to require people requesting a special use permit to create parking spaces and vehicle turn around areas in their yards and then critique their site plans. It makes sense because it meets with the state’s requirements. David Weaver commented he understood that you can currently operate a daycare in your home as long as you don’t exceed five children without a permit. It appeared that under the proposed regulations, a permit would be required for more than two children. Page 7 of 9 Ken Vafier reported staff is also proposing to permit that use by right in R-20, R-20S and R-15 so the special use permit requirement would be eliminated in every district except in the more dense R-10 and R-7 districts. Mr. Weaver noted that made sense to him. Chairman Collier stated he didn’t think the use should be allowed in RFMU at all because it is a mixed-use district and is more urban and apartment driven. He wasn’t sure that would be the appropriate setting, but noted with the special use permit requirement, the applicant would be required to prove why it would work in that setting. Chairman Collier commented the board would not be voting on the proposal at this meeting. Staff was seeking discussion and input from the board on suggested language for staff to incorporate into a final draft of the proposed amendment. Staff will bring a text amendment proposal to the board at a later date for consideration. Ms. Ralston confirmed staff would typically review the proposed amendment with the board at a work session, but because the recent joint work session with the commissioners focused on the comprehensive plan, staff wanted to bring the information to the board at a regular meeting. She noted Mr. Weaver picked up on a key point because currently a daycare with up to five children is allowed in R-10 and R-7 districts. The new definition would not even allow up to five children in those districts. Staff may need to add some language to allow up to five children by right if the board felt so inclined. Chairman Collier stated the opinion they should be allowed in R-7 and R-10 by permitted use and not require a special use permit. He also commented the two square foot maximum sign requirement should also be included as stated earlier by Ms. Mesler. Technical Review Committee Report (July) Ken Vafier reported the Technical Review Committee met twice in July. Three cases were reviewed. Deer Crossing: Phase 3 (Performance Plan) Deer Crossing is located in the southern portion of our jurisdiction off Myrtle Grove Road and is classified as Watershed Resource Protection on the 2006 Land Use Plan. The petitioner for the project requested preliminary site plan approval for an additional 39 single family lots to be served by public water and sewer. Private roads are planned within the project with access from Deer Hill Drive. Several large live oak trees were preserved. In a vote of 4-0, the TRC approved Deer Crossing: Phase 3 for 39 additional lots. The following conditions will apply Woodlake (Revised Performance Plan) Woodlake is located in the southern portion of our jurisdiction and is located between Ocean Forest Lakes subdivision to the west and Lords Creek subdivision to the east. The area is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the 2006 Land Use Plan. The Page 8 of 9 petitioner for the project requested preliminary site plan approval for 25 additional residential lots to be served by public water and sewer. Private roads are planned within the project with access from River Road and Carolina Beach Road. In a vote of 4-0, the TRC approved Woodlake subdivision for 25 additional lots with conditions. Middle Sound Village (EDZD – Exceptional Design Zoning District Plan) Middle Sound Village is located near the east central portion of our jurisdiction in the Middle Sound Community and is classified as Watershed Resource Protection on the 2006 Land Use Plan. In conjunction with the EDZD requirements, the petitioner requested preliminary site plan approval for a 45 unit patio home enclave to be served by public water and sewer. Private roads are planned within the project with access from Middle Sound Loop Road. Two separate votes were taken by the TRC on the Middle Sound Village project. In a vote of 4-0, the TRC approved the Low Impact Development (LID) criteria for the project with conditions. In a vote of 4-0, the TRC approved the preliminary site /EDZD component of the plan with conditions. Election of New Officers Chairman Collier opened the nominations for Chairman. Andy Heath nominated Richard Collier for Chairman. David Weaver seconded the nomination. No other nominations were received. The Planning Board voted unanimously to elect Richard Collier as Chairman. Chairman Collier opened the nominations for Vice Chairman. Lisa Mesler nominated Dan Hilla for Vice Chairman. David Weaver seconded the nomination. No other nominations were received. The Planning Board voted unanimously to elect Dan Hilla as Vice Chairman. Chairman Collier opened the nominations for TRC Chairman. Chairman Collier then nominated David Weaver for TRC Chairman. Lisa Mesler seconded the nomination. No other nominations were made. David Weaver was elected to serve as Chairman of the New Hanover County Technical Review Committee. Mr. Weaver noted he is chairs a 4:00 p.m. meeting on the second Wednesday of each month so he will need to be there. Ms. Ralston explained the TRC meets on the second and fourth Wednesdays at 2:00 p.m. She offered to revisit the time for the meetings to accommodate Mr. Weaver’s schedule. Shawn Ralston thanked the board members for attending the Joint Planning Board/County Commissioners meeting to kick-off the County’s comprehensive planning effort. Page 9 of 9 Chairman Collier then thanked staff for the new GIS data and information provided for the meeting materials. Chairman Collier adjourned the meeting at 6:36 p.m.