2017-07 July 13 2017 PBM
Page 1 of 22
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
July 13, 2017
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a
public meeting.
Planning Board Present: Staff Present:
Donna Girardot, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Land Use Director
Ernest Olds, Vice Chairman Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Paul Boney Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Allen Pope Brad Schuler, Current Planner
Jordy Rawl Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney
Edward “Ted” Shipley, III
David Weaver
Chairman Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public
hearing.
Chris O’Keefe led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Approval of Minutes
Approval of the June 2017 Planning Board minutes was postponed to the next Planning Board
meeting.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z17-07) – Request by Nexsen Pruet, PLLC, on behalf of the
property owner, Liberty Baptist Church of Wilmington, to rezone 2.01 acres of land located
at 7957 Market Street from O&I, Office and Institutional District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional
Highway Business District, in order to develop a mini-warehouse use.
On behalf of the applicant, Richard Collier of McKim & Creed Engineers requested a
continuance to the September Planning Board meeting.
Chairman Girardot entertained discussion or a motion on the continuance request.
MOTION: Board Member Allen Pope MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member
Ted Shipley to continue Rezoning Request Z17-07 to the September Planning Board meeting.
The Planning Board voted unanimously 7-0 to continue Rezoning Request Z17-07 to the
September 2017 Planning Board meeting.
Chairman Girardot instructed all citizens planning to speak in regard to the conditional
use rezoning request to sign in and be sworn in by the county attorney.
Page 2 of 22
Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z17-08) – Request by Lee Law Firm, PLLC, on behalf of the
property owner, The Lewis Family Tract, LLC, in order to rezone 85.19 acres located at the
4700 block of Gordon Road from O&I, Office and Institutional District, and B -2, Highway
Business District, to (CUD) R-15, Conditional Use Residential District, and for a Special Use
Permit in order to develop a high density development.
Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land
classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of
the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff summary.
This is an application to establish a conditional use zoning district. Conditional use districts
include both a rezoning and a special use permit; therefore, there are potentially two actions
the board must take on this application, the first being on the rezoning and the second on the
special use permit for the proposed land use.
The property is currently zoned B-2 and O&I and consists of approximately 85 acres. The
surrounding area is predominately zoned for residential purposes, with single family housing
being the most common land use in the area. A gas station is currently being developed in
the general vicinity on Gordon Road. A special use permit has also been approved for a 328-
unit apartment complex on a nearby parcel; however, construction of that development has
not yet started.
The subject property consists of five wooded parcels of land, which are currently
undeveloped. The property was timbered three years ago so while it is a wooded tract, there
are no significant trees located within the proposed development. The property does contain
some regulated wetlands within it, which have been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Most of the wetlands are located in the southern portion of the property along
Smith Creek, which are subject to the standards of the conservation overlay district (COD).
The proposed site plan submitted with the application proposes to develop a high density
development consisting of 236 single-family lots and 192 apartment units, for a total of 428
dwelling units. This equates to five dwelling units per acre. The northern portion of the
property will contain the multi-family units. A buffer will have to be installed along the
eastern property line to screen the units from the adjacent single-family housing. The
southern portion of the property will consist entirely of single-family lots.
The development will be accessed by Gordon Road, near I-140 at the intersection with
Blount Drive, which is to the north. Three road stubs will also be provided to the adjacent
properties, which will allow for an interconnected street network in the event those
properties are developed in the future. The streets within the development will be dedicated
as private.
The development will generate 275 AM peak trips and 359 PM peak trips, therefore a traffic
impact analysis (TIA) has been completed for the proposed development and is currently
under review by the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT); however, some revisions have
been requested for the TIA; therefore, it will need to be updated and resubmitted for review.
Page 3 of 22
During their presentation, the applicant can discuss some of the changes for the numbers
based on the comments from the WMPO and NCDOT.
Noting that some of the following information is subject to change, Mr. Schuler reported
that the current TIA proposes the following improvements to the area’s transportation
network. Signal optimization is proposed for the intersection of Gordon Road and I40
eastbound ramps. At the intersection of Gordon Road, Blount Drive, and the site access, the
TIA proposes that the intersection be signalized, that both a right lane and left turn lane be
installed on Gordon Road into the property, and that a northbound left turn lane be installed
within the development for the motorists who are exiting the site onto Gordon Road.
The TIA examines three intersections along Gordon Road. The first intersection is Gordon
Road and the I-40 eastbound ramps. The level of service of that intersection in the AM and
PM peaks is presented in four rows of information; first, the existing level of service for the
intersection; second, the expected level of service of the intersection in 2021, based only off
the expected growth of the area, without the proposed development; third, the expected level
of service in 2021, including the expected growth in the area and the traffic produced by the
proposed development; and fourth, the expected level of service in 2021, which takes into
account the area's growth, the proposed development, and the proposed improvements
included within the TIA. The TIA proposes that the traffic signal at this intersection be
optimized, which results in an improvement in the level of service. Overall, this intersection
with the proposed development and improvements will operate at a similar level of service.
A level of service from “A” to “D” is generally considered to be an acceptable level. The
second intersection studied was Gordon Road at the I-40 westbound ramps. No
improvements are proposed for that intersection. The AM peak level of service will remain
the same, while the PM peak level of service will be lowered to an “F” for the northbound
travel; particularly this delay will be for the motorists who need to make a left on Gordon
Road or need to go straight through the intersection. Lastly, the TIA examined the
intersection of Gordon Road, Blount Drive and the site access. The TIA proposes that a
traffic signal be installed at this intersection, which is why there is a reduction of the level
of services for eastbound and westbound travel. Currently, there is no light there which
allows for the free flow of movement. With the light, motorists will occasionally have to
come to a stop. Road design is a balancing act between having a great flowing road and
having a road that provides for more access. While this light will provide better access to the
surrounding properties and to Gordon Road, it will also reduce the flow of Gordon Road.
The northbound travel, which is the motorists leaving the site and entering Gordon Road,
will be an “F” level of service in the AM peak, when everybody is leaving the site to go to
work or school. While it is an “F” level of service even with the traffic light installed, it is
a substantial improvement from the wait time that a motorist would experience if a traffic
light was not installed at this location. In the PM peak, the intersection will operate at an
appropriate level of service, with improvements being made to both the northbound and
southbound travel.
As noted in the staff summary, the North Carolina State Transportation Improvement
Program (NC STIP) does include a project to widen Gordon Road to multiple lanes;
however, this project is currently not included in the proposed August 2017 update of the
program.
Page 4 of 22
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as both Urban Mixed Use and
Conservation; however, most of the site is Urban Mixed Use, which encourages
development of a mix of residential, office and retail uses at higher densities. Types of uses
encouraged include office, retail, mixed use, small recreation, commercial, institutional, and
single-family and multi-family residential. Overall, staff concludes this application is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which strongly encourages a mixed used
development pattern. This type of development pattern has many advantages; one being that
when you have compatible and supporting uses close to one another, you promote alternative
forms of transportation like walking and biking. You also reduce the length of trips for
automobile travel, so overall a mixed use development pattern will help reduce dependency
on the automobile, and thus, help reduce the public’s biggest concern, which is traffic and
congestion on our roadways.
The subject property is surrounded by residential zoning and single-family housing. The
closest commercial areas are located at Market Street and Murrayville Road, where most
likely many of these residents go for everyday services, contributing to the traffic concerns
of those areas. Therefore, with the Comprehensive Plan, this vacant land along Gordon Road,
which includes all of this property, was classified as Urban Mixed Use, with the hope that
one day it would be developed with neighborhoods supporting uses that would serve the
surrounding residential community to allow residents to get to the services they need without
having to travel on Market Street or College Road. Overall, this application, which proposes
to remove the commercial zoning from this area and provide more of the same residential
housing, will not promote the mixed use development pattern that the comprehensive plan
and the urban mixed use place type encourage, therefore, staff is recommending denial of
the rezoning.
Should the board approve the rezoning, you must act on the special use portion of the
application. Staff has conducted an analysis of the proposed use and the information
provided as part of the application package, and has created preliminary findings of fact for
each of the conclusions required to be reached in order to approve the special use permit
request. Staff concludes that the application is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and
therefore, does not meet the fourth conclusion, which requires special use permits to be in
conformity with the comprehensive plan. Those preliminary findings are detailed in the staff
summary.
If the board does approve this application, staff has identified the following potential
conditions that would be appropriate for this proposal. First, to make sure the private rights-
of-way shall be open for public use and placed within a public access easement. This will
help with the interconnectivity standards of our ordinance. Second, is that additional
landscaping or buffering be installed around the multi-family structures to provide a screen
for the single family lots. Third, is to give an access easement in accordance with the
greenway plan to eventually provide a multi-use path along Smith Creek. Fourth, is that five
feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated to NCDOT along Gordon Road for the purpose of
allowing for future roadway improvements. This is also the result of the greenway plan,
which calls for bike lanes to be installed along Gordon Road so that in the event that
improvements are made to that road there will be enough room to incorporate that bike lane.
Page 5 of 22
Mr. Schuler announced that Bill McDow, Transportation Planner with the Wilmington
MPO, and Matthew Carlisle, District 3 Deputy District Engineer of the NC Department of
Transportation, were present to answer questions regarding the traffic impact analysis (TIA).
Mr. Schuler concluded the presentation and offered to answer any questions the board may
have.
Chairman Girardot asked if board members had any questions for staff. She then asked if
this proposal would return the zoning to R-15 as it was originally zoned in 1972. Mr. Schuler
confirmed that the proposal would be rezoned to a Conditional Use R-15 District.
Board Member Ted Shipley inquired about the history of the large tract that took the
property to a B-2 zoning. Mr. Schuler explained that the rezoning from R-15 to B-2 was a straight,
general use rezoning so no use was proposed when that rezoning was approved.
In response to Board Member David Weaver’s inquiry about the status of any plans for the
northeast parcel on the map, Mr. Schuler replied he was unaware of any plans for development
other than what is currently on the site, which is six or seven single family dwellings.
Hearing no other questions from board members, Chairman Girardot opened the public
hearing and recognized the applicant.
Michael Lee of the Lee Law Firm stated he represented the applicant. There are two
hearings blended into one for the rezoning and the special use permit. He noted much of the
evidence he would put forward would speak to both matters.
Attorney Lee stated with a rezoning on the conditional use, he will address how the
proposal is consistent with the county’s policies for growth and development, how it is consistent
with the land classification map, and what has changed in the neighborhood. He will also list the
proposed conditions and restrictions, which are in the staff report. Then, he will address the special
use permit requirements that it won’t materially endanger public health or safety, meets all the
conditions and specifications, will not substantially injure adjoining or abutting property, and will
be in harmony with what is around the property and is in general conformity with development for
New Hanover County, specifically the comprehensive land use plan.
Attorney Lee said he would talk about essentially a little bit on the property, explain the
project, and go into the ordinance requirements, noting that Mr. Schuler had been through some
of the information already.
Attorney Lee stated that the proposal is a mix of single- and multi-family uses, five units
per acre. There will be open space and active recreation, over a third of which is going to be open
space; fifteen percent of which, over twelve acres, will be active recreation. The site is located
directly across the street from Blount Drive, which will be the location of the entrance driveway
proposed under the TIA. The current zoning is O&I, with a large part of it being B-2. The property
was rezoned in 1986. In regard to what brought the rezoning, this tract has been in the Lewis family
for a very long time, before I-40. The owners thought they would be able to get access to College
Road as it turned into I-40, but they were restricted access so ultimately they thought this would
be a great location for commercial. The property was rezoned in 1986 for commercial and they
Page 6 of 22
have yet to be able to develop it for commercial. They tried to develop a mixed use for over a
decade, until 2016, which was more of a horizontal mixed use, not what you typically think of as
an urban mixed use. They tried to pull that together, but were unsuccessful after a decade. The B-
2 by-right uses wouldn't be compatible with what's there today as it is surrounded by other
residential uses.
Attorney Lee said this change is consistent with New Hanover County’s policies for growth
and development in regard to livability, the built environment, healthy community and responsible
regionalism as set out in the future land use plan. In regard to the livability and the built
environment, there will be over seventeen acres of open space, including active recreation area.
When you look at the interwoven equity and you look at increasing work force housing, which are
important to New Hanover County, this particular project is consistent with that. The project will
have a sidewalk across the front of the property so when other adjacent properties are developed,
the sidewalk can be extended. There will be a twenty-foot easement dedication along Smith Creek.
This project will take a regional approach to housing development because what you're looking at
in the special use context is higher density single-family and higher density multi-family use,
which are called for in this district under the future land use plan.
Attorney Lee stated he respectfully disagrees with staff and feels the proposal is consistent.
There are multiple parcels on the bottom right-hand corner of the site plan, which are essentially
designated as the UMX district. He pointed out the long slivers that are five acres in the middle of
that, noting if each of those were to come to the board for rezoning of each one of those five acre
tracts, the board wouldn't say you have to have a mix of uses on five acres. Attorney Lee stated
he thinks the intent of the plan was that you would have this UMX district. New Hanover County
does not have a UMX ordinance or an integrated mixed use ordinance. He thinks the County was
looking at creating in this corridor a mix of uses. This particular use absolutely fits in. If you look
at the bold portion of the ordinance, it says that mixed uses are encouraged on the same parcel, but
they can also be adjacent. The t ypes of uses include single-family and multi-family residential high
density. They are looking for high density and that is what this plan does.
Attorney Lee stated in regard to what changes have occurred to make the original zoning
inappropriate, the original zoning was done in 1986 and a lot has changed in that particular area
since then, including I-40. He reported that the applicant agrees with the list of conditions and
restrictions to mitigate use as proposed by the staff.
Attorney Lee stated in regard to the Future Land Use Plan, there are 322 acres in this UMX
district. This particular project is just over one-fourth of that or 26.7 percent. That includes the
entire acreage; that does not include the 35 percent that is open space. Again, mi xed uses are
encouraged in the same parcel, but they can also be adjacent.
Attorney Lee stated in regard to the special use permit and the four conditions for approval,
conditions one through three are essentially met as shown in the staff report; therefore, he will
focus on traffic, which a lot of folks associate with the first condition, and briefly address the future
land use plan again.
Attorney Lee pointed out the exit from the project, noting NCDOT does not want more
than one curb cut onto Gordon Road. There are essentially six access points into this particular
Page 7 of 22
property, only one of which is on Gordon Road. The other access points are stubbed out to the two
adjacent properties on either side so when the other properties develop, there will be
interconnectivity. He provided a map showing the traffic improvements from being a two-lane
road to now having a dedicated turn lane to the right and a dedicated turn lane to the left, and this
intersection becoming signalized. He noted that on the other side of Gordon Road across from the
project, all of those residents currently don't have a signal to get onto Gordon Road. They will be
able to come off of Blount Drive, access that traffic signal, and get out onto Gordon Road. That
was one of the comments that came from the community meeting. He pointed out the turn lane
and the left-over coming off the property, and the right and straight coming off the property, as
well as the widening of the right-of-way and the additional pavement that are all conditions of this
project.
Attorney Lee stated in regard to traffic, until this afternoon the level of service at these two
locations was “C.” He noted the level of service is essentially about time and how long you are
waiting to make a movement. The reason the level of service went from “C” to “D” is because in
the original TIA the conditions for determining the time was with a permitted left. Attorney Lee
commented that he is a layman and has been stuck at many lights. He noted that a permitted left is
a green ball light and a fully protected left would be a green arrow. He explained that one of the
comments that came back was we want a worst case, most conservative scenario; we are not
requiring a green arrow (fully protected left), but we want you to run the model with that. That’s
what took the additional time, because if no one is coming and you have a green ball, you can turn
left. With a green arrow, you can’t turn left. Attorney Lee said he thinks that is what tipped the
scale from “C” to “D.” As you can see, that's just at the Gordon Road and I-40 eastbound ramp.
He explained he then compared the existing level of service (LOS) and the future LOS with
improvements just to make it easier to see what is there now and what would be there after the
project is completed, with the traffic light and the other conditions. The Gordon Road and Blount
Drive intersection is currently a level of service of “F,” and will go to a “D” in the A.M. peak, and
in the P.M., it will go from a level of service of “E” to “C.” If you look at Gordon Road and the
I-40 ramp, in the A.M. peak the LOS would remain a “C.” In regard to the P.M. peak, even if this
project doesn’t move forward, the level of service in 2021 is projected to be “E.” With this project,
the level of service will be “F,” which he has been told by traffic experts and engineers is very
typical for stop controlled approaches and delays are expected to be short-lived.
Attorney Lee said from both the rezoning and special use permit perspective, one of the
biggest issues that came out of this project is that it looks like the balance of the traffic
improvements because of all that's going on is actually going to either maintain or make that area
better from a level of service perspective.
Attorney Lee stated as far as consistency with the future land use plan, this proposal is
approximately 25 percent of this UMX district. The land owner has tried to create a mix of uses
for over a decade, but the roof tops apparently just weren't there to drive the retail. This project is
going to be the high density residential component of this UMX district; it’s going to have the high
density single-family and the high density multi-family residential. The interconnection is
provided and this UMX district hopefully will develop with the additional rooftops and the
interconnection with those rooftops at this particular location. Attorney Lee stated the evidence
shows that all the conditions of the rezoning have been met and all the conditions of the special
use permit have been met as well. He offered to answer questions from board members.
Page 8 of 22
Chairman Girardot asked if board members had any questions for the applicant.
Chairman Girardot noted that she found it interesting in the staff comments that the block
lengths are larger than those recommended for this place type and inquired if Attorney Lee could
explain why. She also inquired if there was a reason that the multi-use path along Smith Creek
was not included in the proposed site plan. Attorney Lee explained that the multi-use path along
Smith Creek was an additional condition they were asked to insert and the applicants have agreed
to provide a dedicated 20-foot easement along Smith Creek. Current Planner Brad Schuler then
explained that staff’s comment regarding the block length is included on a cut sheet for the Urban
Mixed Use place type, which recommends block lengths of 200 to 800 feet in width, which the
proposal is exceeding.
At the request of Chairman Girardot, Attorney Lee pointed out the six road stubs, which
will provide interconnectivity, on one of the maps presented.
Chairman Girardot stated she had some concerns about the wetlands, noting that several of
the residential lots included in the development are immediately adjacent to the wetlands and she
would like to know how close they actually are to those wetlands. Current Planner Schuler pointed
out the location of the wetlands and the COD setback line on the plan. He noted the site plan being
presented is not the most up-to-date plan and the applicant has moved one of the lots. He also
pointed out a pocket of wetlands in the northern portion of the plan. Mr. Schuler stated that those
wetlands are not subject to the COD, but there are still some lots that run up next to those wetlands.
Board Member Paul Boney inquired how a resident would exit Lots 1 through 6 on the site
plan and if they would back out into the road with traffic. Proposed Developer Adam Sosne
explained that the proposed project is still at a high conceptual level. They have been through TRC
and received comments on the plan. They have looked at that specifically, and if the project were
approved, there is a good chance that they would probably lose one to two lots in that area to either
widen those lots out so there is enough room to provide ample turnaround space if they were n’t
fifty feet wide, or the possibility of doing a rear alleyway if they lost Lot 1 and perhaps 5 or 6
where you had a one-way in right alleyway that circled behind similar to the lots at Parkside at
Mayfaire. Something more like that design where we have rear alleyway entries so that the
movements are all in one direction and you don’t have people trying to backup and exit. He
explained they would specifically address that issue and are aware of it. It was just at a high level
planning as they started laying it out, determining what's functional and how many lots they can
get, and then from there making some improvements to the plan. Mr. Sosne noted they had actually
looked at that earlier in the week to figure out how to make that functional.
Board Member Allen Pope asked if the proposal would meet the Mixed Use place type
with the O&I in place if the request had only come in to change the B-2 designation.
Planning & Land Use Director Chris O’Keefe said that would be a really difficult question
to answer given the applicants have presented no definitive plans on the O&I section. He couldn’t
say what would come so staff couldn’t provide a concrete answer to that question.
Board Member Jordy Rawl stated that Planner Schuler had commented that a couple of
lots on the site plan had been adjusted due to the COD setback and inquired if there had been a
Page 9 of 22
definitive classification of those wetlands and if a potential AEC or other county-imposed setback
could potentially influence the position of those building pads on the lots that border that wetland
area. Current Planner Schuler responded that the wetlands have been verified by the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Our conservation overlay district has these classified as Swamp Forest, and
that is what we are applying to those wetlands verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
Swamp Forest classification requires a 25-foot setback. Only one lot was moved due to the setback
taking up a good portion of that lot. In response to another inquiry by Mr. Rawl, Mr. Schuler
confirmed that the setback is applied to the building, not the lot. He explained that the purpose of
the setback is to keep a natural buffer of that resource. There are still improvements that can be
made, for example, six feet of open slotted deck can be put in the setback, and they can also have
boardwalks and walkways. The COD is along our waterways and people can put in docks and
piers and things of that nature within this area.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds inquired in regard to design what conversations had been held
between the applicant group and staff with regard to staff’s mixed-use conflict with the applicant’s
intentions. He wondered why that is not an ideal area for a certain amount of commerc ial
development given its proximity to the I-40 ramp. The gas station is going in, and clearly over the
last thirty years since 1986 things have changed a great deal. He noted he really enjoys that within
a mile of his residence there are restaurants, gas stations, etc. and he doesn’t have to travel far. He
also asked why the applicants had arrived at the proposed plan.
Attorney Michael Lee explained that the proposed plan was arrived at because they couldn't
make any other commercial work. The commercial project they were working on over the last
decade had outparcels in the front, big box in the back and some apartments and the property owner
was working with an out-of-state developer. He has seen the site plans and they just could not get
the commercial interest. They are hoping that the high density rooftops will help drive mixed use
development, especially on that corner across the street from the gas station. He felt sure the
adjacent property owners are hoping the same. Attorney Lee reiterated that this proposal is just
over 25 percent or one-fourth of the total urban mixed use district, and the hope is that will drive
some of the mixed use to be there because on its own it just has not been able to work. He stated
that the property owner was not present, but had literally spent a decade trying to make this work.
He noted the downturn may have had something to do with that so they continued on until
December 2016 to make it work, thinking they would be able to obtain some commercial, which
would probably give them a higher margin, but it just hasn’t worked.
Board Member Weaver said when you see urban mixed use near a major intersection with
the interstate and everything else, you feel that has to be a prime commercial/light industrial/O&I
type parcel. He would like to see everything possible done to preserve those parcels for that type
of job-generating development, and something like Mr. Olds suggested, which would serve the
surrounding residences. He inquired if the applicant had considered doing this project in two
phases where he would develop what's primarily single-family on the back side of the property
and postpone development of the front side at this point in time.
Attorney Lee explained that the applicant had looked at all the options. We see that 25
percent of the urban mixed use district is going to be developed to create the rooftops, and
hopefully create the potential for additional commercial. That makes the residential more valuable,
but they will do whatever they can to move the project to profitability. One of the things we're
Page 10 of 22
looking at here, which is really important to New Hanover County, is the creation of work force
housing and how that also is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This project will improve
infrastructure in a part of the county through not only the addition of new workforce housing, but
also through this intersection and helping residents cross the street in order to access the
thoroughfare. He noted this is the first phase of what will hopefully stir up some commercial, but
again we're looking at about 25 percent of the real estate here.
Board Member Jordy Rawl inquired if there was a possibility under the upcoming use type
for urban mixed use under the current zoning statute and if there would be any availability for the
applicant to petition for commercial underneath the residential, which can be found in the City of
Wilmington. Planner Schuler confirmed multiple uses in one building, for example retail on the
lower level and residential on the upper levels are possible and could be included in a rezoning
application; however, that is not being proposed by the applicants in this request.
Board Member Rawl asked the applicant if they had considered the option of utilizing
commercial space underneath the residential. Attorney Lee said he thinks at some point in the
future they may look at that. The first phasing will probably be the workforce housing, and then
the next phase would be multi-family. There are certain sections of the code where you couldn’t
do multi-family without a commercial component to it. Attorney Lee said he thinks that is
something they would always be looking at in the future and confirmed they have done that before
with other projects, providing some commercial on the first floor of the apartments.
Vic Venters, of P.O. Box 4212, Wilmington, NC 28406, stated he is the power of attorney
and attorney-in-fact for his mother, Jane Venters, who owns the adjacent two tracts to the east of
the Lewis tract, which comprises about 170 acres. Mr. Venters stated he has not met the developer
until today and has not been in contact with him until today, but he certainly doesn’t want to stand
in the way of the project. He is not opposed to well-planned development. He does have a few
concerns regarding potential impact on his property and he thinks they can be resolved, but that
170 acres has been in his family for at least 75 years and since at least 1951 has been under active
forestry management. The forestry management we've done out there is to create a commercial
working long leaf forest and currently it’s got a very park-like characteristic with mature long leaf
over story and an open understory. We selectively timbered three years ago, we have had a great
natural regeneration of long leafs. Where it has not been entirely successful, we're planning on
selective use of herbicide this fall to release the understory because long leafs grow so slowly and
they have to have sunlight, and we’ll also have some planting of containerized seedlings.
Mr. Venters stated his concern is the two road stub-outs into his family’s property. He
understands connectivity, but a working forest like his would be attractive to about 500 families
and he doesn’t need that sort of trespass. Long leaf management is not inexpensive and is not easy,
otherwise there would be a lot more long-leaf forests in this area than there are. He suspects he has
the largest tract of managed long leaf, certainly in this part of New Hanover County. It's taken 75
years to get there. Mr. Venters stated he is not opposed to development at all, but he would like
staff and the developer to work where they can to limit access into his tracts, perhaps with a fence,
and certainly just from his experience having vehicle stub-outs into his land which is laced with
walking paths and trails just invited garbage dumping so he thinks somehow we need to look at
restricting access from those stub-outs until when and if our property is developed. There are no
current development plans and he turns down offers on a monthly basis for people to buy his
Page 11 of 22
property. He is growing trees and wants to protect that 75-year investment. Mr. Venters said he is
not opposed to the project or to the connectivity issues, but he wants to see perhaps a fence across
either their property boundary or the back of their lots lines. He noted from his experience wit h
50-foot lots, which the applicant is proposing, everyone wants and likes their privacy so fences
could be built into the home sales deal for the twenty or so lots backing up to his family’s property.
He would also like to see some way of gating off or fencing the stub -outs onto his property. He
explained that his concern is damage to his long leaf property, and noted they have had fires in
there and trash dumping in the past when their access off Gordon Road was not as good. Mr.
Venters stated he would be happy to work with the developer and would just like for his comments
and concerns to be codified and considered during the review process.
Chairman Girardot asked Mr. Venters to point out on the site plan where his property is
located and where he would like to see fencing. Mr. Venters stated he would like to see fencing on
the eastern property line boundary where his property is located at th e top of the site plan, and
some type of fencing on those two stubs into his property. In response to an inquiry from Chairman
Girardot, Mr. Venters confirmed he would like the road stubs fenced off until it eventually needs
to be connected. He noted if it’s open woodlands, there is no need to encourage people to go onto
his property. He reiterated that there is a network of paths and dirt roads on his property, which
are extensive, and it just invites vandalism, traffic, and trash dumping, and those things are harmful
to his family’s investment and to their property. He again stressed that he would be happy to work
with the developer.
Annette Davis of 120 Rogers Drive, Wilmington, stated she lives in the adjacent
community of Weaver Acres, which is adjacent to the development and actually where Blount
Drive connects to the driveway that is proposed for the new building. One of their main concerns
was the addition of the traffic light so they would have some way of getting out of their community
without having to sit and wait 20-40 minutes to get out onto Gordon Road because of the volume
of traffic that would be added to the traffic that is already there. She inquired if TIA study
recommendation will be complete before any construction or building starts, noting that she has
lived there since 1970 and knows that the traffic has grown and has exceeded that recommended
traffic for a two-lane road. She noted it doesn’t look like we have a lot of possibilities to make it
a 4-lane road with turning lanes, etc. She thinks that should be taken into consideration for safety
reasons as there are already a lot of accidents on Gordon Road. Safety is another primary concern
for the residents. Ms. Davis said she is not opposed to the new development; it’s progress. The
new service station nearby will bring in traffic and on the other end of Gordon Road, there is a
new building and storage facilities with access for retail, etc., which is going to bring in more
traffic. Her concern is that there will only be one access out of that community and that will be on
Gordon Road so that all of that traffic volume will be added. If there was another access for those
400 plus houses and apartments, it would be nice. She hopes the TIA takes into consideration the
volume of traffic and ways to ease that traffic, such as widening Gordon Road. They did some
widening of Gordon Road for the service station, but with that volume of traffic she’d like to know
what else can be done to make Gordon Road a safer pathway for everybody concerned. She
commented that there is also a school at the other end of Gordon Road, which results in traffic
backing up to her street, which is Rogers Drive. Ms. Davis reiterated that her primary concern is
safety and what other improvements can be done to make that road safer for area residents.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to the rezoning/special use request.
Page 12 of 22
Chairman Girardot asked if Attorney Lee would like to speak during rebuttal and answer
some of the questions posed during the public hearing.
Attorney Michael Lee stated that the plan is that his client will meet with Mr. Venters to
work on a plan to protect the areas of concern to Mr. Venters. The two parties spoke about that
before the meeting. They will then meet with staff so that before the item goes go the county
commissioners if the planning board recommends approval they will find some other conditions
to address those concerns. Attorney Lee stated in regard to Ms. Davis’ concerns, the proposed
traffic light at Gordon Road and Blount Drive, which he presented earlier, will enable those folks
on the other side of Gordon Road to have better access onto Gordon Road, and while they won’t
be widening it to a four-lane road, they will be creating turn lanes, a decelerator lane, a left in, and
a right in so that the traffic can continue to move back and forth along Gordon Road without
backing up.
Chairman Girardot asked Mr. McDow or Mr. Carlisle to explain to the residents off Gordon
Road what the future holds for Gordon Road.
Matt Carlisle, of the NC Department of Transportation District office, stated his office is
in responsible from the NCDOT perspective for reviewing and approving the TIA and providing
roadway recommendations. To answer the first question, the TIA would have to be approved
before any houses were constructed or certificates of occupancy were issued. NCDOT is working
through that process now and has given some preliminary feedback to Davenport Engineering staff
regarding some changes that need to be made to the TIA before we can continue with our traffic
impact analysis and determining what our roadway recommendations would be.
Mr. Carlisle stated in regard to Gordon Road, it is near capacity and carries a lot of traffic
for a two-lane road. A lot of the reason Gordon Road is able to do that is because essentially
between Market Street and I-40 there are only one or two signals in there, which is what allows a
two-lane road to carry 23,000 to 24,000 cars a day like it does now. Mr. Carlisle noted that Gordon
Road has been in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to be widened to a 4-lane
road, but it is his understanding that it is not in the most recent version of the STIP. That is based
on a lot of different criteria so he would guess that it did not rank high enough to be included in
the most recent STIP, which is only a draft STIP at this time and has not been finalized.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing.
Chairman Girardot asked Michael Lee, attorney for applicant, to step forward. She stated
at this time you may ask to either continue the application to a future meeting or to proceed with
this board making a decision to recommend approval or denial of the application. What do you
wish to do?
Attorney Michael Lee confirmed that the applicant would like to proceed forward with a
decision by the planning board.
Chairman Girardot opened the planning board discussion period.
Page 13 of 22
Board Member David Weaver again stated his main concern is that the proposal basically
takes away what he thinks at some point will be prime property that will be in demand for
commercial, office & institutional or light industrial use given its proximity to the interstate. He
would like to see the applicant come back with a proposal to develop workforce housing at the
rear of the parcel and hope for better luck with commercial development on the front portion. He
noted that Mr. Lee had a valid point that it’s possible that the commercial could be done on adjacent
properties as we go down the road, but one problem with this is that it would start to bring the
commercial development closer and closer to existing residential areas down Gordon Road, which
always makes for a difficult situation. The other nice thing about this being commercial property
eventually is that it could serve the surrounding residences, not just the residences the applicant
intends to develop. For example, the people in Weaver Acres, who would access Gordon Road at
Blount Drive, wouldn’t have to drive a mile to go to the grocery store or to a restaurant, etc. They
might just be able to cross Gordon Road at that intersection and use whatever commercial
development that would be. Board Member Weaver stated that would be why he would be against
the proposal as it is now.
Board Member Allen Pope said he also has some real concerns about this development
basically kicking that commercial can down the road for someone else and not at least preserving
that opportunity under this current plan. Workforce housing is a great need in this county and this
plan helps meet that need. He commented that adding the left turn lane into Blount Drive and
adding a traffic signal at that intersection are great assets for that neighborhood. Board Member
Allen Pope stated he is in opposition to the proposal at this time. The overriding issue for him is
kicking that commercial can down the road.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds stated the strip of residential development that would be to the west
of the property's entrance is only twelve lots, and behind that is high density residential. It seems
appropriate that those high density lots are there. It doesn't make sense and he doesn’t know who
would buy a lot on Gordon Road where you have to go down and make a U-turn to back out. He
felt that would be a perfect spot for some commercial development as would the first section of
the apartments facing Gordon Road. Vice Chair Olds said he would be in favor of the project if
that area would be dedicated for commercial, but he was not in favor of it without that.
Board Member Ted Shipley stated he came into this hearing a little skeptical but after
hearing the history of the property and what's gone on over the years with trying to get this tract
commercially developed, he became more in favor of the proposal. These folks are asking to make
their property less valuable. They have obviously assessed that the commercial demand is not out
there. There are obviously opportunities nearby with 170 acres that could be developed one day
and six home sites that could also be developed commercially. The rooftops do have to come first
before a commercial developer is going to come in and determine that there is enough traffic, the
demographics are right, there’s enough income in the area for them to come in and develop
buildings to serve these folks. It doesn't happen in the opposite way unless it's a planned
community like River Lights with over a thousand acres. He noted we don’t have that luxury and
must depend on the market, which will tell us eventually that there is a need for commercial there,
but it’s not there at this time. Board Member Shipley said if these folks are asking us to make their
property less valuable so they can make use of it, he would say go ahead.
Page 14 of 22
Board Member Paul Boney stated he shared the same thoughts as Mr. Shipley about this
project because he always has a problem when someone who has kept their property for 75 years
for example is sometimes penalized as the last one out if he wants to develop it three years from
now and has a commercial piece and some driveway improvements. That really isn’t fair to
penalize a property owner because they’ve kept their property for years and years. We've approved
all these other developments around it; they were just quicker. Mr. Boney stated he has the same
concern about those lots located at the front of the parcel and thinks the applicant should definitely
think about those lots, as well as some other lots in the project that are too small and are too close
to the wetlands. He doesn’t see 35 percent of open space on the plan, but sees a lot of wetlands
and lots. He commented that he wouldn’t buy or let his kids buy one of those front lots because it
is going to be very difficult getting in and out of them. In addition, all of the lots in the back of the
site and all of the apartments will be trying to come down that one driveway, which he thinks will
be a problem. Mr. Boney agreed with Mr. Shipley that if you say you can't do the commercial,
then who are we to say you have to do it. He noted they could have the applicant drop those two
apartment buildings right there on the road, but if they announced a big commercial development
there, the room would be filled with people across the street objecting to the commercial. He
thinks the applicants are in a tough situation, but also thinks they have too much on that site plan.
He believes the applicant will find he needs to massage the site plan because some of the lots are
too small and some are too close to the wetland areas and things we try to protect. In conclusion,
Mr. Boney stated he wouldn’t vote no to the plan, but would hope that as the applicants develop it
some of these concerns would be fixed.
Board Member Jordy Rawl stated Mr. Boney had highlighted some important points. He
understands it is the intent of the developer of the property to maximize what they have there based
on the code and the engineering needed to make this use type work, but it would be nice to not see
such an over burdensome number of lots jammed into an area of environmental concern essentially
with the wetlands on the back end and being located less than a quarter of a mile from an on and
off ramp to I-40, which at certain times of the day any time of the year has a lot of traffic
congestion. He would implore the developer to not chase as much density and give a second look
at the design, trying to expand some of the existing lots they have laid out, and reducing some of
the density. Board Member Rawl stated he also has a tough time denying somebody what is in his
opinion his/her right to determine what their propert y should be and he doesn’t see the proposal
having a detrimental impact on the surrounding properties, even in the layout presented. Mr. Rawl
said he does take the applicant’s word that they have looked at different alternatives and this is the
best plan that they can put forward in order to satisfy the market conditions.
Chairman Girardot stated she is a big proponent of workforce housing, which is desperately
needed and also has the greatest respect for Mr. Sosne and his work. She agrees wholeheartedly
that everyone has a right to develop their property; that’s not in question here. Chairman Girardot
said her concern is with the existing residential that is already in the area and this project adding
to it, with no commercial there, which forces people to drive to get to needed services. She would
like to see some way to capture all the people in the surrounding residential areas, plus these folks
in this development, and offer them the opportunity to go to their dry cleaners, go to their bank,
and that type of thing within this proposal. She thinks that this may be the largest piece of property
in that area where we have the opportunity to do that.
Page 15 of 22
Chairman Girardot also noted that two months ago the county commissioners brought up
in regard to a particular item how much time and effort we put into our new comprehensive plan
and that we need to adhere to that plan. It is important that we don't start making exceptions in
order to make a project fit or shoehorn it in. For that reason, she does have a problem with this
proposal, but wouldn’t have a problem with the applicant coming back to the planning board with
a redesign and perhaps try for a little commercial in that area as well to conform to the urban mixed
use category.
MOTION: Board Member David Weaver MOTONED, SECONDED by Vice Chair
Ernest Olds, to recommend denial as the planning board finds this request for a zoning map
amendment of 85.19 acres from O&I and B-2 district to a Conditional Use R-15 district as
described is:
1. Not consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because
the proposal would remove the only non-residential zoning an area that is exclusively
zoned for residential purposes. It will not support a mixture of compatible uses as
encouraged in the Urban Mixed Use place type and does not conform to the
recommended development intensity of the place type.
2. Not reasonable and not in the public interest because the proposal will not encourage a
mixture of uses that would promote alternative forms of travel and the reduction of the
dependency upon the automobile.
The Planning Board voted 4-3 to recommend denial of Rezoning Request Z17-08. (For:
Girardot, Olds, Pope, and Weaver) (Against: Boney, Rawl, and Shipley)
Because the Planning Board recommended denial of the rezoning, no vote was held on the
special use permit.
Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z17-09) – Request by Coastal Land Design, PLLC, on behalf of
the property owner, Corbett Package Company, in order to rezone 129.3 acres located at the
100 block of Brentwood Drive from I-2, Heavy Industrial, to (CUD) R-15, Conditional Use
Residential District, and for a Special Use Permit in order to develop a community boating
facility.
Current Planner Brad Schuler presented the staff presentation.
This application seeks to establish a conditional use zoning district to develop a
community boating facility.
The zoning map of the area shows the subject property, which is currently zoned I-2,
Heavy Industrial, and consists of approximately 129 acres. The surrounding area is
predominately zoned for industrial purposes, with most of the area being undeveloped.
To the east is residential land, consisting of single-family housing.
The subject property consists of an undeveloped tract of land, which is made up mostly
of marshlands. There is a 7.5-acre island, which the boating facility will connect to.
The vast majority of the property is located within an AE Special Flood Hazard Area
(which is the 100-year floodplain), and a portion of the island is located within a Shaded
Page 16 of 22
X Flood Zone (which is the 500-year floodplain). Also, the proposed preliminary flood
study will remove the Shaded X zone and place the entire property in an AE zone.
The property is also located within a Natural Heritage Area, specifically the Northeast
Cape Fear River Floodplain. This Natural Heritage Area is classified as exceptional,
meaning it may contain at minimum 10 rare plant and animal species. Potential impact
to any endangered species will be reviewed during the CAMA Major permitting process
that is required for the proposed facility.
The proposed development consists of a 6-foot-wide, 261-foot-long boat dock
containing 98 boat slips. The dock is connected to the 7.5-acre island. Access to the
island will be provided by a 10-foot-wide boardwalk which spans approximately 1,400
feet east to a proposed 98 lot single family subdivision (Sea Breeze). The proposed
subdivision is located within land already zoned R-15, and therefore, it is not included
within this rezoning application. That subdivision was approved by the Technical
Review Committee on July 12, 2017. The community boating facility is a private, non-
profit facility with no commercial activities being permitted. Each boat slip will be
reserved for the home owners within the proposed subdivision.
Of the 129.3 acres included within the application, 121.85 acres will be preserved in
conservation space.
The proposed community boating facility and boardwalk must obtain applicable permits
from the NC Division of Coastal Management and the US Army Corps of Engineers.
The island will contain an open air pavilion containing bathrooms, which will be
approximately 5,000 square feet in area. The pavilion will be served by public water
and a private septic system. There will also be group picnic areas, canoe launches, and
bike/walking trails. The island will be accessible by walking or riding a golf cart and it
does include some golf cart parking spaces throughout the island.
As the community boating facility is a private f acility with no commercial activities
being permitted, it is not expected to generate any additional trips outside of those
generated by the proposed subdivision; therefore, a Traffic Impact Analysis was not
required to be completed for this application.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as Conservation. This
place type encourages areas of natural open space and is intended to protect the natural
environment, water quality, and wildlife habitats that serve the public through
environmental education, low-impact recreation, and in their natural beauty. The
proposed community boating facility is consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
because it provides low-impact recreation in an environmentally sensitive area. Also,
it will put 121 acres of marshlands within conservation space that could not be
developed unless a new rezoning application was submitted and approved by the Board
of Commissioners. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to the
Conditional Use District (CUD)
Should the board agree and approve the rezoning, they must also act on the Special Use
Permit (SUP) portion of the application. Staff has conducted an analysis of the proposed
use and the information provided as part of the application package and has created
preliminary findings of fact which support each of the conclusions required to be
Page 17 of 22
reached in order to approve the special use permit request. Those preliminary findings
are detailed in the staff summary.
If the board approves the application, staff has suggested the following condition be
place on the Special Use Permit:
1) The development on the island be consistent with the new preliminary flood
insurance maps, which will put the island entirely in an AE flood zone and will also
raise the base flood elevation by one foot.
Mr. Schuler concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions.
Chairman Girardot stated there was a lot of discussion at the TRC meeting about fire
service access to the pavilion. She inquired how the fire department would get out to the pavilion
on a boardwalk in case of fire if the pavilion was used for weddings or other events, particularly if
people were fleeing at the same time. She inquired if golf carts or other equipment would be
available. Mr. Schuler explained the fire marshal had some concerns given the pavilion’s distance
away from where a typical fire truck could access so the applicant will have to make a lot of
improvements to comply with the fire code. They will have to set up staging areas within the board
walk, and will have to run some pipes for fire protection. While there is concern, the proposal can
technically meet and comply with the fire code with the required improvements. Another option
offered was that there is a fire department boat that could also come to the area to assist with fire
protection.
Board Member Jordy Rawl commented that sometimes those outhouse pavilion
areas/community amenity centers are viewed as commercial buildings and inquired if this structure
would technically be classified under the commercial code, and therefore, be subject to some of
the fire sprinkler systems requirements, etc. Mr. Schuler stated he wasn’t sure how the proposed
pavilion would be classified under the building code, but the applicant does have the option of
potentially sprinklering the building, which was also discussed at the TRC meeting.
In response to Board Member Shipley’s inquiry, Mr. Schuler confirmed it was his
understanding there will eventually be a request to install gates on Brentwood Drive for the
community.
Board Member David Weaver inquired if the turning basin in the river at the location of
the site is still an active turning basin and if it would interfere with docking and boating access.
Chairman Girardot suggested that perhaps Mr. Braxton could address that inquiry in his remarks,
noting there was a discussion at the TRC meeting about relocating the docks.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Attorney Andi Van Trigt of the law firm of Murchison, Taylor and Gibson stated she
represented the applicant, but Mr. Braxton would be able to answer any technical questions. She
said this is a great project and the concerns about technical fire issues and things of that nature will
be handled during the permitting process between now and construction. The project meets with
flying colors all the legal requirements for granting the requested rezoning to the Conditional Use
Page 18 of 22
R-15 Residential District. She then asked Mr. Braxton of Coastal Land Design to address Mr.
Weaver’s question about the turning basis.
Frank Braxton of Coastal Land Design, 221 N. Front Street, reported they have conducted
a scoping meeting with CAMA for a Major Permit, and some of those items were discussed. He
confirmed that the turning basis is an active turning basin and CAMA wants the applicant to slide
the docking facility to the side to give more clearance for that turning basin. They are already in
the process of obtaining a CAMA permit for the docking facility. He noted that the active turning
basin actually helps them because the fire boat the City has does come down here to this location
because they need more water to draw. Our project has a deep channel and the turning basin, which
works in the applicant’s favor. In regard to fire protection, the applicants are working very closely
with the fire marshal. To provide some background, this project started in 2007 and was actually
approved, and the applicant went through the fire issues at that point. They are now going back
through the same steps and making sure we didn’t miss anything. He stated they have looked at
providing a fire gator equipped with hoses and other fire equipment so they can run out to the
island quicker, and also a fire suppression system. He explained they will have to run water to the
island so they are looking at running water to handle that size structure to determine if they can do
that.
Mr. Braxton stated this is a piece of property that Corbett Packaging owns and they o wn
both the proposed subdivision that was approved yesterday by the Technical Review Committee
and the land around it. This little island is a key part of the subdivision as it becomes an amenity
center for the residents. The island is needed for the boating facility, and will also provide a
recreation area for exercise, allowing residents to walk the trails and the boardwalk. He feels this
is a unique opportunity for the developer to include the island and let it be part of the homeowners’
association. Mr. Braxton noted the land in the marshland was once used for rice production so they
will leave it alone, and provide canoe trails and maybe some signage that will introduce people to
what was there at the beginning. Mr. Braxton commented that he agrees with all of staff’s
recommendations and offered to answer questions from planning board members.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Mr. Braxton stated there will be sprinklers in
the pavilion if that works out with the fire department. The project will be controlled by the fire
department on that point if that’s the best way we can do it. It may be that they drop the size of the
pavilion and just have a concrete restroom on the site so that if it caught fire so be it; and then have
open air, raised platforms for a cookout, etc. and maybe a shelter there that would be separate from
the restrooms. Mr. Braxton stated that the biggest issue with the fire requirements was making sure
there was a way to get water to the boats in a timely manner. The best you can do on any type of
docking facility is get there as quickly as you can.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiries, Mr. Braxton confirmed it is the developer’s
intent that the community would be gated and the requested rezoning would only allow the gated
community access to the facility, not the community as a whole. Mr. Braxton also explained that
due to no road to access the docking facility with a vehicle and boat trailer, boats needing repair
would need to be driven to the downtown boat ramp or be towed. Mr. Braxton noted that CAMA
would not permit a boat ramp there.
Page 19 of 22
Chairman Girardot opened the opposition portion of the public hearing. Mr. Kelly Jewell
of 304 Palmetto Road was signed up to speak, but declined. The chairman inquired if anyone else
present would like to speak in regard to the request.
Joy Spivey of 176 Brentwood Drive, which is along the access road to the development,
inquired how wide the road will be and how much traffic will be in and out of that road.
Chairman Girardot asked Mr. Frank Braxton to respond to Ms. Spivey’s concern.
Mr. Braxton stated the primary access road will be 22 feet wide on a ribbon type of curve
that will meander through the subdivision in that particular area. It will tie in and the developer or
owner of the property has negotiated with the adjacent owner to the north to do a land swap and
easement, and worked out more road frontage for the development to move the road around a little
bit, but also gave the adjacent landowner access, where his building was built a little over the
property line in the past. Those issues were resolved very quickly. The amount of traffic will be
less than 100 trips during peak hours so we aren’t adding much to the drive. The traffic will be
more because it is development, but the development is not exceeding the number of units allowed
in R-15, and is actually less.
Chairman Girardot reminded the planning board members that they are only considering
this portion of the development, not the subdivision itself.
Ms. Van Trigt thanked the board for their time and stated they think the proposal is a win-
win as it is a way to encourage the beneficial use of the property, but also to conserve the property
at the same time, which is rare. She also asked the board to keep in mind that they are only
considering the community boating facility, which will be matching the existing zoning district for
the remainder of the property.
Chairman Girardot asked Ms. Van Trigt to remain at the podium, and stated, at this time
you may ask to either continue the application to a future meeting or proceed with the planning
board deciding whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. What do you wish to
do?
Ms. Van Trigt confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a decision by the
planning board.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion
period.
Board Member David Weaver stated he first thought this request would eliminate valuable
I-2 property, but after reviewing the proposal, realized this is not valuable I-2 property. It happens
to be zoned I-2, but to develop it as industrial would be very difficult. In his opinion, this is a very
good use of the property on the ground or in the water.
Board Member Jordy Rawl commented that it looks like a cool project and it seems
relatively rare these days to see a project like this. He thinks it is a nice, compatible use, a way to
preserve the area, and an opportunity for the citizens of New Hanover County to enjoy a unique
Page 20 of 22
landscape in a part of the county that hasn’t seen much activity like this. Having the accessibility
of the boating facility and the desirability of a golf cart type of community back in there is a great
utilization of the property in that area. The plan is also well laid out and would service the
community very well. For those reasons, he is one hundred percent in support of the proposal.
Chairman Girardot stated the project will preserve almost 122 acres in conservation space,
which is excellent, and it will be a great addition and amenity for the subdivision.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Girardot entertained a motion on the rezoning
application.
MOTION: Ted Shipley MOTIONED, SECONDED by Paul Boney, to recommend approval of
the rezoning as the Planning Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 129.3
acres from I-2 District to Conditional Use R-15 District as described is:
1. Consistent with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan because the proposal
would provide low impact recreation in an environmentally sensitive area.
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal will preserve over 100 acres of
an environmentally sensitive area in its natural state.
The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion on the special use permit.
MOTION: Ted Shipley MOTIONED, SECONDED by Paul Boney, to recommend approval
as this application for a special use permit to develop a high density development will not:
1. Materially endanger the public health or safety.
2. Meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance.
3. Will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property.
4. Will be in harmony with the surrounding area and is in general conformity of the plans
of development for New Hanover County.
Condition:
1. The proposed development must be constructed in accordance with the preliminary
flood insurance rate maps.
The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the special use permit with one
condition.
Technical Review Committee Report (June 2017)
Current Planner Brad Schuler reported the New Hanover County Technical Review
Committee met twice during the month of June and considered four items.
Canby Oaks (Formerly Myrtle Oaks)
Page 21 of 22
Canby Oaks is a performance residential subdivision plan located in the 1000 block of
Grissom Road. This is a smaller neighborhood, consisting of 17 residential lots. The TRC
voted 5-0 to approve the plan with four conditions as detailed in the Planning Board packet.
The Landing at Lewis Creek Estates
The planning board discussed this plan earlier in the meeting.
Point South Apartments at Beau Rivage (formerly Willow Glen Apartments)
This project was originally approved in March 2006 for 312 units. In a vote of 3-2, the TRC
approved the entry and exit gates as proposed.
Whiskey-Navajo
Whiskey-Navajo is a 170 lot project preliminarily approved by the TRC in October 2016
and is located between College Road and Navaho Trail. The developers came back to the
TRC to request private roads and gates. In a vote of 4-1, the TRC approved the request to
re-designate the roads as “private”, but voted 3-2 to deny the installation of gates.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Mr. Schuler reported that the developer intends
to appeal the TRC’s decision to deny the gates. That appeal would be heard at the September
Planning Board meeting.
Other Business
Chairman Girardot recognized and expressed her appreciation to retiring Planning & Land
Use Director Chris O’Keefe for his many years of service to New Hanover County and to the
Planning Board. She had the privilege of being one of five people serving on the County’s selection
committee that hired Mr. O’Keefe as director. Mr. O’Keefe is a collaborator; he tries to find middle
ground and brings all sides together. He is a principled man with the greatest integrity. She will
remember him as someone who doesn't say, no, we can't do that, but as someone who says let's
see how we can make this work. She has been fortunate to have worked closely with him during
the last two years as planning board chair as we worked our way through the county's first
comprehensive plan since 1968 and last year's challenging special use permit and she had planned
on a steady hand at the helm during the upcoming UDO process. She stated Mr. O’Keefe will be
sorely missed and our loss is truly Jefferson County, Colorado’s gain. Mr. O’Keefe and his family
will be a great addition to that community and the county will benefit from his wisdom and
character during the upcoming UDO process.
Planning & Land Use Director Chris O’Keefe stated he appreciated the planning board
members, noting the work that they do had made the last few years of his job very rewarding. It
has been a pleasure and he leaves New Hanover County in good hands. The staff is excellent and
the county is going to have a great path to walk forward on through the leadership that the planning
board and county commissioners provide, through the comprehensive plan recently adopted by the
county, through the great projects we have moving forward with the unified development
ordinance, the small area plans that we hope to bring forward in the near future, and many, many
projects to come. New Hanover County is in great hands and the future is bright for this great
place.
Page 22 of 22
Hearing no further business, Chairman Girardot entertained a motion to adjourn.
MOTION: Paul Boney MOTIONED, SECONDED by Ted Shipley, to adjourn the meeting. The
Planning Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting.
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Vafier, Planning Manager