2017-09 September 7 2017 PBM
Page 1 of 19
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
September 7, 2017
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, September 7, 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 Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Ernest Olds, Vice Chairman Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Jordy Rawl Rebekah Roth, Senior Long Range Planner
Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Brad Schuler, Current Planner
Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
Planning Board Absent:
Paul Boney
Allen Pope
David Weaver
Chairman Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public
hearing.
Ken Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the 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. This item is continued
from the July 13, 2017 Planning Board Meeting.
Chairman Girardot announced that Rezoning Request Z17-07 was withdrawn at the request
of the applicant.
Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z17-10) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property
owners, Allen & Lynn Masterson and Stephen & James Miller et al, in order to rezone 13.50
acres located at the 5700 block of Carolina Beach Road from B -1, Business District, and R-
15, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District, in order to
expand an existing retail and warehousing business and to allow for additional uses of
existing buildings located on the property.
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 summary.
Page 2 of 19
This is an application to establish a conditional zoning district in order allow for the
expansion of an existing business and to also allow for additional land uses to be
permitted within existing buildings located on the property. The subject property is
currently zoned B-1 and R-15. There is a mixture of commercial and residential zoning
in the area. To the north along Rosa Parks Lane is single-family housing and directly
south is the Autumn Care Nursing home. The land to the east and west is currently
undeveloped.
The subject property is located within 6 parcels and totals 7.27 acres. There are currently
two retail stores in operation on the property: The Discount House, which has been in
operation for several decades and Pelicans Roost, a multi-vender resale shop.
The site plan submitted with the application shows the existing buildings used for the
Discount House. This application would require these buildings be used only for retail
and warehousing purposes. The application also proposes to expand the Discount House
with the addition of a 30,000 square foot warehouse building. Lastly, the application
proposes that additional land uses be allowed within the two existing buildings located
at 5717 & 5719 Carolina Beach Road. These additional uses are currently not permitted
in the existing B-1 zoning district, but are permitted in the B-2 district. Overall this
application will limit the allowable uses of those buildings to 21 specific uses, some of
which are already permitted in the existing B-1 zoning district.
The main driveway is shared by all of the properties. The building located at 5719
Carolina Beach Road is a flex space or office warehouse type building. The rear
warehouse building is for the Discount House business.
The applicant has provided trip generation numbers that illustrate the proposed uses and
warehouse expansion will not add more than 100 trips in the peak hours; therefore, a
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not required for this application.
Staff has reviewed this rezoning application to determine if it is consistent with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan, which classifies the subject property as Urban Mixed Use. This
place type promotes a mix of residential, office, and retail uses at high densities. Types
of uses encouraged include office, retail, mixed use, recreation, commercial,
institutional, single-family, and multi-family residential. Overall, the proposed
development is consistent with the comprehensive plan, because it will support business
success and expand commercial services to the surrounding residential communities.
Staff recommends approval of the application with three conditions. The first condition
will place hours of operation for the Discount House and will limit the delivery times to
the proposed warehouse. The second condition will require a 20-foot wide easement be
dedicated to the County along Carolina Beach Road for the purpose of installing a future
multi-use path, and the third condition clarifies that the uses will be limited to those
noted on the site plan.
Current Planner Schuler offered to answer questions from board members.
Board Member Ted Shipley asked Planner Schuler to provide details on the suggested 20-
foot wide easement. Planner Schuler explained the easement will be located along the front
property line. Staff will typically seek this type of easement whenever it’s along property for
which the comprehensive plan calls for a future greenway path to be constructed. This will give
the County the ability to use that land if it is needed in order to put that future path in place.
Page 3 of 19
Vice Chair Olds noted that the multi-use path appears to be in the travelway on one of the
properties and could close parking. Planner Schuler responded that it might. We don’t know the
timeline of when the path will be installed or if we will need the full twenty feet either, but we
would like to get the easement to potentially use it if it’s found that it’s viable for use. Planner
Schuler also confirmed that it does include the travelway right now that’s proposed for the access
and parking lot. The boundary is not that plus that of the parking lot; it’s inside that space.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represents the owners of all of the properties.
She said the staff did a great job explaining the proposal. They have a piece of land that is along a
busy highway corridor and they have found along the way, particularly in the Miller properties,
that the uses have been limited to this highly visible corridor. Alone they did not meet the five-
acres minimum size for a B-2 zoning district so Mr. Masterson, who had the adjacent property and
could do what he needed to do, joined with them in this petition because it made a lot of sense in
the Urban Mixed Use category of the land classification. It is Highway Business along here. This
is a highway and it has that type of criteria for highway business uses.
Ms. Wolf pointed out that they did extremely limit the types of uses. It is important to note
in the chart on the site plan and in the case summary that the first twelve uses are currently
permitted. It is the nine uses that would be added to better the B-2 district that they are very
interested in. At this point in time, the applicants are only looking at using the existing buildings
on the Miller property as they are. They’ve also shown how they could be used if the uses were to
change from what they currently are. If more parking is required, they have room to park. Ms.
Wolf noted that New Hanover County statutes state that a change of use requires application to the
Building Safety Department. At that point, there would be a change in a site plan if warranted. At
this point, those existing buildings are underutilized because their uses in a B-1 district are severely
limited.
Ms. Wolf stated that the warehouse started out much larger. The Discount House has been
an extremely successful business over the years and they were hoping to warehouse more product.
Currently, because of their limited space they have more tractor trailers coming on a more regular
basis because they don't have anywhere to stock house inventory. We're only zoning part of the
Discount Warehouse rear property, but this fits in well. She reported they had held good
conversations with the folks on Rosa Parks Lane, noting they had concerns about drainage and
noise. She said that to her knowledge, there had never been any issues between the existing
Discount House enterprise and the Rosa Parks Lane residents. She offered to answer questions
from the board members.
Ms. Wolf noted that an easement along the highway is being requested for almost every
project that they have on these major corridors. The site plan shows Carolina Beach Road, which
has been improved where the median is and where the turns are right now, and it still has more
than adequate room within the right-of-way for any type of multi-use path to be installed by the
County or by NCDOT at any point in time. This easement just gives it some extra room to grow
if necessary to avoid trees or to snake in among the trees or ditches or any other impediments.
Chairman Girardot asked if board members had any questions for the applicant.
Page 4 of 19
Board Member Jordy Rawl inquired if the property use would continue to be utilized by
the Discount House business or if they would be changing the zoning district to accommodate
another use type. Ms. Wolf explained that the feasibility of the other uses is what they are
interested in. She doesn’t know if they have any contracts at this point because the uses aren’t
permitted, but these are the types of uses they think are suitable along this corridor. She also noted
this would not be build-to-suit. If the owners were to take out these buildings and substantially
change in any way, such as a new building, more gross floor area or anything of that nature, they
would have to come back to the planning board and do a modification of this conditional district.
Right now, the owners are happy with their buildings, but they are very limited in their uses. Board
Member Rawl then asked if the request is an attempt to rezone it all and have cohesion between
the buildings in order to have a uniform use type between the different buildings. Ms. Wolf
responded that the two buildings could be two totally different uses. Many times, the front row is
a use that desires that visibility of the passing traffic and the rear use could be subsidiary to that or
an accessory, but it could also be a totally different use that would require that visibility.
In response to another inquiry from Board Member Rawl, Ms. Wolf clarified that the
property boundary extends 1,495 feet from the highway to the rear of the property. It extends back
to a property known as the Heglar property. There is a ditch and a CFPUA sewer easement back
there also, but the applicants are limiting their request for the conditional zoning, which will result
in a split zone on the property. In response to Board Member Rawl’s inquiry regarding the status
of the rear property, Ms. Wolf explained replied that the rear property isn’t a part of this rezoning
request at all and will remain R-15. It is not zoned B-2.
Chairman Girardot inquired if there were any previous stormwater improvements on the
site. Ms. Wolf stated there have not been any stormwater improvements on the site and most of
this property was grandfathered in. The most recent addition was in the back and at the time they
did not meet the thresholds for stormwater management. She noted that this new development
would meet that threshold so it will be required to go through the entire permitting process for
construction authorization.
Chairman Girardot noted she had seen box trucks onsite there and inquired if tractor trailers
would be delivering to the site as a result of the expansion of the warehouse. Ms. Wolf explained
that currently delivery trucks can only offload half their load at the current warehouse and then
they go on to another seller, but the applicants would like to bring in full truckl oads and offload
them into a warehouse so they have good surplus inventory so the number of trips would actually
go down, not increase. She also confirmed that the travelway is fine for the tractor trailers that
enter and exit now. Chairman Girardot inquired in regard to the B-2 uses being requested, where
they anticipate locating the automobile dealer, truck sales, boat dealers, or automobile boat repair
uses. Ms. Wolf replied that the U-Haul Rental business is currently onsite now. They would at
least have some display in the front area and depending on the amount of inventory they decide to
have, there is additional area that inventory could be displayed in. Ms. Wolf stated that it is possible
that they will all be visible and on the road front. Ms. Wolf then commented that if there was a
change in use from the current use to automobile sales for example, it would be reviewed by
Planning & Zoning and Building Safety to ensure it was brought up to the current code, including
parking spaces. She stated they are not increasing any building because that is not a part of this
petition.
Page 5 of 19
Chairman Girardot stated she is concerned because Carolina Beach Road is one of the main
corridors for tourists and people out of state traveling to Pleasure Island and back. She stated she
is conflicted with having another automobile lot when there is already one there on the roadway
or another boat sales lot, etc. on that road. Ms. Wolf explained that it is an appropriate use for a
busy corridor.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the rezoning request.
Chairman Girardot asked Ms. Wolf to come forward and inquired if the applicant would
like to continue the application to a future meeting or proceed with the planning board deciding
whether to recommend approval or denial of the application.
Ms. Wolf stated they appreciate the staff’s recommendations and believe they are
consistent so they would like to move forward with a decision by the planning board.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion
period.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds said it is a sensible proposal and expands the number of uses by
going to the B-2 district. In his mind, a lot of those uses are already compatible with B-1. The only
real addition is well off Carolina Beach Road toward the rear of the property so it seems reasonable.
The applicant is essentially widening the net for the options that are available there and he doesn’t
find any of those uses in the B-2 area objectionable.
Board Member Ted Shipley stated he thinks the proposal is probably a net positive. He
shares some of the chairman’s concerns in regard to the appearance from the road, but this is being
constructed at the back of the property and there is an internal loading dock. There is also the
benefit of having a stormwater pond down there, which would assist in stormwater runoff, so it's
slightly a net positive. Mr. Shipley stated he would vote in favor of the application.
Board Member Jordy Rawl stated he doesn’t disagree that the proposal is a sensible project
and it obviously has staff support. He expressed some hesitation as he was under the impression
that all the buildings were going to be tied to the same general business type. He also felt it would
be nice to see some cohesion between the different elements that go on off the roadway. Now,
there is an R-15 tract that looks to be relatively landlocked, a big chunk of R-15 in the back of the
property, a retirement home across from it, and some B-2 mixed in there. It seems to be sticking
to the status quo, which he would like to steer away from at some point. Mr. Rawls commented
that he doesn’t see any reason not to recommend approval to the commissioners. He noted that the
board is limited on the conditions they can apply on a project like this, but it would be nice to see
upgraded landscaping in the front to beautify the entryway and he would like for the applicant to
give more thought to what will happen behind the commercial tract on that sliver of R -15 in the
future.
Chairman Girardot asked staff to confirm there is an overlay district on Carolina Beach
Road in regarding to signage. Mr. Schuler stated there are more restrictive signage standards on
Carolina Beach Road. A sign can only be a maximum of six feet in height and 150 square feet in
area, which would be monument signage. He explained that the business currently has an existing
free standing sign, which was permitted before the standard was put in place so it's grandfathered
Page 6 of 19
in. If that sign was ever to be replaced or relocated, they would have to meet the new standards.
The current sign can be maintained, however, if it's ever damaged more than 50 percent of its
value, then they would have to meet the new standard.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion.
MOTION: Vice Chair Ernest Olds MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member Ted
Shipley, to recommend approval of the project as it is consistent with the purposes and intent of
the 2016 comprehensive plan because the proposal will support business success and expand
commercial services to surrounding residents. It is also reasonable and in the public interest
because the proposal will allow for the expansion of businesses that have provided commercial
services to the surrounding residents.
Conditions:
1. The building materials retail use (Discount House) shall be limited to the below hours of
operation. No deliveries to the warehouse shall occur outside of the listed hours.
a. Monday – Friday: 7:00am to 6:00pm
b. Saturday: 9:00am to 3:00pm
c. Sunday: Closed
2. A 20-foot wide easement shall be dedicated to the County along Carolina Beach Road for
the purposes of installing a future multi-use path in accordance with the Wilmington/NHC
Comprehensive Greenway Plan.
3. Land uses of the existing and proposed buildings shall be limited to those indicated on the
site plan.
The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z17-10 with
three conditions.
Item 3: Special Use Permit Request (S17-03) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the
property owner, Church of God of Prophecy, for a Special Use Permit in order to operate a
personal care facility on 6.87 acres of land located at 1380 N. College Road.
Chairman Girardot instructed all citizens planning to speak in regard to the special use
permit request to sign in and be sworn in by the county attorney.
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea provided the following staff
presentation.
• This proposal was heard at the March 2nd Planning Board meeting and ultimately the
Planning Board recommended approval of the project. The case was scheduled to be
heard by the County Commissioners at their April meeting, but was continued at the
request of the petitioner and ultimately withdrawn. The request is now back for
consideration and is basically the same proposal with some minor site plan changes.
• The subject site consists of eight parcels totaling 6.87 acres located at 1380 N. College
Road adjacent to Kings Grant subdivision. The site is zoned R-10 and R-15 and has
been since zoning was applied to the area in 1972. Zoning in the area is predominately
R-10 and R-15 with single-family residential uses adjacent to the site to the east and
Page 7 of 19
south. Just to the north of the site is a church within R-15 zoning. Across N. College
Road is another church that includes a school. The large area on the map shown as B-2
zoning to the north of the site was approved on Monday night for a rezoning to
Conditional Use R-15 for 236 single family residential lots and 192 apartment units.
• The subject site was developed for a church in 1975 and has historically been used as a
church. For the last several years, the church occupying the site has also operated a
child care center.
• There are currently three buildings on the site in addition to a parking area. The site
currently has limited landscaping and buffering and no stormwater management. Access
to the site is currently provided through a driveway on the north of the site to Kings
Grant Road.
• The proposal is for a new location for Elderhaus PACE, which is currently located on
17th Street near the hospital in Wilmington. Elderhaus is an organization that provides
total senior care for those aged 55 and older. They provide medical care, adult day care,
rehabilitative therapies, in-home care services, transportation, and counseling. The
facility is not an assisted living or independent living facility. There would be no
overnight accommodations offered at the facility. Daily participation would include up
to 112 participants, many of which would be brought to the facility by vans that provide
home pick-up and drop-off. In addition to the participants, approximately 70 regular
employees would be on site daily. The zoning ordinances classifies this use as a personal
care facility, which is allowed by special use permit in the R-10 and R-15 zoning
districts.
• At the March Planning Board meeting there was discussion about the possibility for a
second driveway to Kings Grant Road, and with their recommendation for approval the
Planning Board included a condition to allow for the second driveway. At the March
meeting, the Planning Board recommended limiting the hours of operation to Monday
through Friday from 7:30am to 5:30pm, but after discussion, it was decided that the
condition could limit future operations or events at the site so the condition was not
included in the planning board recommendation for approval.
• The new site plan for consideration tonight has been modified slightly to change the
configuration of the proposed building expansion, and also include the second driveway
on the east of the site to Kings Grant Road. Other additional improvements including
stormwater management, and landscaping and buffering improvements are still
included. Additionally, an easement is proposed along N. College Road for a multi-use
path as recommended by the greenway plan.
• The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject site as General
Residential. This place type focuses on lower-density housing and associated civic and
commercial services. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the goals of the
2016 Comprehensive Plan, as it reuses and expands an existing nonresidential site along
a major highway with a use that can provide community services.
• The existing driveway would be improved as required through the NCDOT driveway
permitting process. Kings Grant Drive is a state-maintained road.
• Trips from the use are projected to be 64 AM peak and 82 PM peak hour trips. N.
College Road operates at a level of service of D just north of the site, with a volume to
capacity ratio of 0.75. A bus stop for Wave Transit route 104 is located across N. College
at the intersection of southbound N. College Road and Kings Drive.
Page 8 of 19
• In order to approve a special use permit, four conclusions are required to be reached
supported by findings of facts based on competent material and substantial evidence and
testimony. Staff concludes that, based on the information submitted with the
application, the four conclusions can be reached and are supported by the draft findings
of fact provided in the staff summary. Staff is not recommending any conditions for the
current proposal.
Hearing no questions for staff from the planning board members, Chairman Girardot
opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represents the church owners and Elderhaus.
She commented that Mr. Andrea had done a great job explaining the application. She explained
that Elderhaus is an organization that provides total senior care for those 55 years and older,
supporting independent living while at the same time promoting quality of life by providing
medical care, adult day care, on-going rehabilitative services, transportation and counseling.
Elderhaus certainly fills a community need here. This subject property has operated as a church in
the past. Even though there was not a specific community information meeting necessary during
the past process, Ms. Wolf specifically sent a copy of the exhibit map and some explanation of
what was going on to everyone directly in perimeter of the property. Copies weren’t sent to every
parcel within 500 feet of the subject parcel, but did send letters to everyone across the road. As
Mr. Andrea pointed out, all of those road frontages would be required to have streetyard
landscaping because they are all right-of-way. The site has no access points to West Rye, which
is the closest and has the most immediate residences that could be affected by any type of access
like that. We did make the change that the planning board in their wisdom last time was to put in
the other access point, which is a good addition to the site plan. Overall, this particular project
meets the criteria of the code, will offer safe access to and from North College Road at this
intersection or at the lower intersection at Kings Grant Road where there is a traffic signal, the
buildings will be upgraded in addition to the one being expanded. The applicants believe it is
consistent, it meets the findings, and it would certainly be a benefit to the community. Ms. Wolf
offered to answer any questions the board may have in regard to the petition.
The Planning Board members had no questions for the applicant.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition of the special use permit request.
Chairman Girardot stated a special use permit which is denied may only be resubmitted if
there has been a substantial change in the evidence, facts, or evidence as determined by the
Planning Director. At this time, the applicant may ask to 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. Wolf 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. Hearing no comments or questions from the board members, the chairman entertained a
motion.
Page 9 of 19
MOTION: Board Member Ted Shipley MOTIONED, SECONDED by Vice Chair Ernest
Olds, to recommend approval as the Planning Board finds that this application for a Special Use
Permit meets the four required conditions based on the findings of fact included in the staff
summary and the use:
1. Will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where shown.
2. Meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance.
3. Will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property.
4. Is a public necessity and the location and character of the use if developed according to
the plan will be in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover
County.
The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit Request S17-
03 without conditions.
Item 4: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request (LUP17-01) – Request by Design
Solutions, on behalf of the property owner, Tesla Park Apartments, LCC, in order to amend
the Future Land Use Map to reclassify 27.77 acres located at the 4500 block of Tesla Park
Drive from General Residential to Community Mixed Use.
Senior Planner Rebekah Roth presented the following staff summary.
Senior Planner Rebekah Roth stated this item is a request to amend the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan, specifically to change the plan’s Future Land Use Map for the Tesla Park apartment
complex. This is a first request the County has received to amend the Comprehensive Plan
which was adopted in July, 2016. There is no specific process for a comprehensive plan
amendment required by the general statutes, but this plan does function as the County Land
Use Plan required in the Coastal Area Management Act. For that reason, there are additional
advertising requirements before the County Commissioners public hearing which will
extend the time period so this item will be on the November Board of Commissioners’
agenda. After that public hearing, if any amendments are recommended or adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners, the Coastal Resources Commission will then approve
those amendments.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan was the result of three years of community discussion about
how the county should grow and develop over the next 25 years. Unsurprisingly, we learned
that many people have discovered New Hanover County’s great natural beauty and high
quality of life and want to move to this area. We anticipate high levels of population growth
over the next 25 years. More people means additional traffic, demands for land, and needs
for services. This plan outlines strategies for accommodating this growing population while
at the same time striving to protect our natural resources and existing community character.
Many of these strategies also include recommendations for changes to our development
ordinance, which are being considered as part of the unified development ordinance project
(UDO) that staff is currently working on and anticipates completing in 2018. The UDO is
the County’s first overhaul of the development regulations since zoning was first adopted
here in 1969.
Page 10 of 19
The Future Land Use Map is one of the primary components of the Comprehensive Plan. It
shows where different types of development patterns were appropriate based on the plan
goals and striking that balance between accommodating growth and protecting community
character. It is intended to guide community discussions about regulations and specific
development applications.
Ms. Roth explained the future land use map is one of the primary components of the
comprehensive plan and shows where different types of development patterns, called place
types, are appropriate based on the plan’s goals and striking that balance between
accommodating growth and protecting existing community character. The map is intended
to guide the community’s discussions about regulations and specific development
applications.
The applicant is requesting a change to the future land use map for the 27.77 acres Tesla
Park apartment complex. Currently, the land use map shows this area should have a General
Residential place type or development pattern. The applicant is asking for it to be changed
to the Community Mixed Use place type. According to the application, the primary purpose
for the amendment request is to allow the property owner to apply for a high density
development special use permit to add additional units to the ex isting apartment complex.
The County's current zoning ordinance, which is part of the development regulation overhaul
overall currently underway does tie this regulation to the comprehensive plan’s place types;
however, the only thing being considered tonight is whether we should change our vision
for the future development pattern for this property.
The property in question is a 288-unit apartment complex, which was originally approved in
the mid-1990’s before high density developments required a special use permit. Most people
are probably only familiar with its entrance sign located between The Gardens condominium
complex and the power line corridor south of the Georgetowne subdivision. It currently has
twelve 3-story buildings and more open space than the minimum amount required by the
County. Its approval in 1996 was for a density of 10 units per acre.
The Georgetowne subdivision is located to its north and east, The Gardens to the east and
the power line easement, which is part of the Georgetowne subdivision’s common area to
the south. It sits back over 800 feet from North College Road. The applicant states the
Community Mixed Use place t ype is more appropriate because that development pattern
focuses on small scale, compact development and the comprehensive plan encourages infill
and greater density. The property is currently classified as General Residential. This place
type was generally applied to areas where there are existing residential neighborhoods in
order to protect their character despite the more intense development that might be
happening elsewhere in the county. Multi-family residential such as apartments are allowed
in this place type, but would ideally have fewer units per acre than in other areas of the
county. The plan aims for multi-unit densities of 2-6 units per acre and at 10 units per acre
the existing development is already more dense than is preferred for this place type, but the
overall density for this general residential area is within the desired range when you consider
the adjacent single family residential subdivisions.
The requested community mixed use place type is one of the development patterns intended
to accommodate growth rather that to protect existing neighborhoods. Higher density
Page 11 of 19
residential development is appropriate for this place type but its primary focus is on mixed
use projects that combine office, retail and commercial uses with apartments, condos,
townhomes, and homes on smaller lots. This place type was determined to be most
appropriate in areas of the county that are currently undeveloped and could be new
community centers such as the area off Sidbury Road or in areas immediately adjacent to
highway corridors to provide nearby residents with places they can walk and bike to for
groceries and other services.
Staff recommends this request be denied. The comprehensive plan, including the
comprehensive land use map, was the result of three years of community input and analysis.
It sought to balance the need for higher density and greater mix of uses with protection of
existing neighborhood character. Higher intensity community mixed use place types were
deemed appropriate only in targeted areas, such as along highway corridors and in large
undeveloped tracts. Existing neighborhoods were intended to remain a general residential
place type. The Tesla Park apartment complex does not lie directly along a major highway
corridor and is immediately adjacent to a single family residential subdivision. While it’s
current density is greater than what is ideal for the general residential area, it is not as dense
as is intended for the community mixed use areas. Those areas are envisioned to be more
than just residential; it's a development pattern where a mix of commercial retail and higher
density residential uses are both appropriate and encouraged. The mix of uses desired for
the community mixed use place type would have a greater effect on existing residential
neighborhoods than the pattern currently laid out on the future land use map. In addition,
amending the future land use map to benefit a desired residential development undermines
the purpose of having a comprehensive plan. The benefit of a plan such as this is that we are
able to weigh competing community needs in advance based on widespread public
participation so we can reduce the risk of piecemeal development requests creating the
community pattern that doesn't serve the public’s interest in the long-term. While land use
plan amendments do happen, they are generally the result of changes on the ground or of
supplemental or small area plans that take into account a comprehensive analysis of land use
needs in particular areas and involve greater opportunities for public involvement. Approval
of amendments of this policy document to benefit an individual project could undermine its
ability to guide out decisions moving forward. Senior Planner Roth offered to answer
questions from the board.
Hearing no questions for staff, Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and
recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represents the owners of the Tesla Park
apartment complex, but she believes this application is more far reaching. She stated in 1998, the
CAMA Land Use Plan defined all of this area as developed. I2 2002, the Tesla Park high density
development was created. In 2006, when the CAMA Plan was updated, this same area was
classified as Urban, and that makes sense over an already-developed area of our community. Ms.
Wolf explained that there is another high density condominium complex in front of the Tesla Park
complex. She asked what was the rhyme and reason, in regard to appropriateness, of making that
area Community Mixed Use when it severs an existing high density development. Even if the
applicants weren’t interested in the feasibility of possible infill, which is certainly one of the things
that our comprehensive land use plan strategies are promoting, by overlaying this area with general
Page 12 of 19
residential, this has effectively created a nonconforming situation for my client’s existing high
density development. That can affect appraisals and financing. Although it's not nonconforming
as it is a use permitted because of its special use permit in 2002, anything that they might want to
change, it is nonconforming because we went from high density development has always been
permitted in transition, developed urban, and those types of classifications. Community Mixed
Use for vacant pieces of property like the other side of College Road is reasonable for guiding
what could possibly be there. Ms. Wolf said that overlaying existing developed land to limit what
they can do we believe is a taking of their right. We don't have multi-family districts in the county,
but if you look at the zoning, we have some business along Carolina Beach Road, yes, there's all
kinds of development. It is Urban development right now and high densit y was only permitted in
Urban and Transition land classifications. Now we have Employment Center, Urban Mixed Use
and Community Mixed Use. Ms. Wolf explained that Community Mixed Use in a perfect world
would be a Mayfaire, with the combination of commercial, residential, and of all kinds of things,
but it doesn’t necessarily insinuate that any particular parcel needs to have that mixture. We've
been using this land classification map for approximately nine months to a year now and there
have been projects that have been rezoned based upon their location in a Community Mixed Use
and that has been perhaps some business, some residential, just some higher density. If you look
at what has gone on along this particular corridor, this is exactly the issue that we have a problem
with. Ms. Wolf pointed out on the City’s zoning map that all of those communities annexed
themselves into the City because the City doesn’t have a multi-family zone. Tesla Park had the
ability to request high density development because the y were in a developed land classification,
in an Urban land classification, and now the County has just wiped out that ability. Ms. Wolf stated
they would venture to say that overlays over vacant property are absolutely what we were trying
to accomplish with the Comprehensive Plan. We want to look at the future of our county and so
vacant pieces of property needed to have some guidance. These are properties where we want
higher densities or transitions or whatever, and these are properties that we don't. She explained
that properties that are already developed shouldn't have been hamstrung by putting a lesser land
classification or place type than they initially had in the past, particularly given the fact that they
are already developed.
Chairman Girardot asked if board members had any questions for the applicant.
Board Member Jordy Rawl thanked Ms. Wolf for the overview, noting it was very
insightful to chart the history of the area. He then inquired in regard to the intent of the amendment
if it was to convert the area back to a use type on the Comprehensive Plan Map that actually marries
up to its current state or was to then have an area so that staff can approve or recommend approval
for on a new project coming forward for more building units or some sort of conversion to put in
some commercial or mixed use on this site.
Ms. Wolf replied that it could absolutely be an issue there, noting part of their plan is the
ability for infill of existing development and that’s what will have an impact on our surrounding
area. We need infill. We feel we have been slighted by the project as shown on the overlay right
now. We found out this was an issue when we came in to talk to the planning staff about infill,
about a little expansion of the project for some additional units and we can’t because we are not in
one of those place types that permit high density development, even though we are a high density
development and we’re sitting in it. Ms. Wolf stated she hesitated to go too far into it, but the
intention is to do some infill into this very successful apartment complex. She didn’t think it would
Page 13 of 19
be appropriate to share how that plan might flesh out when right now they are currently not allowed
to do it. They feel they have been slighted.
Board Member Rawl thanked Ms. Wolf for sharing at least the surface layer of what the
intent is, noting he didn’t intend to have her divulge anything that was ill-advised. He asked Ms.
Wolf or staff to clarify that it isn’t necessarily that they can’t do it, but that staff couldn’t support
it. Ms. Wolf explained that the applicant actually can’t do it by ordinance. You can only apply for
a high density development in a land classification that is employment center, urban mixed use or
community mixed use. She noted that she has shared with everyone that has contacted her that
they would like to infill with some buildings and she has tried to let people know that they wouldn’t
be impacting the periphery of the project, but that is neither here nor there for tonight’s request.
In response to Board Member Rawl’s concern that the comprehensive land use plan has
been adopted and been in place for a short while, Ms. Wolf explained there are a lot of property
owners that weren't as vigilant as they should have been during the process because it is a bit of
smoke and mirrors. It's a place type, a land classification, a guiding principle. She noted that she
had no idea that they applied general residential to existing high density projects. She would have
been right on in there, but obviously we can't oversee every site in the county. Ms. Wolf
commented that is why there is the amendment process.
Board Member Olds commented that the can of worms you are opening here is if we change
it for Tesla Park, as you know there are thousands of properties in this county that may fall into
that same sort of mislabeling, if you will, on the perspective of the property owner, we'd be pot-
shoting all over the comprehensive plan with changing place types, which doesn’t seem like the
right thing to do. This may be an exception. I think it's worth a discussion among ourselves about
the direction we are headed at a little bit higher level, independent of your particular request.
No one from the public spoke in support of the amendment. Two people spoke in
opposition.
Opposition Comments
Rae Harris of 224 Gatefield Drive in Georgetown spoke in opposition noting that her house
is behind the line on the map. She can see the apartments through the trees and can hear the
apartment residents playing in the pools and playing music. That doesn’t bother her, but she is
concerned about why the green line on the map is near her property line. She stated she had
purchased her home in 2011 because there was privacy with the trees in the back. If those trees or
any of those trees are taken down, she would be seeing the balconies and the pool and everything
else at the apartment complex from her backyard and so would a lot of other people on Gatefield
Drive. Ms. Harris said her question is if the applicants request is approved what does that mean
for the green line between her property and the applicant’s property. She stated she would hate to
see the trees removed and she would hate to see storage sheds. As Ms. Wolf said, the residents
have fears of that and of what they might want to do with that property. She noted she has actually
gone to the office several times at Tesla Park and tried to talk with the ladies that work there, but
they wouldn't tell her very much. Ms. Harris said there are plenty of apartments there. She doesn’t
know what they want to do exactly with the land. She is concerned about what it would mean for
the property owners around the applicant’s property lines if their request is passed. Ms. Harris
stated she knew when she purchased her home that the property in and around the subdivision was
Page 14 of 19
very beautiful so she was very concerned when she got there. Ms. Harris stated hope that whatever
the future is for it that it would not destroy the nature and trees around it.
Shirley Turley of 220 Gatefield Drive stated she has the same concerns as her neighbor,
Ms. Harris, but noted they had just built their house and have lived in it for three years. They
bought that land because it did butt up against a privacy area. They also put up a fence. She
explained they can see the apartments and people there especially during the winter when the trees
are bare. More density will simply mean more traffic and more noise. She stated they didn’t pay a
premium price for a piece of land they thought was built out. They didn’t know there was going to
be more back there or perhaps they wouldn’t have done what they did, but they are concerned
because the more people that are back there, the more traffic and noise they are going to have and
she is very much afraid and concerned that it will affect them if they ever need to sell their home
by hurting the value of their property. Ms. Turley stated they had spent a lot of money putting in
drainage to keep water off their lawn, which is also an issue, but their main concern is more people,
more noise, and a lot of other issues that come along with that.
During the rebuttal period, Cindee Wolf, said all of those concerns that they have would
come up during the special use permit process for high density development if the applicant were
to come forward with a petition to infill with additional homes so there's no sense in getting into
the types of findings that are part of that special use permit process. But it's a step by step thing.
Right now we feel that we have been slighted with the overlay that has been applied to us. If we
are successful in getting the place type amended as we think is viable and reasonable, then any
type of development that would ensue after that, these folks would be totally aware of, we would
be having community meetings, we would explain what's going on and, frankly, none of that green
space or buffer is intended to be changed in any way, but it is during the special use permit process
for high density development that all of those things and conditions can be guaranteed.
Chairman Girardot asked if Ms. Harris and Ms. Turley understood Ms. Wolf’s statements
that if the amendment to change the place type in the comprehensive plan is approved, the applicant
would need to come back to the boards with a rezoning application. Then, there would be a
community meeting and you would have some interaction with a developer to make your concerns
known.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion
period.
Chairman Girardot stated at this time the applicant 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?
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a decision by the planning
board.
Chairman Girardot opened the Planning Board discussion period.
Board Member Jordy Rawl stated he understood Ms. Wolf’s initiative to comment that it
feels like they were a little slighted on what their use type could be, but he looks at is as a developed
Page 15 of 19
community, not an undeveloped tract of land that has potential for the future. Any reasonable
person would look at this and say it's an already-established community with 10 units to the acre.
He’s all about somebody maximizing their profitability out of a piece of property. It seems to be
a successful project. Mr. Rawl stated he opposes the proposal. He understands the process is that
they need to change the land use type so they can even apply for what their proposed project would
be, but he just can’t see how you would add anything on top of this that would ultimately benefit
the project itself and the surrounding area.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds said he is more concerned about opening up the Pandora’s Box of
if we change the one, we change for any of them. The property is not directly facing the road.
From a density standpoint, it’s a nice transition from single family and would probably be more
appropriate on the highway. He was hesitant to start picking off individual sites and saying
because they don't match, we have to change.
Board Member Ted Shipley commented that this isn’t community mixed use at all and it’s
not a taking just by having an overlay on it so he will be voting against the amendment.
Chairman Girardot stated she is very sympathetic to an already-developed property, to the
property owner who e is not being allowed to expand and she understands the infill. It's part of our
long range strategic plan. She also understands that the market is there for new multi-family but at
the same time, as Ms. Roth said, it promotes piecemeal development and she is not ready to go
there with project specific change to our comp plan at this point in time. She noted this project is
not located on a major highway corridor and is not a new development. This type of project would
not be suitable and is not the usual for community mixed use. It’s also located immediately
adjacent to a residential subdivision, which is designated general residential. Chairman Girardot
felt that extending the community mixed use further away from the South College Road corridor
would have a negative effect on the existing residential. For all of those reasons, she would also
be inclined to vote against the proposed amendment.
Board Member Jordy Rawl commented that it’s unfortunate that unless you drill down on
every single parcel while developing a comprehensive land use plan, some of these issues aren’t
going to arise until the intent is to make a change. He asked staff if there is any chance to take a
look at this and maybe come up with a plan. Is there policy staff could recommend to bring this
into a sphere where it's more approachable for applicants in the future?
Chairman Girardot asked staff to respond to Mr. Rawl’s inquiry.
Planning Manager Ken Vafier explained that comprehensive plans are typically looked at
and updated every five years or so. If we notice something that needs to be fixed, we can do that
at any time that any text amendment or zoning map amendment would be brought forward. We
have this as a Community Mixed Use, which doesn't permit the high density application, but one
of the real limiting factors here lies in the zoning ordinance itself and was a result of the bridging
amendment that we did after the adoption of the comprehensive plan. In the bridging amendment,
it is specifically stated that a high density application is only permitted in the general residential.
In the UDO, we want to get away from saying specific land uses are permitted or not permitted in
these classifications and leave that entirely to the table of permitted use, and then use the
comprehensive plan as we do now to make sure that a proposed land use is consistent with that
Page 16 of 19
vision. There is the potential that the limiting language could be removed in the future and would
allow for the application for high density. They would still have to go through the review process.
We don't yet know whether this would be a special use permit process to expand for the high
density project, but right now, it is. The place types themselves were not meant to be parcel
specific. They were meant to have a broad vision to them and to have some flexibility. At staff
level, when we analyzed the adjacent land uses and the impacts on those, it didn't make sense for
us to say that administratively we could find that it would be consistent with the comp plan.
Board Member Rawl stated Mr. Vafier had answered his question, noting that it is the
bridging ordinance that basically has specific language that says no, you cannot apply.
Planning Manager Vafier explained that the reason that language is still contained in there
is because the intent of the bridging ordinance was to be as absolutely policy neutral as we could.
When Ms. Wolf mentioned that previously these areas were less developed than urban, we had to
come up with the most equally matching place types as the previous land use plan had. We would
no longer have those terms so we had to use our best judgment to determine what the place type s
would be that would match that and general residential was one that had this exclusion for high
density projects in it. It’s not a perfect system. There are a couple of different avenues by which
we could allow the application for the infill or for the expansion of the site, but a key point is that
it would still have to be evaluated for additional impact or potential impacts and compatibility with
the surrounding land uses and staff feels that the request is not appropriate for this specific site.
Board Member Rawl commented that perhaps it can be noted that as the UDO is being
reworked, there isn’t that binary language where it's “no you cannot even apply.” He noted he was
taken aback when she said they wouldn’t have the opportunity to bring a plan forward or go to the
commissioners. It seems a little disabling to the applicant to get lost in the weeds of working
through the different layers of bringing a project forward. He asked staff to keep that in mind when
doing the UDO.
Chairman Girardot stated we are grateful to Ms. Wolf for bringing that to our attention.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion.
MOTION: Board Member Ted Shipley MOTIONED, SECONDED by Ernest Olds, to
recommend denial as the Planning Board finds that this request for a Future Land Use Map
amendment at 4404 S. College Rd/4505-4524 Tesla Park Drive from General Residential to
Community Mixed Use is:
1. Not appropriate because it encourages a mix of commercial, retail, and higher density
residential uses which would not protect the adjacent neighborhoods’ character as intended
by the existing place type designation.
2. Not in keeping with the goals and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan because
amending the Future Land Use Map to benefit a desired individual development increases
the risk of piecemeal development requests creating a community development pattern not
in keeping with the public’s best requests.
The Planning Board voted unanimously 4-0 to recommend denial of Land Use Plan Map
Amendment Request LUP17-01.
Page 17 of 19
Technical Review Committee Report (July & August 2017)
Current Planner Brad Schuler reported the New Hanover County Technical Review
Committee met three times during the months of July and August and reviewed seven residential
projects.
1) Myrtle Landing (Entrance Gate)
Project is located near the 7200 block of Myrtle Grove Road. An entrance gate near the
intersection of Myrtle Grove Road and Myrtle Landing Place was approved for the 148-
unit project in accordance with County Fire Service Code specifications. Applicant
agreed that the gate would be removed if road inter-connectivity was extended north
and west of the project in the future.
2) Blendin Meadows (Performance Plan)
Project is located in north central New Hanover County near the 6400 block of Gordon
Road, north side, and is classified as General Residential on the County’s adopted 2016
Comprehensive Plan. The 27-residential lot subdivision includes public water and sewer
and public roads and was approved.
3) River Breeze (Performance Plan)
Project is located in north central New Hanover County near the 100 block of
Brentwood Drive off Castle Hayne Road and is classified as General Residential on the
County’s adopted 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The 98-residential lot subdivision was
approved.
4) Deer Crossing: Phase 3 (Performance Re-Approval)
Project is located in southern New Hanover County near the 6500 block of Myrtle Grove
Road, west side, and is classified as General Residential on the County’s adopted 2016
Comprehensive Plan. The 39-residential lot subdivision was re-approved with the
original terms and conditions.
5) Whiskey-Navajo Development (Gate Installation Reconsideration)
Project is located in south central portion of New Hanover County. The TRC
reconsidered a request to install three gates within the project, which was denied in June,
2017. Request was approved for the 156-unit residential project.
6) St. George (Performance Plan)
Project is located off the 8900 block of Stephens Church Road in the Kirkland
community in northeastern New Hanover County and is classified as Community Mixed
Use on the County’s adopted 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The 42 residential lot
subdivision was approved by the TRC.
7) Pepper Hill (Performance Plan)
Development is located in the south central portion of New Hanover County near the
600 block of Myrtle Grove Road, west side, and is classified as General Residential on
Page 18 of 19
the County’s adopted 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The 28 residential lot subdivision was
approved by the TRC.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION: Vice Chair Ernest Olds MOTIONED, SECONDED by Ted Shipley, to approve the
June 1, 2017 Planning Board meeting minutes with one correction as requested by Chairman
Donna Girardot. (Change “times” to “types” on page 31). The June 1, 2017 Planning Board
meeting minutes were unanimously approved with correction as noted.
MOTION: Board Member Jordy Rawl MOTIONED, SECONDED by Vice Chair Ernest Olds,
to approve the July 13, 2017 Planning Board meeting minutes with one correction as requested by
Chairman Donna Girardot. (Add: “…during the upcoming UDO process” at the bottom of
paragraph 1 on Page 21). The July 13, 2017 Planning Board meeting minutes were unanimously
approved with the additional language requested by Chairman Girardot.
Other Business
Chairman Girardot stated she was privileged to be on the interview and selection committee
for a new planning director. Wayne Clark has been hired to fill that position. Mr. Clark was
previously a director with the City of Wilmington approximately ten years ago and has been a
director in Florida since then. His first day in New Hanover County will be September 26th.
Chairman Girardot suggested the meeting time for the planning board pre-agenda briefing on
Tuesday, October 3rd be changed from 4pm to 3:30pm to provide the planning board members
with an opportunity to meet with the new planning director and discuss the comprehensive plan,
SUP, the upcoming UDO or any other topics of interest or concern they might have.
Chairman Girardot expressed her appreciation to the staff, county attorney, administration,
and fellow planning board members for their guidance and support during the past two years.
Election of Officers
Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman entertained a nomination for Chairman.
Jordy Rawl nominated Ernest Olds for Chairman, seconded by Ted Shipley. No other
nominations; nominations closed. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to elect Ernest Olds as Chairman
for the 2017-18 term.
Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman entertained a nomination for Vice Chairman.
Donna Girardot nominated Jordy Rawl for Vice Chair, seconded by Ernest Olds. No other
nominations; nominations closed. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to elect Jordy Rawl as Vice
Chairman for the 2017-18 term.
Newly-elected Chairman Ernest Olds thanks Ms. Girardot for providing great leadership
during a really difficult process. Chairman Olds then appointed Donna Girardot to serve as the
Technical Review Committee Chair for the 2017-18 term.
Page 19 of 19
Hearing no further business, Chairman Olds adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director