2018-09-04 Regular Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 PAGE 193
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Tuesday, September 4, 2018,
at 4:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington,
North Carolina.
Members present: Chairman Woody White; Vice-Chairman Skip Watkins; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield,
Jr.; Commissioner Patricia Kusek; and Commissioner Rob Zapple.
Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board
Kymberleigh G. Crowell.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Rabbi Julie Anne Kozlow, B’nai Israel Congregation, provided the invocation and Vice-Chairman Skip
Watkins led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman White requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to approve the items on the Consent
Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes – Governing Body
The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Agenda Review Meeting of August 16, 2018 and the
Regular Meeting of August 20, 2018.
Adoption of Constitution Week Proclamation – Governing Body
The Commissioners adopted a proclamation recognizing September 17-23, 2018 as Constitution Week in
New Hanover County. Gina Thompson from the Wilmington Ladies Tea Walk Chapter of the National Society
Daughters of the American Revolution requested the Board to recognize September 17-23, 2018 as Constitution
Week in New Hanover County.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book
XLI, Page 14.1.
REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER, NORTH CAROLINA PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $71,000,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES 2018
Chief Financial Officer Lisa Wurtzbacher stated that pursuant to and in accordance with the bond order
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on August 11, 2014, the County proposes to issue general obligation
school bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $71,000,000. The County desires that the bonds be
sold by the Local Government Commission through a competitive sale with a sale date on or about October 2,
2018. Ms. Wurtzbacher provided the following overview of the request:
Background:
New Hanover County Schools:
To fund construction and renovation of schools facilities
Not to exceed $71 million
This is the last issuance of the 2014 authorized bonds
Timeline:
Approval of resolution and form documents September 4, 2018 (this is the only action needed
by the board)
Preliminary Official Statement released September 21, 2018
Sale date of October 2, 2018
Closing date of October 18, 2018
Debt Service Payments:
Life of debt: 20 Years
Estimated Average Debt Service: $4,716,072
Estimated 2019 Payment: $1,051,757
Estimated Interest Rate: 3.25%
Debt Management Impact:
Estimated Impact* 2018 Projected
Impact on debt per capita 305 1,681
Impact on debt to assessed value 0.2% 1.15%
Impact on debt service to operational expenditures 1.5% 15.6%
* Calculations use amounts in adopted fiscal year 2019 budget
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 PAGE 194
Requested Action:
Previously approved by voters:
No public hearing required
Approving resolution and form documents:
Notice of Sale
Preliminary Official Statement
Ms. Wurtzbacher concluded her presentation reiterating that today’s request is the only action that will be
required because this matter was previously approved by the voters.
Hearing no Board discussion, Chairman White asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield, to adopt the resolution of the Board
of County Commissioners of the County of New Hanover, North Carolina Providing for the Issuance of Not to Exceed
$71,000,000 County of New Hanover, North Carolina General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2018. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLI,
Page 14.2.
PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF A REZONING REQUEST BY RIGHT ANGLE ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF THE
PROPERTY OWNER, MCCORMICK VENTURES, LLC, TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS OF THE NORTHCHASE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO NORTH COLLEGE ROAD FROM PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4616 CODDINGTON LOOP (Z17-13)
Chairman White opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation.
Current Planner Brad Schuler presented the request by Right Angle Engineering, on behalf of the property
owner, McCormick Ventures, LLC, to modify the standards of the Northchase Planned Development to allow for an
additional driveway access to North College Road from the property located at 4616 Coddington Loop. Similar to
conditional zoning districts, planned developments are approved with a master plan which the property must be
developed in accordance with. Any major changes to that plan, including modifying driveway access standards, must
be considered by this Board.
The Northchase Planned Development, consisting of approximately 700 acres, was originally approved in
1985. The development is essentially split in half by North College Road. The western portion is developed for
residential purposes, while the eastern portion is developed for commercial and industrial uses. As part of the
approval for Northchase, the development was limited to six access points at four locations on North College Road.
The six access points then connect to an internal street network, which provides access to all of the properties within
Northchase, including both the residential and commercial portions of the development. The purpose of limiting
driveways and intersections on major roadways is to reduce the number of times where motorists have to react to
the movement of other vehicles. Reducing these conflict points helps to limit traffic congestion and accidents on the
road, while also preserving the overall flow of the road, which allows for motorists to quickly get from point A to
point B.
The applicant is requesting to install an additional driveway access point to North College Road from a 1.15-
acre parcel located at 4616 Coddington Loop Road. The subject property is currently classified as “Commercial” on
the Northchase Master Plan, which would allow for land uses permitted in the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts. The
applicant states that a driveway at this location would improve business visibility, access, and deliveries by large
trucks. On the left, North College Road has five access points over a three quarter mile section of the road. That was
compared to other arterial streets in the county that have a mixture of residential and commercial development.
For example, the portion of Castle Hayne Road from Gordon Road to Hanover Lakes contains over 30 access points,
as well the portion of Market Street from Military Cutoff to the old Lendire Road location. As Northchase went
through a master planning process, it was able to be developed in a way that limited conflict points on North College
Road while still providing sufficient access to all the residential and commercial properties within the development.
The applicant is representing an existing equipment sales and repair business that is currently located within
Northchase on Trademark Drive. The business is looking to expand and relocate to a larger lot at 4616 Coddington
Loop, which is a parcel that also fronts on North College Road. The applicant is specifically requesting to modify the
standards of the Northchase Planned Development to allow for an additional driveway access to North College Road
from this location. The Northchase Master Plan classifies the property as “Commercial” which would allow for it to
be development with land uses permitted in the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts. The applicant states that a driveway at
this location would improve business visibility, access, and deliveries by large trucks.
When the subject property was first created through a subdivision plat in 1999, access was provided by a
30-foot access easement, where a driveway has been installed, and where pavement is still existing, connecting to
Northchase Parkway NE. In 2007, however, a document was recorded in the Register of Deeds that abandoned that
easement and dedicated a new 50-foot easement on Coddington Loop, which allows the subject property and the
adjacent properties to utilize that road for access and utility purposes (Book 5160, Page 1614). The two properties
located directly north of the subject property already use Coddington Loop as their sole access. The approximate
location of the proposed driveway is 300-feet north of the intersection of North College Road and Northchase
Parkway. The proposed driveway would be designed to only permit right-in and right-out movements and includes
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 PAGE 195
the installation of a center median on North College Road. The property’s current legal access includes a driveway
stub to the property.
The applicant initially worked with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to obtain
approval for the driveway. After some back and forth, NCDOT did provide some preliminary comments for a possible
driveway permit. The County then became aware of the driveway proposal when the applicant requested a new
address for the property. After reviewing the request, County staff informed the applicant of the applicable driveway
standards and advised them that the addition of a new driveway would require a modification to the Planned
Development. After NCDOT received the additional information that the subject property is within a master plan
development, it stands now that the subject property should be served by the internal roadway network.
The property and surrounding area is located just south of the Cape Fear Community College (CFCC) north
campus, which has been identified as a growth node in the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Also, North College
Road is a key arterial street that provides access to the campus and to that node.
The Planning Board considered this application at their January 11, 2018 meeting and recommended denial
(4-0) of the application, concluding that it is:
1.Not consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed
driveway will contribute to more traffic conflicts on a key arterial street to an anticipated growth node.
2.Not reasonable and not in the public interest because the proposed driveway will add an additional
conflict point on North College Road, thereby increasing the opportunities for traffic congestion and
decreasing the overall safety of the road. In addition, the proposed driveway will not improve the
access or vehicular circulation to neighboring commercial properties within Northchase as they are
already served by an existing internal roadway network.
Staff concurs with the Planning Board's recommendation action. Overall, while the proposed driveway will
provide benefit to the subject property, it will increase the opportunities for traffic congestion and for additional
driveways in the area. Again, this is part of a master planned community that was designed to minimize conflict
points on North College Road by providing an internal street network system. Mr. Schuler concluded his presentation
stating that NCDOT District Engineer Ben Hughes is in attendance should the Board have any questions for him.
Chairman White thanked Mr. Schuler for his presentation and invited the petitioner to make remarks.
Shane Lippard with Right Angle Engineering representing the property owner, McCormick Ventures, LLC,
stated there are a couple key points that he wants to address in this request for a driveway extension. The request
for this modification to the Northchase master plan is for a right-in, right-out driveway on Highway 132 as Mr. Schuler
alluded to. There will also be an ingress and egress out of Coddington Loop and there is a driveway in the back.
The site plan that has been developed is based on a right-in and right-out on Highway 132 with the concrete
median in the center that NCDOT had initially preliminarily given the request that would restrict any left-over
movements. Coming into the property, across the right of way, the proposed building would be on the side but the
driveway would also continue back to Coddington Loop. That would provide any proposed traffic movements back
to the south onto Highway 132, drivers could have easy access to Highway 132 at the Northchase stoplight.
The Northchase Master Plan was developed back in the late 80s but there has been a modification to this
before. There are modifications to every master plan that has ever been out there and this is not the first time this
has ever come up. There was a driveway provided for the FedEx shipping center that was part of the Northchase
Master Plan as shown in staff’s presentation. There is a deceleration lane, a driveway for Coddington Loop was
created, and a service road was extended to allow for Providence Park apartments that was not in the initial master
plan. Traffic and movements for these areas all come through Northchase down the Northchase Parkway and out at
the light at the intersection.
Right Angle Engineering started with Mr. McCormick a couple years ago. He sells heavy industrial
equipment, out of his current facility. He is looking to expand and get more exposure out on Highway 132. When
they started the plan the first group they spoke with was NCDOT due to the property being on a highway. After going
back and forth in discussions with the NCDOT engineers, Mr. Lippard and his client received preliminary comments
that a right-in and right-out could be acceptable with a concrete median.
Mr. McCormick’s business is not a high volume generator, not a fast food restaurant, and not generating a
lot of traffic onto the highway, but it does give exposure to his equipment. At his existing business site, he has several
tractors out front, lawn mowers, and a big steel sign which is the main exposure of his business. Although there
would not be a lot of traffic generated at this site, the exposure is key. The movement onto Highway 132 South
would of course be able to come back down to the traffic signal. They are aware from various discussions that there
are some concerns that if they get a driveway, everybody will want one. However, there are only five other parcels
on Highway 132 in this Northchase development. One is owned by the county, there is a residential large parcel that
most likely have access on to the interior streets, there is the corner lot beside Mr. McCormick, and then there's the
lot on Trademark which has already all been developed. There is not a lot of opportunity for further driveway
entrances onto Highway 132, which the master plan initially tried to restrict.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Lippard stated that the FedEx shipping center is on Wickendon Lane.
There is one property between the subject property and the FedEx center. Mr. Lippard’s understanding is the
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 PAGE 196
modification was created for FedEx and it does connect to the apartment complex, and then the apartment complex
is also connected by Coddington Loop.
Chairman White announced that no one else had signed up to speak in favor or in opposition and closed
the public hearing. He then opened the floor for Board discussion.
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that in light of the Planning Board’s recommendation of denial (4-0) he would
make a motion to deny.
Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield, to deny, affirming the Planning
Board’s statements that the application is 1) Not consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive
Land Use Plan because the proposed driveway will contribute to more traffic conflicts on a key arterial street to an
anticipated growth node and 2) Not reasonable and not in the public interest because the proposed driveway will
add an additional conflict point on North College Road, thereby increasing the opportunities for traffic congestion
and decreasing the overall safety of the road. In addition, the proposed driveway will not improve the access or
vehicular circulation to neighboring commercial properties within Northchase as they are already served by an
existing internal roadway network.
Chairman White stated that there has been a motion made to deny by Vice-Chairman Watkins which has
been seconded by Commissioner Barfield. He asked Mr. Schuler to discuss the FedEx modification and how and
whether that frustrated or in any way benefitted the internal network that was discussed as the rationale for limiting
access. Mr. Schuler showed on the appropriate slide the location of the FedEx driveway and explained that it goes
to Northchase Parkway and is being served by the internal roadway network. It does not have a driveway to North
College Road. He also showed on the slides where the proposed driveway would be located.
Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Schuler to reconfirm if the proposed site is approximately 300-feet from
Northchase. Mr. Schuler confirmed that distance and stated that in the slide photos he was approximately 150-feet
from the turn onto the side road.
Chairman White asked if Mr. Schuler knew when Mr. McCormick acquired the property. Mr. Schuler
responded that he did not.
Commissioner Zapple stated that he understands NCDOT has put the decision on the driveway on hold. He
asked Mr. Hughes for his opinion about a new driveway coming in this close on either side, which strikes him as very
tight. Mr. Hughes stated Commissioner Zapple’s comments were correct. He would have concerns with it. If an
additional driveway is put within an existing right turn lane, any traffic egressing the driveway allows for the potential
of someone making a right turn into that turn lane going to the driveway beyond it, could assume another driver is
turning right into Mr. McCormick’s driveway. This could potentially allow for accidents to occur. He confirmed for
Commissioner Zapple that he could not say anything official at this point until he sees the outcome of this hearing.
Chairman White asked Mr. Hughes if he had anything to offer on the tone or the background of the
conversations with the petitioner. The petitioner did mention there were preliminary conversations, there appeared
to be a rendering of a right-in, right-out with a cement median. He thinks those discussions left the petitioner with
the impression that it was doable and there were not any objections from NCDOT. Mr. Hughes responded that the
conversation was that if NCDOT was to allow a right-in, right-out driveway it would need in some physical way to
restrict that. The concrete median would be what they would need to have in place and at the time, the applicant
said he would commit to putting that in.
Chairman White then asked Mr. Hughes if in his opinion, did he know if that left the petitioner with the
impression that NCDOT sanctioned or approved this in some way and then changed its mind after the County got
involved. Mr. Hughes stated the conversation occurred before the County got involved. Chairman White further
asked Mr. Hughes if he told the petitioner that NCDOT objected or opposed it at that time. Mr. Hughes responded
that initially NCDOT did oppose it. It was after a separate follow-up meeting that they worked through possibly
allowing the right-in, right-out. This was before NCDOT was aware it was part of a master plan development as well.
Vice-Chairman Watkins asked about the speed on that portion of North College Road. Mr. Hughes stated
he thought it was 55 miles per hour. He did not know the current level of service on the road. Mr. Hughes confirmed
for Vice-Chairman Watkins that the potential concern of NCDOT was if someone was coming right off of Northchase,
potentially heading to the new driveway but had put a turn signal on for Wickendon, the someone may mistake that
person was pulling into the property and not going to Wickendon.
Mr. Schuler stated that Mr. McCormick acquired the property in March 2017.
Chairman White stated he would like to support this and thinks anything where a business is growing is a
good thing for this community. He does not know when Mr. McCormick acquired the property. He recalls meeting
with him and Mr. Lippard and he appreciated the opportunity to speak with them. He remembers during the meeting
being unconvinced of any scenario where he would personally support for his one vote a right turn in there, despite
his desire to make a commercial enterprise more profitable and better. He does understand it as he also runs a small
business. This property was acquired recently; Mr. McCormick knew about it. He thinks that one of the worst
decisions the Board could possibly make would be to allow a right turn in at that area despite the fact that he wishes
there was a way to figure how to accommodate it. He stated that he cannot support this request. He also thinks Mr.
McCormick’s access is the same in the back as others. He understands Mr. McCormick’s concern about NCDOT. He
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 PAGE 197
heard a reasonable explanation from the NCDOT representative here tonight and so for that purpose at least he
would not vote to support this request.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White asked for a vote on the motion on the floor.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL TO TABLE A REZONING REQUEST BY COLLEGE ROAD DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS,
LLC, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REVERT 8.04 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN THE 2600 BLOCK OF NORTH COLLEGE ROAD
FROM (CUD) R-10, CONDITIONAL USE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO B-2 AND R-15 ZONING PURSUANT TO SECTION
55.2-6 OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE (Z18-12)
Chairman White opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation.
Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea presented the request by College Road Development
Partners, LLC, property owner, to revert 8.04 acres of land located in the 2600 block of North College Road from
(CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, to B-2 and R-15 zoning. For all purposes and intent, this is a rezoning
request that happened to initiate in a unique way. Section 55.2-6(1) of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Planning
and Land Use Department to schedule a hearing for the Planning Board to consider progress made on a conditional
use district and send a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners to consider taking action:
If within 24 months from the date of approval of the Conditional Use District, no building permit
has been issued for the subject tract, the Planning and Land Use Department may schedule a
hearing for the Planning Board to consider progress made. If it is determined that active efforts are
not proceeding, the Planning Board may send forward a recommendation to the County
Commissioners to simultaneously revoke the Special Use Permit and rezone the Conditional Use
District to its classification prior to approval.
Because a rezoning may occur based on this request, the application is being processed as a general map amendment
including public hearings and a staff analysis and recommendation.
The property itself was initially zoned R-15 in 1972. In 1998 a 300-foot-deep strip adjacent to North College
Road was rezoned to B-2. In 2016, the property was rezoned to (CUD) R-10 for an 88-unit apartment complex in four
buildings on the site. In 2017, a request to rezone the property from that (CUD) R-10 to a conditional B-2 district for
self-storage was recommended for approval by the Planning Board, but denied by the Commissioners and therefore,
the property remains in the (CUD) R-10 for the apartment complex that was approved in 2016. Two conditions were
added to the approval in 2016: 1) that a multi-use path be installed along North College Road and 2) that the existing
vegetation along the rear buffer be maintained and supplemented as necessary.
Although the (CUD) R-10 district remains in effect because it has been two years since the approval and no
validity extensions were requested, the special use permit (SUP) for the property has expired. With the expired SUP
for the apartment complex and an unsuccessful rezoning request last year for self-storage, the applicant is now
requesting that the zoning of the property be reverted back to R-15 and B-2 as it was prior to the (CUD) R-10 district
being approved in 2016. Again, it is essentially a 300-foot-deep strip of B-2 along the frontage of North College Road
and the remainder would be R-15.
The property itself is undeveloped; it does have a stormwater pond that could be utilized for future
development. There is a stream on the property that runs through the western portion that is subject to additional
buffering standards. Portions of the property are also within a special flood hazard area with a base flood elevation
of 32-feet above sea level. Any development of the property would need to adhere to the County’s Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance. Access to the site is provided by an existing driveway that also serves the Taco Bell.
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was performed for this piece of property back in 2013 for a development
proposal that included a fast food restaurant, mixed use building consisting of 120 dwelling units and office and
retail space. The existing driveway and the center turn lane were installed after the TIA was performed. An updated
TIA has not been done since 2013 because none of the proposals have exceeded the 100 peak hour threshold. There
is a WAVE bus stop that is located on southbound North College Road approximately 500-feet south of the property.
Any traffic impacts from any development would be analyzed at the time a specific development is proposed. In the
vicinity of the project two TIAs have been performed recently, one was for the Dunkin’ Donuts in front of the Lowes
grocery store that required an eastbound turn lane on Murrayville road and the second was for the State Employees
Credit Union under construction at Northchase Parkway. Improvements will require an eastbound turn lane on
Northchase Parkway and also change the signal timing.
The property is classified as Community Mixed Use according to the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
This is a place type that focuses on small scale compact mixed use development patterns. Community mixed use
areas are generally intended to include a mixture of uses. This property is on North College Road adjacent to both
existing auto-oriented businesses, Laney High School and a residential neighborhood. Staff finds the requested
reversion back to B-2 and R-15 could allow for a mixture of uses that could serve the neighboring community. Staff
found it to be consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and reasonable and in the public interest. The
Planning Board considered this application at their August 2, 2018 meeting. At the meeting, no members from the
public spoke in support or opposition to the request. The Planning Board recommended approval (4-0) of the
application, finding that it is:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 PAGE 198
1.Consistent with the purposes and intent of the Community Mixed Use place type in the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because B-2 and R-15 zoning could provide a full mix of uses for the area.
2.Reasonable and in the public interest because the R-15 zoning along with the setbacks and buffers
required in the B-2 zoning would mitigate any negative impacts to the adjacent residential uses.
Mr. Andrea concluded the staff presentation noting that in early August another rezoning petition was
submitted for this property. That petition proposes to rezone the property to a conditional B-2 district and would
allow a limited number of uses on the property. The Board of Commissioners could hear that request as early as next
month and the request will be heard by the Planning Board on September 6, 2018.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Andrea stated the upcoming request is to rezone to a conditional B-2
district. What is being proposed is a limited number of uses on the site in a number of buildings up to 150,000 square
feet. In regard to what type of uses are limited, the application included a list of uses the applicant would not allow
on the property. When compared with the County’s Table of Permitted Uses, it comes out to about 77 uses that
could be permitted on the property. Those range from retail office uses, storage type uses, uses along those lines.
The Board will hear in a lot of detail the list of uses when it is presented at an upcoming meeting. Again, what was
left was approximately 77 uses that could be permitted. What is being heard tonight is a request to revert the
property back to B-2 and R-15 which would allow for any use in B-2 or R-15.
Commissioner Barfield stated his concern is making sure it is not an end run around what the Board decided
a few months ago. In looking at the permitted uses for B-2, one of those is storage units and he asked Mr. Andrea if
he was correct. Mr. Andrea confirmed that he was correct. Commissioner Barfield reiterated that he wants to make
sure this is not an end run trying to get around what has already been denied, to come back with the same thing
based on getting the property rezoned to another use. He knows people use legalese and bring in lawyers to skirt
around rulings, etc and he would be disappointed if that is the case.
Chairman White asked Mr. Andrea to explain when a SUP expires, does the ordinance require us to accept
the reversion or does it just revert as a matter of law. Mr. Andrea stated that the language that offers the ability for
a board to revert the property is in the Conditional Use District (CUD) section. The language says if no progress has
been made, the Planning Department can schedule a hearing for the Planning Board to consider the lack of progress
and send a recommendation to the board of commissioners, which is what has happened. Because it was a
conditional use district (CUD), there is a companion SUP. Any SUP, whether it is a stand-alone or part of a CUD, falls
under that same language that says it becomes null and void if a building permit has not been applied for within 24
months of approval. In the case, the 24 months passed in May of this year.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Andrea stated if the reversion is rejected the property would stay in its
existing zoning, which would be (CUD) R-10 with an invalid SUP and in this status a landowner would essentially have
no use. The property would need to be rezoned to something else, whether it be a new (CUD) R-10 for the same use
or to another zoning district, whether that be conditional or conditional use or general district. He stated that a
reversion of zoning does not carry any other burdens with it, any kind of cooling off period, or time period.
Chairman White thanked Mr. Andrea for his presentation and invited the petitioner to make remarks.
Michael Lee of the Lee Law Firm, representing the property owner, College Road Development Partners,
LLC, presented the following overview of the request:
Summary:
History:
45 years ago: zoned R-20
20 years ago: front portion zoned B-2 and back portion remained residential
Over two years ago: zoned R-10/CUD for 88 apartments
Over 1 year ago: CUD denied by Board of Commissioners
Reversion:
If determined active efforts not proceeding, Planning Board may send forward a
recommendation to County Commissioners to simultaneously revoke SUP and rezone CUD to
its classification prior to approval.
No active efforts proceeding to develop under CUD.
Planning Board recommended revocation and rezoning to original classification.
No development of property can be accomplished under current zoning – property is
unbuildable by ordinance.
The Planning Board recommended revocation and rezoning to the original classification and the property is
undeveloped. As he noted at the Planning Board meeting, there is another conditional use coming through the
process. This request is for a reversion because the property is unbuildable and if the property owner goes through
the 60 to 90-day process on a conditional use and it is denied as before, it’s still going to be unbuildable.
Unfortunately, they cannot plead in the alternative like is done in cases. The conditional use was not ready yet, which
is why they are coming forward with the reversion and so that something could be constructed on the property in
the meantime.
What they ended up doing with that particular conditional use is try to make the property more cohesive.
There is a residential piece in the back that is not accessible. There is frontage on a 200-foot right of way so they are
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 PAGE 199
trying to turn it into a commercial use with conditions to make it palatable and consistent with the overall area by
limiting the number of B-2 uses that can be developed and retaining some flexibility. This way, they do not end up
in this same situation with a specific site plan, conditional use, B-2 use or otherwise, because something changes in
a year or 18 months rendering the project unfeasible. If that were to occur, they are then right back before this
board having to modify that conditional use, change the conditional use. It is kind of a hybrid of a straight zoning
with limitations or conditions so that it is consistent with the overall area.
Chairman White thanked Mr. Lee for his presentation.
In response to Vice-Chairman Watkins’ questions about the flood elevation concern coming to fruition, Mr.
Andrea stated it is not a concern so much as just information they wanted to present to the Board. Any development
on the property will have to adhere to the requirements for developing in a flood zone. If it is a residential the
elevation of the houses essentially, not on pilings, but just on slab or high enough out of the regulatory flood
elevation.
Commissioner Barfield stated he thinks what he heard the last time this property was before the Board was
with the new flood elevations coming out the project cost would become prohibitive to build the apartments. He
asked Mr. Andrea if what is being said now is that may not be the case, so apartments may still be built there or
houses can still be built there. Mr. Andrea responded that he does not want to speak to the financial viability of any
of the projects, but any development is doable. It just has to be done in a way that adheres to the County’s flood
damage prevention ordinance. The entire property is not in a flood hazard area, only a portion of it around the
stream that runs sort of toward the northern portion of it.
Commissioner Barfield stated to Mr. Lee that his main concern is that down the road what’s not built there
is what was turned down, which were the storage units. He asked Mr. Lee if that is the intent or if he knows what
the intent is at this point. Mr. Lee stated that the intent is to move forward with the conditional use for B-2 for the
entire parcel, not just the B-2 on the front and have the residential on the back. The conditions that limit the uses
that the Board will hear next month does have that as one of the uses, it is not a prohibited use within the
approximately 72 uses that are allowable. As he and his client work with staff and the Planning Board, they may
narrow down some of those uses. They just kind of took the first cut on what they thought were the most offensive
uses in B-2 and actually added some additional restrictions beyond that which was B-2. B-2 is typically a broader
classification so when the ordinance goes through its rewrite, they have taken in another classification of restrictions
that they have already restricted of record because of the Taco Bell and other development, they included those as
limitations.
Commissioner Barfield stated that his comment earlier was his concern is that this is an end run around
what was denied a year ago in terms of the petitioner’s next step of getting it rezoned. He would hate to see that
come before the Board or based on what he is reading; some things by-right would not have to come before the
Board at all. The storage units could be put there automatically, although it was not the pleasure of this Board the
previous time. He is hoping that this is not an end run around that decision.
Mr. Lee stated that this reversion certainly is not. The conditional use rezoning forthcoming has that as one
of the options he and his clients would like to discuss with the Board. The reversion is really because it’s unbuildable
and unless they keep coming back with conditional uses that are site plan specific, it is going to be difficult to develop
the property. He thought when they first started working on this when the permits expire, when they expire they
revert, but the code provides this process where they come back and go through this reversion process. He is not
trying to hide the ball here at all. Again, he mentioned this during the Planning Board meeting that they are coming
back with a conditional use B-2 for the entire parcel so that they can be heard on all of those uses and the mini-
storage is one of those uses within that B-2 conditional use rezoning.
Commissioner Barfield stated his assumption is probably correct, then. Mr. Lee stated as to this reversion
in front of the Board tonight, it really is just trying to make a use of the property. When he and his client come back
with the conditional use rezoning that is going to be one of the uses they would like to discuss with the Planning
Board and the Board of Commissioners so that both boards will have the opportunity to look at that as one of the
multitude of uses that are there.
Commissioner Barfield stated that he understands that part and asked Mr. Lee why the list is not paired
down some more at their next step and remove the storage units so maybe it will be more palatable for him. Again,
he is looking at something that’s pretty much where step one is to have an end run around the next step and that’s
how he looks at it. No matter how it is parsed, pair, dissect it, at the end of the day what he is seeing is that is the
goal and he hopes he is not seeing that correctly. Mr. Lee restated that when he was before the Planning Board and
here tonight letting this board know, the intent is to come forward with another conditional use application with
more than 50-plus uses but where the mini-storage is one of those uses that they did not restrict. They are not trying
to hide it from anybody, it is right there and it’s been discussed. That is probably going to come up as they go through
the Planning Board before this Board if they continue forward after the Planning Board.
Chairman White asked Mr. Lee if the petitioner had not come here in 2016 and asked for the apartment
complex, would there be storage units there today. Mr. Lee responded that he could not answer that question.
Chairman White asked if probably. Mr. Lee responded he does not know because of the configuration of the
property. Chairman White asked if could there have been legally. Mr. Lee responded yes.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 PAGE 200
Chairman White stated the petitioner came here, everyone went through this whole hearing about an
apartment complex and all the stuff that comes along with hearing those, traffic, density, neighbors, et cetera and
so forth, and it was approved. Then the petitioner comes back here for reasons he is not sure he remembers or
understands and could not do that, maybe it was the flood ordinances or so forth, and asked for storage facilities.
He thinks there was unanimity, if he’s not mistaken, that that was not something the Board wanted to see there.
Although it could have been there a year and a half before by-right, things happened and there are consequences
for asking for things from boards. Once those boards deliberate and make decisions there is some momentum that
builds up from that. On the first point, he echoes and shares Commissioner Barfield’s concerns about that,
notwithstanding that there could be storage units there today had the petitioner made a different decision two years
ago. But once it came here, a decision was made. His question is that it is not before them today and he gets that.
It's a reversion. However, it does have the impact of potentially allowing something that was just turned down a
year ago. He thinks his question would be what if the reversion is not approved and it's unbuildable, Mr. Lee’s
petitioner's options at that point are to bring forward something not storage related that this board might like and
want to allow. He asked Mr. Lee if that is that basically what they are left with. Mr. Lee responded the property
would be unbuildable until they go through, it would be almost an original zoning except that a person would not
be allowed to develop anything on this property.
Chairman White then asked Mr. Lee if it was correct that it is a risk that a petitioner foresees and accepts
when he or she asked for a special use permit that expires. Mr. Lee responded the process, in looking at the
ordinance, the process evolved into what amounts to a rezoning this evening versus the reversion, which is
essentially a request by letter as opposed to a full rezoning package. He understands that's how staff is presenting
it this evening. Those are not the requirements for a reversion. If you look at the applicant materials, there's one
letter because of the process is different than a typical rezoning. Again, he understands completely why staff has
done it this way, he understands and respect that. This is essentially a process that has caused the property to be
unbuildable under any circumstance because of a code, an ordinance. There is no relief from that. It's unlike a typical
rezoning where there is a use of the property that can be made and you are petitioning this board, or this body, for
a rezoning of the property to change the use. Now the owner of the property is going to be required to come to the
board to be able to use their property at all, for any use whatsoever. So that property is of no value to them until
they have a way to get a use approved of that property. This is a very different circumstance. If this were an end
around against the mini-storage they would not have filed a conditional use application in this process. They would
have just filed a reversion and not highlighted the fact that they were actually going through a conditional use B-2
and listing that as one of the uses. That would not be something they would do, they would wait a year from now
to do that.
Chairman White stated that is something the Board would have figured out. Mr. Lee stated that he
understands. However, the process really was full disclosure but if they are denied on the conditional use, again,
they were trying to find out something else to do with the property because they can do nothing.
Vice-Chairman Watkins asked staff to explain what control the Board would have over what is put on the
property if this is approved tonight to revert and if the property owner comes back for a conditional B-2. Mr. Andrea
stated the Board would hear what the request is and what the proposal is, and ultimately be approving or denying
the proposal with or without conditions.
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that this Board in 2017 voted 4 to 1 to deny the proposal for a mini-storage.
He asked again if the Board approves to revert and if the petitioners comes back with a proposal for conditional B-
2, this Board could again turn down a potential mini-storage. Mr. Andrea responded yes.
Mr. Andrea stated that on one point of clarification, he is not sure it’s necessary, but this was a request that
was initiated by the property owner. This was not a request initiated by staff.
Commissioner Barfield stated he wanted to clear up one thing. The previous zoning had a commercial strip
on the front end and residential on the rear. So he does not know that there would not have been a business case
to put storage units on the front end of that small parcel of land to where it would work. Also it really was not the
county that made this property unbuildable, that was the petitioner's fault. When the Board rezoned the property
to build the apartments, he was under the impression that when the flood elevation or floodplains changed that it
was going to make it feasibly unaffordable for them to build enough so that is why they wanted to change. But
hearing what he has heard from staff is that only a portion of that property is going to be in the flood zone. For him
it is a business decision they have to make in terms of what they can stomach and what they can afford. But by not
moving forward, the petitioner deemed this unbuildable, not the County Commissioners, by them not doing anything
at all. He asked if he was correct. Mr. Lee stated as a point of clarification which is included in the application letter,
the flood elevation is what caused the petitioner to do a market study because they were concerned during that
time, because the base flood had not been set, to do a market study and revisit what they were building there
because of the cost of construction not because of solely of the flood elevation. The uncertainty on the flood
elevations is what caused them to go back and relook at the project instead of moving forward. Mr. Lee did not mean
to imply the County did something to make it unbuildable, he just wanted to point out the fact that this is different
from a typical rezoning in that the ordinance does not allow for anything to be used on the site until another zoning
that comes through, conditional, straight or otherwise, that this Board approves. He was trying to make a distinction
how this was different from a typical rezoning. He has been doing this for 20 years and he has never worked on a
reversion. It is very different.
Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Andrea if there is anything that restricts the applicant from going straight
to conditional B-2 zoning that is being said is coming before the Board next month. In other words, is there some
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 PAGE 201
process that is necessary for this reversion to happen first or could they not just ask for a new rezoning. Mr. Andrea
replied that was correct, the applicant could ask for a rezoning.
Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Lee for his input on this. Mr. Lee responded that they did that before and
were denied. The applicant is just trying to make sure before next year that they can do something with the property.
He would be willing to continue this request to the next meeting so the Board could hear the items together if that
is the pleasure of the Board and/or would make it easier. Again, the applicant is just trying to go into 2019 being able
to do something with the property other than it having a de facto moratorium on it. Self-imposed or otherwise, the
ordinance essentially does not allow anything to be developed.
Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Andrea if the petitioner were to be successful by the Board passing the
reversion tonight, would it essentially create today a B-2 on that property. Mr. Andrea stated that was correct, a
300-foot-deep strip of B-2 and the back would be R-15.
Regarding what would be allowed in a B-2 by-right, Mr. Andrea stated that B-2 is one of two of the County's
commercial districts set up for the most intensive commercial uses. It is called a highway business district, allows
for a variety of uses, everything from grocery stores, shopping centers all the way down to a barber shop. There are
a variety of uses that could go there, including a mini-storage.
Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Andrea if the reversion was approved, the Board would never hear it again
because by-right the petitioner could put in a min-storage. Mr. Andrea responded that if this reversion was approved
by the Board then the petitioner would be in a position to develop the property in accordance to what is allowed in
B-2 and R-15. Because of the zoning of the property there would be some requirements for buffering against that R-
15 residential district that is on the back of the property. They would not be able to develop B-2 uses on the entirety
of the property.
Commissioner Zapple asked again if essentially a portion could be a mini-storage or a grocery storage or
anything else currently allowed by-right in a B-2. Mr. Andrea confirmed that was correct and further confirmed that
it was correct the Board would never have to hear it again.
Mr. Lee stated he thinks what Mr. Andrea is saying is that it is only 300-feet-deep on the B-2, there would
have to be buffering on the rear residential, so limitations are significant from that perspective. Again, there would
be no need to come before the Board on the conditional B-2 in the future if that was the plan.
Vice-Chairman Watkins asked Mr. Andrea zoning for a residential neighborhood on the Future Land Use
Map. Mr. Andrea responded that the zoning is R-15 and confirmed that the Long Ridge subdivision on the map is R-
15 and there is also a manufactured housing subdivision.
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that with the exception of what has already been developed such as the
school, a string of commercial properties, a dentist office, a barber shop, and a church which is residential but
nonetheless commercial in nature. He remembers the discussion the last time and he voted in favor of that request
because he realized that this community is heavily commercial already with the exception of Longwood Subdivision
and the other subdivision. He does think it would be nice to consider everything at one time if Mr. Lee was so
inclined.
Mr. Lee stated at the appropriate time he would move to continue this to have it all heard at the same time
if that’s the pleasure of the Board.
Commissioner Zapple stated he echoes the comments of Vice-Chairman Watkins. Let's see what we're really
dealing with here and put it all together in one package. He thinks there are a lot of hypotheticals and what-ifs going
around here and he does not feel he has enough of a clear picture right now to vote.
Chairman White stated that this Board has spent probably more time on this parcel in the last three years
than he can think of a dozen. The County needs to easy to do business with. We are a government entity and people
complain about that all the time. But this is getting ridiculous coming back over and over and over again. Mr. Lee
has a job to do and is very able and always does a great job representing the interests of his petitioner. However, in
six years as a commissioner, he has never had any other property owner that he can remember come forth three
times and ask for something. He understands things change, this is a commercial corridor. It makes sense to allow
something, he gets that. It is not a great use of the Board’s time to consider things over and over again in just a few
months. It's not fair to the neighbors or to the community in general.
Chairman White asked County Attorney Copley if the Board needed to vote to continue the matter. County
Attorney Copley responded in the affirmative.
Vice-Chairman Watkins stated that he does believe the Board needs to table this matter. He does remember
the meeting when the petitioner came back on the mini storage there were some neighbors from the Longridge
Subdivision more excited about having a mini-storage there than an apartment complex because they said it would
be a quieter environment. He remembers that vividly.
Chairman White stated he does as well and it might be that in retrospect better than an apartment complex.
His view is just that decisions need to be made and yes, financial situations and pictures change, financing changes,
marketability changes, all those things change, but they do not change that quickly over the span of 20 months. That
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 34
REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 PAGE 202
is all he is saying. He completely agrees there ought to be some use and neighbors and surrounding businesses
understand something is going to be there one day. He supposes that is the long way of saying that he will entertain
a motion to table this matter.
Motion: Commissioner Kusek MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to table the decision on the application
to revert 8.04 acres of land located in the 2600 block of North College Road from (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use
Residential District, to B-2 and R-15 zoning pursuant to Section 55.2-6 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance
in order to allow the petitioner to present the request along with the forthcoming conditional rezoning application.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White asked for a vote on the motion on the floor.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman White announced that no one signed up to speak under public comment.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Commissioner Zapple stated that he and Commissioner Barfield had the opportunity to attend the North
Carolina Association of County Commissioners Annual Conference in Hickory, North Carolina in August. They were
delighted to accept two awards that came to New Hanover County, one for New Hanover County Fire Services for
the improvement of emergency response times, a project that helped to improve those response times, and one for
New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office for its Community1 program at the county jail. It is a pre-release program for
inmates who are soon to be released that helps them with their IDs, housing, and also helping to find some jobs so
that they can break the cycle and not return to jail. This one project alone is estimated to have saved the taxpayers
$519,000 since its inception. It was a good day for New Hanover County with both of those awards being accepted.
Commissioner Barfield recognized the passing of U.S. Senator John McCain, a great American hero. He was
a man who endured a lot, suffered a lot for his country. He thanked Senator McCain for his service.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman White adjourned the meeting at 5:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kymberleigh G. Crowell
Clerk to the Board
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
meeting. The entire proceedings are available for review and checkout at all New Hanover County Libraries and
online at www.nhcgov.com.