The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03072019 March PB Agenda PacketAGENDA N E W H A N O V E R C O U N T Y P LA N N I N G B OA R D A ssembly R o o m, New Hano ver C ounty Histo ric C ourthouse 24 No rth T hird S treet, R oo m 301 W ilmingto n, N C N ew Locatio n: A ndré M allette Training C enter, N ew Hano ver C o unty Go vernment Center, S uite 135, W ilmingto n, N C ERNEST W. OLDS, CHAIRMAN - THOMAS "JORDY" RAWL, VICE-CHAIRMAN PAUL D. BONEY, BOARD MEMBER - H. ALLEN POPE, BOARD MEMBER DONNA GIRARDOT, BOARD MEMBER - EDWARD T. (TED) SHIPLEY, III, BOARD MEMBER DAVID WEAVER, BOARD MEMBER WAYNE CLARK, PLANNING AND LAND USE DIRECTOR - KENNETH VAFIER, PLANNING MANAGER M A R C H 7, 2019 6:00 P M Meeting Called To Order (Chairman J ordy R awl) Pledge of Allegiance (K en Vafier, P lanning Manager) Approval of Minutes RE G UL AR I T E M S O F B US INE S S The Planning Board may consider substantial changes in these petitions as a result of objections, debate, and discussion at the meeting, including rezoning to other classifications. 1 P ublic Hearing Rezoning Request (Z 18-19) – R equest by Rountree L osee L L P on behalf of the property owner, Hilton P roperties L imited P artnership, to rezone approximately 63.02 acres of land located in the 4100 block of C astle Hayne R oad, f rom R A , Rural A gricultural D istrict, to (C UD) I -2, Conditional Use Heavy I ndustrial District, and for a special use permit in order to develop a high intensity mining operation. 2 P ublic Hearing Rezoning R equest (Z 19-04) – Request by Hubert S . Ward, J r., on behalf of the property owner, Vincent Malave, to rezone approximately 0.38 acres of land located at 2624 Castle Hayne R oad, f rom (C Z D) B -1, C onditional Business D istrict, to B-1, B usiness District. 3 P ublic Hearing Rezoning Request (Z19-02) – R equest by New Hanover County to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of land located at 5155 S . College Road, from R -15, Residential District, to (C Z D) B -2, C onditional Highway B usiness District. 4 P ublic Hearing S ubdivision A ppeal (S A 19-01) – Application submitted by Shipman & Wright, L L P, on behalf of T he C ape Homeowners A ssociation, appealing the Technical Review Committee’s approval of a preliminary plan for the proposed W indsor Pines S ubdivision. The subject property is owned by S outhern Destiny, L L C , and is located in the 8800 block of S edgley Drive and in the 8700 block of L akeview Drive. O T HE R I T E M S Planning Board - March 7, 2019 1 Development C ode Update ("UD O P roject") - P roposed Z oning D istricts Planning Board - March 7, 2019 NE W HAN O VE R C O UN T Y P LAN N IN G B O AR D R E Q UE S T F OR B OAR D AC T IO N ME E T IN G D AT E: 3/7/2019 R egular D E PART ME N T: P lanning P R E S E N T E R (S ): Brad S c huler, S enio r P lanner C O N TAC T (S ): Brad S c huler; Wayne C lark, P lanning & Land Us e Directo r S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing Rezoning Request (Z18-19) – Request by R ountree Losee LLP on behalf of the property owner, Hilton P roperties Limited P artnership, to rezone approximately 63.02 acres of land located in the 4100 block of Castle Hayne Road, from R A, Rural Agricultural D istrict, to (C UD) I-2, Conditional Use Heavy Industrial District, and for a special use permit in order to develop a high intensity mining operation. B R IE F S UMMARY: T he P lanning Bo ard c o nsidered this applic ation at their January 10, 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the Bo ard rec o mmended ap p ro val o f the rezo ning o f the property (5-1), finding it to b e: 1. C ons is tent with the purp o s es and intent of the 2016 C o mp rehens ive P lan bec ause the p ro p erty is c las s ified as C ommerc e Zone, a plac e type that enc o urages light and heavy indus trial us es . 2. R eas o nable and in the public interest because the proposed mining operation site is located adjacent to existing heavy industrial zoning and will provide employment opportunities. Additionally, the mining operation site is located approximately 1.5 miles from an existing single-family subdivision. H owever, truck traffic generated by the operation could be heavy at times and without sufficient mitigation could impact the nearby homes. However, the Board continued the item (6-0) to their March 7, 2019 meeting p rio r to taking ac tion on the c o mp anion spec ial us e p ermit fo r the mining o p eration. T he Bo ard s ugges ted that the ap p lic ant meet with the residents o f the properties adjac ent to S ledge R oad and reques ted that the applic ant provid e spec ific d etails regarding the improvements proposed fo r that portio n o f S led ge R o ad . In ac cordance with the d irectio n of the P lanning Board, s taff organized a meeting o n F ebruary 19th b etween the applic ant and the o wners of the properties direc tly ab utting S led ge R oad, with ap p ro ximately 12 res id ents attending. At the meeting, the ap p licant p ro vided a site plan sho wing the spec ific imp ro vements they p ro p o s ed to ins tall alo ng S ledge R oad. In res p o nse to the meeting, the applic ant revis ed the p ro p o s ed improvements , which are explained in a letter to staff and illus trated on an up d ated s ite p lan. T he revis ions are noted in the s taff rep o rt. S T R AT E G IC P LAN ALIG N ME N T: Intelligent G rowth and Ec o nomic Develo p ment R E C O MME N D E D MO T IO N AN D R E QUE S T E D AC T ION S : Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 S P EC I AL US E P ER MI T Example Motion for Approval: Mo tion to rec o mmend approval, as the Bo ard finds that this applic atio n for a S p ecial Use P ermit meets the four required c o nc lusions based o n the find ings of fac t inc luded in the S taff S ummary. [O P T I O NAL] No te any additio nal findings of fac t related to the fo ur req uired conclus io ns. [O P T I O NAL] S tate c o nditio ns o f approval. Example Motion for Denial: Mo tion to deny, as the P lanning Bo ard cannot find that this propos al: 1. Will not materially endanger the pub lic health or s afety; 2. Meets all required c o nditio ns and s p ecific atio ns o f the Zo ning O rdinanc e; 3. Will not sub s tantially injure the value of ad jo ining o r abutting property; 4. Will b e in harmo ny with the s urro und ing area, and is in general c o nformity of the plans of d evelopment fo r New Hano ver C o unty. [S ta te the fin d ing(s) that th e application does not m eet a n d in clude rea son s to wh y it is not b eing met] C O UN T Y MAN AGE R'S C OMME N T S AN D R E C OMME N DAT ION S : (only Manager) Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 SCRIPT for Conditional Use Zoning District Application (Z18-19) Request by Rountree Losee LLP on behalf of the property owner, Hilton Properties Limited Partnership, to rezone approximately 63.02 acres of land located in the 4100 block of Castle Hayne Road, from RA, Rural Agricultural District, to (CUD) I-2, Conditional Use Heavy Industrial District, and for a special use permit in order to develop a high intensity mining operation. 1. Reopen the public hearing and state the reason why (consideration of additional information regarding the proposed improvements to Sledge Road) and any limits on the scope of the evidence to be presented. 2. Swear witnesses: Announce that “the Conditional Use District process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any person wishing to testify must be sworn in. All persons who signed in to speak or who want to present testimony please step forward to be sworn in. Thank you.” 3. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and additional 5 minutes for rebuttal. 4. Conduct Hearing, as follows: a. Staff presentation b. Applicant’ s presentation (up to 15 minutes) c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes) d. Applicant’s cross examination/rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) e. Opponent’s cross examination/rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) 5. Close the public hearing 6. Board discussion 7. Vote on the companion Special Use Permit (second vote – The Board recommended approval of the rezoning (5-1) at the January meeting). Motion to recommend approval of the permit - All findings are positive. Motion to recommend approval of the permit, subject to conditions specified below: (State Conditions) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Motion to recommend denial of the permit because the Board cannot find: a. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed for the following reason: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ b. That the Use meets all required condition and specifications: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 1 - 1 c. That the use will not substantially inure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ d. That the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and is in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Example Motion for Approval: Motion to recommend approval, as the Board finds that this application for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the Staff Summary. [OPTIONAL] Note any additional findings of fact related to the four required conclusions. [OPTIONAL] State conditions of approval. Example Motion for Denial: Motion to recommend denial, as the Planning Board cannot find that this proposal: 1. Will not materially endanger the public health or safety; 2. Meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property; 4. Will be in harmony with the surrounding area, and is in general conformity of the plans of development for New Hanover County. [State the finding(s) that the application does not meet and include reasons to why it is not being met] Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 1 - 2 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 3.7.2019 Page 1 of 11 STAFF SUMMARY FOR Z18-19 CONDITIONAL USE ZONING DISTRICT APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: Z18-19 Request: A) Rezoning to a Conditional Use I-2 Zoning District B) Special Use Permit for a high intensity mining operation Applicant: Property Owner(s): Stephen D. Coggins – Rountree Losee LLP Hilton Properties Limited Partnership Location: Acreage: 4117 Castle Hayne Road/Sledge Road 63.02 PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type: R00900-001-002-000 Commerce Zone Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Undeveloped High intensity mining operation Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: RA (CUD) I-2 SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE ZONING North Undeveloped RA East Undeveloped RA South Manufacturing (GE), Undeveloped I-2 West Undeveloped RA Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 1 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 3.7.2019 Page 2 of 11 ZONING HISTORY July 1, 1985 Initially zoned RA (Castle Hayne) COMMUNITY SERVICES Water/Sewer Water and sewer services are not proposed for the operation. CFPUA services are not available in this area. Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire District, New Hanover County Station Castle Hayne Schools The proposed mining operation will not generate students. Recreation Northern Regional Park CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conservation No known conservation resources Historic No known historic resources Archaeological No known archaeological resources PROPOSED SITE PLAN  The application proposes to develop a high intensity sand mine located in Castle Hayne, approximately two miles west of NC 133.  The Zoning Ordinance classifies mining operations under two categories: low intensity and high intensity. Low intensity mining operations are limited to no more than 20 acres of area, cannot use on-site processing equipment or explosives, and have a maximum excavation depth of 35 feet if dewatering. The proposed mine is classified as high intensity due to its permitted size (28.10 acres). No use of explosives, on-site processing, or Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 2 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 3.7.2019 Page 3 of 11 dewatering are proposed by the applicant. Both low and high intensity mining operations require a special use permit in the I-2 zoning district.  The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) issued a mining permit for the proposed operation on December 15, 2015. The permit allows for a mining operation of 28.10 acres to take place on the western portion of the property. The permit expires on February 5, 2024.  The state permit includes operation conditions for the proposed mine. Those conditions include, but are not limited to: o Maintaining a 50-foot undisturbed buffer between any affected land and any adjoining waterway or wetland; o Utilizing water trucks or other appropriate method to prevent dust from leaving the permitted area (including the access road); o Prohibiting dewatering activities; and o Requiring the area east of the mining operation (shown as phase 2 on the site plan) to remain as an undisturbed buffer. Per DEQ, no activities associated with the mining operation (outside of the access road) can take place within the undisturbed buffer including the placement of structures or the parking of vehicles. Any future mining activities in the phase 2 area would require revision of the DEQ permit and also a modification of the special use permit.  The issuance of the state permit on December 15, 2015 was a modification of a permit initially issued in February 2014 to “address concerns of groundwater contamination on the neighboring General Electric property.” The modification reduced the size of the mining operation (from 56.63 acres to 28.10), and required monitoring wells to be installed near the contaminated area. The permit states that “mining shall cease immediately upon notification that regulatory limits have been exceeded” at the monitoring wells.  The proposed mine will excavate sand from its highest elevation point of approximately 39 feet down to about zero feet (Mean Sea Level). The applicant estimates the mine will go below the water table at about four to six feet, and a seven-foot-deep lake will be left at the completion of the excavation. Proposed Site Plan Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 3 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 3.7.2019 Page 4 of 11 TRANSPORTATION  Access is provided to the subject property by Castle Hayne Road (NC 133) via Sledge Road (private).  Sledge Road is a private gravel road, approximately 10 feet in width, that runs about two miles from the subject site to Castle Hayne Road. About a half mile of the road is adjacent to a residential neighborhood (Wooden Shoe Subdivision). The subdivision contains 68 lots with nine existing single-family dwellings and an equestrian facility directly abutting Sledge Road.  Concerns have been raised by the adjacent residents regarding potential noise, vibration, and dust impacts generated by the trucks traveling to and from the mine.  The number of trips generated by the mine will vary based on the demand, however according to the applicant, the mine will average 60-80 truckloads a day while it is in operation.  The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) does not provide trip generation estimates for mining operations. Based on the applicant’s estimate and the hours of operation, it is expected that the proposed mine will not exceed 100 trips in the peak hours. Staff consulted with NCDOT staff regarding the trip generation for this proposal and they concur based on the information provided by the applicant.  A driveway permit from NCDOT is required for access to Castle Hayne Road. NCDOT has reviewed the proposal and provided preliminary comments. The comments indicate modifications must be made to the Sledge Road driveway, but did not define the specific improvements at this time. Traffic Counts – January 2018 Road Location Volume Capacity V/C Castle Hayne Road Near the 4100 Block 10,232 16,200 0.63 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 4 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 3.7.2019 Page 5 of 11 Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses No TIAs are currently being drafted or have been completed for projects within a one-mile radius from the subject site within the last five years, or in the general vicinity of the site in the Castle Hayne area. Regional Transportation Plans:  STIP Project U-5863 o Project to widen Castle Hayne Road to multi-lanes from I-140 to MLK Parkway. Construction is expected to begin in 2023. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 5 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 3.7.2019 Page 6 of 11 ENVIRONMENTAL  Portions of the property along the northern property line are within an AE Special Flood Hazard Area.  The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area.  The site is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification MAP. Per Section 72-42: Mining, of the Zoning Ordinance, high intensity mining operations are permitted in this classification.  The US Army Corps of Engineers determined in 2013 that the proposed mine will not impact jurisdictional waters or wetlands. However, this determination is no longer valid and a new determination must be issued by the Corps prior to commencing of the mining operation.  The property is within the Cape Fear River (C;Sw) and Prince Georges Creek (C;Sw) watersheds.  Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the property consist of Class I (suitable/slight limitation) soils.  The issuance of the state mining permit on December 15, 2015 was a modification of a permit initially issued in February 2014 to “address concerns of groundwater contamination on the neighboring General Electric property.” The modification reduced the size of the mining operation (from 56.63 acres to 28.10), and required monitoring wells to be installed near the contaminated area. The permit states that “mining shall cease immediately upon notification that regulatory limits have been exceeded” at the monitoring wells. 2016 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN  The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and function of the different types of development that make up the community. Specific goals of the comprehensive plan are designated to be promoted in each place type, and other goals may be relevant for particular properties. Future Land Use Map Place Type Commerce Zone Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 6 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 3.7.2019 Page 7 of 11 Place Type Description Serves to provide areas for employment and production hubs, predominantly composed of light and heavy industrial uses, though office and complementary commercial uses are also allowed. Densities are dependent, in part, on the type of industry, and residential uses are discouraged. Analysis The subject property, located to the northwest of the GE site, was designated Commerce Zone on the Future Land Use Map to allow for future GE expansions and/or other industrial uses. The County’s industrial zoning districts are compatible with this place type. Mining is classified as intensive manufacturing in the Zoning Ordinance and is permitted in industrial districts. Consistency Recommendation The proposed sand mine is generally CONSISTENT with the intent of the Commerce Zone place type to provide areas for industrial uses. STAFF PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT: Staff has conducted an analysis of the proposed use and the information provided as part of the application package and has created preliminary findings of fact for each of the conclusions required to be reached to approve the special use permit request. These preliminary findings of fact and conclusions are based solely on the information provided to date, prior to any information or testimony in support or opposition to the request that may be presented at the upcoming public hearing at the Board meeting. Finding 1: The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. The site is accessed from Castle Hayne Road, an arterial street and North Carolina highway (NC 133). B. The subject property is located in the New Hanover County North Fire Service District. C. Traffic impacts are reviewed by NCDOT through the driveway permitting process, and any required roadway improvements must be installed in accordance with NCDOT’s standards prior to the mine being in operation. D. According to the applicant, the mine will average 60-80 truckloads a day while it is in operation. E. The proposed operation obtained a mining permit from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. The permit allows for up to 28.10 acres to be utilized for the mining operation. F. The state mining permit, initially issued in February 2014, was modified on December 15, 2015 to “address concerns of groundwater contamination on the neighboring General Electric property.” The permit set operating conditions for the mine, including utilizing monitoring wells and leaving the portion of the property around the contaminated area as an Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 7 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 3.7.2019 Page 8 of 11 undisturbed buffer. The state mining permit also requires that the mining cease immediately upon notification that regulatory limits have been exceeded at the monitoring wells. G. The state mining permit requires that a water truck or other appropriate means be utilized during mining operations to prevent dust from leaving the permitted area including the access road. H. The operation will use wet mining techniques. No detwatering will occur at the site. Staff Suggestion: Evidence provided by the applicant at this time supports a finding that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety in the location proposed. The state mining permit includes operational conditions to mitigate the environmental impacts of the nearby groundwater contamination. Finding 2: The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. The site is proposed to be zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial. B. High intensity mining operation are allowed by special use permit in the I-2 zoning districts. C. The site plan complies with all applicable County technical standards including Zoning Ordinance Section 72-42: Mining. D. The site is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification MAP. Per Section 72-42: Mining, of the Zoning Ordinance, high intensity mining operations are permitted in this classification. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use meets all of the required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. Finding 3: The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. The surrounding area is mostly undeveloped. B. The property abuts an approximate 1,600-acre parcel of land that is zoned 1-2, Heavy Industrial. C. The access road to the mine (Sledge Road) runs along nine existing single-family dwellings and an equestrian facility located in the Wooden Shoe subdivision, and a total of 68 lots are located within the neighborhood. D. The applicant provided an analysis of the impacts an active sand mine will have on single- family residential property values within a close proximity to the mining operations (Proposed Sane Mine – What impact does the presence of an active sand mine have on home values in the adjacent neighborhoods? – Prepared by Trevor Tarleton & F. Blynn Beall, Streamline Evaluation Services). The analysis examined three sand mines located near residential neighborhoods and found “no significant economic impacts to home values as result of an active sand mine in close proximity to each neighborhood.” Staff Suggestion: Evidence provided by the applicant at this time supports a finding that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 8 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 3.7.2019 Page 9 of 11 Finding 4: The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The property is located in the Commerce Zone place type, as classified in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. B. The Commerce Zone place type areas serve as employment and production hubs, predominantly composed of light and heavy industrial uses. C. The proposal is consistent with the recommended uses of the Commerce Zone place type. D. The property abuts an approximate 1,600-acre parcel of land that is zoned 1-2, Heavy Industrial and an approximate 4,000-acre parcel of land that is zoned RA, Rural Agricultural. E. The access road to the mine (Sledge Road) runs along nine existing single-family dwellings and an equestrian facility located in the Wooden Shoe subdivision, and a total of 68 lots are located within the neighborhood. F. The number of trips generated by the mine will vary based on the demand, however according to the applicant, the mine will average 60-80 truckloads a day while it is in operation. Staff Suggestion: The proposed location of the mining operation is generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan and the Commerce Zone place type. However, the access road to the mine may generate impacts to the abutting residential neighborhood. Without improvements along this section of the road to mitigate those impacts, the potential truck traffic may not be in harmony with the area. PLANNING BOARD ACTION The Planning Board considered this application at their January 10, 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the Board recommended approval of the rezoning of the property (5-1), finding it to be: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the property is classified as Commerce Zone, a place type that encourages light and heavy industrial uses. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed mining operation site is located adjacent to existing heavy industrial zoning and will provide employment opportunities. Additionally, the mining operation site is located approximately 1.5 miles from an existing single-family subdivision. However, truck traffic generated by the operation could be heavy at times and without sufficient mitigation could impact the nearby homes. However, the Board continued the item (6-0) to their March 7, 2019 meeting prior to taking action on the companion special use permit for the mining operation. The Board suggested that the applicant meet with the residents of the properties adjacent to Sledge Road and requested that the applicant provide specific details regarding the improvements proposed for that portion of Sledge Road. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 9 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 3.7.2019 Page 10 of 11 RESIDENT MEETING AND APPLICANT RESPONSE In accordance with the direction of the Planning Board, staff organized a meeting on February 19th between the applicant and the owners of the properties directly abutting Sledge Road, with approximately 12 residents attending. At the meeting, the applicant provided a site plan showing the specific improvements they proposed to install along Sledge Road (Exhibit A). The residents discussed the plan and suggested the following modifications: 1. Planting vegetation along the section of the road near the existing equestrian facility; 2. Extending the paved section of the road by 300 feet to the northwest; 3. Increasing the height of the fence to 10-12 feet; 4. Adding a berm to help increase the height of the fence; 5. Selecting materials for the fence that are better suited to reduce noise; 6. Selecting vegetation that grows taller and faster; 7. Constructing the paved road to a better standard that supports truck traffic; 8. Ensuring that area drinking water and testing wells will not be damaged or will be repaired if damaged by the impacts of the construction and use of the road; 9. Relocating the front eastern gate on Sledge Road further west into the site to prevent any stacking of trucks into Castle Hayne Road. 10. Ensuring both access to test wells located along the road and sufficient screening can be provided; and 11. Ensuring the road has a proper drainage system to handle the stormwater generated from the additional pavement. In response to the meeting, the applicant revised the proposed improvements, which are explained in a letter to staff (Exhibit B) and illustrated on an updated site plan (Exhibit C). The following revisions were made to the proposed site plan: 1. Using a different type and thicker asphalt for the pavement; 2. Extending the pavement of the road by 200 feet to the northwest; 3. Increasing the height of the fence to 10 feet; 4. Providing a gate/door in the fence to allow access to existing testing wells; and 5. Planting a single row of vegetation along section of the road near the existing equestrian facility. In addition, the applicant has provided updated conditions of approval noted below. POTENTIAL CONDITIONS The Planning Board can recommend reasonable and appropriate conditions be added to the special use permit. The applicant has proposed and agrees to the following conditions: 1. The existing entrance gate off Castle Hayne Road will be moved further up Sledge Road in order to prevent a “back-up” of queuing trucks attempting to gain access to Sledge Road from Castle Hayne Road. 2. Hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., closed on New Year’s Day, MLK Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgivin g Day, and Christmas Day. 3. Speed limit will be 15 MPH along the section of Sledge Road behind the residences. There will be speed limit signs along the road and the mine operator will be required to implement Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 10 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 3.7.2019 Page 11 of 11 procedures for enforcing the speed. Currently, for our loggers, Hilton Properties has a “3 strikes” policy for violators of rules and policy on our property. Hilton Properties is encouraging the mine operator to implement a similar policy for the truck drivers entering and exiting the sand mine. 4. Hilton Properties will comply with applicable stormwater rules and can install the slope of the pavement so that it drains to the existing ditch along the southwestern edge of Sledge Road and that will fulfill stormwater requirements. 5. Hilton Properties will maintain the culvert underneath Sledge Road. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 11 PROPOSED SLEDGE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 3 - 1 SC A L E : 1 " = 1 0 0 ' ENGI N E E R PR O F E S SIONAL JOHN PHIL L I P N O R RIS NO R T H C A ROLINA FOR PERMIT ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VICINITY MAP CASTLE HAYNE HILTON PROPERTIES HAUL ROAD C1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA OWNER: 19 0 0 8 -HILTON PROPERTIES, LP -303 CLUB CIRCLE -MYRTLE BEACH, SC 29572 Li c e n c e # C - 3 6 4 1 1900 EASTWOOD RD., SUITE #11 WILMINGTON, NC 28403 PHONE (910) 343-9653 1429 ASH-LITTLE RIVER RD. NW ASH, NC 28420 PHONE (910) 287-5900 NORRIS & TUNSTALL CONSULTING ENGINEERS P.C. HE A V Y D U T Y A S P H A L T P A V E M E N T S E C T I O N FE N C E D E T A I L Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 1- 4 - 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 5 - 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 5 - 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 5 - 3 SC A L E : 1 " = 1 0 0 ' ENGI N E E R PR O F E S SIONAL JOHN PHIL L I P N O R RIS NO R T H C A ROLINA FOR PERMIT ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VICINITY MAP CASTLE HAYNE HILTON PROPERTIES HAUL ROAD C1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA OWNER: 19 0 0 8 -HILTON PROPERTIES, LP -303 CLUB CIRCLE -MYRTLE BEACH, SC 29572 Li c e n c e # C - 3 6 4 1 1900 EASTWOOD RD., SUITE #11 WILMINGTON, NC 28403 PHONE (910) 343-9653 1429 ASH-LITTLE RIVER RD. NW ASH, NC 28420 PHONE (910) 287-5900 NORRIS & TUNSTALL CONSULTING ENGINEERS P.C. HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT S E C T I O N FE N C E D E T A I L Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 1- 6 - 1 CUD I-1 B-1 R-15 CUD R-10 O&I B-2I-1I-2 PD RA R-20 R-10 CZD B-2 CZD R-10 Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z18-19 4100 block Castle Hayne Rd RA/ Undeveloped (CUD) I-2/ High Intensity Mining 5 Miles Z18-19 Z18-19 5703 DEKKER RD 5712 DEKKER RD 3944 CASTLE HAYNE RD5706 DEKKER RD 4000 CASTLE HAYNE RD5715 DEKKER RD 5711 DEKKER RD 5803 MCDOUGALD DR 4006 CASTLE HAYNE RD5810 DEKKER RD 4004 CASTLE HAYNE RD5723 DEKKER RD 5720 MCDOUGALD DR 5811 DEKKER RD 109 MCDOUGALD DR 2720 BERG LN 5725 MCDOUGALD DR 2717 BERG LN 104 MCDOUGALD DR 5707 DEKKER RD 4012 CASTLE HAYNE RD5701 DEKKER RD 4020 CASTLE HAYNE RD105 MCDOUGALD DR 4120 CASTLE HAYNE RD2710 BERG LN 5823 DEKKER RD 2706 DIRCK RD 5812 DEKKER RD 4117 CASTLE HAYNE RD 2724 BERG LN 4117 CASTLE HAYNE RD 2721 BERG LN 104 MCDOUGALD DR 5716 DEKKER RD 3901 CASTLE HAYNE RD 5719 DEKKER RD 3901 CASTLE HAYNE RD 2719 BERG LN Physical AddressSledge Rd Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 1 CUD R-10CUD O&I CUD B-2 CUD I-1 B-1 O&I B-2 I-1 I-2 PD RA R-20 R-10 R-15 CZD B-2 New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z18-19 4100 block Castle Hayne Rd RA/ Undeveloped (CUD) I-2/ High Intensity Mining 5 Miles Z18-19 R-7 RFMU RA R-20S R-20 R-15 R-10 PD O&I I-2 I-1 EDZD B-2 B-1 AR A-I SC Indicates Conditional Use District (CUD) Indicates Conditional Zoning District (CZD) Incorporated Areas SHOD Zoning Districts Sewer Main Water Main Sledge Rd Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 8 - 1 COMMERCE ZONE GENERAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY MIXED USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION URBAN MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT CENTER New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z18-19 4100 block Castle Hayne Rd RA/ Undeveloped (CUD) I-2/ High Intensity Mining 5 Miles Z18-19 URBAN MIXED USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL GENERAL RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT CENTER CONSERVATION COMMUNITY MIXED USE COMMERCE ZONE Place Types Sledge Rd Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 9 - 1 APPLICANT MATERIALS Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 10 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 10 - 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 2 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 2 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 2 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 2 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 2 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 2 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 2 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 2 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 2 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 2 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 3 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 3 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 3 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 3 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 3 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 3 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 3 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 3 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 3 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 3 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 4 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 4 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 4 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 4 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 4 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 4 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 11 - 46 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 11 - 47 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 11 - 48 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 4 9 AT T A C H M E N T 2 - A Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 5 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 5 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 5 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 5 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 5 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 5 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 5 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 5 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 5 8 AT T A C H M E N T N O . 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 5 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 6 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 6 1 AT T A C H M E N T N O . 4 - A Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 6 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 6 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 6 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 6 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 6 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 6 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 6 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 6 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 7 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 7 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 7 2 AT T A C H M E N T N O . 5 - A Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 7 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 7 4 AT T A C H M E N T N O . 5 - B Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 7 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 7 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 7 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 7 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 7 9 AT T A C H M E N T N O . 6 - A Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 8 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 8 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 8 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 8 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 8 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 8 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 8 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 8 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 8 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 8 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 9 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 9 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 9 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 9 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 9 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 9 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 9 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 9 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 9 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 9 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 7 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 12 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 12 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 12 - 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 13 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 13 - 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 4 - 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 4 - 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 4 - 3 NE W HAN O VE R C O UN T Y P LAN N IN G B O AR D R E Q UE S T F OR B OAR D AC T IO N ME E T IN G D AT E: 3/7/2019 R egular D E PART ME N T: P lanning P R E S E N T E R (S ): Brad S c huler, S enio r P lanner C O N TAC T (S ): Brad S c huler; Wayne C lark, P lanning & Land Us e Directo r S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing Rezoning R equest (Z19-04) – Request by Hubert S . Ward, J r., on behalf of the property owner, Vincent Malave, to rezone approximately 0.38 acres of land located at 2624 Castle Hayne Road, from (C ZD) B-1, Conditional B usiness District, to B-1, Business District. B R IE F S UMMARY: Hub ert S . Ward, Jr. is req uesting to rezone ap p ro ximately 0.38 ac res of land lo cated at 2624 C astle Hayne R o ad from (C Z D) B-1 to B-1. T he property's current zoning, (C Z D ) B -1, was originally approved in 2012, and allowed for the development of a retail store (F amily D ollar) on land abutting the subject property. W hile the subject property was included in this conditional rezoning application, it is under separate ownership, and the conceptual site plan did not indicate that any development would take place on it. T herefore, the subject property must remain undeveloped under its current zoning. I n order for the subject property to be developed, either the conditional B -1 district would need to be modified, or the subject property would have to be rezoned. B ecause this is a general map amendment and not a conditional rezoning, uses that would be allowed on the property are those allowed by right or by Special U se P ermit in the B -1 district based on the Table of P ermitted Uses in the Z oning O rdinance. T he B-1 district permits a total of 59 uses by-right and 11 uses with a special use permit. In general, the district permits a variety of commercial and institutional uses. T he property is located within the Wrightsboro commercial node. G enerally, the B -1 district is typical and appropriate for a commercial node of this scale and there are a wide variety of existing commercial uses (retail stores and restaurants) in the area with some adjacent to single-family homes. H owever, some uses allowed in the B -1 district would not be an ideal transition to single-family residential development. Access is provided to the subject property by C astle H ayne R oad (N C 133). B ased on the design of the adjacent F amily D ollar site, it is not likely the development of the subject property could share F amily D ollar ’s existing driveway, and thus would need to install a new driveway to C astle H ayne R oad. T raffic impacts are analyzed at the time a development is proposed. Any use that exceeds 100 AM or P M peak hour trips will be required to have an approved T raffic Impact Analysis (T I A) prior to development. E ven if a T I A is not required, improvements may be required when any proposed use is reviewed by N C D O T during the driveway permitting process. T he 2016 Comprehensive P lan classifies the property as C ommunity M ixed U se. T his place type focuses on small- scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors. Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational, commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 T he proposed O &I rezoning is generally C O N S I S TEN T with this place type because because commercial districts are identified as typical zoning categories for the C ommunity M ixed U se place type and the B -1 district allows for the types of retail, office, housing, and recreational uses recommended for this area. S T R AT E G IC P LAN ALIG N ME N T: Intelligent G rowth and Ec o nomic Develo p ment R E C O MME N D E D MO T IO N AN D R E QUE S T E D AC T ION S : S taff rec o mmends ap p ro val o f the ap p lication and s ugges t the following motio n: Mo tion to rec o mmend ap p ro val, as the Board finds that this reques t fo r a zo ning map amendment o f approximately 0.38 acres fro m (C ZD) B-1 to B-1 as desc ribed is : 1. C ons is tent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 C omprehensive P lan because the B -1 zoning district allows for the types of uses recommended by the C omprehensive P lan for this area, and is identified as a typical zoning category for the Community M ixed U se place type. 2. R easonab le and in the public interest because the proposal supports business success by allowing for the use of an existing commercial node and because the Z oning O rdinance requires the site to provide a transition to the abutting residential property with the installation of a bufferyard along the shared property lines. C O UN T Y MAN AGE R'S C OMME N T S AN D R E C OMME N DAT ION S : (only Manager) Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z19-04) Request by Hubert S. Ward, Jr., on behalf of the property owner, Vincent Malave, to rezone approximately 0.38 acres of land located at 2624 Castle Hayne Road, from (CZD) B-1, Conditional Business District, to B-1, Business District. 1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and additional 5 minutes for rebuttal. 2. Conduct Hearing, as follows: a. Staff presentation b. Applicant’ s presentation (up to 15 minutes) c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes) d. Applicant’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) 3. Close the public hearing 4. Board discussion 5. Vote on the application. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or is not, consistent with the land use plan and why it is, or is not, reasonable and in the public interest. Staff Suggested Motion: Motion to recommend approval, as the Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of approximately 0.38 acres from (CZD) B-1 to B-1 as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the B-1 zoning district allows for the types of uses recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for this area, and is identified as a typical zoning category for the Community Mixed Use place type. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal supports business success by allowing for the use of an existing commercial node and because the Zoning Ordinance requires the site to provide a transition to the abutting residential property with the installation of a bufferyard along the shared property lines. Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial: Motion to recommend [Approval/Denial], as the Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of approximately 0.38 acres from (CZD) B-1 to B-1, as described is: 1. [Consistent/Not Consistent] with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because [Describe elements of controlling land use plans and how the amendment is or is not consistent]. 2. [Reasonable/Not Reasonable] and in the public interest because [Briefly explain why. Factors may include public health and safety, character of the area and relationship of uses, applicable plans, or balancing benefits and detriments]. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1 Z19-04 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 1 of 9 STAFF REPORT FOR Z19-04 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: Z19-04 Request: Zoning Map amendment to rezone 0.38 acres from (CZD) B-1 to B-1 Applicant: Property Owner(s): Hubert S. Ward, Jr. Malave Dario ETAL Location: Acreage: 2624 Castle Hayne Road 0.38 PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type: R03311-004-017-000 Community Mixed Use Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Undeveloped The property would be allowed to be developed in accordance with the B-1 district Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: (CZD) B-1 B-1 SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE ZONING North Single-Family Residential R-20 East Single-Family Residential R-20 South Retail (CZD) B-1 West Shopping Center SC Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 1 Z19-04 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 2 of 9 ZONING HISTORY July 1, 1974 Initially zoned R-20 (Area 10A) December 3, 2012 Rezoned to (CZD) B-1 (Z-923). May 6, 2013 The conditional B-1 zoning district was amended in order to correct an error with the location of the Castle Hayne Road right-of-way. COMMUNITY SERVICES Water/Sewer Water services are available through CFPUA. Wastewater services may be provided by private septic. Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire District, New Hanover County Station Wrightsboro Schools Wrightsboro Elementary, Eaton Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and New Hanover High schools Recreation Optimist Park CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conservation No known conservation resources Historic No known historic resources Archaeological No known archaeological resources Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 2 Z19-04 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 3 of 9 CURRENT APPROVED CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN  The property is currently zoned (CZD) B-1. This district, originally approved in 2012, allowed for the development of a retail store (Family Dollar) on land abutting the subject property.  While the subject property was included in this conditional rezoning application, it is under separate ownership, and the conceptual site plan did not indicate that any development would take place on it. Therefore, the subject property must remain undeveloped under its current zoning.  In order for the subject property to be developed, either the conditional B-1 district would need to be modified, or the subject property would have to be rezoned.  The subject property is not part of any required open space or stormwater system required for the Family Dollar. The inclusion of the property in the 2012 conditional rezoning allowed the parking lot for Family Dollar to be placed closer to the property line as bufferyards are not required between commercially zoned property. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 3 Z19-04 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 4 of 9 ZONING CONSIDERATIONS  Because this is a general map amendment and not a conditional rezoning, uses that would be allowed on the property are those allowed by right or by Special Use Permit in the B- 1 district based on the Table of Permitted Uses in the Zoning Ordinance. The B-1 district permits a total of 59 uses by-right and 11 uses with a special use permit. In general, the district permits the following categories of uses: Agricultural  Wholesale Nurseries  General Agriculture Commercial  Retail  Restaurants  Financial Services  Personal Services  Indoor/Outdoor Recreation  Day Care  Automobile Service (including towing yards)  Professional and Government Offices  Artisan Manufacturing Institutional  Libraries  Museums  Religious Institutions Special Uses  Cell Towers  Stand-alone Entertainment Establishments (Bars)  Senior Living  Dwelling Units  Boating Facilities & Marinas  The subject property is located within the Wrightsboro commercial node. Nonresidential uses continue north on the east side of Castle Hayne Road, with the exception of two residential properties located between the subject property and a gas station.  Generally, the B-1 district is typical and appropriate for a commercial node of this scale and there are a wide variety of existing commercial uses (retail stores and restaurants) in the area with some adjacent to single-family homes. However, some uses allowed in the B-1 district would not be an ideal transition to single-family residential development.  It is staff’s understanding that a towing business is seeking locate on the property.  Development within the proposed B-1 zoning district would require additional building setbacks and landscaping buffers along the adjacent R-20 zoned property. Specifically: o The building setback required along the side property line adjacent to the R-20 zoning would be a minimum of 25’ or 2.75 x Building Height, whichever is greater. o The building setback requirement along the rear property line adjacent to the R- 20 zoning would be a minimum of 30’ or 3.73 x Building Height, whichever is greater. o Landscaping buffers would be required between the development and the residential properties. The buffers must be a minimum of 20’ in width and provide 100% opacity. o In addition, all lights must be shielded in a manner so that light from the fixture does not directly radiate into adjacent property. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 4 Z19-04 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 5 of 9 TRANSPORTATION  Access is provided to the subject property by Castle Hayne Road (NC 133). Based on the design of the adjacent Family Dollar site, it is not likely the development of the subject property could share Family Dollar’s existing driveway, and thus would need to install a new driveway to Castle Hayne Road.  Traffic impacts are analyzed at the time a development is proposed. Any use that exceeds 100 AM or PM peak hour trips will be required to have an approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prior to development. Even if a TIA is not required, improvements may be required when any proposed use is reviewed by NCDOT during the driveway permitting process. Traffic Counts – 2018 Road Location Volume Capacity V/C Castle Hayne Road 3100 Block 14,256 15,860 0.90 Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 5 Z19-04 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 6 of 9 Nearby Traffic Impact Analyses: Traffic Impact Analyses are completed in accordance with the WMPO and NCDOT standards. Approved analyses must be re-examined by NCDOT if the proposed development is not completed by the build out date established within the TIA. Proposed Development Land Use/Intensity TIA Status 1. BRC Castle Hayne A rezoning is required for this development. No application is currently under review.  360 Multi-family units (including 72 multi-family units approved with Riverside)  Approved January 24, 2019  Build Out Years: o 2021: Phase 1 (216 units) o 2023: Phase 2 (114 units) The TIA required that a new signal plan for the existing signal at Castle Hayne Road and N. Kerr Avenue be submitted and approved by NCDOT prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for Phase 1. Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:  Riverside Development Status: No construction has started at this time. 2. Rachel’s Place  154 Single-family dwellings  Approved October 22, 2015  2018 Build Out Year The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable improvements consisted of:  Installation of a northbound left turn lane on Blue Clay Road at the subdivision’s entrance. Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:  Riverside  River Bluffs Development Status: The subdivision is under construction and 54 lots have been platted. The required roadway improvements have not been installed at this time, but are required prior to the next phase of the development being recorded. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 6 Z19-04 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 7 of 9 3. Hanover Lakes  231 Single-family dwellings  Approved August 13, 2015  2018 Build Out Year The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable improvements consisted of:  Installation of a northbound left turn lane, southbound left turn lane, and southbound right turn lane on Castle Hayne Road at the subdivision’s entrance. Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:  None Development Status: The subdivision is under construction. The required roadway improvements have been installed. 4. Riverside By-right development  165 Single-family dwellings  72 Multi-family units  Approved August 13, 2015  Build Out Years: o 2016: Phase 1 (100 units) o 2019: Phase 2 (137 units) The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable improvements consisted of:  Installation of a eastbound right and left turn lane at Castle Hayne Road and N. Kerr Avenue. Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:  None Development Status: The subdivision is under construction. The required roadway improvements have been installed. Regional Transportation Plans:  STIP Project U-5863 o Project to widen Castle Hayne Road from I-140 to MLK Parkway. Construction is expected to begin in 2023. ENVIRONMENTAL  The property does not contain any Special Flood Hazard Areas or Natural Heritage Areas.  The property is within the Ness Creek (C;Sw) watershed.  Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the property consist of Class II (moderate limitation) soils. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 7 Z19-04 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 8 of 9 2016 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN  The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and function of the different types of development that make up the community. Specific goals of the comprehensive plan are designated to be promoted in each place type, and other goals may be relevant for particular properties. Future Land Use Map Place Type Community Mixed Use Place Type Description Focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors. Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational, commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential. Analysis The subject property is located near the intersection of Castle Hayne Road and Kerr Avenue, a community commercial node that is roughly bounded by Harnett Avenue to the south and Horne Place Drive and Sheridan Drive to the north. This area is the most concentrated commercial cluster between 23rd Street and the Castle Hayne Road/Holly Shelter Road intersection node, and a variety of office, retail, housing, and recreational uses could be appropriate in this area. The requested B-1 rezoning could allow for many of these uses, and commercial districts, like B-1, are identified as typical zoning categories for use in the Community Mixed Use place type. Consistency Recommendation The proposed B-1 rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because commercial districts are identified as typical zoning categories for the Community Mixed Use place type and the B-1 district allows for the types of retail, office, housing, and recreational uses recommended for this area. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 8 Z19-04 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 9 of 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application. Staff concludes that the application is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the B-1 zoning district allows for the types of uses recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for this area, and is identified as a typical zoning category for the Community Mixed Use place type. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal supports business success by allowing for the use of an existing commercial node and because the Zoning Ordinance requires the site to provide a transition to the abutting residential property with the installation of a bufferyard along the shared property lines. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 9 CA S T L E H A Y N E R D FE R N D R WIND SAIL DR SHERIDAN DR LAUREL DR HARRELLS LN LONG LEAF DR HORNE PLACE DR N KERR AVE 109 2609 2636 12 2716 2 116 2620 14 10 110 112 2626 2630 2625 3516 2604 4 111 16 6 8 2701 2608 115 3508 2605 2601 C 3504 2629 26002549 2616 2612 2624 2615 3512 KERR AVE CZD B-1SCB-1 R-15 CZD B-2 O&I B-2 AR A-I R-20 Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z19-04 2624 Castle Hayne Rd B-1(CZD) B-1/Undeveloped Z19-04 R 500 FeetPlanning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 3 - 1 CA S T L E H A Y N E R D FE R N D R WIND SAIL DR SHERIDAN DR LAUREL DR HARRELLS LN LONG LEAF DR HORNE PLACE DR N KERR AVE CZD B-1 SC B-1 R-15 O&I B-2 AR R-20 New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z19-04 2624 Castle Hayne Rd B-1(CZD) B-1/Undeveloped Z19-04 R Zoning A-I AR B-1 B-2 CITY CUD A-I CUD B-1 CUD B-2 CUD I-1 CUD O&I CUD R-10 CUD R-15 CUD R-20 CZD AI CZD B-1 CZD B-2 CZD O&I CZD R-10 CZD R-15 CZD R-20 CZD R-20S CZD R-7 EDZD FF I-1 I-2 O&I PD R-10 R-15 R-20 R-20S RA RFMU SC WB Sewer Water 500 FeetPlanning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 4 - 1 CA S T L E H A Y N E R D FE R N D R WIND SAIL DR SHERIDAN DR LAUREL DR HARRELLS LN LONG LEAF DR HORNE PLACE DR N KERR AVE New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z19-04 2624 Castle Hayne Rd B-1(CZD) B-1/Undeveloped Z19-04 R Place Types COMMERCE ZONE EMPLOYMENT CENTER GENERAL RESIDENTIAL URBAN MIXED USE COMMUNITY MIXED USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION 500 FeetPlanning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 5 - 1 APPLICANT MATERIALS Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 6 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 6 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 4 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 5 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 6 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 7 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 8 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 9 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 10 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 11 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 12 NE W HAN O VE R C O UN T Y P LAN N IN G B O AR D R E Q UE S T F OR B OAR D AC T IO N ME E T IN G D AT E: 3/7/2019 R egular D E PART ME N T: P lanning P R E S E N T E R(S ): Ken Vafier, P lanning Manager C O N TAC T (S ): Ken Vafier; Wayne C lark, P lanning & Land Us e Direc tor S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing Rezoning Request (Z19-02) – Request by New Hanover C ounty to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of land located at 5155 S. College Road, from R -15, R esidential District, to (C ZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District. B R IE F S UMMARY: New Hanover C ounty has o wned the parc el lo c ated at 5155 S C ollege R o ad s inc e 1989, and has o p erated a p ublic library o n the s ite s inc e 1993. In 2016, the c o unty acquired property at 3802 S C o llege R oad for a new library fac ility, which is sc heduled to o p en in S p ring 2019. As such, the county will b e plac ing the existing Myrtle G rove Library fo r s ale. In preparatio n for the s ale, the c ounty p ro pos es to rezone the s ite from R -15, R es id ential, to (C ZD) B-2, Highway Busines s , and proposes that any utilizatio n of the s ite b e limited to the following us es as c las s ified in the New Hanover C ounty Zo ning O rd inanc e, Tab le of P ermitted Us es: • Eating and Drinking P lac es ; • G eneral Merchandise S tores; • Misc ellaneous R etail (exclu d ing va p e stores); • Banks, C redit Agencies, S avings and Lo ans ; • Bus iness S ervic es , Includ ing P rinting; • Barber and Beauty S ho p s ; • P ers o nal S ervic es (exclu d ing tattoo establish men ts) • O ffic es for P rivate Busines s and P rofess io nal Ac tivities T he fo llo wing cond ition is p ro p o s ed for E ating and D rinkin g P laces: • No outdoor entertainment shall be allowed after 10:00 P M. Due to the nature o f this reques t, there is no spec ific develo p ment p ro p o s ed at this time, but rather a lis t o f proposed us es that may b e develo p ed o n the s ite. Any proposed develo p ment that is c o nsistent with this c o nditio nal zoning reques t will be required to ad here to s pec ific ordinanc e requirements s uc h as traffic imp act analyses, tree retentio n, s tormwater management, b uffering, lands c ap ing, and s etbac ks at the time o f site develo p ment. T he 2016 C omprehens ive P lan classifies the pro p erty as Urb an Mixed Us e, whic h p ro mo tes d evelopment o f a mix of res id ential, o ffic e, and retail us es at higher dens ities. Types o f us es enc ouraged in this p lace typ e inc lude o ffice, retail, mixed use, s mall recreatio n, commerc ial, ins titutional, s ingle-family, and multi-family res id ential. T he proposed cond itional B-2 rezo ning is generally C O N S IS T E N T with the 2016 C omprehensive P lan b ecaus e it allows for the mix of commerc ial and offic e us es envis io ned fo r the Urb an Mixed Use p lace typ e. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 S T R AT E G IC P LAN ALIG N ME N T: Intelligent G rowth and Ec o nomic Develo p ment R E C O MME N D E D MO T IO N AN D R E QUE S T E D AC T ION S : S taff rec o mmends ap p ro val o f the ap p lication and s ugges ts the following motio n: Mo tion to rec o mmend approval, as the Bo ard find s that this reques t fo r a zoning map amendment o f 1.04 ac res to (C ZD) B-2, C o nditio nal Highway Busines s Dis tric t, as d es c ribed is : 1 . C o nsistent with the purp o s es and intent o f the Urb an Mixed Us e plac e typ e as the p lace typ e designatio n in this area is meant to p ro vide a variety o f commerc ial s ervic es fo r the s o uthern p o rtion o f New Hanover C o unty, and the p ro p o s al allows fo r the mix o f c ommerc ial and o ffice us es envisio ned fo r the Urb an Mixed Use p lace typ e. 2. R eas o nable and in the pub lic interes t bec ause it wo uld allow for a variety of retail, c ommerc ial service, and o ffice us es . W hile b o rd ered to the no rth and s o uth by o ffices, commerc ial uses are als o inc luded in the mix o f uses envisioned fo r this area, and commerc ial dis tric ts are id entified as typ ical zoning c atego ries for this plac e type. C O UN T Y MAN AGE R'S C OMME N T S AN D R E C OMME N DAT ION S : (only Manager) Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z19-02) Request by New Hanover County to rezone 1.04 acres of land located at 5155 S College Road to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District. 1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and additional 5 minutes for rebuttal. 2. Conduct Hearing, as follows: a. Staff/Applicant presentation b. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes) c. Applicant’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) d. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) 3. Close the public hearing 4. Board discussion 5. Vote on the application. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or is not, consistent with the land use plan and why it is, or is not, reasonable and in the public interest. Staff Suggested Motion: Motion to recommend approval, as the Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 1.04 acres to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District, as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the Urban Mixed Use place type as the place type designation in this area is meant to provide a variety of commercial services for the southern portion of New Hanover County, and the proposal allows for the mix of commercial and office uses envisioned for the Urban Mixed Use place type. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it would allow for a variety of retail, commercial service, and office uses. While bordered to the north and south by offices, commercial uses are also included in the mix of uses envisioned for this area, and commercial districts are identified as typical zoning categories for this place type. Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial: Motion to recommend [Approval/Denial], as the Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 1.04 acres to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District, as described is: 1. [Consistent/Not Consistent] with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because [Describe elements of controlling land use plans and how the amendment is or is not consistent]. 2. [Reasonable/Not Reasonable] and in the public interest because [Briefly explain why. Factors may include public health and safety, character of the area and relationship of uses, applicable plans, or balancing benefits and detriments]. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 1 - 1 Z19-02 Staff Summary 3.7.2019 Page 1 of 9 STAFF REPORT FOR Z19-02 CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: Z19-02 Request: Rezone from R-15 to (CZD) B-2 for up to 8 proposed uses Applicant: Property Owner(s): New Hanover County Same Location: Acreage: 5155 S College Road 1.04 acres PID(s): Place Type: R07600-002-028-000 Urban Mixed Use Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Public Library 8 potential uses proposed as listed in application Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: R-15 (CZD) B-2 SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE ZONING North Institutional (CUD) O&I East Single Family Residential R-15 South Institutional (CUD) O&I West Commercial (CUD) B-2, B-2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 1 Z19-02 Staff Summary 3.7.2019 Page 2 of 9 ZONING HISTORY October 15, 1969 Initially zoned R-15 (Masonboro Area) COMMUNITY SERVICES Water/Sewer Water and Sewer is available through CFPUA Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County South Fire District Schools College Road Early Childhood Center, Bellamy Elementary, Myrtle Grove Middle, and Ashley High schools Recreation Myrtle Grove School Park CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conservation No known conservation resources Historic No known historic resources Archaeological No known archaeological resources Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 2 Z19-02 Staff Summary 3.7.2019 Page 3 of 9 PROPOSED USES AND CONCEPTUAL PLAN  The conditional district proposal limits the use of the property to the eight by-right uses shown the table below. The application also proposes the following condition to Eating and Drinking Places: o No outdoor entertainment shall be allowed after 10:00 PM. Uses Permitted Based on Proposed Limitations B-2 1 Eating and Drinking Places P 2 General Merchandise Stores P 3 Miscellaneous Retail (excluding vape stores) P 4 Banks, Credit Agencies, Savings & Loans P 5 Business Services, Including Printing P 6 Barber and Beauty Shops P 7 Personal Services (excluding tattoo establishments) P 8 Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities P  Slightly over half of the gross area of the site will be available to redevelop once the minimum buffer, landscaping, and setback areas are reserved. These specific site design elements will be incorporated into a final site plan at the time a specific development proposal is submitted and reviewed through the development review and permitting process. Figure 1: Conceptual site plan showing approximate re-development area of site. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 3 Z19-02 Staff Summary 3.7.2019 Page 4 of 9 TRANSPORTATION  Direct access to S College Road is provided to the site via an existing signalized driveway which also serves the existing bank to the south. The applicable NCDOT permits and improvements will be addressed at the time a specific development proposal is submitted for review and permitting.  Traffic impacts will be analyzed at the time a development is proposed. Any use that exceeds 100 AM or PM peak hour trips will be required to have an approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prior to development. Even if a TIA is not required, improvements may be required when any proposed use is reviewed by NCDOT during the driveway permitting process.  For purposes of analyzing traffic impacts, staff estimates are based on a typical building footprint of about 25% of the lot size. For this site, the estimated building for redevelopment of the site would be approximately 11,325 square feet. An approximate number of anticipated trips for each proposed use type can be generated using the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Traffic Generation Manual. Given a one-story structure with this footprint, the potential trip generation ranges from approximately 17 to 246 peak hour trips as shown in the table below: ITE Use Anticipated AM Peak Hour Trips Anticipated PM Peak Hour Trips Office 18 17 Specialty Retail 70 55 High Turnover Restaurant 153 214 Fast Food Restaurant 246 178 Traffic Count – March 1, 2018 Road Location Volume Capacity V/C S College Road 5000 block 32,452 58,600 0.55 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 4 Z19-02 Staff Summary 3.7.2019 Page 5 of 9 Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 5 Z19-02 Staff Summary 3.7.2019 Page 6 of 9 Nearby Traffic Impact Analyses: Traffic Impact Analyses are completed in accordance with the WMPO and NCDOT standards. Approved analyses will expire if the proposed development is not completed by the build out date established within the TIA. 1. Monkey Junction Starbucks  2,510 SF Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru  Approved July 13, 2018  2019 Build Out Year The TIA recommends improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable improvements consist of:  Removal of one of the two existing driveways to the site. Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:  None Development Status: Under construction. Proposed Development Land Use/Intensity TIA Status 2. Kaylie’s Cove  110 single family homes  TIA approved February 20, 2018  2019 Buildout year The TIA required improvements to be completed at Piner Road and Myrtle Grove Middle School Drive/Brown Pelican Drive, which consisted of:  Provide an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane on Piner Road with at least 100 feet of storage and appropriate taper.  Provide an exclusive westbound left-turn lane on Piner Road by restriping the existing painted gore area. Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:  None Development Status: Under construction. Right turn lane has been installed Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 6 Z19-02 Staff Summary 3.7.2019 Page 7 of 9 Proposed Development Land Use/Intensity TIA Status 3. Whiskey Navaho Development  88 Single Family Homes  82 Townhomes  250 Apartments*  150,000 SF of Commercial*  50,000 SF of Office* *Requires rezoning approval  TIA approved August 25, 2017  Build out Years: o Phase I (88 single family homes, 82 townhomes): 2019 o Phase II (250 apartments, 200,000 SF of office/retail): 2022 The TIA required several improvements to be completed at certain intersections in the area. The major improvements consisted of:  Provide signal at existing U-turn intersection on S College Road, just north of Pine Hollow Drive.  Provide turn lanes and internal stems at various points of ingress/egress to the proposed development from S College Road and Masonboro Loop Road.  Provide updated signal plans at existing signal at S College Road and Mohican Trail. Per NCDOT, the improvements required at this time have been installed in accordance with their standards. Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:  Aldi grocery store at Waltmoor Road Development Status: Phase 1 under construction. Currently, a revised TIA is in the scoping process to modify the phasing plan and access points. Nearby NC STIP Projects:  STIP Project U-5790 o Proposal that will convert the intersection of Carolina Beach Road/Piner Road and College Road to a continuous flow intersection and widen a portion of Carolina Beach Road south of that intersection. Continuous flow intersections permit more efficient travel movements and help alleviate congestion by allowing more of the main street’s traffic to move through the intersection. Construction of the project is expected to start in 2025. ENVIRONMENTAL  The site does not contain any Special Flood Hazard Areas, wetlands, or Natural Heritage Areas.  The subject property is located within the Mott Creek watershed, which drains to the Cape Fear River. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 7 Z19-02 Staff Summary 3.7.2019 Page 8 of 9 2016 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be interpreted as being parcel specific. Future Land Use Map Place Type Urban Mixed Use Place Type Description Promotes development of a mix of residential, office, and retail uses at higher densities. Types of uses encouraged include office, retail, mixed use, small recreation, commercial, institutional, single-family, and multi-family residential. Consistency Analysis The subject property is located on the eastern side of S. College Road just north of the Monkey Junction intersection (S. College/Carolina Beach/Piner). Like the more developed western side of S. College, this area is designated as an Urban Mixed Use place type meant to provide a variety of commercial services for the southern portion of New Hanover County. It is also located within the Monkey Junction growth node where development is intended to cluster. The proposed B-2 conditional district would allow for a variety of retail, commercial service, and office uses. While bordered to the north and south by offices, commercial uses are also included in the mix of uses envisioned for this area, and commercial districts are identified as typical zoning categories for this place type. Consistency Recommendation The proposed conditional B-2 rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it allows for the mix of commercial and office uses envisioned for the Urban Mixed Use place type. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 8 Z19-02 Staff Summary 3.7.2019 Page 9 of 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application. Staff concludes that the application is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the Urban Mixed Use place type as the place type designation in this area is meant to provide a variety of commercial services for the southern portion of New Hanover County, and the proposal allows for the mix of commercial and office uses envisioned for the Urban Mixed Use place type. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it would allow for a variety of retail, commercial service, and office uses. While bordered to the north and south by offices, commercial uses are also included in the mix of uses envisioned for this area, and commercial districts are identified as typical zoning categories for this place type. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 9 BE R N H A R D T C T F O X W O O D L N WOOD D U C K C I R WOODS EDGE DR WOO D R I D G E R D S C O L L E G E R D JU N C T I O N P A R K D R BR A S S E A G L E C T GRE E N B R I A R R D EM M A R T S C T JUNCTION CREEK DR C A R O L I N A B E A C H R D ANTO I N E T T E D R JUNC T I O N C I R BILL M A R K D R HONEYBEE LN PI N E F O R E S T R D 5104 5155 51455108 5102 837 5215 5253 5201 5222 822 841 830 845 821 849 832 826 831 828 825 857 827 824 823 829 833 854 853 5106 5210 5218 5110 4421 5120 5211 4405 4415 5226 9 5309 5 5309 4 5309 1 5226 6 5226 11 5226 4 5309 2 5226 1 CO L L E G E R D CUD B-2 CUD O&I R-15 CZD B-2 O&I B-2 R-10 CITYCase:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z19-02 5155 S College (CZD) B-2R-15/Library Z19-02 R 750 Feet Z19-02 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 1 BE R N H A R D T C T F O X W O O D L N WOOD D U C K C I R WOODS EDGE DR WOO D R I D G E R D S C O L L E G E R D JU N C T I O N P A R K D R BR A S S E A G L E C T GRE E N B R I A R R D EM M A R T S C T JUNCTION CREEK DR C A R O L I N A B E A C H R D ANTO I N E T T E D R JUN C T I O N C I R BILL M A R K D R HONE Y B E E L N PI N E F O R E S T R D CUD B-2 CUD O&I R-15 CZD B-2 O&I B-2 R-10 CITY New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z19-02 5155 S College (CZD) B-2R-15/Library Z19-02 R Place Types COMMERCE ZONE EMPLOYMENT CENTER GENERAL RESIDENTIAL URBAN MIXED USE COMMUNITY MIXED USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION Z19-02 Zoning A-I AR B-1 B-2 CITY CUD A-I CUD B-1 CUD B-2 CUD I-1 CUD O&I CUD R-10 CUD R-15 CUD R-20 CZD AI CZD B-1 CZD B-2 CZD O&I CZD R-10 CZD R-15 CZD R-20 CZD R-20S CZD R-7 EDZD FF I-1 I-2 O&I PD R-10 R-15 R-20 R-20S RA RFMU SC WB Z19-02 Sewer Water 750 FeetPlanning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 4 - 1 BE R N H A R D T C T F O X W O O D L N WOOD D U C K C I R WOODS EDGE DR WOO D R I D G E R D S C O L L E G E R D JU N C T I O N P A R K D R BR A S S E A G L E C T GRE E N B R I A R R D EM M A R T S C T JUNCTION CREEK DR C A R O L I N A B E A C H R D ANTO I N E T T E D R JUNC T I O N C I R BILL M A R K D R HONEYBEE LN PI N E F O R E S T R D New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z19-02 5155 S College (CZD) B-2R-15/Library Z19-02 R Place Types COMMERCE ZONE EMPLOYMENT CENTER GENERAL RESIDENTIAL URBAN MIXED USE COMMUNITY MIXED USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION Z19-02 750 FeetPlanning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 5 - 1 APPLICANT MATERIALS Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 6 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 6 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 4 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 5 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 6 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 7 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 8 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 9 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 10 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 11 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 12 Planning Board - March 7, 2019ITEM: 3- 7 - 13 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 2 nm nm nm nm nm nm nm COLLEGE PINE FORESTPRIVATE GREENBRIAR COLLEGE 50ft MinimumBuilding Setback $ PotentialDevelopmentArea Vicinity Map Site 20ft 35ft MinimumBuilding Setback ApproximateStreetyard Buffer 20ft BufferArea Woods Edge Dr Antoinette Dr Key Potential Development Area Setbacks Parcels - Eating and Drinking Places- Gen eral Merchandise Stores- Miscellaneous Retail (excluding vape stores )- Banks, Credit Agencies, Savings and Loans - Business Ser vices Including Printing- Barber and Beauty Shops- Personal Services (excluding tattoo establishments )- Offices for Private Business and ProfessionalActivities Address:Acres:Zoning:Proposed Zoning:Place Type: 5155 S College Rd1.04R-15(CZD) B-2Urban Mixed Use Proposed Uses: S College Rd Carolina Beach Rd Greenbriar Rd 250 FeetPlanning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 3 - 9 - 1 NE W HAN O VE R C O UN T Y P LAN N IN G B O AR D R E Q UE S T F OR B OAR D AC T IO N ME E T IN G D AT E: 3/7/2019 R egular D E PART ME N T: P lanning P R E S E N T E R (S ): Brad S c huler, S enio r P lanner C O N TAC T (S ): Brad S c huler; Wayne C lark, P lanning & Land Us e Directo r S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing S ubdivision Appeal (S A19-01) – Application submitted by S hipman & Wright, LLP, on behalf of The Cape Homeowners Association, appealing the Technical Review C ommittee’s approval of a preliminary plan for the proposed Windsor P ines S ubdivision. The subject property is owned by Southern Destiny, LLC, and is located in the 8800 block of Sedgley D rive and in the 8700 block of Lakeview Drive. B R IE F S UMMARY: T he C ape Ho meo wners As s oc iation is appealing the Tec hnical R eview C o mmittee’s (T R C ) ap p ro val of a preliminary plan propos ed by S o uthern Des tiny, L L C . T he p ro p o s ed s ubdivis io n s ubjec t to this appeal is Wind s o r P ines Tracts 4 and 5 c o nsisting of a to tal 132 dwelling units o n 52.68 ac res . T he land is zoned R -15 and the sub d ivision proposed is a p erfo rmanc e residential develo p ment. T he Technical R eview C ommittee (T R C ) reviews major subdivisions for compliance with the C ounty’s S ubdivision and Z oning O rdinances, and other applicable regulations. A major subdivision is subdivision of land consisting of six or more lots, or one that requires the dedication of a new right-of-way for access. M ajor subdivisions that meet the standards of the base zoning district are considered “by-right” developments that require only administrative approval. T his means that if a developer provides plans that meet all applicable standards and technical regulations, the C ounty must issue the approvals and permits needed for the proposed project. P er the S ubdivision O rdinance, the administrative decision by the T R C on a preliminary plan application can be appealed to the P lanning B oard. T he P lanning B oard may then affirm, modify, or supplement the decision of the T R C . T he applicant appealed the T R C ’s approval of the preliminary plan for Windsor P ines T ract 4 & 5 performance residential development due to three factors: 1. Density, 2. Stormwater, and 3. Access. S taff has reviewed the documents in the appeal application and has prepared information regarding the three items in the staff report. In addition, Ward and Smith, P.A., counsel for the developer of Windsor P ines, S outhern D estiny, L L C , has provided a response to T he C ape H omeowners Association's appeal which is included in this packet. S T R AT E G IC P LAN ALIG N ME N T: R E C O MME N D E D MO T IO N AN D R E QUE S T E D AC T ION S : T he P lanning Bo ard shall make one of the follo wing d ec is ions : Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 1. Affirmatio n o f the d ecision (in whole or in p art); 2. Mo d ificatio n o f the d ecision (in whole or in p art); or 3. R evers al of the dec is io n (in who le or in part). C O UN T Y MAN AGE R'S C OMME N T S AN D R E C OMME N DAT ION S : (only Manager) Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 SCRIPT for Subdivision Appeal Application (SA19-01) Application submitted by Shipman & Wright, LLP, on behalf of The Cape Homeowners Association, appealing the Technical Review Committee’s approval of a preliminary plan for the proposed Windsor Pines Subdivision. The subject property is owned by Southern Destiny, LLC, and is located in the 8800 block of Sedgley Drive and in the 8700 block of Lakeview Drive. 1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and additional 5 minutes for rebuttal. 2. Conduct Hearing, as follows: a. Staff presentation b. Applicant’ s presentation (up to 15 minutes) c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes) d. Applicant’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) 3. Close the public hearing 4. Board discussion 5. Vote on the application. The Planning Board shall make one of the following decisions: 1. Affirmation of the decision (in whole or in part); 2. Modification of the decision (in whole or in part); or 3. Reversal of the decision (in whole or in part). Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 1 - 1 SA19-01 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 1 of 8 STAFF REPORT FOR SA19-01 SUBDIVISION APPEAL APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: SA19-01 Request: The Cape Homeowners Association is appealing the Technical Review Committee’s (TRC) approval of a preliminary plan for the Windsor Pines Tracts 4 & 5 performance residential development. Applicant: Subject Property Owner Gary Shipman on behalf of The Cape Homeowners Association Southern Destiny, LLC Subject Property Location: Acreage: Tract #4: 8700 Block of Lakeview Drive; Tract #5: 8800 Block of Sedgley Drive. Tract #4: 29.23 acres Tract #5: 23.45 acres PID(s): Zoning of Subject Property: Tract #4: R08400-001-018-000; Tract #5: R08400-001-019-000. R-15 Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Golf Course Performance Residential Development consisting of 132 townhomes. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 1 SA19-01 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 2 of 8 APPEAL  The Cape Homeowners Association is appealing the Technical Review Committee’s (TRC) approval of a preliminary plan proposed by Southern Destiny, LLC. The proposed subdivision subject to this appeal is Windsor Pines Tracts 4 and 5 consisting of a total 132 dwelling units on 52.68 acres. The land is zoned R-15 and the subdivision proposed is a performance residential development. BACKGROUND  The Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviews major subdivisions for compliance with the County’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, and other applicable regulations. A major subdivision is subdivision of land consisting of six or more lots, or one that requires the dedication of a new right-of-way for access. Major subdivisions that meet the standards of the base zoning district are considered “by-right” developments that require only administrative approval. This means that if a developer provides plans that meet all applicable standards and technical regulations, the County must issue the approvals and permits needed for the proposed project.  The TRC is made up of several governmental agencies including the County departments of Planning, Fire Services, and Engineering. State and regional agencies also participate including the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO), the North Caroline Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The TRC meetings are chaired by a member of the New Hanover County Planning Board.  Subdivisions are reviewed through a three-step process:  Preliminary Plan. The first step of developing a major subdivision is the approval of the preliminary plan. This plan shows the layout of the proposed subdivision including the number and size of proposed lots, dwelling units, streets, and open space. In addition, general information regarding the location and size of stormwater and utility infrastructure is provided. The purpose of the preliminary plan is generally to confirm that the proposed subdivision can meet the applicable layout, dimensional, and density related standards. Preliminary plans are valid for a two-year period.  Construction Drawings. Once a preliminary plan is approved, the property owner prepares engineered construction drawings that provide specific details on how the infrastructure of the subdivision will be constructed. These drawings include stormwater, drainage, grading, and utilities plans. After construction drawings are approved, the property owner can commence construction of the proposed subdivision.  Final Plat. Once the required infrastructure is installed, the developer prepares the final plat for the subdivision. Final plats are approved when the applicable review agencies confirm the required improvements have been installed or bonded in accordance with the required standards, and when any other required documents (i.e. restrictive covenants) have been submitted and approved. Final plats are recorded in the Register of Deeds Office and officially divide the subject tract into sellable lots of record.  The primary code requirements for approval of a preliminary plan for a performance residential development include: Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 2 SA19-01 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 3 of 8 1. Density. A performance residential development is permitted up to 2.5 dwelling units per acre in the R-15 zoning district. 2. Recreation Space. All new residential subdivisions shall provide recreation space in the amount of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit, of which 50% must be designated for active recreation and 50% must be designated for passive recreation. Recreation space is not required to be improved, but it is reserved for recreational purposes. Areas designation as active recreation should be usable while passive recreation areas may consist of sensitive natural features. 3. Street Layout & Design. Depending on the proposed designation of the streets (public or private), there are specific design standards that they must be meet. Local private streets must consist of a 45-foot right-of-way and a 24-foot travelway. Streets must also either stub to adjacent undeveloped property or end in with a proper turnaround. Lastly, a sidewalk is required along one side of the streets extending through the property.  Per the Subdivision Ordinance, the administrative decision by the TRC on a preliminary plan application can be appealed to the Planning Board. The Planning Board may then affirm, modify, or supplement the decision of the TRC.  On December 12, 2018, the TRC considered and approved the preliminary plan of Tracts 4 & 5 of the proposed Windsor Pines subdivision. This performance residential development consists of 132 townhome units on 52.68 acres of land. This equates to the maximum density allowed under the R-15 district (2.5 du/ac) for which the property is zoned.  The Windsor Pines subdivision is proposed on property previously used as the Masonboro Golf Course. While the golf course is located within the original boundaries of The Cape subdivision, only a portion of it, approximately 62 of 147 acres, was dedicated as “private open space” for the development. This area was dedicated as open space pursuant to Section 60.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires land dedicated as private open space to “be encumbered for the perpetual benefit of the public generally or the private properties in the development.” This type of open space is not the same as the recreation space noted above, which was added to the Subdivision Ordinance in 2003. Neither the open space nor recreation space regulations require that the property be used as a golf course. The golf course, which is under separate ownership from The Cape HOA, is not currently in operation.  The preliminary plans approved for the Windsor Pines subdivision show that sole access to the subject properties is through The Cape’s private roads. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 3 SA19-01 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 4 of 8 Approved Preliminary Plans Windsor Pines Tract #4 Windsor Pines Tract #5 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 4 SA19-01 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 5 of 8 ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL The applicant appealed the TRC’s approval of the preliminary plan for Windsor Pines Tract 4 & 5 performance residential development due to three factors: 1. Density, 2. Stormwater, and 3. Access. Staff has reviewed the documents in the appeal application and has prepared the following information regarding the three items. Density The applicant makes the following statements in the appeal application. 1. “…counsel for the HOA has learned of the County’s belief that the bankruptcy in the early 1990’s of The Cape’s original developers impacted in some fashion the County’s original approval, and thereafter, new projects within the boundaries of The Cape submitted to the County for approval have only been required to meet to the performance density requirements without regard to the overall permitted density of The Cape. This is in contrast to the original approval of The Cape as a performance development, as well as many communications documented in the County’s file for The Cape, reiterating that there is in fact a maximum density for the entire development.”  A letter dated August 10, 1990 from Dexter Hayes, Planning Director, to Warren C. Scanlon, President of The Cape HOA (Exhibit A), stated that “the Final Section of the project approved by this office was in July, 1987 for Section 6 along Sedgley Drive. Since no other part of the project has been finalized for the approval since that date, the original approval of the preliminary plan which occurred in 1983 has now expired and is no longer valid.” The letter continues: “If the project is re-activated under the present owner or anyone else, it will have to be resubmitted as a new plan under the current regulations of the County. The property is zoned R-15 Residential which still allows 2.5 units per acre. Single family or multi-family housing is permitted under this zoning classification as long as the overall density does not exceed the 2.5 limit.”  A letter dated July 24, 1992 from Dexter Hayes to John Davis (Exhibit B) stated that “Prior to the bankruptcy and abandonment of the original plan for the development, 535 lots were platted and recorded in compliance with all local ordinances and regulations.” In addition, “The balance of The Cape Subdivision properties are still zoned R-15 Residential and may be developed with 15,000 sq. ft. conventional subdivision lots or in accordance with the County’s performance controls at 2.5 units per net tract acre.”  A letter dated October 20, 1994 from Allen O’Neal, County Manager, to John R. McCarthy, President of The Cape HOA (Exhibit C), stated: • “Prior to bankruptcy and abandonment of the original plan for the development, 535 lots were platted and recorded in compliance with all local ordinances and regulations. These recorded lots are all eligible for local building permits. • Recent new projects such as Lakeside and Bermuda Dunes have been approved as separate free-standing subdivisions. • Approximately 62 acres of land that are currently being used as a golf course have been recorded and platted as “private open space.” Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 5 SA19-01 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 6 of 8 • The remainder of the golf course lands have not been set aside as open space and are therefore eligible for future development.”  In the letters above it is reiterated that the original preliminary plan approved in the early 1980s for 966 lots was abandoned and is no longer valid; and that the remaining undeveloped land once included in the original plan may be developed as separate free-standing subdivisions in accordance with regulations in effect at that time, most notably with a maximum density of 2.5 units per acre.  Windsor Pines Tracts 4 and 5 was given preliminary plan approved a separate stand-alone subdivision complying with the density standards of the R-15 district without using any land within the existing Cape subdivision to meet this standard. 2. “The bankruptcy of the original developer had no legal impact upon The Cape’s original approvals, as that developer, as a debtor, and any successors to the debtor, would have been obligated to comply with the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinances under which the plans for The Cape were originally approved. Upon information and belief, the original developer’s bankruptcy proceedings did not seek to avoid, and did not avoid, the provisions of New Hanover County’s Zoning Ordinances.”  While change in ownership does not invalidate a development approval, a development approval for a use permitted by-right under the County’s development ordinances does not obligate the new owner to complete the development of the subject land under the plan that was originally approved. Portions of a project already developed would be in compliance with the County’s regulations when the final approval was issued. The new owner has the right to modify the plans for the undeveloped portions of the subject land in accordance with the County’s regulations in effect at that time. 3. “Upon information and belief, the separately owned golf course within The Cape has been used by separately approved developments to satisfy the open space requirements imposed by the County. There exists no provision of the applicable ordinances of New Hanover County that would permit this proposed project to utilize portions of the golf course to satisfy the open space requirements required for this project.” • Only a 62-acre portion of the golf course was dedicated as private open space. As noted in the October 20, 1994 letter mention above, “The remainder of the golf course lands have not been set aside as open space and are therefore eligible for future development.” The remainder of the golf course referred to in this letter includes Windsor Pines Tracts 4 and 5. • Windsor Pines Tracts 4 and 5 have provided the recreation space required by the County’s regulations within the proposed subdivision. Specifically, 132 units require 3.96 acres of recreation space, and the proposed subdivision includes 27.6 acres of recreation space. • Windsor Pines Tracts 4 and 5 is complying with the density standard of 2.5 units per acre and is not utilizing any of the 62-acre portion of the golf course dedicated as private open space to calculate density. Specifically, the proposed subdivision consists of 52.68 acres of land and 132 dwelling units. This equates to a density of 2.5 unit per acre. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 6 SA19-01 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 7 of 8 4. “The County has also voiced its opinion that the golf course was intended to perpetually remain open space and should not be developed.” • Only a 62-acre portion of the golf course was dedicated as private open space. Section 60.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires land dedicated as private open space to “be encumbered for the perpetual benefit of the public generally or the private properties in the development.” • As noted in the October 20, 1994 letter mentioned above, “The remainder of the golf course lands have not been set aside as open space and are therefore eligible for future development.” 5. “Upon information and belief, the petitioner’s proposed 132 lot/unit residential development would cause the original density for The Cape to be exceeded.” • As noted, the original preliminary plan for The Cape approved in the early 1980s is no longer valid. The remaining undeveloped land once included in the original plan may be developed as separate free-standing subdivisions in accordance with regulations in effect at the time of their development.  Windsor Pines Tracts 4 and 5 was given preliminary plan approval as a separate stand-alone subdivision complying with the density standards of the R-15 district without using any land within the existing Cape subdivision to meet this standard.  Therefore, the proposed Windsor Pines Tracts 4 and 5 could not exceed the density of The Cape as the subject property is not included in the current boundaries for which The Cape’s density is determined. Stormwater The applicant states that the proposed Windsor Pines subdivision will have to integrate into The Cape’s preexisting stormwater system which requires consent from The Cape HOA. The applicant further states that “The proposed development, if developed, would result in a significant increase in impervious surface with The Cape that the HOA is not prepared to nor will it agree to accommodate. Therefore, any additional integration into the HOA’s stormwater system will not be approved by the HOA.”  Any new development within The Cape will require a County and State Stormwater Permit. The County’s regulations require that Windsor Pines control the difference between pre and post development for the 25-year storm (approximately 8 inches of rain in a 24-hour period). In addition, the 100-year storm (10 inches of rain in a 24-hour period) must be analyzed to ensure existing and proposed structures will not be flooded.  As previously noted, the stormwater plans are reviewed with the construction drawings of a major subdivision, which are created after preliminary plat approval is issued. At this time, the approved preliminary plans for Windsor Pines Tracts 4 and 5 include the approximate location and size of the needed stomwater facilities. Specifically, the plans are proposing the installation of two stormwater ponds. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 7 SA19-01 Staff Report PB 3.7.2019 Page 8 of 8 Access The preliminary plans approved for the Windsor Pines subdivision show that sole access to the subject properties is through The Cape’s private roads, which are owned and maintained by The Cape HOA. Similar to the stormwater system, the applicant states that integration into The Cape’s private road system requires consent from the HOA. At this time, there has not been an agreement established to allow use of the private roads, and the applicant has stated that the HOA will not consent to the proposed development using the private streets of The Cape. • As previously noted, the purpose of a preliminary plan is to generally confirm that the proposed subdivision can meet the applicable layout, dimensional, and density related standards. The access standards of the Subdivision Ordinance focus on the design (Exhibit D: Section 41-1(7) Streets) and construction standards (Exhibit E: Section 52-4: Streets, and the Private Street Standard Details) of the infrastructure needed to support the proposed development. The Ordinance does not require the developer to prove legal access in order to obtain preliminary plan approval. • The County does require maintenance responsibilities of private roads to be included in restrictive covenants and since Windsor Pines is proposing sole access from The Cape’s private roads, the TRC approval conditioned that a road maintenance agreement must be provided prior to approval of the construction drawings (Exhibit F). • The County has also been in communication with The Cape HOA’s counsel about the proposed Windsor Pines subdivision throughout its review process. • The County has historically approved preliminary plans with a condition that a road maintenance agreement be provided prior to final plat approval. A letter dated December 15, 1992 from Dexter Hayes to Ed Jones, Property Manager for The Cape HOA (Exhibit G), stated that “Prior to final plat approval, the developer of the Cape Villas must submit to our office a road maintenance agreement with the Cape Homeowners Association… If a road maintenance agreement cannot be worked out with the Cape Homeowners’ Association and an alternative access was needed from River Road, a revised preliminary site plan would have to be submitted to our office for approval.” EXHIBITS • Exhibit A: A letter dated August 10, 1990 from Dexter Hayes, Planning Director, to Warren C. Scanlon, President of The Cape HOA. • Exhibit B: A letter dated July 24, 1992 from Dexter Hayes to John Davis. • Exhibit C: A letter dated October 20, 1994 from Allen O’Neal, County Manager, to John R. McCarthy, President of The Cape HOA. • Exhibit D: Subdivision Ordinance Section 41-1(7) Streets. • Exhibit E: Subdivision Ordinance Section 52-4: Streets, and the Private Street Standard Details. • Exhibit F: Windsor Pines Tracts 4 & 5 preliminary plan approval letter. • Exhibit G: A letter dated December 15, 1992 from Dexter Hayes to Ed Jones, Property Manager for The Cape HOA • Exhibit H: Approved preliminary plan for Windsor Pines Tracts 4 & 5. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 8 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 3 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 3 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 4 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 2 18 The deed of easement shall be in the format as determined and approved by the City or County Attorney. All utilities, appurtenances and facilities within the easement to be dedicated shall be constructed to the specifications of the city or county, and will remain the property of the subdivider until officially accepted for operation, use and maintenance as part of the county or city’s system. Official acceptance shall be by resolution of the appropriate Governing Body. The deed of easement shall be recorded with the New Hanover County Register of Deeds. (3/03) (6) Lots - Lots shall be laid out as follows: (a) Lot sizes, shapes and locations shall be made with due regard to topographic conditions, contemplated use, and the surrounding area. (3/03) (b) Lots in subdivisions that have been zoned by the County Commissioners shall not be less in width, depth or area specified in the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance for the appropriate zone or zones in which the subdivision exists. (c) Corner lots shall have width sufficient to permit adequate building setback from side streets or driveways for commercial lots. (3/03) (d) Double frontage or reverse frontage lots shall be avoided. (3/03) (e) Side lot lines shall be substantially at right angles or radial to street lines. Where side lot lines intersect at the rear of the lot, the angle of intersection should not be less than 60 degrees. (3/03) (f) Lots should not have a depth greater than 4 times the mean width. (3/03) (g) Each lot of a subdivision shall individually abut or be adjacent to an approved public or approved private street or private access easement. Condominium and townhouse-style subdivisions may be exempted from this requirement at the discretion of the Technical Review Committee, provided that in all cases each individual lot shall be assured safe and reasonable vehicular access to and from an approved street. (3/03) Every Conventional residential lot shall front a public or private street or access easement for a distance of at least 34 feet. (8/04) (7) Streets (a) Local streets shall be laid out so that their use by through traffic will be discouraged. (12/10) (b) All streets shall be designated to be either public or private in accordance with N. C. General Statute 136-102.6 by the subdivider who shall then comply with the requirements of said General Statute and shall submit concurrently with the final plat all disclosure statements required by said General Statute. (c) When a planned subdivision is adjacent to an arterial, a marginal access street may be required to provide access for lots fronting on the arterial. (d) All streets that are in alignment with other existing and named streets shall bear the existing street name. Names of proposed streets or subdivisions shall not duplicate or be phonetically similar to existing street names. No proper names can be used. It shall be the responsibility of the subdivider to erect official street name signs at all intersections associated with the subdivision in accordance with the Addressing Standards and Procedures Manual. The subdivider may acquire and erect official street name signs or may choose to contract with the city or county to install the street signs and the subdivider shall pay the cost of such installation. (3/03) Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 6 - 1 19 (e) Access to Adjacent Properties The arrangement of streets in proposed subdivisions shall make provisions for the continuation of existing streets in adjoining areas or their proper projection where adjoining land is not subdivided and where they may be deemed necessary for public requirements. For large subdivisions adjacent to large tracts of unsubdivided property, street projections shall be required into the adjacent unsubdivided tracts at a maximum distance of every 1000 feet. The street arrangement shall be such as not to cause a hardship to owners of adjoining property when developed and when they seek to provide for convenient access thereto. The use of residential strips of land in order to prevent the extension of proposed or existing streets or access thereto is prohibited. (3/03) (f) Street Connectivity Requirements Interconnected street systems promote orderly and safe development by ensuring that streets function in an independent manner, to provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles and enhance access by ensuring continuous and connected transportation routes. All proposed streets shall be continuous and connect to existing or platted streets without offset with the exception of cul-de-sacs as permitted and except as provided below. The street network for any subdivision shall achieve a connectivity ratio of not less than 1.40. The connectivity ratio shall be defined as the number of street links divided by the number of nodes, including cul de sac heads or other vehicle turnarounds. A "node" refers to the terminus of a street or the intersection of two (2) or more. Any curve or bend of a street that has a minimum centerline radius of 100 feet or more shall not be considered a node. Roundabouts also shall not be counted as nodes. A divided entrance is one node. A link shall be any portion of a street, other than an alley, defined by a node at either end. Street projections to adjacent properties shall be considered links. For the purpose of determining the number of links in a development, boulevards, median-divided roadways, and divided entrances shall be treated the same as conventional two-way roadways. Street links and nodes along a collector or arterial street providing access to a proposed subdivision shall not be considered in computing the connectivity ratio. Residential streets shall be designed so as to minimize the block length of local streets, to provide safe access to residences with minimal need for steep driveways and to maintain connectivity between and through residential neighborhoods for autos and pedestrians. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 6 - 2 20 Where necessary to provide access or to permit the reasonable future subdivision of adjacent land, rights-of-way and improvements shall be extended to the boundary of the development. A temporary turnaround may be required where the dead end exceeds 500 feet in length. The platting of partial width rights-of-way shall be prohibited except where the remainder of the necessary right-of-way has already been platted, dedicated or established by other means. New subdivisions may be exempt from the connectivity ratio standard as set forth in this section, provided the appropriate reviewing agency determine there is no option for providing stub streets or connectivity due to existing documented environmental features such as wetlands or natural water bodies or existing adjacent developed property (11/07). (g) Intersections - Street intersections shall be laid out as follows: 1. Streets shall intersect as nearly as possible at right angle and no street shall intersect at less than seventy-five (75) degrees. 2. Intersections with a major street shall be at least eight hundred (1000) feet apart measured from centerline to centerline. (3/03) 3. Where a public or private street intersects a U.S. or N.C. numbered highway, or a N.C. secondary road, the intersection design shall be in accordance with the standards of the N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways. 4. Street jogs with centerline offsets of less than two hundred (200) feet shall be prohibited. (3/03) (h) Cul-de-sacs (3/03) (7/03) A street designed to be permanently closed at one end shall have a permanent turnaround at the closed end, the right-of-way and pavement of which shall meet the requirements specified by NCDOT. Cul-de-Sacs shall not be longer than 500 ft. Longer Cul-de-sacs may be authorized provided the appropriate reviewing agency determines there is no option for providing stub streets or connectivity due to existing documented environmental features such as wetlands, natural water bodies, topographical features, environmental conditions or physical conditions such as property shape, property accessibility, or land use relationships. (3/03) (i) Public Street Projections (3/03) (12/10) Where there are lots fronting street projections to adjacent properties and services are required, a temporary turnaround shall be constructed at the end of the street at the property line, said turnaround to be constructed in accordance with NCDOT Specifications 1. Where there are no lots fronting street projections to adjacent properties frontage, the frontage being more or less one side lot length, the street may be constructed to the property line and dead-ended with no cul-de-sac required in accordance with NCDOT Specifications 2. In any and all cases, the developer shall be responsible for the cost of and placement of all required dead-end barricades and signs. 3. Additional rights-of-way needed for a temporary turnaround at the end of the street projections to adjacent properties shall be in the form of Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 6 - 3 21 temporary easements or rights-of-way reserved by the subdivider. It is the intention that upon extension of the street into the adjacent property the requirement for a cul-de-sac will cease and that the temporary right-of-way granted for the cul-de-sac construction will revert to the adjacent property owner. 4. Street projections proposed for access to adjacent properties shall have temporary turnarounds installed in accordance with this chapter and NCDOT Specifications. (j) Temporary Vehicle Turnarounds (3/03) In phasing the construction of street improvements within approved subdivisions, the developer must make provision for vehicle turnarounds at the end of street construction for each phase. If the street end of a particular planned phase of development is within a distance of 250 linear feet, more or less, from the next planned intersection in a succeeding phase, the developer will be required to construct the street to, and complete all improvements within, the intersection in accordance with requirements for completed intersections, including barricades, as specified by NCDOT. The completed intersection will then serve as a vehicular turnaround. (3/03) (k) When a lot or lots within a subdivision abut an existing public street, highway or thoroughfare, the subdivider shall be responsible for the installation of all improvements to that portion adjacent to and which is to be utilized by that subdivision. (3/03) (l) Traffic Calming During Preliminary Site Plan Review (04/12) In some cases, the inclusion of traffic calming devices in subdivision design is justified to promote speed limit compliance with posted speed limits and for up-holding the long-term operational safety of residential subdivision streets. Only traffic calming devices recognized by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and/or other nationally recognized traffic engineering guidelines, with provisions to minimize impacts on bicyclists, pedestrians, and emergency response time shall be considered by the Technical Review Committee for approval during the Preliminary Site Plan Review. Traffic Calming on Existing Public Streets Petitions for traffic calming devices on existing publicly designated streets shall be considered by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as referenced in NCGS 136-102.8. Traffic Calming on Existing Private Streets In accordance with Section 68 of this ordinance, no traffic calming devices shall be installed by the POA/HOA until the following review process is complete: The review process for installing traffic calming devices on existing private streets may be initiated by contacting the Planning & Inspections Department to obtain a copy of the most current Traffic Calming Petition Form and other associated informational materials. Petitioners must first obtain signatures from at least 70 percent of parcel owners within the affected area to Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 6 - 4 22 demonstrate neighborhood support for traffic calming devices. The affected area will be determined by a scoping process involving the petitioner, a representation from the Planning & Inspections Department, County Fire Services office, County Engineering, and the WMPO prior to petition submittal. Only one signature per parcel is counted to determine 70 percent concurrence. County staff will verify that signatures match current tax records and if the required signatures are not obtained within 90 days, the petition will not move forward. If the signatures are determined to be valid, a letter from the Planning & Inspections Department will be sent to the petition contact describing the minimum application requirements to move forward with the review process. To qualify for review, an application demonstrating the following must be provided by the petitioner to the Planning & Inspections Department: 1. The road is privately owned and maintained with a functional classification of local road or neighborhood collector; 2. The roadway is “primarily residential”, with at least 75 percent of the properties fronting on the street having residential zoning and/or residential land uses; 3. Fifteen percent of present day traffic exceeds 30 mph; 4. Traffic volumes on the affected street must be less than 4,000 vehicles per day; 5. The roadway is not a primary route for emergency response; 6. An active property owners association, as prescribed in Section 54 of this Ordinance, exists to install and maintain traffic calming devices; 7. A previous traffic calming device application has not been denied for the affected area within the last 12 months; 8. Concurrence from a detailed engineering study that the traffic calming devices are warranted and feasible to implement within the affected area. As a fundamental component of a complete traffic calming application, the following criteria must be certified by a professional legally recognized by a State of North Carolina licensing board as licensed to perform such activities or undertakings. 1. Roadway characteristics including alignment, grade, sight distance, intersection spacing, driveway location, edge treatments (curbing, shoulders, etc.), signage, pavement markings and on-street parking; 2. Vehicle characteristics of existing traffic (based on a three-day vehicle classification study); 3. Traffic speed and volume data (based on a three-day speed and volume study); 4. Three-year crash history; 5. Recommended traffic calming devices including typical details (Recommended devices shall follow Institute of Transportation Engineers and/or other nationally recognized traffic engineering guidelines, with provisions to minimize adverse impacts on bicycle, pedestrian safety, and emergency response); 6. A conceptual plan demonstrating the proposed location of traffic calming devices and associated advanced warning signage/pavement markings (as required by the most recent version of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices); Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 6 - 5 23 7. A recommended implementation schedule and preliminary line-item cost estimates. Upon submittal of a completed application to the Planning & Inspections Department, the request will be considered by the Technical Review Committee at their next regularly scheduled meeting. The Technical Review Committee has the authority to reject an application based on engineering judgment, an absence of documented need and/or concerns with adverse impacts on emergency response as well as bicycle and pedestrian safety. If approved by the Technical Review Committee, the petitioner may initiate the final approval process by submitting the following information to the Planning & Inspections Department: 1) Final construction plans and details sealed by a professional legally recognized by a State of North Carolina licensing board as licensed to perform such activities and undertakings, 2) Final implementation schedule and line item cost estimates (with associated contingency); and 3) A surety in the form of a certified check and in accordance with Section 51 of this Ordinance, to guarantee the installation of the traffic calming devices. Petitioners(s) may appeal Technical Review Committee denial of an application to the New Hanover County Planning Board whom, in its discretion, may choose to uphold the Technical Review Committee ruling or approve the petitioner’s request. Petitioners may appeal a Planning Board denial to the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. (8) Street Trees - If street trees are planted, they shall be planted inside the property lines where they are less subject to injury, decrease the chance of accidents, and enjoy more favorable conditions for growth. Trees in islands within dedicated rights -of-way are excepted. (9) Subdivision Names – Subdivision names shall not duplicate or be phonetically similar to existing development or subdivision names within the city or county except where they are additions to existing developments. (3/03) (10) Evacuation Access Design - Roads within the subdivision must be designed to provide sufficient capacity for safe and timely evacuation of residents in case of a hurricane if the subdivision or parts of it are located in a V-zone. Factors involved in determining the safety and timeliness of evacuation include the presence of low points, bridges, or other evacuation route bottlenecks, and vehicle capacities of the roads. (11) Barrier, Riverine and Estuarine Islands (3/03) Subdivisions that are located on riverine, estuarine or barrier islands that are not connected to the mainland by a permanent network of roads and bridges shall establish a community boating facility on the island and on the mainland with the number of spaces in each facility being equal to or greater than the total number of lots. (12) Waterfront Access (3/03) Subdivisions that are located on riverine, estuarine or barrier islands with lots containing beach front or sound front property shall dedicate sufficient property to Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 6 - 6 28 approved plans. Sewage collection systems shall be installed in all new subdivisions. (3/03) 52-4 Streets (12/10) All streets shall be constructed, inspected, and approved in accordance with the following requirements. (5/88) (1) Construction - All street right-of-way segments designated as public or private shall be constructed to minimum North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) standards. These standards are available for review at the New Hanover County Planning & Inspections Department, the County Engineering Department, and at the Division Office of the NC Department of Transportation. Public Streets: (a) Standards shall include drainage, bridge, right-of-way, and pavement design. (b) The classification and as a result, the construction standards for a public street segment may be upgraded to a higher classification if that street segment will eventually be required to provide access to or collect traffic from future development on adjacent properties. (c) All public streets shall be inspected and approved by the District Engineer, NC Department of Transportation, Division of Highways. Private Streets: (a) Streets designated as private shall be constructed to minimum construction standards as adopted by New Hanover County and certified by a professional legally recognized by a State of North Carolina licensing board as being licensed to perform such activities or undertakings. (b) Pavement design shall meet the requirements as specified and shown in the road profiles depicted in Article VIII of the County’s Subdivision Regulations under Appendices & Certificates. (c) Streets designated as private may be allowed in subdivisions once they are reviewed and approved by the County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC). In their review, the TRC will consider unique physical conditions of the property including but not limited to connectivity, topography, geometric design, storm water, tree preservation, ingress and egress, reduction of speed to desirable or safe levels and other safety measures and that sufficient language is provided through a legally established property owner’s association that the streets will be properly maintained. (d) Whenever a private street intersects a U.S., NC highway, or Secondary Road, an approved NCDOT Driveway Permit signed by the District Engineer will be required prior to final plat approval. (e) Private road stubs and dead end streets shall be constructed/paved to the property boundary and shall not contain gates or obstructions to qualify for connectivity standards as stated in Section 41-1 (7)(f). (f) Streets designed as collector roads that accept traffic from local streets will be required to be designated as public and adhere to the standards under public streets as noted above. Matrix Table for Private Road ROW Specifications, General Standards, and Road Profiles located in Article VII: Appendices & Certificates of this Ordinance. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 7 - 1 44 MATRIX TABLE FOR PRIVATE ROAD ROW SPECIFICATIONS ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS Alley Cul-de- sac Local Collector ROW (R) 20 45 45 50 Travelway Width (W) 18 22 24 26 Minimum Horizontal Centerline Radius 55 100 100 200 Minimum Edgeline Radius at Corners N/A 15 25 30 Pavement Design Standard (NCDOT) Local Local Local Collector General Standards: Minimum Offset Between Centerlines of Intersections 200 Tangent Length Between Horizontal Curves 100 Maximum Cul-de-sac Length 500' Plaza Width (between back of curb and sidewalk) 5' Sight Distance Triangle at Intersections 10'x70' Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 7 - 2 45 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 7 - 3 46 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 7 - 4 47 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 7 - 5 January 29, 2019 Cindee Wolf Design Solutions P.O. BOX 7721 Wilmington, NC 28406 VIA EMAIL: cwolf@lobodemar.biz RE: Windsor Pines – Tracts 4 & 5 (Performance Plan) Ms. Wolf, In regular session December 12, 2018, the County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed and approved, based on technical requirements of the Subdivision & Zoning Ordinances , Tracts 4 & 5 of Windsor Pines located within The Cape subdivision. This preliminary approval is for a total of 132 residential units and is valid for a period of two (2) years unless a final plat for all or a portion of the project is submitted and reviewed by the County. Please be advised that the project will not move forward during the construction plan and building permit phase until the County receives written and recorded documentation that a road maintenance agreement is in place with The Cape HOA. Also be advised that all local, State, and Federal mandates may be applicable to the project. Attending the meeting were TRC Chairperson Donna Girardot (Planning Board rep), Sam Burgess (Planning staff rep), Jim Iannucci (Engineering rep), and David Stone (Fire Services rep). Also attending the meeting were Sharon Huffman (County Legal), Gary Shipman (legal counsel, The Cape HOA), Wallace Gray (AT&T), Joe Boyd (WithersRavenel), Brad Schuler (Planning staff), Alan Solana (legal counsel, Southern Destiny, LLC), and James Todd (attorney with Ward & Smith). If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (910) 798 -7444 or bschuler@nhcgov.com. Sincerely, Bradley W. Schuler, AICP Current Planner Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 8 - 1 -2- cc: Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney, shuffman@nhcgov.com Jim Iannucci, County Engineer, jiannucci@nhcgov.com David Stone, Fire Services, dstone@nhcgov.com Fred Royal, WMPO, Fredic.Royal@wilmingtonnc.gov Gary Shipman, Shipman & Wright, LLP, gshipman@shipmanlaw.com Joe Boyd, WithersRavenel, jboyd@withersravenel.com James R. Todd, Ward and Smith, P.A., jrtodd@wardandsmith.com Alan Solana, Solana Law, P.C. info@solanalaw.com Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 8 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 9 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 9 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 10 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 10 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 10 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 10 - 4 GRAND BANKS D R VALLEY B R O O K R D PALMER WAY OCRACOKE DR HO G A N C T LAK E V I E W D R CAR O L I N A B E A C H R D ROY A L F E R N R D MAIN S A I L L N BOBBY JONE S D R RIV E R R D E TELFAI R C I R SEDGL E Y D R SER V I C E R D NANTUC K E T C T ROUEN CT BLACK HORSE TRL THE CAPE BLV TIARA DR SH I P W A T C H D R TREVIS LN CLUB CT SPENCER CT FERN V A L L E Y D R B F J L N LINKSIDER DR SAINT VINCENT DR GREEN VALLEY DR CATAMARAN DR W T E L F A I R C I R CAPESIDE DR SEA CASTLE CT LITTLE PONY TRL RIV E R R D CUD O&I FF B-1 R-15 R-10 Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: SA19-01 8800-9200 block Sedgley Dr Performance Residential Subdivision R-15/Undeveloped/ Golf Course SA19-01 R 1,000 Feet SA19-01 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 11 - 1 GRAND BANKS D R VALLEY B R O O K R D PALMER WAY OCRACOKE DR HO G A N C T LA K E V I E W D R CAR O L I N A B E A C H R D ROY A L F E R N R D MAIN S A I L L N BOBBY JONE S D R RIV E R R D E TELFAI R C I R SEDGL E Y D R SER V I C E R D NANTUC K E T C T ROUEN CT BLACK HORSE TRL THE CAPE BLV TIARA DR SH I P W A T C H D R TREVIS LN CLUB CT SPENCER CT FERN V A L L E Y D R B F J L N LINKSIDER DR SAINT VINCENT DR GREEN VALLEY DR CATAMARAN DR W T E L F A I R C I R CAPESIDE DR SEA CASTLE CT LITTLE PONY TRL R-15 New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: SA19-01 8800-9200 block Sedgley Dr Performance Residential Subdivision R-15/Undeveloped/ Golf Course SA19-01 R Zoning A-I AR B-1 B-2 CITY CUD A-I CUD B-1 CUD B-2 CUD I-1 CUD O&I CUD R-10 CUD R-15 CUD R-20 CZD AI CZD B-1 CZD B-2 CZD O&I CZD R-10 CZD R-15 CZD R-20 CZD R-20S CZD R-7 EDZD FF I-1 I-2 O&I PD R-10 R-15 R-20 R-20S RA RFMU SC WB Sewer Water 1,000 Feet SA19-01 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 12 - 1 GRAND BANKS D R VALLEY B R O O K R D PALMER WAY OCRACOKE DR HO G A N C T LAK E V I E W D R CAR O L I N A B E A C H R D ROY A L F E R N R D MAIN S A I L L N BOBBY JONE S D R RIV E R R D E TELFAI R C I R SEDGL E Y D R SER V I C E R D NANTUC K E T C T ROUEN CT BLACK HORSE TRL THE CAPE BLV TIARA DR SH I P W A T C H D R TREVIS LN CLUB CT SPENCER CT FERN V A L L E Y D R B F J L N LINKSIDER DR SAINT VINCENT DR GREEN VALLEY DR CATAMARAN DR W T E L F A I R C I R CAPESIDE DR SEA CASTLE CT LITTLE PONY TRL COMMUNITY MIXED USE GENERAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: SA19-01 8800-9200 block Sedgley Dr Performance Residential Subdivision R-15/Undeveloped/ Golf Course SA19-01 R Place Types COMMERCE ZONE EMPLOYMENT CENTER GENERAL RESIDENTIAL URBAN MIXED USE COMMUNITY MIXED USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION 1,000 Feet SA19-01 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 13 - 1 APPLICANT MATERIALS Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 14 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 14 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 4 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 5 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 6 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 7 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 8 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 9 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 10 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 11 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 12 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 13 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 14 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 15 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 16 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 17 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 18 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 15 - 19 The Cape Homeowners Association Appeal Preliminary Plat for Windsor Pines – Tract 4 & 5 (Performance Plan) Submitted by: Design Solutions for Southern Destiny TRC Approval: December 12, 2018 INTRODUCTION From the initial submissions of The Cape development in 1981, the land comprising the golf course itself has never been considered to be a part of The Cape nor submitted to New Hanover County and has always been separately owned apart from the land on which The Cape was developed. The golf course has only ever been an attendant recreation area for The Cape project. All evidence existing in the County file for The Cape suggests that the golf course was intended to exist in perpetuity as a golf course and has never been contemplated as land to be developed— as part of The Cape or otherwise. True and accurate copies of aerial photographs taken of the golf course property by New Hanover County in 1949, 1956, and 1981 are attached hereto as Exhibit A. For this reason and upon consideration of the issues discussed in the appeal application and this submittal, we believe the TRC approval of the recent submittals for development on Tracts 4 & 5 of the golf course property must be revoked. NO COMMON OWNERSHIP In 1983, the property that comprises The Cape was purchased by Rex Stephens and Bobby Harrelson. A true and accurate copy of the deed to Rex Stephens and Bobby Harrelson, recorded with the New Hanover County Register of Deeds at Book 1237, Page 1389, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Stephens and Harrelson attempted to rezone it and increase its density, but that request was denied by the County. True and accurate copies of Minutes from the February 7, 1983 and March 7, 1983 meetings of the New Hanover County Commissioners are attached hereto as Exhibit C. It does not appear that Suggs and Harrelson ever owned the land comprising the golf course. In 1982, Carolina Beach Golf Center sold the land comprising the golf course to Charles W. Byers, Jr., who later sold it to Thomas D. Wright. A true and accurate copy of the deed to Charles W. Byers, Jr., recorded with the New Hanover County Register of Deeds at Book 1206, Page 582, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. In 1986, Thomas Wright leased the golf course to The Cape Golf & Racquet Club, Inc. A true and accurate copy of this lease agreement, recorded with the New Hanover County Register of Deeds at Book 1343, Page 1550, is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Thereafter, an agreement was entered into between The Cape Golf & Racquet Club, Inc., and Wright and Renaissance Development Corporation, who purchased the undeveloped portions of The Cape from Suggs and Harrelson. This agreement included a provision that states “[e]ach Purchaser of a Lot in the Developer’s proposed subdivision will have the right and obligation to purchase a membership in the Club….” A true and accurate copy of this agreement, recorded with the New Hanover County Register of Deeds at Book 1650, Page 65, is attached hereto as Exhibit F. This agreement was in place until March 2003, and suggests the perpetual existence of the golf course. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 16 - 1 DEDICATION, NO ACCESS & NO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Subsequently, in November 2006, Southern Destiny purchased the course from Thomas Wright. A true and accurate copy of the deed to Southern Destiny, recorded with the New Hanover County Register of Deeds at Book 5112, Page 75, is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The deed for this conveyance refers to a map that was recorded just prior to the sale. The Plat map does not provide any express easements over the private roads of The Cape, does not designate any portions of the property as future development, labels the holes that existed at the time along the course property and appears in all respects to dedicate the land as recreation area for a golf course operation reserving no right to change that use. Further, the map does not depict or disclose any easement or right of access over the private roads of The Cape for use by the owner of the course. Throughout the history of the development of The Cape, Plats were recorded that delineated certain portions of the land comprising the golf course for “future development.” However, all instances of that designation refer to the intended development of The Cape, and none were designated by any owner of the golf course. To date, none of these designated portions of the land comprising the golf course remain, and no further delineations have been recorded. Further, as stated above, the last and final Plat map of the areas encompassing the property now owned by Southern Destiny show its dedication as a golf course for recreational use. GOLF COURSE IS NOT THE CAPE AND CANNOT BE APPROVED Following the bankruptcy of the then developer in the early 1990’s, the County has required all proposed new developments within The Cape meet density requirements standing alone. Since Southern Destiny’s initial submittals to the County of the proposed development of the golf course, the County has consistently treated the golf course as part of The Cape. However, the history in the County’s file never contemplated this treatment, and the proposed development submitted by Southern Destiny was never intended or contemplated in any previous submittals to the County. Additionally and regardless of this contention, the County’s TRC approval of Southern Destiny’s proposed development of the golf course is stated to be explicitly contingent upon an agreement with The Cape Homeowners Association providing access to The Cape’s private roads, as has been required of all other developments within The Cape. The Cape Homeowners Association has remained adamant that it has no intention to ever enter into the requisite agreement with Southern Destiny to provide access over its private roads. Therefore, there are multiple justifications in the record to establish that allowing this proposed development to proceed on its path through the development process is futile and a waste of government resources, as it will never come to fruition. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 16 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 17 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 17 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 17 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 4 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 5 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 6 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 7 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 8 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 9 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 10 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 11 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 18 - 12 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 4 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 5 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 6 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 7 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 8 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 9 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 10 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 11 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 12 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 13 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 14 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 15 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 16 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 17 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 19 - 18 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 20 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 20 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 20 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 20 - 4 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 21 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 21 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 21 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 21 - 4 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 21 - 5 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 21 - 6 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 21 - 7 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 21 - 8 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 22 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 22 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 22 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 22 - 4 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 22 - 5 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 22 - 6 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 22 - 7 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 22 - 8 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 23 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 23 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 23 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 23 - 4 PROPERTY OWNER (SOUTHERN DESTINY, LLC) RESPONSE Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 24 - 1 ASHEVILLE (828) 210 -8188 GREENVILLE (252) 215 -4000 NEW BERN (252 ) 672 -5400 RALEIGH (919) 277 -9100 WILMINGTON (910) 794 -4800 www.wardandsmith.com SAMUEL B. FRANCK , Attorney at Law 127 Racine Drive P: 910.794.4835 University Corporate Center (28403) F: 910.794.4877 Post Office Box 7068 sbf@wardandsmith.com Wilmington, NC 28406-7068 February 27, 2019 TO: New Hanover County ("County") Planning Board FROM: Samuel B. Franck; James R. Todd RE: Written Submittal in Response to The Cape Homeowners Association December 27, 2018 Appeal of December 12, 2018 TRC Approval for Preliminary Plan Submitted by Design Solutions for Southern Destiny We represent Southern Destiny, LLC ("Southern Destiny"), an owner of real property in New Hanover County. Two tracts of land included in that real property are depicted on maps titled "Preliminary Plat Tract #4 Windsor Pines Townhomes" and "Preliminary Plat Tract #5 Windsor Pines Townhomes (collectively the "Preliminary Plan"). The Preliminary Plan was reviewed and approved by the County's Technical Review Committee (the "TRC") at its December 12, 2018 regular session (the "December Meeting"). That approval was memorialized on January 29, 2019 (the "Approval Letter"). On December 27, 2018, the Cape Homeowners Association (the "Association") filed a notice of appeal assigning error to the TRC's approval of the Preliminary Plan. We now submit this response to the arguments contained in that notice of appeal in advance of the Planning Commission's consideration of the appeal set for March 7, 2019 (the "Hearing"). The appeal form submitted by the Association was required to (i) state the alleged error or errors made by the TRC and (ii) specify why the TRC's decision was in error. Subdivision Regulations, Article III, Section 32-3. As a result, the Association has the burden of proving that the TRC made an error that materially affected the outcome of the TRC decision and that the result of that error made the TRC decision legally invalid. As described herein, the Association has failed to do so. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 25 - 1 County Planning Board February 27, 2019 Page 2 Response to the Association's Arguments 1. Density The Association's appeal claims that the Preliminary Plan was approved without consideration of the appropriate density restrictions. The argument does not assign error to the TRC's determination regarding the density contemplated on the Preliminary Plan, presumably because it would be inaccurate to do so, and instead challenges the lack of justification offered by the TRC. The actual assignment of error is that: without any explanation from the County justifying the purported change in how development may achieve the density requirements post-bankruptcy, or any documentation supporting this stance, the HOA has no way of verifying whether the proposed developments affect the preexisting subdivisions that used the golf course lands to satisfy the density requirements or the Cape overall. Association Notice of Appeal p. 2. The Association's argument fails to assign any error to the TRC. Nor does the Association demonstrate that the TRC's decision fails to comply with applicable ordinances. The Association cannot find fault with the correct calculation so it attempts to ignore the correct calculation and resorts, instead, to a suggestion that the TRC failed to adequately show its work. The density requirement in a performance residential zone, like the R-15 zone that encompasses the property depicted on the Preliminary Plan, is two and a half (2.5) units per acre. Consistent with the TRC's approval, the proposed Preliminary Plan contemplates less than 2.5 units per acre. Recognizing that the TRC's approval regarding density was appropriate, the Association attempts to rely on a very old development approval that has long since expired. When The Cape development was originally planned in 1983, 966 units were approved based on the acreage of developable land, the presence of Class IV soils, and a cumulative 2.5 unit/acre calculation. Over the course of time, additional sections were added to The Cape, some of the sections depicted on the initial plats were removed or modified, sections of the development changed hands, and more recent soil studies revealed that the Class IV soils been replaced with Class II and III soils. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 25 - 2 County Planning Board February 27, 2019 Page 3 The Association ascribes greater importance to the original development plans for The Cape than is appropriate. While final plat approval can provide a landowner with the vested right to complete the development as platted, a final plat does not restrict the property to that original plan in perpetuity. Intervening events such as new ownership, the expiration of those vested rights, or a change in applicable zoning regulations may require future development that is different from the original plan. Claiming that the original approval of 966 units established a ceiling on the number of units that could be developed in the platted area fundamentally misunderstands, or intentionally mischaracterizes, the role of vested rights in the development process. None of that misunderstood history is applicable to this case. The original approval of The Cape has long since expired and developments must now demonstrate that they comply with appropriate density requirements without reference to any "master plan." The original approval for 966 units expired at least as of August 10, 1990 as seen on a letter of the same date from the County Planning Department to the Association. Exhibit A p. 1. As the Association was told in 1990 "the original approval of the preliminary plan which occurred in 1983 has now expired and is no longer valid." Id. That position was reiterated to the Association in 1992, Exhibit A p. 3, and additions to the Cape that have occurred since then have had to demonstrate individual compliance with density requirements. See e.g., Exhibit A p. 4 ("[r]ecent new projects such as Lakeside and Bermuda Dunes have been approved as separate free-standing subdivisions.") The Association has known that the original approval of The Cape expired almost thirty (30) years ago. It cannot now claim otherwise. The Association also implies, inaccurately, that the former golf course cannot be developed because it is required open space for the existing development at The Cape. None of the land included in the Preliminary Plan was so restricted. The Association has already sought, and obtained, a determination from the County regarding the same. See Exhibit A p. 6. The Preliminary Plan satisfies the applicable 2.5 unit per acre requirement for performance residential developments in R-15 zones. Accordingly, the Association's first assignment of error should be rejected. 2. Stormwater The Association's stormwater argument fails to allege that the TRC made an error and is not proper for consideration by this Board. Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 25 - 3 County Planning Board February 27, 2019 Page 4 At the December Meeting, the TRC and Southern Destiny agreed that Southern Destiny would need to comply with applicable stormwater requirements in the future. Southern Destiny was, and remains, prepared to do so. The Association cannot, and does not, assign any error to that statement. To the extent the Board is willing to entertain the Association's extraneous comments included in its Notice of Appeal, the Association's argument inaccurately states Southern Destiny's stormwater responsibilities and mischaracterizes the TRC's role in the stormwater compliance process. The Association claims that "all developments within the Cape must integrate into The Cape's preexisting stormwater system . . . ." That assertion is not accurate. A property owner's stormwater obligation is determined by applicable law, and the stormwater management plan must specifically comply with any applicable stormwater permit for the subject property. Management and treatment of stormwater can often occur on the owner's property without reliance on adjoining properties. In certain cases it's true that an agreement will be reached with neighboring properties to manage stormwater on one property with facilities located on another, but it's premature, and misleading, for the Association to claim that the stormwater for the Preliminary Plan must be treated by the Cape's existing facilities. The Association cannot know what a future, state-issued stormwater permit would require, and its statement that "any additional integration into the HOA's stormwater system will not be approved by the HOA" is irrelevant as a result. The TRC is not responsible for certifying an applicant's future compliance with stormwater controls. It did not do so at the December Meeting and, as a result, there is no decision for the Association to challenge. 3. Access As with stormwater, the Association does not identify any TRC decision made in error. Determination of the nature of legal access is not within the TRC's discretion, nor would potential disputes between property owners regarding private property rights have any bearing on the TRC's guidance and decision. The December Approval Letter provides, and the applicant understands, that the applicant cannot effectively subdivide and develop the subject land until it reasonably demonstrates its rights to access to the subject property. But, the applicant has not, and does not, acknowledged that it needs the Association's consent to demonstrate that access. The Association's claim that Southern Destiny's use of the roads "necessarily requires consent from [sic] HOA" is Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 25 - 4 County Planning Board February 27, 2019 Page 5 inaccurate, but more importantly for this Hearing, irrelevant to the issue of whether the TRC made an error in its approval. Conclusion None of the Association's arguments demonstrate that the TRC made an error in its decision to approve the Preliminary Plan at the December Meeting. Accordingly, we request that the TRC's approval be affirmed. ND: 4820-7804-8393, v. 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 25 - 5 County Planning Board February 27, 2019 Page 6 Exhibit A [See Attached] Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 25 - 6 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 26 - 1 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 26 - 2 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 26 - 3 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 26 - 4 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 26 - 5 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 26 - 6 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 4 - 26 - 7 NE W HAN O VE R C O UN T Y P LAN N IN G B O AR D R E Q UE S T F OR B OAR D AC T IO N ME E T IN G D AT E: 3/7/2019 O ther Busines s D E PART ME N T: P lanning P R E S E N T E R (S ): R ebekah R o th, S enior P lanner C O N TAC T (S ): S UB J E C T: Development Code Update ("UD O P roject") - P roposed Zoning Districts B R IE F S UMMARY: O verview o f Ap ril text amend ment regard ing new zoning dis tric ts . S taff will pres ent a b rief o verview of the eight zo ning dis tricts that will b e included in the zoning code amend ment proposed for April. T hes e eight d is tric ts are ad ap ted fro m s uc cessfully us ed C ity of Wilmington d is tric ts. T hey includ e: R -5 Mo d erate-High R es id ential District R MF -L R es id ential Multi-F amily Low Dens ity Dis tric t R MF -M R es id ential Multi-F amily Moderate Dens ity Dis tric t R MF -MH R es id ential Multi-F amily Mod erate-High Dens ity Dis tric t R MF -H R esidential Multi-F amily High Dens ity Dis tric t C B C ommunity Bus iness Dis tric t C S C o mmercial S ervic es District UMXZ Urban Mixed Us e Zoning Distric t T he c o nc ep t for eac h of these districts , except UMXZ, was p res ented to the P lanning Bo ard at their August 2018 Wo rk S es s io n. T he UMXZ district is includ ed in the rec o mmended code changes as the res ult o f c o ntinuing c o nvers ations with c o mmunity stakeho ld ers . At the meeting, s taff will provid e the board with p ro file s heets to as s is t with p rep aration fo r the c o d e amend ment pub lic hearing in Ap ril. T hes e s heets will b e s imilar to thos e prepared fo r the August 2018 Wo rk S es s io n and will outline eac h d is tric t’s intent, s tand ard s , and use permis s ions . S T R AT E G IC P LAN ALIG N ME N T: Intelligent G rowth and Ec o nomic Develo p ment R E C O MME N D E D MO T IO N AN D R E QUE S T E D AC T ION S : Hear p res entation. No ac tion required . C O UN T Y MAN AGE R'S C OMME N T S AN D R E C OMME N DAT ION S : (only Manager) Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 5 Planning Board - March 7, 2019 ITEM: 5