Loading...
11 NOVEMBER 2019 PB MINUTES - APPROVED 1 | Page Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board November 7, 2019 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on November 7, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Members Present Staff Present Donna Girardot, Chair Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director Paul Boney, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning & Land Use Manager Colin J. Tarrant Brad Schuler, Senior Planner Ernest Olds Rebekah Roth, Senior Planner Jeffrey B. Petroff Gideon Smith, Current Planner H. Allen Pope Ron Meredith, Current Planner Thomas ‘Jordy’ Rawl Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Chair Donna Girardot called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Girardot read the procedures for the meeting and welcomed the audience. Approval of Minutes Board Member Ernest Olds made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Jordy Rawl to APPROVE the October 2019 minutes as drafted. Motion to approve carried 5-0 *Board Members Paul Boney and Allen Pope were not yet present. Approval of 2020 Meeting Calendar Board Member Jeffrey Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Ernest Olds to ADOPT the 2020 Planning Board Meeting Calendar as drafted. Motion to approve carried 5-0 *Mr. Boney and Mr. Pope were not yet present. 1. Rezoning Request (Z19-15) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, HD, LLC, to rezone approximately 74.85 acres of land located near the 5800 block of Carolina Beach Road, north of the existing Tarin Woods subdivision, from R-15, Residential District, to R-5, Moderate-High Residential District. Senior Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, acces s, level of service and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area along with an overview referred to in the staff report. He concluded by stating staff recommended approval of the application because overall the application was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it would provide an orderly transition between existing lower density residential neighborhoods and anticipated higher intensity development adjacent to Carolina Beach Road and would align with the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of providing more diversity of housing types. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Land Planner Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions, LLC, representative for the applicant, introduced Dan Cumbo, Traffic Engineer with Davenport Engineering, presented slides, exhibits and maps of the revised plan. She stated that since their initial proposal, the improvements in the County’s zoning ordinance supported a much better plan which suggested densities to support commercial services and compact development patterns. She stated the rezoning was consistent and reasonable and was in the public interest. She explained it provided an increase in housing with infill development of an underutilized tract of land where there was access to utilities and road improvements. She concluded by stating it would accommodate a variety of housing types and provide an orderly transition between existing lower density residential areas and the anticipated higher density areas that her client believed will continue to fill in along Carolina Beach Road. Chair Girardot opened the opposition portion of the public hearing. Wesley Nixon, resident of Carolina Beach Road, stated he was the owner of Rosa Parks Lane which is a private road, he had 2 | Page not been notified by the developer, and that any use of the road would need to go through him. Robert Tregembo, resident of Carolina Beach Road, asked how much of that 74 acres is considered wetlands. He expressed concern about building homes on all this land and asked if it ever been checked. Vivian Redusky, resident of Appomattox Drive, spoke in opposition of the development and stated that the neighborhood did not have the capacity to handle new development. Bob Bowl, resident of Riddick Court, stated he did not believe the subdivision extension or rezoning should be approved when currently, there wasn’t infrastructure to support it. Chris Berkmire, resident of Sweet Gum Drive, questioned why they were redeveloping single family lots to allow the ability to build 599 units in this area when the developer is only proposing 340 units. The density and traffic that would be generated with 599 units was not accounted for in the current traffic study. Ben Ashman, resident of Appomattox Drive, spoke in opposition of the project. He stated that what was being proposed for approval allowed more than what the developer had requested so there would be opportunity for even more density. He stated that without other infrastructure it would not be a good use of the property. Carl Williams, resident of Shallow Drive, stated his concern was road connectivity and that he didn’t believe there was any way to get out to the main roads. Lane Belesky, resident of Sweet Gum in Tarin Woods, stated her main concern was the future of education. The density of how many families and kids in relation to the school system wasn’t being planned for and the impact on the schools. She stated when the student to teacher ratio goes up typically the education goes down. She stated no one on the applicant’s panel was able to speak about the traffic congestion and the impact on schools. Jamison Rucoff, resident of Canopy Way in Tarin Woods, stated the intent of R-5 District was to serve as transition between mixed use or commercial development and low-to-moderate density residential development such as R-7 and R-10 Zoning, not R-15. Eric and Drew O’Reilly, residents of Lydden Road, stated the area was overloaded with traffic and that they had a genuine concern for the safety of children in the area. Eric stated that with recent hurricanes, the flooding into Sentry Oaks had worsened and that developers needed to come up with a better proposal to make it better for the whole community. Amber Willenbring of Liberty Landing Way asked if there would be any more infrastructure planned for sidewalks and she stated that all nearby schools are over capacity. She expressed that she hoped the board would take that into consideration. Joel Morick, resident of Liberty Landing Way offered his prospective of the project and indicated that allowing development before transportation infrastructure improvements were made would not do any good. Joshua Phanco, resident of Canopy Road, noted that the current home owners in the area were the people who had seen what has been going on every day in regard to the traffic congestion. He stated the day‑to‑day living experience had become worse the more dense the area had become. He concluded by stating that the only people advocating for this rezoning are the people who will profit. Chair Girardot opened to Applicant Rebuttal In response to questions, Ms. Wolf explained that the applicant understood Rosa Parks Lane was a private right-of-way. As the Department of Transportation (NCDOT) had denied an additional driveway, they were proposing alternative interconnectivity, and Kings Highway would be the best alternative. 3 | Page Ms. Wolf stated that a wetland delineation had been approved by the Corps of Engineers (COE)for the sections they were already developing, and preliminary delineation for the areas they hoped to expand to were currently under review and work in those areas were subject to COE Permitting requirements. Ms. Wolf outlined that the requested R-5 zoning would assist in providing housing for the growing community and would require sidewalks and further county and state permitting. She highlighted the benefits of extending a collector street to Ki ngs Highway and indicated the rezoning request would be in line with the County’s Comprehensive Plan due to the density and its impact on affordability. Howard Resnik, Engineer with CSD Engineering addressed concerns of storm water management. Chair Girardot opened to speakers in opposition. Mr. Tregembo requested the board consider the applicant’s statement that a wetlands delineation for the portion of the property proposed for rezoning had not been approved yet, so the amount of wetlands on the site had not yet been determined. Chris Berkmeyer stated that providing sidewalks within the development would not achieve the goal of the R-5 district, which was connectivity with the surrounding commercial areas. He also emphasized that the connection to Kings Highway that was mentioned was not part of the discussion at the hearing and that only a small portion of the proposed property was located in the higher intensity place type. Over 97% of the property was within an area proposed for General Residential. Bob Bowl brought up a recent car accident at Lieutenant Congleton and Appotmattox Dr. that prevented any traffic from entering or exiting the existing development. Patricia Lloyd stated that the connection to Kings Highway that the applicant mentioned had been opposed by Myrtle Grove Christian School and that the roadway was currently little more than a parking lot and poorly maintained. She indicated that this connection did not appear to be any more viable than a connection in with Rosa Parks Lane. Ben Ashman, stated again that the applicant spoke about increased density. He stated Battle Park never had a density problem and never had a traffic problem until all of that was built. He said the applicant just wanted to increase density with no plan. Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the floor for Board discussion. Ms. Girardot recognized Amy Kimes with Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) to provide more information on the traffic concerns expressed. Ms. Kimes stated that the Wilmington MPO had reviewed a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the previous rezoning proposal that had been brought forward for the subject property but had not reviewed an analysis for the proposed R -5 rezoning under discussion. She indicated that if the rezoning were approved, a new TIA would need to be prepared and submitted for review and approval. She reiterated that the purpose of the TIA would be to determine the improvements necessary to bring the post-development level of service back to current levels based on counts and condition at the time of the analysis, not to fix existing traffic issues. In response to a question from Ms. Girardot about what would be considered during the review, Ms. Kimes elaborated that there may be some differences in terms of delay and still fall within the same level of service. She explained that, while she could not speak for them, NCDOT looks at the number of access points onto a major roadway when considering how to best manage traffic and that sometimes reducing access points and traffic movements at intersections can improve safety by reducing points of contact. She also explained that reducing the type of traffic movements at signals can improve traffic flow as less time is necessary for the full signal cycle. She indicated that any new driveway along a major road could create additional points of conflict and safety concerns. In response to a question from Ms. Girardot regarding projects that would add additional lights and lanes along Car olina Beach Road, Ms. Kimes stated that the inclusion of limited access lights, signal timing, and removal of U-turn movements would 4 | Page improve traffic flow. After additional conversation regarding the timing of traffic signals along Carolina Beach Rd., Mr. Pope reiterated that a coordinated signal system was needed along Carolina Beach Road. In response to a question from Mr. Petroff, Ms. Wolfe clarified that there were five platted lots along Shiloh Road not inclu ded in the rezoning, not owned by the applicant. She indicated that she was not aware of any interaction with the property owner for or against the proposed rezoning. After lengthy discussion during which board members expressed concerns regarding the requested density, the limited opportunities for ingress and egress to the property, the lack of connectivity to existing commercial, and the lack of a current TIA to address traffic concerns, Ms. Wolfe withdrew the application. Chair Girardot stated a vote was not required by the Planning Board since the applicant withdrew the application. 2. Rezoning Request (Z19-11) – Requested by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, TF Holdings Ltd Partnership, to rezone approximately 8.55 acres of land located in the 3000 block of Blue Clay Road from R-20, Residential District, to R-5, Moderate-high Residential District. Current Planner Ron Meredith provided a review of the proposal and provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area along with an overview referred to in the staff report. He concluded by stating that the application was generally consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the area. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and acknowledged the applicant Land Planner Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions, LLC, representative for the applicant, introduced the proposal for the subject property. She presented maps and conceptual illustrations of the proposal. She summarized by stating the plan provided an orderly transition between higher intensity industrial sites and the Rachel’s Place subdivision and established neighborhoods along Holland Drive. Chair Girardot opened the opposition portion of the public hearing. Robert Earl Russ, resident of Holland Drive, expressed concerns about an existing drainage ditch located on the applicant’s property and discussed a letter that was issued from the New Hanover County Engineering department concerni ng the cleaning of an existing ditch. Mary Dematta, resident of Holland Drive, spoke in opposition and expressed concerns about traffic on Holland Drive and stormwater issues in the existing Wrightsboro Acres. Jim Newkirk, resident of Laurel Drive, expressed concerns with the change from R-20 to R-5 and the population density caused by this change. Concerns were also expressed with the addition of new housing and if it would match the architecture of the existing community, overcrowding of the schools, and traffic. Jennifer Dorton, resident of Long Leaf Drive, expressed concerns with traffic in the existing subdivision of Wrightsboro Acres and stated there was a lack of infrastructure to support an increase in residents and pedestrian traffic. Heather Matise, resident of Blue Bonnet Circle, expressed concerns with the location of the entrance of any forth coming subdivision for the subject site. She expressed additional concerns for the reference made to the traffic impact analysis from 2015 of the existing Rachel’s Place subdivision, traffic on Blue Clay Road, and traffic within the Rachel’s Place. Rob Rens, resident of Rachel’s Place, expressed concerns with a future decrease of the value of existing homes in located in Rachel’s Place due the increase of new proposed homes. There was also a concern regarding the Rachel’s Place lots being sold at a premium based on the subject site would not be developed. 5 | Page Lucas Coelho of Blue Bonnet Circle, spoke in opposition of the project and stated his concerns echoed other public comment. Audra Rackley of Blue Bonnet Road expressed concerns due to the expectation of the subject tract remaining vacant. Solomon Harvey, resident of Blue Bonnet Circle, expressed concerns about the accuracy of the traffic impact analysis study because it was performed before the existing Rachel’s Place was developed. He also expressed concerns regarding the road adjacent to his property and the future connection of the subject property. Quinn Blake, resident of Laurel Drive, expressed concerns about traffic in the mornings because of the school, the future connections to the subject tract, and stormwater of the surrounding area. Chair Girardot closed the opposition and opened to applicant rebuttal. In response, Ms. Cindee Wolfe stated she thought a notice to property owners had been mailed out regarding the drainage situation. She stated the county was pursuing a stormwater utility to address some of the issues. She explained that If the subject parcel was developed there was the possibility for new infrastructure design and maintenance which may provide a solution to past stormwater problems. Ms. Wolf stated that although Rachel's Place and the subject property had different ownership, the new development in the R-5 would have street lights and sidewalk similar to Rachel’s Place. She stated in regard to the undeveloped land, a 45-foot strip of land containing a drainage swale was located in the existing Rachel's Place subdivision. She confirmed that buffering would be a requirement for an attached housing option. In response to the validity of the traffic analysis, Ms. Wolf stated that the analysis was valid at the time it was created and any proposal would be required to go through the New Hanover County Technical Review Committee (TRC) process. Chair Girardot opened to opposition rebuttal. Quinn Blake of Laurel Drive and other residents expressed concerns that the majority of the traffic in that area goes to Castle Hayne Road and during rush hour, traffic was terrible. One resident stated that since the widening of Castle Hayne Road was postponed, he was concerned that building more housing would push more traffic to already congested, Castle Hayne Road along with Long Leaf Drive and Laurel Drive which are not able to handle the traffic. Residents also had concern that the applicants conceptual site plan didn’t indicate a stormwater pond in the development. Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion. Mr. Tarrant agreed the R‑5 was a nice transitional piece and when utilized correctly would allow transition from a traditional residential into higher density residential development. Mr. Olds commented that higher density was appropriate but a possible challenge in selling R-20. He added it’s a reasonable place with the connectivity available. Mr. Petroff stated he was concerned with the connectivity and the thoroughfare. He stated it may not be possible to achieve 68 units, but R-5 with the limitation would be appropriate for the area. Mr. Rawls stated straight rezoning are incredibly tough to interpret and leave unanswered questions to citizens of the surrounding areas. Mr. Boney stated he agreed with Mr. Rawl and the rest of the board that there wasn’t anything wrong with the R‑5 next to the industrial piece. He expressed his concern with the R‑5 next to the R‑20 and recommended to the applicant that they come back with a conditional plan. The applicant requested to withdraw this item to investigate further the conditional zoning. 6 | Page 3. Rezoning Request (Z19-13) – Request by Mihaly Land Design, PLLC, on behalf of the property owner, Chase & Dylan Mihaly, LLC, to rezone approximately 0.34 acres of land located at 7031 Market Street from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District, in order to develop an office building. Planning Manager, Ken Vafier provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area along with an overview referred to in the staff report. He concluded by stating staff recommended approval of the request because it was consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and was reasonable and in the public interest. Josh Mihaly of Mihaly Land Design, PLLC stated he was requesting conditional rezoning to accommodate a two-story, 2,000 square foot office building with primary use for his landscape architecture firm. He stated that Personal Services would be included as part of the conditional rezoning request in order to accommodate a potential yoga/fitness studio, salons, and other similar uses. In addition, the site currently has six Live Oak trees that would remain. He summarized by stating they had received preliminary approval from NCDOT for driveway access and presented a conceptual rendering and site plan that he stated was geared to be environmentally friendly. Chair Girardot stated there were no speakers in favor or opposition and closed the public hearing. Mr. Rawl made a MOTION, SECONDED by Mr. Petroff to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-2 district with the applicant’s proposed condition. The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses are consistent with the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Urban Mixed Use place type. In addition, these uses would serve as an appropriate transition between existing commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods. They also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the site is in close proximity to a major power line easement, the right-of-way for the Military Cutoff Extension, and existing commercial, therefore it is unlikely that a new single family residence will be constructed on the site. Applicant proposed condition as follows:  The current condition of the site has six live Oak trees that would remain. The motion to approve with proposed condition carried 7-0. 4. Item 4: Rezoning Request (Z18-09M) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, CH Bountiful Operating, LLC, to modify the conceptual site plan and conditions of approval of an existing (CZD) R-10 district (zoning case Z18-09), located on approximately 16.76 acres of land in the 500 block of Bountiful Lane, to change the permitted housing type from townhomes to single-family homes. Current Planner Ron Meredith provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area along with an overview referred to in the staff report. He concluded by stating the proposed modification to the conditional R-10 zoning district is generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides for infill residential development that is compatible with the existing pattern of the area, while protecting environmental resources by clustering structures and infrastructure. This proposed modification is also in line with the density recommendations for the General Residential Place Type, and therefore staff, recommended approval of the application. Chair Girardot recognized the applicant Cindee Wolf, Land Planner stated the existing conditional zoning district (Case# Z18-09) was approved in August 2018 as a performance residential development consisting of 55 townhomes, conditioned to be one story with a maximum building height of 35 feet and limited to two bedrooms per unit. She stated based on current housing type preferences, the applicant is requesting to modify the plan to 35 Single Family lots. She explained that she had not conducted a community information meeting for the proposed zoning use because, as it was a modification and reduced the density and intensity of the housing 7 | Page style, it wasn’t required. She stated she had sent out a letter to the same recipients who would have been invited to the community meeting explaining the modification. As a result, adjacent property owner, Linda Worrell was signed up to speak in opposition if her questions were not addressed in the applicant presentation. Ms. Wolf concluded by stating the modification request was still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, reasonable, and in the public interest. With no speakers in favor or opposition, Ms. Girardot closed the public meeting and, with no further board discussion, entertained a motion. Mr. Allen Pope made a MOTION, SECONDED by Mr. Jeffrey Petroff to recommend approval of the proposed modification to the existing conditional R-10 district to the Board of Commissioners. The board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density is in line with the preferred range of the General Residential place type. They also found APPROVAL of the modification to the existing conditional R-10 district reasonable and in the public interest because it provides for infill residential development that is compatible with the existing pattern of the area, while protecting environmental resources by clustering structures and infrastructure. The motion to approve carried 7-0. 5. Special Use Permit Request (S19-03) – Requested by New Beginning Christian Church for a Special Use Permit to operate a child care center at 3120 Alex Trask Drive, within the R-20, Residential District. Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman gave an overview of quasi-judicial hearings, including the standards for the evidence which the Board could consider when making their recommendation, and witnesses were sworn in by Ms. Huffman. Current Planner Gideon Smith provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation and zoning. He showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. He explained the board must make four conclusions to recommend approval. 1. That the use will not materially endanger public health and safety. 2. That it meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance. 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. 4. The use is in harmony with the area in general conformity of the comprehensive plan. Hearing no questions from the Board, Chair Girardot recognized the applicant. Robert L. Campbell, Senior Pastor of New Beginning Christian Church, explained the history of the church and highlighted the building details that were installed during the construction of the church in the late 2000s. He explained how the church had the intention to construct the facility to meet state and local standards because they realized the community needed an early learning center. He explained all of the safety features that were installed in the classrooms, restrooms, fellowship hall, and outdoor recreational facility during construction. Pastor Campbell further detailed when building permits were issued, when the State inspected the facility, and when New Hanover County inspected the facility. Pastor Campbell explained the multiple access points to the subject site and the transportation vans the facility would use to transport children from the surrounding elementary and middle schools. He explained that following the state and local inspections, they thought they were ready to open. He explained that they learned that a Special Use Permit was required to operate a child care facility and that was the reason they are before the Board. Pastor Campbell noted that everything was in order for them to open, except for obtaining the Special Use Permit. Pastor Campbell highlighted all of the existing residential neighborhoods in the surrounding area and how the community is in need of such a service. He further explained how the facility would be operated, including personnel and how most of the learning will take place inside the facility, but the children would have an outdoor recreational area also. Pastor Campbell concluded by emphasizing that the community is in need of the early learning center and their in tention to operate it at a five-star level. 8 | Page There being no one present to speak in favor or opposition, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. Mr. Petroff commented that having just navigated a day care with two young children said there was an absolute need in the community for this type of facility and commended the applicant. Mr. Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Mr. Rawl to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to APPROVE, as the Board found that the application for a Special Use Permit met the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact in the staff summary. The motion to approve carried 7-0. 6. Special Use Permit Request (Z17-09) – Requested by Coastal Land Design, on behalf of the property owner, Preservation Point Partnership, LLC, for a Special Use Permit for a community boating facility located on 134.9 acres of land located within the Preservation Point development and near the 100 block of Brentwood Drive. Chair Girardot invited those that wanted to speak in favor or opposition to come forward to be sworn in by Ms. Huffman. Chair Girardot stated that Mr. Petroff requested recusal from this Item due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Mr. Colin Tarrant to recuse Mr. Petroff. The motion to recuse Mr. Petroff carried 6-0. Current Planner Gideon Smith provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation and zoning. He showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. He explained the board must make four conclusions to recommend approval. 1. That the use will not materially endanger public health and safety. 2. That it meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance. 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. 4. The use is in harmony with the area in general conformity of the comprehensive plan. Chair Girardot asked if anything had changed since the first approval. Mr. Smith replied it had not. Ms. Girardot proceeded to recognize the applicant. Attorney Matt Nichols, representing the applicant, stated the request was to renew the same special use permit that had expired. He stated for the record that the Board of Commissioners had already determined and voted unanimously that the four findings were met in order to issue the special use permit. He stated the client had a property value impact analysis performed by appraiser Brad White and asked that the 40-page analysis be submitted for the record. He introduced Frank Braxton of Coastal Land Design, who explained the two additional amenities: a miniature golf course and a pickle ball court. With no speakers in opposition, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion. Board members inquired if there was a provision to extend for two years. Mr. Braxton responded there were provisions in the zoning ordinance to request an extension. Mr. Braxton stated they had made application for a major CAMA permit which would take some time. He stated they went back and did subaquatic surveying for the local fire department and for the boating facility. Mr. Rawl made a MOTION, SECONDED by Mr. Olds to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to APPROVE, as the Board found that the application for a Special Use Permit met the four required conclusions based on the findings of facts included in the staff summary. The motion to approve carried 6-0. 9 | Page OTHER BUSINESS 7. Items from Staff – Development Code Update (“Unified Development Ordinance Project”) Senior Long Range Planner Rebekah Roth presented the development code update Phase 2 reorganized document that would be brought forward in the next few weeks. She explained that in addition to the amendment the Board of Commissioners approved in July 2019 that added eight new districts to the existing zoning ordinance, staff had been working with consulting firm, Clarion in efforts to reorganize the county’s development ordinances into one easy-to-use document. The second phase update would provide the framework necessary for the targeted code updates that would begin to move forward after the first of the year. She clarified that the staff did not make changes to the rules that applied to peoples’ properties but rather that the reorganization was intended to clean up and clarify current regulations and practices With no other business, Chair Donna Girardot adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m. Please note: that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting. .