HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY PB AGENDA PACKET
N E W H A N O V E R C O U N T Y
PL A N N I N G B O A R D A G E N D A
A ssembly Room, N ew H anover C ounty H istoric C ourthouse
24 N orth Third S treet, Room 301 Wilmington, N C 28401
M embers of the B oard
D onna G irardot, Chair | Paul B oney, V ice-C hair
Thomas 'J ordy' R awl | Ernest O lds | J effrey B . Petroff | H . Allen Pope | Colin J . Tarrant
Wayne Clark, Director of P lanning & Land Use | Ken Vafier, P lanning M anager
JA N UA R Y 9, 2020 6:00 P M
M ee8ng Called to O rder by C hair, D onna G irardot
P ledge of A llegiance by P lanning M anager, Ken Vafier
A pproval of Minutes
R EG U L A R I T E M S O F B U S I N E S S
The P lanning B oard may consider substanal changes in these peons as a result of objecons, debate,
and discussion at the meeng, including rezoning to other classificaons.
1 P ublic H earing
Rez oning Request (Z 19-14) - Request by L ogan D evelopers, I nc. on behalf of the property owners,
Murray, Spradley, Foy, et al, to rezone approximately 52.39 acres of land located near the 8300 block
of “O ld” Market Street and the 8300 block of Shiraz Way, from R -15 and R -20, Residen8al D istricts, to
(C Z D ) R M F-L , C ondi8onal Residen8al Mul8-Family L ow Density D istrict, in order to construct a
residen8al development consis8ng of mul8-family, duplex, and single-family housing.
2 P ublic H earing
Rez oning Request (Z 19-12) – Reques t by D esign S olu8ons on behalf of the property ow ner,
Raiford G . Trask Jr. Rev Trust, to rez one approximately 10.35 acres of land located north of the
3300 block of Paramount Way in the Northchase P lanned D evelopment, and south of I nters tate
140, from O &I , O ffice and I ns8tu8onal D istrict, and R-15 Res iden8al D is trict, to R-5, Moderate-
H igh Res iden8al D is trict.
OT H E R I T E M S
1 D evelopment C ode U pdate
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
N E W HA N OV E R C O U N T Y P L A N N I N G B OA R D
R EQ U E S T F O R B OA R D A C T I O N
M E E T I N G DAT E : 1/9/2020
Regular
DE PA R T M E N T: Planning P R E S E N T E R(S ): B rad Schuler, Senior Planner
C O N TA C T(S ): B rad Schuler; Wayne C lark, Planning & L and U se Director
S U B J EC T:
P ublic Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z 19-14) - Request by L ogan Developers, I nc. on behalf of the property owners, M urray,
S pradley, Foy, et al, to rezone approximately 52.39 acres of land located near the 8300 block of “Old” M arket
S treet and the 8300 block of S hiraz Way, from R-15 and R-20, ResidenDal Districts, to (C Z D) R M F-L , C ondiDonal
ResidenDal M ulD-Family L ow Density District, in order to construct a residenDal development consisDng of mulD-
family, duplex, and single-family housing.
B R I E F S U M M A RY:
T he applicant is propo sing to rezone approxima tely 52.39 acres from R -15 and R -20 to (C Z D ) R M F-L in o rder to
construct a residen1al develo pment consis1ng o f mul1-family, duplex, and single-family housing. T he ini1al
applica1on submi4ed for the D ecember Planning B oard mee1ng propo sed 288 mul1-family units, 34 duplex units, and
62 single-family lots, for a total of 384 units at 7.3 du/ac.
At their D ec ember 5th mee1ng, the Planning B oard granted the applicant ’s request to c o n1nue the item to the J anuary
mee1ng in o rder to modif y the conceptual site plan by reducing the number o f the pro posed mul1-fa mily units and
lowering the height of selected buildings.
T he applicant's updated plan eliminates 60 apartment units and no w propo ses a total of 324 units (228 apartments, 34
duplex units, and 62 single-f amily dwellings) f o r a density o f 6.2 du/ac. I n a ddi1o n, the height and unit count has been
reduced f o r six of the propo sed mul1-family buildings located adjacent to exis1ng single-family residences alo ng the
northern pro perty line. Specifically, the buildings were reduced from 3 stories to 2 stories, and from 24 units to 16
units.
T he propo sed c o nceptual plan shows a transi1o n of housing types f ro m mul1-f amily on the western po r1o n of the site
to duplex and then single-family on the east end of the site. T he proposed mul1-family housing, and the majority of the
units for the pro ject, are lo cated closer to the Porters N eck commercial node. T his node is the majo r commercial
node of the northern por1on of the C ounty and is iden1fi ed as one of three Growth N odes in the C omprehensive
Plan.
According to the applicant, the stormwater will be contro lled by a combina1o n o f wet deten1on ponds and an
infiltra1on basin. T he applicant is proposing to design the stormwater facili1es for the project to handle up to a 100-
year storm event (≈10 inches of rain o ver a 24-ho ur perio d). T his exceeds the C o unty ’s requirement o f designing the
facili1es to a handle a 25-year storm event (≈8 inches of rain over a 24-hour period).
T he site is accessed by “O ld” Market Street and Shiraz Way, both of which are maintained by N C D OT. T he applicant
has completed a Traffic I mpact Analysis (T I A) for the pro ject which has been appro ved by N C D OT and the W MP O.
T he T I A analyzed the develo pment o f 58 single-family homes and 348 mul1-f amily units on the subject pro perty (406
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1
total units - which exceeds the currently proposed 324 units). A develo pment of this scale is es1mated by the I ns1tute
of Traffic E ngineers (I T E ) to generate about 200 trips in the A M peak hour and 240 trips in the P M peak hour.
As currently zo ned, the subject site would be permi4ed a maximum of 124 single-family ho mes under the performance
residen1al standards. A detached single-f amily dwelling typically generates about one trip during the P M peak
hours. T he proposed development, as modified to reflect the 324 total units, is es1mated to increase the number of
trips by 75 in the A M peak and 80 in the P M peak.
T he nota ble ro adway improvements required with the T I A include the installa1on o f a second right turn lane o n Futch
C reek Road/Market Street at its intersec1on with U S 17. T he applicant is also propo sing to add this improvement as a
condi1on on the development.
T he site is classifi ed as General Residen1al and C ommunity Mixed U se in the 2016 C omprehensive Pla n. T he proposed
R M F-L zoning is generally C O N S I S T E N T with the intent of the 2016 C omprehensive Pla n because this zoning district is
intended to provide alterna1ve housing types in direct rela1onship to single-fa mily detached development, the overall
project density is in-line with those characteris1c o f General Residen1al and C ommunity Mixed U se place types, the
highest density por1on of the pro ject is lo cated o n the western end of the site which is part o f the Porters N eck
Growth N ode and designated as C ommunity Mixed U se, and the proposed development pa4ern provides for the
orderly transi1on of densi1es and intensi1es.
S T R AT EGI C P L A N A L I G N M E N T:
I ntelligent Growth & Economic DevelopmentE ncourage development of complete communi1es in the unincorporated
countyE nsure N H C has appropriate housing to support business growth
R EC O M M E N D E D M OT I O N A N D R EQU E S T E D A C T I O N S :
E xample M oDon of A pproval
I move to A P P R OV E the proposed rezoning to a co ndi1o nal R M F-L district. I fi nd it to be C O N S I S T E N T with
the purposes and intent of the C omprehensive Plan because the proposal provides an orderly transi1on of uses
from higher intensity to lower intensity areas, pro vides for a range of housing types, and is in-line with the
recommended densi1es o f the C ommunity Mixed U se and General Residen1al pla c e types. I also find
A P P R OVA L of the rezoning request is reaso nable and in the public interest because, a lthough it will increase
traffic in the area, the proposal would benefit the community by providing diverse housing op1ons.
[OpDonal] N ote any condi1ons to be added to the district:
Staff Suggested C ondi1ons:
1. T he project ’s stormwater facili1es must be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm event.
2. As propo sed and agreed to by the applicant, a n addi1o nal westbo und right turn lane shall be installed o n Futch
C reek Road/Market Street at its intersec1on with U S 17. I nstalla1o n o f the turn lane requires approval from
N C D OT and shall be constructed in accordance with N C D OT ’s standards.
3. T he ro adway connec1o ns to the three ro ad stubs abuOng the site to the north in the V ineyard Planta1on
subdivision shall be gated and limit access to emergency vehicles only.
E xample M oDon of Denial
I move to D E N Y the propo sed rezo ning to a co ndi1o nal R MF-L district. W hile I find it to be C O N S I S T E N T
with the purposes and intent of the C omprehensive Plan because the proposal provides an orderly transi1on of
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1
uses f ro m higher intensity to lo wer intensity a rea s, provides for a range of ho using types, and is in-line with the
recommended densi1es o f the C o mmunity Mixed U se and General Residen1al place types, I find DE N I A L of
the rezoning request is reaso na ble and in the public interest bec ause the pro posal is no t consistent with the
desired character of the surrounding community and the density will adversely impact the adjacent
neighborhoods.
C O U N T Y M A N AG E R'S C O M M E N T S A N D R EC O M M E N DAT I O N S : (only M anager)
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1
SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z19-14)
Request by Logan Developers, Inc. on behalf of the property owners, Murray, Spradley, Foy, et al, to
rezone approximately 52.39 acres of land located near the 8300 block of “Old” Market Street and the
8300 block of Shiraz Way, from R-15 and R-20, Residential Districts, to (CZD) RMF-L, Conditional
Residential Multi-Family Low Density District, in order to construct a residential development
consisting of multi-family, duplex, and single-family housing.
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 approval or denial of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Example Motion of Approval
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-L district. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposal
provides an orderly transition of uses from higher intensity to lower intensity areas, provides
for a range of housing types, and is in-line with the recommended densities of the Community
Mixed Use and General Residential place types. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning
request is reasonable and in the public interest because, although it will increase traffic in the
area, the proposal would benefit the community by providing diverse housing options.
[Optional] Note any conditions to be added to the district:
1. The project’s stormwater facilities must be designed to accommodate a 100-year
storm event.
2. As proposed and agreed to by the applicant, an additional westbound right turn
lane shall be installed on Futch Creek Road/Market Street at its intersection with
US 17. Installation of the turn lane requires approval from NCDOT and shall be
constructed in accordance with NCDOT’s standards.
3. The roadway connections to the three road stubs abutting the site to the north in the
Vineyard Plantation subdivision shall be gated and limit access to emergency
vehicles only.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 1 - 1
Example Motion of Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-L district. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposal
provides an orderly transition of uses from higher intensity to lower intensity areas, provides
for a range of housing types, and is in-line with the recommended densities of the Community
Mixed Use and General Residential place types, I find DENIAL of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the desired
character of the surrounding community and the density will adversely impact the adjacent
neighborhoods.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-L district. I find it to be
[Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because [insert
reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
I also find [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 1 - 2
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 1 of 16
STAFF REPORT FOR Z19-14
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z19-14
Request:
Rezoning to a Multi-Family Residential Low Density District
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Logan Developers, Inc. Murray, Spradley, Foy, et al
Location: Acreage:
Near the 8300 block of “Old” Market Street and the
8300 block of Shiraz Way 52.39
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
Parcel ID numbers are listed in the application package. Community Mixed Use & General
Residential
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Low Density Residential, Agriculture Multi-Family, Duplex, and Single-
Family Housing
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
R-15 & R-20 (CZD) RMF-L
Modifications since the December 2019 Planning Board Meeting
At their December 5th meeting, the Planning Board granted the applicant’s request to
continue the item to the January meeting in order to modify the conceptual site plan by
reducing the number of the proposed multi-family units and lowering the height of selected
buildings.
The original application proposed a total of 384 units (288 apartments, 34 duplex units,
62 single-family dwellings) for a density of 7.3 du/ac.
The updated application eliminated 60 apartment units and now proposes a total of 324
units (228 apartments, 34 duplex units, and 62 single-family dwellings) for a density of 6.2
du/ac. In addition, the height and unit count has been reduced for six of the proposed
multi-family buildings located adjacent to existing single-family residences along the
northern property line. Specifically, the buildings were reduced from 3 stories to 2 stories,
and from 24 units to 16 units.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 1
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 2 of 16
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North Single-Family Residential (Vineyard Plantation) R-15, R-20
East Undeveloped, Porters Neck Fire Station, Davis
Community R-20, (CUD) O&I
South Single-Family Residential (Tibbys Branch) R-15
West Market Street/I-140 Interchange, Lowe’s Home
Improvement (CUD) B-2
ZONING HISTORY
July 6, 1971 The site was initially zoned R-15 and R-20 (Area 5)
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 2
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 3 of 16
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer Water and sewer will be provided by CFPUA. Specific design will be
determined during site plan review.
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire
District, New Hanover County Station Porters Neck
Schools
Current: Blair Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and Laney High Schools.
*See the attached New Hanover County Schools, NC Redistricting Study 2020: Options
Statistics
Recreation Ogden Park
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation No known conservation resources
Historic No known historic resources
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN
Includes Staff Markups
The applicant’s proposed conceptual plan indicates the residential development will consist
of 228 multi-family units, 34 duplex units, and 62 single-family lots, for a total of 324 units.
The subject site is long and narrow (about 4,500 square feet long and 550 feet in width)
impacting design options.
The 228 multi-family units will be located within 12 buildings containing 12 to 24 units each.
Six buildings located adjacent existing single-family residences along the northern property
line are proposed to be limited to 2 story, while the remaining buildings along the southern
property are proposed to be 3 story. A 20-foot opaque bufferyard is required between
the multi-family buildings and the abutting single-family housing.
Developments within the proposed RMF-L district may be constructed in accordance with the
County’s existing performance residential standards, which provides flexibility by allowing
multiple housing types and not requiring minimum lot sizes. The flexibility of performance
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 3
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 4 of 16
developments allows for additional land to be utilized for open space and stormwater
purposes by clustering development on the site.
The applicant’s proposed conceptual site plan indicates approximately 11.8 acres of the
site (22%) will be reserved for active and passive recreation space for the residents of the
development. The total open space (undeveloped, stormwater, and buffer areas) is about
24 acres of the site (46%).
The subject site does not directly access Market Street, requiring use of area collector roads.
The primary access points will be to “Old” Market Street on the west side of the site and
Shiraz Way on the east side of the site.
Roadway connections will also be made to three road stubs located in the Vineyard
Plantation subdivision abutting the site to the north. However, the applicant is proposing a
condition to gate these accessways and limit access to emergency vehicles only.
The applicant is proposing to design the stormwater facilities for the project to handle up
to a 100-year storm event (≈10 inches of rain over a 24-hour period). This exceeds the
County’s requirement of designing the facilities to a handle a 25-year storm event (≈8
inches of rain over a 24-hour period). According the County’s watershed data, the
downstream outfall of the site flows south toward Pages Creek. However, if this request is
approved, direction of the downstream flow will be verified during the TRC review process
when more detailed engineering design is completed.
According to the applicant, the stormwater will be controlled by a combination of wet
detention ponds and an infiltration basin. The infiltration basin is proposed on the eastern
end of the site near Shiraz Way. A soils test performed by the applicant where the basin
is proposed indicated an infiltration rate of over 20 inches/hr. The applicant also provided
an exhibit illustrating the downstream outfall. More information is provided in the
applicant’s submittal documents.
Applicant’s Exhibit of the Proposed Stormwater Facilities
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 4
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 5 of 16
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Approximately 40.5 acres of the site is zoned R-15 and the remaining 11.9 acres is zoned
R-20. Under the County’s performance residential standards, the portion zoned R-15 would
be permitted up to 102 dwelling units at a density of 2.5 du/ac and the portion zoned R-
20 would be permitted up to 22 dwelling units at a density of 1.9 du/ac. The total number
of units permitted under the current zoning is 124.
The proposed 324 units equates to an overall density of 6.2 du/ac, however, the majority
of the units are contained within the multi-family buildings located on the western portion of
the site closest to Market Street/US 17.
The applicant’s proposed conceptual plan shows a transition of housing types from multi-
family on the western portion of the site to duplex and then single-family on the east end
of the site. This transiting development pattern is similar to the Marsh Oaks area, located to
the south along Market Street, which transitions from commercial/multi-family development
(Aldi, Amberleigh Shores) to townhomes, and then single-family housing. A similar example
in the City of Wilmington is Fairfield Park located along Carolina Beach Road. However,
in both of these examples, the more intense development has direct access to an arterial
road.
The proposed multi-family housing, and the majority of the units for the project, are located
closer to the Porters Neck commercial node. This node is identified in the Comprehensive
Plan as one of three Growth Nodes in the County. Growth Nodes are intended to be focus
areas of development, encouraging high-density development that promotes alternative
transportation options. The intent is to cluster growth in these areas so that public
transportation connections can be accomplished. The boundaries of these nodes are not site
specific and are intended to be a general representation of the area.
The Porters Neck community is the major commercial node of the northern portion of the
County, containing big box retailers (Wal-Mart and Lowes), grocery stores (Harris Teeter
and Food Lion), restaurants (Cast Iron Kitchen, Slice of Life, Buffalo Wild Wings, etc.), and
medical offices (Wilmington Health, Medac). However, other than a gas station/convenience
store, the existing commercial development in this node is primarily located west of Market
Street or south of Porters Neck Road on the east side of Market Street.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 5
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 6 of 16
TRANSPORTATION
The site is accessed by “Old” Market Street and Shiraz Way, both of which are maintained
by NCDOT. In addition, roadway connections will be made to existing road stubs abutting
the site to the north in the Vineyard Plantation subdivision, however, the applicant is
proposing to gate these connections and limit access to emergency vehicles only.
The applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project which is currently
being reviewed by NCDOT and the WMPO. The TIA analyzed the development of 58
single-family homes and 348 multi-family units on the subject property (406 total units –
which exceeds the proposed 324 units). A development of this scale is estimated by the
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) to generate about 200 trips in the AM peak hour and 240
trips in the PM peak hour.
As currently zoned, the subject site would be permitted a maximum of 124 single-family
homes under the performance residential standards. A detached single-family dwelling
typically generates about one trip during the PM peak hours. Therefore, the property could
currently generate approximately 124 trips during the PM peak hours. The proposed
development, as modified to reflect the 324 total units, is estimated to increase the number
of trips by 75 in the AM peak and 80 in the PM peak.
Site Trip Distribution
The TIA estimates that distribution of traffic to and from the site will be split 50/50 with half
of the trips utilizing Shiraz Way and half utilizing “Old” Market Street. This distribution was
proposed by the applicant and approved by the WMPO and NCDOT.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 6
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 7 of 16
Vehicle Trip Distribution at Notable Intersections During the
Peak Hours
* Number values below indicate the number of estimated vehicular trips generated by the proposed
development (updated to reflect 324 units) in the AM and PM peak hours.
Source: Applicant’s Traffic Impact Analysis (Ramey Kemp & Associates)
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 7
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 8 of 16
Level of Service
The TIA analyzed the Level of Service (LOS) in vehicle delay per second at notable
intersections in the area including the following:
o Porters Neck Road at Edgewater Club Road/Shiraz Way (roundabout)
o Market Street at Porters Neck Road
o Futch Creek Road/Market Street at US 17
o US 17 at U-turn Location (north of Futch Creek Road).
Below is the LOS of the intersections described in the TIA. The data provides the overall
LOS of the intersection, and has been updated by the applicant’s traffic engineer to reflect
the current conceptual plan that includes 324 units.
The TIA, based on the original 406 total units, also provides data on all intersection
movements (left turn, right turn, through movement, etc.). There are some current and future
movements with a F LOS located at the intersection of Porters Neck Road and Market Street.
These movements generally consist of the left turns and traffic crossing Market Street. The
TIA indicated the proposed development will increase the delay of one of these movements
(the westbound left on Porters Neck).
The TIA did not include the impact of the improvements from the Military Cutoff extension
project currently under construction. That project is expected to be completed around the
proposed build out date for the requested development (late 2022/early 2023).
Porters Neck Road at Edgewater Club Road/Shiraz Way (roundabout)
Scenario Overall LOS Delay in Seconds
AM PEAK
2019 Existing A 8
2023 Future A 9
2023 Future with Project A 10
PM PEAK
2019 Existing A 7
2023 Future A 8
2023 Future with Project A 9
Market Street and Porters Neck Road
Scenario Overall LOS Delay in Seconds
AM PEAK
2019 Existing D 41
2023 Future D 43
2023 Future with Project D 45
PM PEAK
2019 Existing D 44
2023 Future D 47
2023 Future with Project D 48
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 8
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 9 of 16
US 17 at Market Street/Futch Creek Road
Scenario Overall LOS Delay in Seconds
AM PEAK
2019 Existing B 18
2023 Future B 20
2023 Future with Project C 24
PM PEAK
2019 Existing C 33
2023 Future C 31
2023 Future with Project D 37
US 17 at U-Turn (North of Futch Creek Road)
Scenario Overall LOS Delay in Seconds
AM PEAK
2019 Existing C 22
2023 Future C 26
2023 Future with Project C 31
PM PEAK
2019 Existing A 9
2023 Future B 10
2023 Future with Project B 13
Required or Proposed Improvements
The TIA has been approved by NCDOT and the WMPO. The notable roadway
improvements required include the installation of a second right turn lane on Futch Creek
Road/Market Street at its intersection with US 17. The application is also proposing to add
this improvement as a condition on the development.
Notable Roadway Improvement:
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 9
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 10 of 16
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Report
The residents of Vineyard Planation recently commissioned a Traffic Calming Assessment
due to speeding concerns in their neighborhood. The assessment, which was prepared by
Kittelson & Associates, Inc., examined certain roads in the neighborhood and made the
following findings:
The assessment made recommendations to help reduce speeding in the area including but
not limited to:
o Installing speed humps on Riesling Avenue;
o Using portable speed feedback signs on Riesling Avenue, Chablis Way, and Winery
Way; and
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 10
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 11 of 16
o Using speed cameras to identify and fine residents who speed.
NCDOT has reviewed the assessment and provided comments. The HOA can proceed with
installing the recommended speed humps on Riesling Avenue pending receiving an
encroachment agreement with NCDOT.
Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 11
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 12 of 16
STIP Project U-4751 (Military Cutoff Extension)
o Project to extend Military Cutoff from Market Street to I-140.
o The project is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in late
2022/early 2023.
o The project will also install a sidewalk and multi-use path along the extension of
Military Cutoff and the sections of Market Street included in the project.
STIP Project U-4902D (Market Street Median)
o Project to install a center median and pedestrian accessways along Market Street
from Middle Sound Loop Road to Marsh Oaks Drive. The pedestrian accessways
will consist of a 10-foot multi-use path on the eastern side of the street, and a 5-
foot sidewalk on the western side of the street.
o The project is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in late
2022/early 2023.
NCDOT Project – Installation of an Additional Southbound Exit Lane on US-17 onto Market
Street
o The Board of Commissioners recently adopted a resolution to support the installation
of an additional southbound exit lane at the US 17/Market Street Interchange. The
project is a candidate for funding through the State’s High Impact Low Cost program.
o While funding for this program is currently on hold due to NCDOT' s cash flow
balance, NCDOT Division 3 has been requested to submit everything needed for the
fund requests to the Board of Transportation so there is not delay when funding
becomes available.
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. Scotts Hill Medical
Park
132,000 sf Office
18,000 sf Medical Office
32,000 sf Shopping
Center
9,000 sf Pharmacy with
Drive-Through
Approved August 5, 2019
Phase 1 & 2: 2020 Build Out
Year
Full Build 2022
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of:
Installation of a northbound U-turn lane on US 17 south of Scott Hill Loop Road.
Installation of a southbound left turn lane on US 17 at Scoots Hill Medical Drive.
Installation of a northbound right turn lane, removal of the barrier from the southbound
left turn lane, and signalization of the intersection on US 17 at the site’s southern access
point.
Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 12
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 13 of 16
Scotts Hill Village
Coastal Prep Academy
Development Status: Phase 1 of the medical park has been platted consisting of 3 lots.
Currently, one office building is being constructed. No roadway improvements have been
completed at this time.
Proposed Development Land Use/Intensity TIA Status
2. Waterstone 151 Single-Family
Dwellings
Approved June 18, 2015
2020 Build Out Year
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of:
Installation of a southbound right turn lane on Edgewater Club Road at the site’s northern
access.
Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
Porters Neck Elementary
Development Status: 98 lots have been platted at this time. The right turn lane has been
installed.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area or Special Flood Hazard Area.
The property is within the Pages Creek (SA;HQW) watershed.
Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on
the property consist of Class I (suitable/slight limitation), Class II (moderate limitation) and
Class III (severe limitation) soils, however, the project will connect to CFPUA sewer services.
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.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 13
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 14 of 16
Future Land Use
Map Place Type
General Residential & Community Mixed Use located partially within
Porters Neck Growth Node
The subject parcel is primarily General Residential, with roughly 20%
designated as Community Mixed Use.
Because of the general nature of place type borders, sites located in
proximity to the boundaries between place types could be appropriately
developed with either place type, allowing site-specific features and
evolving development patterns in the surrounding area to be considered.
Place Type
Description
General Residential: Focuses on lower-density housing and associated civic
and commercial services. Typically, housing is single-family or duplexes.
Commercial uses should be limited to strategically located office and retail
spaces, while recreation and school facilities are encouraged throughout.
Types of uses include single-family residential, low-density multi-family
residential, light commercial, civic, and recreational.
Community Mixed Use: Focus 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 - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 14
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 15 of 16
Analysis
The proposed RMF-L development is located between existing lower density
residential neighborhoods and the Old Market St. corridor at the edge of
the Porters Neck Growth Node. This growth node is one of the areas
identified as where growth should be clustered and high-density
developments encouraged.
In general, the Comprehensive Plan designates areas along roadways for
higher residential densities and a mix of uses and those near existing
neighborhoods as General Residential in order to allow for an orderly
transition of densities and intensities.
The proposed RMF-L zoning, one of the new zoning tools adopted in July
2019 to provide for the development patterns outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan, would provide a transition in density and intensity
between future Community Mixed Use development along Old Market
Street and the existing single family residential districts on either side of the
subject site. Providing options for alternative housing types in direct
relationship to single-family detached development is one of the stated
intents for this district.
The overall project density of 6.2 units per acre is generally consistent with
the 6 dwelling units per acre characteristic of the General Residential place
type. The majority of that density is proposed for the western portion of the
site closest to the growth node and Community Mixed Use areas which
promotes densities up to 15 dwelling units per acre. The density of the
duplex and single-family detached portion of the project prosed for the
eastern side is closer to 3 dwelling units per acre.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed RMF-L zoning is generally CONSISTENT with the intent of the
2016 Comprehensive Plan because this zoning district is intended to provide
alternative housing types in direct relationship to single-family detached
development, the overall project density is in-line with those characteristic
of General Residential and Community Mixed Use place types, the highest
density portion of the project is located on the western end of the site which
is part of the Porters Neck Growth Node and designated as Community
Mixed Use, and the proposed development pattern provides for the orderly
transition of densities and intensities.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 15
Z19-14 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 16 of 16
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Overall the project is generally consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
because it contributes to providing a mix of housing options in the area, provides for the orderly
transition of uses, and the overall project density is in-line with those recommended in the General
Residential and Community Mixed Use place types.
As the unique location of the site does not have direct access to an arterial street, it is anticipated
the development will increase traffic near established single-family neighborhoods. However, the
review of the TIA, which studied the impact from 406 dwelling units (exceeding the 324 units
proposed) indicates that the overall Level of Service of the major intersections in the area will
operate at an acceptable level when the proposed development is expected to be completed in
2023.
The applicant is also proposing to design the stormwater facilities to accommodate the 100-year
storm event, which exceeds the County’s requirement of designing to the 25-year storm event.
Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the application with the applicant’s proposed
conditions.
Example Motion of Approval
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-L district. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposal
provides an orderly transition of uses from higher intensity to lower intensity areas, provides
for a range of housing types, and is in-line with the recommended densities of the Community
Mixed Use and General Residential place types. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning
request is reasonable and in the public interest because, although it will increase traffic in
the area, the proposal would benefit the community by providing diverse housing options.
[Optional] Note any conditions to be added to the district:
1. The project’s stormwater facilities must be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm
event.
2. As proposed and agreed to by the applicant, an additional westbound right turn lane
shall be installed on Futch Creek Road/Market Street at its intersection with US 17.
Installation of the turn lane requires approval from NCDOT and shall be constructed in
accordance with NCDOT’s standards.
3. The roadway connections to the three road stubs abutting the site to the north in the
Vineyard Plantation subdivision shall be gated and limit access to emergency vehicles
only.
Example Motion of Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-L district. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposal
provides an orderly transition of uses from higher intensity to lower intensity areas, provides
for a range of housing types, and is in-line with the recommended densities of the Community
Mixed Use and General Residential place types, I find DENIAL of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the desired
character of the surrounding community and the density will adversely impact the adjacent
neighborhoods.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 16
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOLS, NC
REDISTRICTING STUDY 2020: OPTIONS STATISTICS
2 Revised: 11/01/2019
Elementary School Options Estimated Enrollment Statistics
Elementary School 2021-22
Capacity
Total
Enrolled
DRAFT
Option 3d
Estimated
Enrollment
Alderman 270 277 298
Anderson 543 671 638
Bellamy 400 614 473
CRECC 93 126 92
Blair 549 587 510
Bradley Creek 344 417 336
Carolina Beach 370 461 437
Castle Hayne 524 539 499
College Park 488 450 574
Forest Hills 431 368 496
Freeman 358 260 276
Holly Tree 413 511 489
Murrayville 558 666 520
Ogden 534 695 582
Parsley 423 681 554
Pine Valley 416 602 517
Porter's Neck 503 518
Snipes 528 417 405
Sunset Park 435 357 500
Williams 353 449 466
Winter Park 286 310 278
Wrightsboro 499 560 569
Wrightsville Beach 265 314 305
Total 9583 10332 10332
*Capacity counts were calculated using 2021-22
modified capacity numbers w/o mobile units. These
capacities reflect the State's implementation of a
reduction in class sizes.
*Student counts are based on the 04/24/2019 NHCS
student database.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 3 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOLS, NC
REDISTRICTING STUDY 2020: OPTIONS STATISTICS
3 Revised: 11/01/2019
Elementary School Options Estimated Enrollment Statistics (Continued)
Elementary School 2021-22
Capacity
Enrolled
Utilization
DRAFT
Option 3d
Utilization
Alderman 270 103%110%
Anderson 543 124%117%
Bellamy 400 154%118%
CRECC 93 135%99%
Blair 549 107%93%
Bradley Creek 344 121%98%
Carolina Beach 370 125%118%
Castle Hayne 524 103%95%
College Park 488 92%118%
Forest Hills 431 85%115%
Freeman 358 73%77%
Holly Tree 413 124%118%
Murrayville 558 119%93%
Ogden 534 130%109%
Parsley 423 161%131%
Pine Valley 416 145%124%
Porter's Neck 503 103%
Snipes 528 79%77%
Sunset Park 435 82%115%
Williams 353 127%132%
Winter Park 286 108%97%
Wrightsboro 499 112%114%
Wrightsville Beach 265 118%115%
Total 9583 108%108%
*Capacity counts were calculated using 2021-22 modified
capacity numbers w/o mobile units. These capacities
reflect the State's implementation of a reduction in class
sizes.
*Student counts are based on the 04/24/2019 NHCS
student database.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 3 - 2
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOLS, NC
REDISTRICTING STUDY 2020: OPTIONS STATISTICS
9 Revised: 11/01/2019
Middle School Options Estimated Enrollment Statistics
Middle School 2021-22
Capacity
Total
Enrolled
DRAFT
Option 3d
Estimated
Enrollment
Holly Shelter 918 697 869
Murray 768 1088 909
Myrtle Grove 706 725 858
Noble 592 918 703
Roland-Grise 690 895 911
Trask 622 760 723
Williston 736 657 767
Total 5032 5740 5740
*Student counts are based on the 04/24/2019
NHCS student database.
*Capacity counts were calculated using 2021-22
modified capacity numbers w/o mobile units.
These capacities reflect the State's
implementation of a reduction in class sizes.
Middle School 2021-22
Capacity
Enrolled
Utilization
DRAFT
Option 3d
Utilization
Holly Shelter 918 76%95%
Murray 768 142%118%
Myrtle Grove 706 103%122%
Noble 592 155%119%
Roland-Grise 690 130%132%
Trask 622 122%116%
Williston 736 89%104%
Total 5032 114%114%
*Student counts are based on the 04/24/2019 NHCS
student database.
*Capacity counts were calculated using 2021-22
modified capacity numbers w/o mobile units.
These capacities reflect the State's implementation
of a reduction in class sizes.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 3 - 3
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOLS, NC
REDISTRICTING STUDY 2020: OPTIONS STATISTICS
13 Revised: 11/01/2019
High School Estimated Enrollment Statistics
High School Demographics Statistics
High School Grade
Config
2021-22
Capacity
Total
Enrolled
Enrolled
Utilization
Ashley 9 - 12 1756 1838 105%
Hoggard 9 - 12 1742 1809 104%
Laney 9 - 12 1853 2093 113%
New Hanover 9 - 12 1668 1379 83%
Total 7019 7119 101.4%
*Student counts are based on the 04/24/2019 NHCS student
database.
*Capacity counts were calculated using 2021-22 modified capacity
numbers w/o mobile units. These capacities reflect the State's
implementation of a reduction in class sizes.
High School Percent
Black
Percent
White
Percent
Hispanic
Percent
Other
Ashley 9.4%73.7%10.2%6.8%
Hoggard 10.4%74.7%9.2%5.7%
Laney 19.4%60.1%13.8%6.7%
New Hanover 32.4%46.1%16.4%5.1%
Total 17.1%64.6%12.2%6.2%
Enrolled
*Student counts are based on the 04/24/2019 NHCS student
database.
*Capacity counts were calculated using 2021-22 modified
capacity numbers w/o mobile units. These capacities reflect the
State's implementation of a reduction in class sizes.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 3 - 4
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 4 - 1
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 5 - 1
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 6 - 1
APPLICANT
MATERIALS
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 1
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 2
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 1
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 2
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 3
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 4
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 5
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 6
1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E , W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3
P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0
Porters Oaks Conditional Rezoning Application
Subject Property Owners
PIN: R02900-004-007-000
Book / Page: 1611 / 1259
Property Address: 8390 Market Street Wilmington, NC 28411
Parcel Acreage: 0.22 ac
Existing Zoning & Use: R-15 Residential District / 10-1 Family Residential
Property Owner: Robert C. Murray, III, married and Sandra M. Spradley as
the heirs of Robert C Jr & Emma Murray
Phone: ______________________________
Robert C. Murray, IIII
Email:
______________________________
Ulrike H. Murray spouse of Robert C. Murray, IIII
______________________________
Sandra M. Spradley
PIN: R02900-004-008-000
Book / Page: 9906 / 1103
Property Address: 8370 Market Street Wilmington, NC 28411
Parcel Acreage: 0.92 ac
Existing Zoning & Use: R-15 Residential District / 10-1 Family Residential
Property Owner: Ben G. Murray Jr., married as the sole heir of
Ben G Murray
Phone:
______________________________
Ben G.. Murray, Jr.
Email: ______________________________
Joyce A. Murray spouse of Ben G. Murray, Jr.
PIN: R02900-004-019-000
Book / Page: 5558 / 0221
Property Address: 8370 Market Street, Wilmington NC 28411
Parcel Acreage: 0.29 ac
Existing Zoning & Use: R-15 Residential District / 10-1 Family Residential
Property Owner: Robert C. Murray, III, married and Sandra M. Spradley
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94B8D2C-E5F0-4FBF-956E-98179D43683FDocuSign Envelope ID: B752171E-36CC-41A7-B4E3-D7A0129A2545
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 7
1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E , W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3
P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0
Phone: ______________________________
Robert C. Murray, IIII
Email:
______________________________
Ulrike H. Murray spouse of Robert C. Murray, IIII
______________________________
Sandra M. Spradley
PIN: R02900-004-009-000
Book / Page: 5558 / 0221
Property Address: 8376 Market Street, Wilmington NC 28411
Parcel Acreage: 14.30 ac
Existing Zoning & Use: R-15 Residential District / 101-Agricultural
Property Owner: Robert C. Murray, III, married and Sandra M. Spradley
Phone: ______________________________
Robert C. Murray, IIII
Email:
______________________________
Ulrike H. Murray spouse of Robert C. Murray, IIII
______________________________
Sandra M. Spradley
PIN: R03700-001-007-000
Book / Page: 5558 / 0221
Property Address: 8380 Market Street, Wilmington NC 28411
Parcel Acreage: 11.69 ac
Existing Zoning & Use: R-15 Residential District / 958-Unused Land
Property Owner: Robert C. Murray, III, married and Sandra M. Spradley
Phone: ______________________________
Robert C. Murray, IIII
Email:
______________________________
Ulrike H. Murray spouse of Robert C. Murray, IIII
______________________________
Sandra M. Spradley
PIN: R03700-001-006-000
Book / Page: 1592 / 1390
Property Address: 8313 Shiraz Way, Wilmington NC 28411
Parcel Acreage: 1.07 ac
Existing Zoning & Use: R-20 Residential District / 10-1 Family Residential
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94B8D2C-E5F0-4FBF-956E-98179D43683FDocuSign Envelope ID: B752171E-36CC-41A7-B4E3-D7A0129A2545
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 8
1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E , W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3
P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0
Property Owner: Robert C Murray III and wife Ulrike H. Murray
Phone: ______________________________
Robert C. Murray, IIII
Email:
______________________________
Ulrike H. Murray
PIN: R02900-004-010-000
Book / Page: 9905 / 1807
Property Address: 421 Tibby’s Drive, Wilmington NC 28411
Parcel Acreage: 12.86 ac
Existing Zoning & Use: R-15 Residential District / 10-1 Family Residential
Property Owner: Sognia F. Weiss and husband Steven Weiss and
Antonia M Foy Life Estate
Phone: ______________________________
Sognia F. Weiss
Email:
______________________________
Steven Weiss
______________________________
Antonia M. Foy by Sognia F. Weiss
her Attorney in Fact
PIN: R02900-004-010-001
Book / Page: 9905 / 1807
Property Address: 8362 Market Street, Wilmington NC 28411
Parcel Acreage: 0.73 ac
Existing Zoning & Use: R-15 Residential District / 958-Unused Land
Property Owner: Sognia F. Weiss and husband Steven Weiss and
Antonia M Foy Life Estate
Phone: ______________________________
Sognia F. Weiss
Email:
______________________________
Steven Weiss
______________________________
Antonia M. Foy by Sognia F. Weiss
her Attorney in Fact
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94B8D2C-E5F0-4FBF-956E-98179D43683FDocuSign Envelope ID: B752171E-36CC-41A7-B4E3-D7A0129A2545
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 9
1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E , W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3
P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0
PIN: R03700-001-003-000
Book / Page: 5801 / 1623
Property Address: 817 Porters Neck Road, Wilmington NC 28411
Parcel Acreage: 3.32 ac
Existing Zoning & Use: R-15 Residential District / 958-Unused Land
Property Owner: BLTD Properties LLC, a North Carolina limited liability
company
Phone: ______________________________
By: John Floyd Murray, Jr.,
Member and General Manager
Email:
PIN: R03700-001-002-000
Book / Page: 5801 / 1623
Property Address: 817 Porters Neck Road, Wilmington NC 28411
Parcel Acreage: 6.97 ac
Existing Zoning & Use: R-20 Residential District / 10-1 Family Residential
Property Owner: BLTD Properties LLC, a North Carolina limited liability
company
Phone: ______________________________
By: John Floyd Murray, Jr.,
Member and General Manager
Email:
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94B8D2C-E5F0-4FBF-956E-98179D43683FDocuSign Envelope ID: B752171E-36CC-41A7-B4E3-D7A0129A2545
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 10
1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3
P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0
Updated: November 18, 2019
Date: October 10, 2019
Project Narrative ‐ The Oaks at Murray Farm:
The proposed development is located between Old Market Street, Shiraz Way, and Tibby’s
Drive and is comprised of the following parcels totaling +52.39 acres:
R02900-004-007-000, R02900-004-008-000, R02900-004-019-000, R02900-004-009-000,
R03700-001-007-000, R03700-001-006-000, R02900-004-010-000, R02900-004-010-001,
R03700-001-003-000, R03700-001-002-000
The zoning of the parcels is R‐15 in the middle to northwest portion of the tract, the portion
fronting Old Market Street. The rear of the property is zoned R‐20. The NHC Future Land
Use Plan identifies the front third of the site as community mixed use and the rear as general
residential. This area east/southeast of Market Street is identified as a growth node with an
emphasis on commercial and dense residential uses. The rear of the site is slated as general
residential and transitions from the growth node into the neighborhood fabric of the Porters
Neck area.
In keeping with the split land uses, we present a project with apartments near Market Street
in the growth node and transition into the duplexes and single family more aligned with
general residential. To create this cohesively designed mixture of product types on the
subject parcels, we respectfully request the property be conditionally rezoned to the RMF‐L (
Residential Multi‐family Low Density). This proposed zoning district is one of the new
districts recently approved to offer better, more site specific development options. This
RMF‐L zone allows us to provide a mixture of product types integrated into common open
space, landscape, and other improvements that make a project feel like it is blended and
well thought‐out.
Part of the charm of this property is the large trees as seen from Market Street. Our plan
proposes saving as many of those large trees as possible to set the most dense portion of
our plan, the apartments, into a tree canopy. This unique setting allows us to preserve the
character of the site and neighborhood while transitioning down to a traditional single‐
family neighborhood. The majority of the land is or has been used as farm land and provides
a good, open area in the rear of the property as is required for the single family homesites
proposed.
The applicant, Logan Developers, Inc. presents this project request to you as one that is in
keeping with the goals and policies of the Future Land Use plan and as a project, that we
feel, honors the natural site characteristics while acting as a transition project to the
surrounding townhomes, duplexes, and single family homes in the vicinity of this project.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 11
Page 2 of 2
During the process, the development team has listened to concerns and comments form
residents within the Porters Neck community. We have made many changes, best
summarized in the community meeting summary, and attempted to compromise with the
neighbors to alleviate traffic and stormwater concerns and limit density beyond the initial
plans. We recognize this is a project that infills one of the last undeveloped properties in the
Porters Neck area, and we also understand the comments from neighbors to keep the
current community as it is now. However, our development team strongly feels this is a
project worthy of fitting into the Porters Neck community. We present this project for the
consideration of planning staff and New Hanover County Boards to determine if this project
is a suitable conditional rezoning for an area of the County noted as community mixed
use/general residential and as a growth node as indicated by the County’s adopted Future
Land Use Plan, as a project cohesively designed as a transition from higher density,
commercial corridor of Market Street back to the traditional single family neighborhoods of
Porters Neck.
Thank you for your consideration of the conditional rezoning request.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 12
1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3
P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0
Update: December 13, 2019
Update: November 18, 2019
Date: October 10, 2019
Updated Submittal 12/13/19:
The updated submittal reduces overall density on the site from the original 406 units down
to 324 (228 apartments, 34 duplex, 62 single family). This reduces the proposed density
from 7.75 units/acre to 6.18 units/acre. We discussed options for plan alterations with
those willing to discuss changes to the plan. A certain portion of the community was willing
entertain a proposal that pulled apartments further away from the Vineyard Plantation
homes and removed the third floor of the apartments. The newly revised plan does just that
– takes 6 of the 12 apartment buildings down to 2 stories and leaves 3 story buildings only in
the areas adjacent to vacant land. We received one request to move the pool and clubhouse
away from nearby homes, so we also accommodated this by pulling it into open space areas
more internally located than on the edge near existing homes. We also reduced the overall
apartment count from the most recent proposal of 288 to the current proposal of 228 units
(a drop of 60units). We also added both dedicated open space and undeveloped or
landscape areas. The applicant’s previously proposed conditions remain current in this
proposal.
We recognize that we cannot make every neighbor happy with this proposal, but we are
presenting this plan in a good‐faith effort to respond to and compromise with the
community. We respectfully submit this plan to you for consideration of the conditional
rezoning as presented in the plans and associated documents.
Previously Submitted Information:
The Oaks at Murray Farm Conditional Zoning Supplemental Information
Proposed Conditions:
Beyond the existing requirements of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, the
proposed for the initial 10/10/19 submittal mixed residential project proposes to save many
of the large character trees in an effort to both preserve the site’s character and to help
buffer the larger apartment buildings on site. In addition, the applicant proposing pulling
most buildings away from property lines to further buffer the proposed development from
the neighboring properties.
The updated conditions proposed for the conditional rezoning are as follows and as a direct
result of community meeting concerns:
1. Revise stormwater design to achieve 100 year storm instead of meeting the minimum 25
year storm. This is achievable in part because of the excellent soils data obtained since the
first community meeting and in part because the wetland area of the site was not nearly as
much land area once an on‐site analysis was completed.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 13
Page 2 of 3
2. To alleviate traffic concerns, the applicant proposes to design and construct an additional
right turn lane at Futch Creek Road. and Hwy 17/Market intersection if NCDOT/WMPO allow
this measure to be completed. After our traffic consultant ran various scenarios at all
intersection near the project site, the improvement that made the most impact was this
intersection. The current understanding is that the Futch Creek traffic light queuing will be
cut nearly in half by addition of a right turn lane. The design will have to be coordinated with
the two entities to assure initial design meets their future plans and does not conflict with
their understanding of the movement through the intersection. As such, the applicant
proposes to pursue this right turn lane improvement with all the necessary decision makers
including the County, WMPO, and NCDOT.
Consideration of a Conditional Zoning District ‐ Criteria:
1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County’s policies for growth and
development?
The subject property is located in a growth node just off of Market Street, in an area slated
for intensive development such as shopping centers and commercial services. The design of
the project proposes placing the most intensive use, the apartments, near the front of the
site and in the growth node area. This type of use will be most intense, but the design also
promotes another policy to conserve natural resources, such as the large trees designated to
be saved at the front of the site. The single family and duplex portions of the design are in
keeping with the existing fabric of the neighborhood and align with the Future Land Use
Plan.
2. How would the requested conditional Zoning District be consistent with the property’s
classification on the Future Land Use Map located within the Comprehensive Plan?
As mentioned above, the requested zoning and layout of the design nicely aligns with the
Future Land Use Map. The apartments end nearly right on top of the division of Community
Mixed Use, an acceptable use for this designation, and the single family and duplexes fall
within the general residential designated portion of the site.
3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning
inappropriate, or how is the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the
existing zoning?
The existing zoning reflects a less intensive land use than Future Land Use Plan projects for
this commercial corridor along Market Street. The proposed single family and duplex areas
are allowable under the existing zonings as performance residential; however the rezoning
to RMF‐L allows apartments and more intensive mixed use residential projects to be
constructed whereas the current zoning does not. This project does propose higher than the
2.5 units / acre allowed by the by‐right performance residential. Our proposed 7.4 units to
the acre places the bulk of that density in the apartments, the area of the site slated for
community mixed‐use. While the proposed zoning district allows for 10 units to the acre, it
is really the combination of higher density and mixture of uses that allows the project to be
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 14
Page 3 of 3
built in keeping with the County’s plans for this region of the County. RMF‐L allows the
project to blend a mixture of residential housing types that specifically fit the Future Land
Use Plan in this area of the County.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 15
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 16
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 17
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 18
1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E, W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3
P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0
Updated: November 12, 2019
Date: September 30, 2019
The Oaks at Murray Farm Community Meetings Summary
The Oaks at Murray Farm has conducted multiple meetings with the Porters Neck
community. A brief summary is listed below with detail summary provided at the end.
Community Meeting #1 was held on September 30, 2019 with a 400‐450 person attendance.
Because of the large group and the concern over the project, the development team listened
to comments and asked for community representatives to continue to meet with us to refine
the plans.
Some of the residents agreed to one meeting held on November 8th, 2019 and included
many community HOA presidents and representatives meeting to discuss the plan revised to
address many of their concerns including adding buffers, open space, saving a large,
significant trees, especially in the apartment portion of the plan to further screen
apartments and work the plan into the existing site, reducing the number of apartments
(eliminated 2 buildings), pulling the apartment buildings further away from neighboring
properties, adding emergency services access‐only gates to the Vineyard Plantation road
connections to reduce traffic concerns in their neighborhood, agreeing to provide
stormwater well in excess of the County’s 25 year storm (to provide for the 100 year storm),
and to agree to build a turn lane (that is not otherwise a required by the TIA) from Futch
Creek to Hwy 17 to alleviate traffic concerns in the area. At the end of this HOA
representative meeting, the representatives refused to meet with the development team
again stating that we were not addressing their concerns and we would have to agree to
disagree. They refused to accept any plans with apartments on the plan.
Community Meeting #2 was held on November 12th, 2019 at the Hampstead Annex
Auditorium. Given the large number of folks attending the first meeting, we searched for a
venue that would agree to allow us to host a meeting with 500 people. After three weeks of
searching for a venue that was relatively close to the project site, had free parking for the
community, could house the amount of residents interested in the project, and would agree
to host a development project meeting, we found the Hampstead Annex Auditorium. It was
only capable of housing approximately 250 people at one time, so we divided the meeting
into two groups. Those living to the north were asked to attend the first meeting. Those
living to the south/east of the project site were asked to attend the second meeting. The
majority of questions received at these two meetings were about traffic and concerns over
apartments near their homes. Some folks were also concerned about school overcrowding.
Full details for the two community meetings are provided below.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 19
Page 2 of 5
To date, we continue to talk with residents both for and against the project. The
development team continues to address as many concerns as is possible to demonstrate
that they do want to be good neighbors, but that the developer is proposing a project that
does include apartments.
The Oaks at Murray Farm Conditional Zoning Community Meeting 1 Notes:
Paramounte Engineering and Logan Developers, Inc. held a community meeting at Anchor
Baptist Church on Futch Creek Rd. from 6:00‐7:00 PM on September 30, 2019.
Approximately 400 ‐450 residents attended the meeting to listen to a presentation of the
project and offer comments on the developer’s proposal.
‐ Check on school capacity at Porters Neck School (Answer: We will reach out to the NHC
Schools folks to discuss)
‐ Because of drought conditions and restriction on irrigation needs, does this cause future
water supply issues (Answer: We have not evaluated irrigation at this time, but if water
capacity is available, CFPUA will advise throughout the project’s development.)
‐ Would like gates on side roads (Answer: We will investigate with our traffic consultant)
‐ Will the existing ditches be left open for stormwater flow (Answer: Existing streams will be
left open in all plans to date; on‐going analysis of stormwater will help us further develop the
entire plan)
‐ Price point of units (Answer: Luxury Apartments is target market, prices will vary based on
market conditions, but anticipated at $1100 +/ mo)
‐ Will apartments be Section 8 apartments (Answer: no)
‐ People expressed approval of the duplex/single family portion of the development, especially
if Logan is the developer, but they are unhappy with the apartments proposed largely due to
traffic concerns. (Answer: we are looking at the detailed traffic analysis for the whole project,
but we hear the concerns about apartments. We will evaluation the plan and make changes
if the developer chooses to do so)
‐ Several people told us to put apartments on the other side of Market Street – it was better
land for that. (It is understood that many residents have expressed interest in not having
apartments near their homes; however, the future land use plan does identify the area as a
growth node for shopping center and denser development. The apartments are clustered in
that higher density portion of the site as identified in the FLUP)
‐ Will buffer/vegetation be kept for the existing properties (Yes, to the greatest extent possible
and augmented as needed)
‐ Traffic concerns along/at round about on Porters Neck Road (Answer: We will look at both
Porters Neck Road and Futch Creek Rd. for any improvements that may alleviate concerns.
After the meeting, the traffic consultant conducted a series of studies looking at the
roundabout on Porters Neck Road, the Intersection of Porters Neck Road and Market Street
and at Futch Creek Rd/Market(HWY 17) intersection. Due to current NCDOT bypass projects
and the associated anticipated effects on Porters Neck/ Market intersection and due to
constricted land area and the fact that Porters Neck Road is reported to operate at a Level of
Service A (the best rating) even after the proposed project is built, Futch Creek Road was the
only improvement that could alleviate traffic in any significant way. This is explained in
Meeting #2 summary.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 20
Page 3 of 5
‐ Status of Traffic Study (Answer: submitted, not approved time of Meeting #1)
‐ Phasing of project (Answer: Anticipated build out in 2023 used in traffic report, phasing not
determined at this time)
‐ Making sure apartments are for rent (Answer: yes)
‐ The neighbors expressed concern about the amount of traffic this project could cause
(Answer: see detailed explanation above)
‐ When the group broke into smaller groups looking at the plans, many people were
appreciative of the information, but wanted to talk further with Logan to better understand
the product proposed and the overall ramifications to their neighborhoods. (Many folks
talked with the development team through phone and email after the meeting)
POST MEETING #1 CORRESPONDENCE:
After the meeting, the developer had many calls for residents, some now in support of the
project. The team has on‐going efforts to get information out to residents.
POST MEETING #1 CHANGES:
After hearing many of the comments, there were changes made to reduce apartment units
by nearly 10% and to pull apartments away from the borders. The total unit count was
reduced, open space gathered toward the center of the project, refined stormwater to
reflect neighbor concerns and site conditions and now accounts for the 100 year storm, and
save many large trees on the site.
The Oaks at Murray Farm Conditional Zoning Community Meeting 2 Notes:
Paramounte Engineering and Logan Developers, Inc. held two community meetings on the
same night at Hampstead Annex Auditorium on Hwy 17. The first meeting for residents to
the north of the site occurred from 5:30‐6:30 PM. The second meeting for residents to the
south/east of the site occurred from 7:00‐8:00 PM on November 12, 2019. As mentioned in
the meeting summary, we wanted to accommodate at least as many folks as attended our
first community meeting, but the closest largest venue suitable for the crowd only held 250
people, so we divided the meeting to hear from everyone. The first of the two meetings had
approximately 180 people in attendance and the second meeting was a mixture of people
staying from the first meeting and new attendees. This second meeting had 80 people.
The attached agenda covers the presentation from the development team to the
participants. Then the floor was opened to questions and comments. The following is a
summary of that community input:
‐ Schools are overcrowded and traffic to those schools is congested (Answer: The developer
has a meeting set with NHC Schools folks to discuss, but the traffic consultant, Ramey Kemp,
addressed school traffic. Much of the traffic comments related to late busses and not enough
bus drivers )
‐ Porters Neck Road traffic will be made worse by apartments/ this project (Answer:
Traffic Analysis shows Porters Neck Road is currently a Level of Service A road since
the roundabout construction and that after the proposed project is built (using the
previously proposed plan with 406 units instead of the current, reduced plan), the
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 21
Page 4 of 5
roundabout will experience a 1 second delay from current conditions at peak hour.
And the Porters Neck/Market intersection will add approximately 2 cars at peak hour.
However, after the Military Cutoff bypass is complete (anticipated 2022 prior to this
project build out), approximately 9,000 cars/ day are anticipated to be routed away
from this intersection at Porters Neck Road. The intersection after bypass
construction is anticipated to operate in quicker movements from either pre or post
project development.
‐ Stormwater designed to the 100 year storm is not enough (Answer: The stormwater
in previous plans has been further evaluated, soil testing has now been performed,
and we confirmed we can provide a stormwater design in excess of the County’s 25
year requirement. We understand there are concerns from neighbors and have
offered a solution that should improve the situation well beyond the minimum
requirements).
‐ Emergency Services response times were reported at 12‐25 minutes both at this
meeting and Meeting #1. (Answer: We heard this at the first meeting and this one,
Paramounte Engineering spoke with Fire Marshal David Stone to determine if there
was a problem in this area that we are not aware of, if this project can be designed in
a way to alleviate any concerns, and if there is something off‐site the developer may
be able to offer or assist with to help alleviate any concerns. Mr. Stone stated the
Porters Neck Communities are served at the same rate as others in the county with
fire’s first responder typical response times in the 4‐7 minute range and EMS or law
enforcement in the 9 minute range. Mr. Stone stated that the fire station existing
across from the Shiraz Way entrance of this development would promote one
alternate route through the neighborhood for fire and EMS to travel from this station
if traffic on Porters Neck Road is impassible, especially since speed bumps are not
proposed in our neighborhood. Regarding off‐site improvements, Mr. Stone
reiterated NCDOT and our traffic consultant in saying that there is not room to widen
Porters Neck Road, so no off‐site improvement, such as adding a lane, are really
possible without taking property from homes along Porters Neck Road.
‐ Futch Creek proposed extra turn lane will not fix the traffic problem. An extra right
turn lane will not help since the majority of traffic comes out of this intersection and
goes to the Uturn to head towards Wilmington. The extra lane will not be used
(Answer: Our traffic consultant presented the findings that the intersection queuing
time could be nearly cut in half with the addition of a right turn lane, and the extra
lane would allow everyone (after the project is built) to cycle through the intersection
in 1 light cycle. He further stated that this is a proposal to the community first to add
an additional turn lane. If accepted, it would be reviewed by NCDOT and WMPO.
They may have comments, want changes, corroborate with the neighbors stated
regarding amount of Uturn activity, etc. However, this has not been addressed with
NCDOT at this time. If it is desired, the developer is agreeing to pursue this turn lane
as a way to help the community. If it is not desired, we do not need to pursue the
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 22
Page 5 of 5
additional turn lane. To date, there has been no requirement from the TIA for the
additional turn lane or any other improvement off‐site.
‐ There was a death at this intersection recently, this development will bring more
accidents and fatalities. (Answer: Ramey Kemp submitted TIA prior to the recent
fatality, so that report did not take that into account. However, the consultant
responded that he would follow up with NCDOT after the meeting since a fatality
triggers a review of the intersection and what could be done to make the situation
better. Those findings will be coordinated and addressed in any improvements that
happen at that intersection.
‐ There were many comments questioning the validity and methods of the traffic
report. Statistics used in the report were questioned. Traffic counts were
questioned. The method of traffic analysis was questioned. There was mention of
another traffic consultant hired by Vineyard Plantation who had an alternate report
contradicting Ramey Kemp’s findings. (Response: Ramey Kemp’s traffic consultant
explained accepted methodologies and how he arrived at each of the questioned
statistics. He further explained that the counts were performed over a 48 hour period
in a time designated by NCDOT/WMPO scoping meeting (while school was in session).
The means and methods of the study have been approved by NCDOT/WMPO. At the
time of the community meeting, those two entities are reviewing the findings of the
TIA before issuing comments on potential improvements.
‐ Apartments are not wanted here – Logan builds nice single family homes. Build
those, can’t we propose all duplex and single family that would not be met with
opposition. What kind of apartments will they be, what price point?
(Response: We have heard this statement, and we are presenting a plan with
apartments, but with many concessions to prove that Logan does want to build a nice
neighborhood that works with the community. The Logan team evaluated the site for
single family and duplexes, and the price of the land prevents the developer from
considering single family and duplexes only as an alternative. Furthermore, Logan is
planning luxury apartments on the high end geared toward one of the fastest
growing market, 62+ looking for rentals. The developer feels this project targets that
market and fits well into the Porters Neck Community.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 23
Meeting Date: November 12, 2019
The Oaks at Murray Farm – Community Meeting #2 Agenda & Guidelines
General Note: Two meetings will be held this evening. Both meetings will follow the format and general meeting
guidelines as follows. We ask that you abide by these guidelines so participants have a chance to hear the presentation
and to ask questions.
Meeting 1 from 5:30‐6:30 PM will be held for residents living to the north of the project site. We ask you to exit the building from
6:30‐6:45 so the meeting 2 participants can enter between 6:45‐7:00. The time for exiting will be signaled by the lights flicking on
and off. If you refuse to leave, you will be preventing the next group of your neighbors from participating.
Meeting 2 from 7:00 – 8:00 PM will be held for residents living to the south/east of the project site. We ask you to exit the building
no later than 8:30 PM.
Notes from the building manager and development team:
o Please do not bring food or drink into the auditorium
o The auditorium’s building occupancy is approximately 250 people, so we recommend you appoint representatives
to attend the meeting in the event attendance exceeds occupancy. This agenda acts as a presentation summary in
the event you are unable to attend either meeting.
o Doors will be monitored and locked to ingress travel when the building reaches capacity
o All doors remain open to egress travel at all times
o In the event of emergency, exits are located in the center, front of the building and at each end of the first floor
hall.
Meeting Agenda & Discussion Points:
1. Introduction
2. Presentation Items will Include:
Summary of changes from the 1st community meeting plan to the current plan
Reduced apartment unit count by approx. 10% by removing (2) 12 unit apartment buildings
Increased single family homes by 8 units
Removed 1 duplex building (2 units)
Less overall density
o (9/30/19 community meeting plan had 406 total units, current plan has 388 total units)
Pulled apartments towards center of site to further buffer adjacent properties
Added neighborhood parks, open space, and increased buffers
Saved large trees on site‐ located primarily at Old Market Street
New stormwater design with increased capacity from County’s required 25 year storm event to 100 year storm event
Developer is proposing to construct an off‐site traffic improvement to alleviate some traffic concerns (this is not part of
the recommendations included in the Traffic Impact Analysis, this is offered in direct response to public input received
at the last community meeting). All scenarios below represent the full buildout condition.
o Add 1 right turn lane on Futch Creek at the Market Street/Hwy 17 traffic light.
o After this proposed project is built, queuing time at traffic light reduces from 42 seconds to 27 seconds
o This results in all traffic clearing the light in one cycle
o The existing Porters Neck Rd. roundabout delay is increased by 1 second at the peak traffic hours
o The existing Porters Neck Rd/Market St. intersection delay increases by 2 seconds (1‐2 extra cars added to
queuing
o After the Military Cutoff portion of the bypass is constructed (anticipated completion in mid‐summer 2022),
traffic along Market Street (US 17) is expected to be approximately 20% less (removing approximately 9,000
cars from passing through the intersection at Porters Neck Rd/Market).
Resulting signal adjustments at Porters Neck Rd/Market St. intersection are anticipated to lessen wait
time at the intersection from the existing conditions (including this proposed project build out).
The current 2022 completion happens before The Oaks at Murray Farm will be built out (projected
2023 or later).
3. Discussion ‐ If you have additional comments or questions beyond the meeting, please visit the “contact”
portion of the project website at www.oaksatmurrayfarm.com
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 24
122 CINEMA DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
PH: (910) 791-6707
FAX: (910) 791 – 6760
October 31, 2019
RE: Second Community Meeting for:
Conditional Rezoning Request of The Oaks at Murray Farm
Paramounte Engineering, Inc. and Logan Developers, Inc. invite you to a second community meeting on Tuesday,
November 12, 2019 at the Hampstead Annex’s Auditorium. After having conversations with various members of
the community since our last meeting, we have received feedback, and we want to compile the interested parties
again to present our revised plans and current information to the larger community group(s).
Because there was such a large group of community members in attendance in our first meeting, we looked for a
meeting venue both close to your homes and one that can hold large groups. We have reserved the closest, large
venue that agreed to host our community meeting. However, the Hampstead Annex is only able to hold 230 seated
people at one time and about 250 people with some standing. (The latter is very close to the auditorium’s building
occupancy limit for fire safety). We want to be sure everyone has an opportunity to attend, so we will be holding
two community meetings back to back to accommodate anyone interested in the project. In order to meet the
venue’s fire safety requirements, we respectfully ask you to comply with the following:
If you live to the north of the proposed project site, please attend the first meeting from 5:30 -6:30.
If you live to the east or south of the proposed project, please attend the second meeting from 7:00-8:00.
If you do not know which group you fall into, please refer to the enclosed plan’s north arrow and vicinity map to
determine direction of you home in relation to the project site.
Please understand that the auditorium’s doors will be closed if we reach capacity. We recommend that homeowners’
associations and large common-interest groups appoint representatives to attend their respective meeting so those
people can get the information out to the larger community in the event we reach the venue’s fire safety capacity.
The subject tracts of land remain the same as the land you saw in the last meeting. That includes the + 51.39 acre
tract of land bordered by Old Market St., Tibbys Dr., and Shiraz Way and is further identified as New Hanover
County Parcels: R03700-001-002-000, R03700-001-006-000, R03700-001-007-000, R02900-004-009-000, R02900-
004-008-000, R02900-004-007-000, R03700-001-003-000, R02900-004-019-000, R02900-004-010-001, and R02900-
004-010-000
Since our last community meeting, we have submitted a conditional rezoning application to New Hanover County,
but we are continuing to work through questions and comments from the community before finalizing our proposed
conditional rezoning plan and setting the Planning Board meeting date.
Please reference the enclosed current conditional rezoning plan and join us on the 12th for a look at larger scale
plans. Our development team will be on hand to answer questions and discuss the project with neighbors.
Community members who live north of the proposed project site, please attend the first
meeting from 5:30-6:30.
Community members who live east or south of the proposed project site, please attend
the first meeting from 7:00-8:00.
When: November 12, 2019
Where: Hampstead Annex Building Auditorium
15060 US-17, Hampstead, NC 28443
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 25
122 CINEMA DRIVE
WILMINGTON, NC 28403
PH: (910) 791-6707
FAX: (910) 791 – 6760
October 31, 2019
RE: Second Community Meeting for:
Conditional Rezoning Request of The Oaks at Murray Farm – REVISED SITE PLAN
Paramounte Engineering, Inc. and Logan Developers, Inc. recently sent you an invitation to our second
community meeting. In that invitation mailing, you received a copy of the first community meeting plan for
reference. This mailing provides you a copy of the revised plan to be discussed at the November 12, 2019
community meeting at the Hampstead Annex’s Auditorium. We are providing you both plans in advance of
the meeting so you can see what has changed including reduction in units, saving the site’s stately trees and
stormwater adjustments. We also have included new park and open spaces areas all while adding additional
buffers from adjacent properties to the site. Please join us to hear full details on the 12th.
Just a reminder on meeting times:
Community members who live to the north or northeast of the proposed project site, please attend
the first meeting from 5:30-6:30.
Community members who live to the east/southeast, south, or west/southwest of the proposed
project, please attend the second meeting from 7:00-8:00.
When: November 12, 2019
Where: Hampstead Annex Building Auditorium
15060 US-17, Hampstead, NC 28443
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 26
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
2
7
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
2
8
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
2
9
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
3
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
3
1
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
3
2
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
3
3
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
3
4
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
3
5
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
3
6
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
3
7
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
3
8
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
3
9
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
4
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
4
1
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
4
2
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
4
3
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
4
4
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
4
5
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
4
6
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
4
7
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
4
8
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
4
9
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
5
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
5
1
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
5
2
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
5
3
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
5
4
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
5
5
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
5
6
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
5
7
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
5
8
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
5
9
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
6
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
6
1
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
6
2
WET
WET
W
E
T WET
W
E
T
WET
W
E
T
W
E
T
W
E
T
W
E
T
WET
WE
T
W
E
T
W
E
T
W
E
T
W
E
T
24 Unit Apt. Bldg.
8
9
10
11
IN
V
=
1
3
.
7
6
IN
V
=
1
4
.
5
5
3
6
"
C
M
P
IN
V
=
1
4
.
3
7
42" CM
P
S
H
O
T
S
A
R
O
U
N
D
P
I
P
E
S
H
O
T
S
O
N
R
O
A
D
O
V
E
R
P
I
P
E
C
R
O
S
S
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
E
V
E
R
Y
1
5
0
'
C
R
O
S
S
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
E
V
E
R
Y
1
5
0
'
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WW
WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FMFMFMFM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FMFMFMFM
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
FM
FM
FM
FM
F
M
FM
FM
FM
FMFMFMFM
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM
SS
S
S
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
I
N
V
=
1
5
.
2
3
36" CMP
XXXFOFOFOFO
7
3
4
5
2
1
24 Unit Apt. Bldg.24 Unit Apt. Bldg.24 Unit Apt. Bldg.
24 Unit Apt. Bldg.
24 Unit Apt. Bldg.24 Unit Apt. Bldg.
2
4
U
n
i
t
A
p
t
.
B
l
d
g
.
24 Unit Apt. Bldg.24 Unit Apt. Bldg.
2
4
U
n
i
t
A
p
t
.
B
l
d
g
.
24 Unit Apt. Bldg.
16
6
17
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
12
WET WET WET WETWETWETWETWETWETWET
WET
WE
T
WE
T
WETWETWET
WET
W
E
T
W
E
T
WET
WE
T
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSSSSSS
SS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSS
S
S
SSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SSSS
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
S
S
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
S
S
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWWWW
W W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWWWW W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W
W
W
W
WWW
W
W
W
W
W
W W W
W
20
'
15
'
DATE:
SCALE:
DESIGNED:
DRAWN:
CHECKED:
PE
I
J
O
B
#
:
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT:
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT:
FINAL DESIGN:
RELEASED FOR CONST:
PROJECT STATUS REVISIONS:
DRAWING INFORMATION
SE
A
L
CLIENT INFORMATION:
1" = 200'
10/10/2019
LP
-
1
19
3
0
5
.
P
E
LOGAN DEVELOPERS, INC.
60 GREGORY ROAD, SUITE 1
SITE DATATOTAL SITE ACREAGE: $&5(6PROPERTY PINS:R02900-004-007-000, R02900-004-0
0
8
-
0
0
0
,
R02900-004-019-000, R02900-004-0
0
9
-
0
0
0
,
R03700-001-007-000, R03700-001-0
0
6
-
0
0
0
,
R02900-004-010-000, R02900-004-0
1
0
-
0
0
1
,
R03700-001-003-000, R03700-001-0
0
2
-
0
0
0
EXISTING ZONING:R-15, R20PROPOSED ZONING:RMF-L* (RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAM
I
L
Y
L
O
W
-
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
)
EXISTING USE:SINGLE FAMILY, FARM, VACANTPROPOSED USE:SINGLE-FAMILY, DUPLEX, MULTI-F
A
M
I
L
Y
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION:COMMUNITY MIXED USE & GENER
A
L
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
RMF-L ALLOWABLE DENSITY:10 DU/AC (523 UNITS)PROJECT PROPOSED DENSITY:7.41 DU/AC (388 UNITS)PROPOSED UNITSTOTAL UNIT COUNT:388 UNITSSINGLE FAMILY LOTS:66 LOTS - 65' X 120' TYP. (65'x112'
M
I
N
.
)
DUPLEXES:34 UNITS (17) BUILDINGS APARTMENTS:288 UNITS (12) 24-UNIT BUILDINGSDIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTSSINGLE FAMILYMULTI-FAM
I
L
Y
PERIMETER SETBACK:20'20'FRONT SETBACK: 20'35'REAR SETBACK:15'25'SIDE SETBACK:5' INTERIOR20' I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
10' SIDE STREET30' S
I
D
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
BUILDING SEPARATION:SINGLE FAMILY:10'SINGLE FAM. & DUPLEX:20'OTHER DWELLINGS:20'MINIMUM LOT SIZE:N/AMAX. BLDG. HEIGHT:45' (3 STORIES)
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
$
&
45'
R
O
W
20
'
P
E
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
N
O
R
T
H
0SC
A
L
E
:
20
0
40
0
60
0
1"
=
2
0
0
'
fe
e
t
45
'
R
O
W
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
$
&
SI
N
G
L
E
-
F
A
M
I
L
Y
L
O
T
65
'
x
1
2
0
'
,
T
Y
P
.
(
6
5
'
x
1
1
2
'
M
I
N
.
)
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWERLINES TO BE RAISED ORBURIED; PENDING DUKE ENERGY COORDINATION
$
&
3
$
6
6
,
9
(
2
3
(
1
6
3
$
&
(
$
&
$
&
7
,
9
(
2
3
(
1
6
3
$
&
(
$
&
$
&
7
,
9
(
2
3
(
1
6
3
$
&
(
:
,
7
+
3
2
6
6
,
%
/
(
WA
L
K
I
N
G
T
R
A
I
L
/
O
P
E
N
P
L
A
Y
A
R
E
A
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
0
'
AC
C
E
S
S
&
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
24
U
N
I
T
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
(12
T
O
T
A
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
)
$&7,9(23(163$&(:,7+POOL AND POOL HOUSE
$
&
$
&
7
,
9
(
2
3
(
1
6
3
$
&
(
(
;
&
/
8
'
(
6
:
(
7
/
$
1
'
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
$
&
45' ROW
DU
P
L
E
X
,
T
Y
P
.
(1
7
T
O
T
A
L
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
)
WE
T
L
A
N
D
A
R
E
A
,
TY
P
.
24' SETBACK FOR BUILDINGS GREATER T
H
A
N
3
5
'
I
N
H
E
I
G
H
T
20' PERIMTER BUILDING SETBACK7-UNIT GARAGE, TYP.(7 TOTAL BUILDINGS)DIVIDED ENTRY DRIVETO PRESERVE EXISTINGOAK TREESEXISTING TREE, TYP.
GA
T
E
GA
T
E
GA
T
E
SU
R
V
E
Y
,
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
,
&
F
L
O
O
D
P
L
A
I
N
N
O
T
E
S
:
1.
RE
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
D
E
E
D
B
O
O
K
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
O
N
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
P
L
A
N
.
2.
UT
I
L
I
T
E
S
S
H
O
W
N
H
E
R
E
O
N
A
R
E
F
R
O
M
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
V
I
S
I
B
L
E
I
N
T
H
E
F
I
E
L
D
A
N
D
M
A
P
S
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S
.
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
O
T
H
E
R
T
H
A
N
W
H
A
T
A
R
E
S
H
O
W
N
M
A
Y
E
X
I
S
T
.
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
A
R
E
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
.
3.
DE
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
W
I
L
L
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
W
I
T
H
D
U
K
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
T
O
R
A
I
S
E
O
R
B
U
R
Y
L
O
W
P
O
W
E
R
L
I
N
E
S
AT
O
L
D
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
N
T
R
A
N
C
E
.
4.
WA
T
E
R
A
N
D
S
E
W
E
R
W
I
L
L
B
E
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
C
F
P
U
A
.
5.
SU
B
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
A
R
E
E
N
T
I
R
E
L
Y
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
W
I
T
H
I
N
A
"
Z
O
N
E
X
M
I
N
I
M
A
L
F
L
O
O
D
R
I
S
K
"
AR
E
A
A
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
F
L
O
O
D
I
N
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
R
A
T
E
M
A
P
N
O
.
3
7
2
0
3
2
6
0
0
0
K
,
P
A
N
E
L
N
O
.
3
2
6
0
W
I
T
H
AN
E
F
F
E
C
T
I
V
E
D
A
T
E
O
F
A
U
G
U
S
T
2
8
,
2
0
1
8
.
GA
T
E
N
O
T
E
S
:
1.
AL
L
G
A
T
E
S
W
I
L
L
B
E
E
M
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
B
Y
E
I
T
H
E
R
K
N
O
X
B
O
X
O
R
SI
R
E
N
A
C
T
I
V
A
T
I
O
N
.
SI
T
E
D
A
T
A
(
C
O
N
T
'
D
)
SI
T
E
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
:
1.
AL
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
W
I
L
L
B
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
D
A
N
D
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
D
U
K
E
EN
E
R
G
Y
.
2.
AL
L
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
O
N
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
,
D
U
P
L
E
X
,
A
N
D
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
W
I
L
L
B
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
A
N
D
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
B
U
I
L
D
E
R
.
3.
LI
G
H
T
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
S
T
B
D
.
EXISTING DRIVE ACCESS TO BEUPFITTED FOR PROJECTENTRANCE THIS LOCATION
SI
T
E
D
A
T
A
(
C
O
N
T
'
D
)
AP
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
:
SE
C
8
1
-
1
:
M
U
L
T
I
-
F
A
M
I
L
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
:
O
N
E
A
N
D
O
N
E
-
H
A
L
F
(
1
.
5
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
P
E
R
1
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
UN
I
T
A
N
D
T
W
O
(
2
.
0
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
P
E
R
2
+
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
U
N
I
T
S
.
PA
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
:
52
8
S
P
A
C
E
S
44
S
P
A
C
E
S
P
E
R
2
4
-
U
N
I
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
12
*
4
4
=
5
2
8
PA
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
:
53
9
S
P
A
C
E
S
(
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
A
D
A
A
N
D
G
A
R
A
G
E
S
P
A
C
E
S
)
AD
A
S
P
A
C
E
S
:
12
S
P
A
C
E
S
(
1
1
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
)
G
A
R
A
G
E
S
:
42
S
P
A
C
E
S
AM
E
N
I
T
Y
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
:
SE
C
8
1
-
1
:
C
L
U
B
S
,
P
U
B
L
I
C
,
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
U
S
E
S
:
O
N
E
(
1
)
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
F
O
R
EA
C
H
O
N
E
H
U
N
D
R
E
D
(
1
0
0
)
S
Q
U
A
R
E
F
E
E
T
O
F
G
R
O
S
S
F
L
O
O
R
S
P
A
C
E
.
AM
E
N
I
T
Y
C
L
U
B
/
P
O
O
L
H
O
U
S
E
:
4
0
0
S
F
PA
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
R
E
D
:
4
S
P
A
C
E
S
PA
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
:
4
S
P
A
C
E
S
(
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
A
D
A
S
P
A
C
E
S
-
S
H
A
R
E
D
W
I
T
H
AP
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
)
AD
A
S
P
A
C
E
S
:
1
S
P
A
C
E
OP
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
:
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
38
8
U
N
I
T
S
x
.
0
3
=
1
1
.
6
4
A
C
PA
S
S
I
V
E
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
5.
8
2
A
C
5.
8
3
A
C
AC
T
I
V
E
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
:
5.
8
2
A
C
5.
8
3
A
C
CO
U
N
T
Y
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
H
A
T
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
S
P
A
C
E
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
I
N
T
H
E
AM
O
U
N
T
O
F
0
.
0
3
A
C
R
E
S
P
E
R
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
U
N
I
T
.
5
0
%
O
F
T
H
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
S
P
A
C
E
SH
A
L
L
B
E
P
A
S
S
I
V
E
A
N
D
T
H
E
O
T
H
E
R
5
0
%
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
T
O
B
E
A
C
T
I
V
E
.
GR
A
V
I
T
Y
SE
W
E
R
M
H
(T
Y
P
.
)
FI
R
E
HY
D
R
A
N
T
(T
Y
P
.
)
8"WA
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
(T
Y
P
.
)
8" GRAVITYSEWER (TYP.)GRAVITYSEWER MH(TYP.)
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
WA
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
EXISTINGWATERMAIN VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALENORTH SITEHWY 17 PORTERS NECK ROADMARSH OAKSDRIVE MENDENHALLDRIVEEDGEWATER CLUB ROAD REISLING AVEWINERY WAY OLD MARKET ST TO FUTCH CREEK RDJOHN JAY BURNEY JR FWYSHIRAZ WAYPlanning Board - January 9, 2020ITEM: 1- 8 - 63
ST
A
K
S
MA
R
I
A
N
N
A
7
3
4
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
3
4
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
HE
N
S
H
A
W
JU
S
T
I
N
W TO
N
Y
A
A
8
4
0
9
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
0
9
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN WILMINGTON
LA
M
B
E
T
H
RO
B
E
R
T
L MA
R
Y
G
7
0
9
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
0
9
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
RO
W
A
N
RO
B
E
R
T
J
4
2
6
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
2
6
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
CO
V
I
L
EL
L
I
S
M JR
ET
A
L
3
0
5
EL
K
SU
M
M
I
T
DR
TO
D
D
,
NC
28
6
8
4
8
4
2
2
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
SA
N
F
O
R
D
UN
I
E
O
3
2
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
3
2
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
BA
T
T
S
RI
C
H
A
R
D
A ME
L
I
S
S
A
E
8
4
0
1
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
0
1
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN WILMINGTON
OL
O
N
E
DI
A
N
N
E
C
7
0
5
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
0
5
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
TO
D
D
JE
R
R
Y
W JR
LE
A
N
N
S
4
2
0
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
2
0
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
PI
N
S
O
N
MI
C
H
A
E
L
D SA
R
A
H
M
4
3
0
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
3
0
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
GR
E
I
N
E
R
FR
A
N
C
E
S
S
8
0
2
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
8
0
2
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
HA
R
R
I
S
O
N
RU
S
S
E
L
L
D SR
VE
R
D
A
L
E
D
2
0
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
2
0
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
SP
E
N
C
E
R
YV
O
N
N
E
D
5
0
8
TI
B
B
Y
'
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
5
0
8
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
FI
D
L
E
R
AN
D
R
E
W
F MA
R
Y
E
4
3
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
3
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
WE
A
V
E
R
RO
N
A
L
D
D KI
M
B
E
R
L
Y
J
7
2
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
2
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
BE
R
R
Y
CO
L
L
I
N
M SU
S
A
N
V
4
2
5
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LA
N
E
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
2
5
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
MR
O
Z
GR
E
G
O
R
Y
E RA
C
H
E
L
M
4
2
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
2
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
PO
P
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
ON
17
LL
C
PO
BO
X
40
1
4
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
6
8
3
3
0
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
VI
N
E
Y
A
R
D
PL
A
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
HO
A
PO
BO
X
12
0
5
1
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
7
3
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
PA
T
T
E
R
S
O
N
RO
N
A
L
D
JR
JE
N
N
I
F
E
R
4
1
6
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
1
6
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
CA
U
D
I
L
L
JE
R
E
M
Y
RU
S
S
E
L
L
JE
S
S
I
C
A
JO
1
2
1
8
BO
W
F
I
N
LN
UN
I
T
2
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
BE
A
C
H
,
NC
28
4
2
8
8
4
1
7
YE
A
R
L
I
N
G
LN WILMINGTON
GE
N
E
S
JO
S
H
U
A
K SA
M
A
N
T
H
A
S
4
5
3
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
5
3
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
LA
T
S
T
E
T
T
E
R
RO
B
E
R
T
AN
N
6
3
4
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
3
4
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
CU
S
H
E
N
B
E
R
R
Y
JA
M
E
S
AN
G
E
L
A
JA
N
E
Y
6
2
9
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
2
9
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
NE
C
H
E
S
WI
L
L
I
A
M
TR
U
S
T
PO
BO
X
10
8
7
1
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
4
4
2
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
MC
M
U
L
L
A
N
TH
E
R
E
S
E
M
1
1
0
4
7
SC
O
T
T
S
LA
N
D
I
N
G
RD
LA
U
R
E
L
,
MD
20
7
2
3
5
1
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
BA
R
N
H
I
L
L
ST
E
V
E
N
AM
Y
8
4
2
1
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
2
1
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN WILMINGTON
TH
O
M
A
S
BR
Y
A
N
C ET
A
L
1
4
2
5
AV
E
N
E
L
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
0
9
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
ON
A
T
E
JA
M
E
S
F LA
U
R
E
L
H
6
0
8
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
6
0
8
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
DO
L
L
A
R
DU
S
T
Y
L JI
L
L
K
6
2
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
2
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
FI
L
A
K
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
M CH
R
I
S
T
E
L
P
4
1
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
1
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
BL
T
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
LL
C
8
4
0
5
FR
E
E
S
T
O
N
E
AV
E
HE
N
R
I
C
O
,
VA
23
2
2
9
8
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
KN
I
T
T
E
L
PA
T
R
I
C
K
A BR
I
T
T
A
N
Y
E
7
1
3
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
1
3
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
BU
C
K
I
N
G
H
A
M
JA
M
E
S
JR
EL
I
Z
A
B
E
T
H
6
1
2
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
1
2
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
NE
S
T
E
R
DA
L
L
A
S
G LY
N
N
E
W
2
2
5
CR
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
EA
S
T
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
1
0
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
ZI
E
R
M
A
N
N
TH
O
M
A
S
R PA
T
R
I
C
I
A
M
7
2
5
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
2
5
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
SP
R
A
D
L
E
Y
SA
N
D
R
A
M ET
A
L
8
3
7
6
MA
R
K
E
T
ST
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
3
7
6
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
HA
L
L
ST
E
P
H
E
N
C JE
N
N
I
F
E
R
5
0
0
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
5
0
0
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
LE
W
I
S
CH
A
R
L
E
S
W E EL
I
Z
A
B
E
T
H
7
3
0
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
3
0
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
s
‐
Th
e
Oa
k
s
at
Mu
r
r
a
y
Fa
r
m
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
6
4
MA
R
G
U
C
C
I
O
DA
V
I
D
J WE
N
D
Y
E
6
0
6
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
0
6
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
HA
R
T
W
I
C
K
RO
B
E
R
T
W FA
R
A
N
A
K
A
A
6
1
8
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
1
8
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
CO
N
K
L
I
N
MA
R
C
U
S
R
4
0
6
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
0
6
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
MC
K
O
Y
HU
B
E
R
T
JE
R
O
M
E
AL
I
C
E
N
5
2
0
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
3
5
2
0
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
DE
E
N
MI
C
H
E
L
L
E
3
0
5
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
3
0
5
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
KI
T
C
H
E
N
CH
A
R
L
E
S
TA
B
I
T
H
A
A
8
4
0
2
YE
A
R
L
I
N
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
0
2
YE
A
R
L
I
N
G
LN WILMINGTON
US
S
E
R
Y
CH
A
R
L
E
S
D SR
SH
E
R
R
Y
W
3
2
5
BR
E
T
O
N
S
H
I
R
E
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
8
4
1
2
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
WH
A
L
E
Y
FA
M
I
L
Y
IR
R
E
V
O
C
A
B
L
E
AS
S
E
T
PR
O
T
62
5
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
2
5
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
OP
A
L
K
A
SC
O
T
T
CO
L
L
E
E
N
4
3
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
3
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
MA
R
T
I
N
DA
N
N
Y
C JR
AN
G
E
L
I
T
A
S
7
0
5
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
7
0
5
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
HA
L
A
C
KE
N
T
E AL
A
I
N
A
J KI
M
7
4
2
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
4
2
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
JA
M
E
S
EL
S
I
E
C IV
AM
Y
W
5
1
6
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
5
1
6
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
EL
K
I
N
TI
M
M
I
E
L CH
E
R
I
P
4
0
4
TI
B
B
Y
'
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
0
4
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
SH
A
W
DA
N
I
E
L
J
4
2
9
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
2
9
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
CO
V
I
L
EL
L
I
S
M LI
F
E
ES
T
ET
A
L
3
0
5
EL
K
SU
M
M
I
T
DR
TO
D
D
,
NC
28
6
8
4
8
4
2
2
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
RE
N
Y
E
KE
I
T
H
E HE
A
T
H
E
R
L
4
3
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
3
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
HA
R
T
Z
E
L
L
JO
S
H
U
A
KI
M
B
E
R
L
Y
JO
Y
7
1
5
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
2
7
1
5
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
RO
B
S
O
N
CH
E
L
S
E
A
B SI
M
O
N
D
4
2
8
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
4
2
8
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
MC
D
O
N
A
L
D
TA
M
M
Y
Y SE
A
N
V
6
3
7
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
3
7
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
ED
W
A
R
D
S
MI
C
H
A
E
L
DA
Y
M
A
5
1
2
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
5
1
2
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
FO
N
V
I
L
L
E
RI
C
H
I
E
D CA
T
H
L
E
E
N
A
L
8
4
1
8
YE
A
R
L
I
N
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
1
8
YE
A
R
L
I
N
G
LN WILMINGTON
BU
N
N
DE
R
E
K
W AN
G
E
L
A
8
4
0
7
RE
I
S
L
I
N
G
AV
E
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
0
7
RE
I
S
L
I
N
G
AVE WILMINGTON
HU
D
S
O
N
MI
C
H
A
E
L
L DE
A
N
N
A
H
7
0
6
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
0
6
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
LL
O
Y
D
MA
N
U
E
L
W HE
L
E
N
A
C
2
0
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
2
0
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
MU
R
R
A
Y
RO
B
E
R
T
C II
I
UL
R
I
K
E
H
8
3
1
3
SH
I
R
A
Z
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
8
3
1
3
SH
I
R
A
Z
WAY WILMINGTON
BA
S
S
JO
E
L
PE
R
C
Y
II
SA
N
D
R
A
C
5
1
1
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
5
1
1
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
CA
R
T
E
R
DI
A
N
E
H
3
1
3
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
3
1
3
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
LI
O
T
T
A
RA
Y
ET
A
L
7
2
9
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
2
9
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
PO
P
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
ON
17
LL
C
PO
BO
X
40
1
4
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
6
8
3
4
2
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
JO
H
N
S
O
N
KY
L
E
C AM
A
N
D
A
T
8
4
0
3
RE
I
S
L
I
N
G
AV
E
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
0
3
RE
I
S
L
I
N
G
AVE WILMINGTON
MO
R
G
A
N
KE
N
N
E
T
H
TE
R
E
S
A
5
0
7
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
5
0
7
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
HO
S
S
GR
E
G
G
E HE
I
D
I
HA
N
H
TH
I
6
0
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
0
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
PO
R
T
E
R
AL
T
O
N
G JO
A
N
A
7
1
9
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
7
1
9
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
CA
V
A
N
JO
H
N
JO
A
N
N
E
W
7
2
1
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
2
1
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
KU
P
E
R
U
S
RY
A
N
KE
L
L
I
O
4
2
6
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
2
6
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
RE
G
I
S
T
R
Y
AT
VI
N
E
Y
A
R
D
PL
A
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
HO
A
I
PO
BO
X
12
0
5
1
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
4
1
7
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
RE
E
V
E
S
CH
A
D
E PA
T
R
I
C
I
A
C
4
0
1
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
0
1
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
SN
E
E
D
E
N
DA
V
I
D
G ET
A
L
1
8
4
0
LI
V
E
OA
K
PK
W
Y
S
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
3
2
0
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
AL
T
M
A
N
SA
M
U
E
L
R
8
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
0
5
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
SP
R
A
D
L
E
Y
SA
N
D
R
A
M ET
A
L
8
3
7
6
MA
R
K
E
T
ST
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
3
8
0
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
GA
T
E
S
AN
D
R
E
W
P ST
A
C
E
Y
N
8
5
0
1
BI
S
O
N
CT
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
5
0
1
BI
S
O
N
CT WILMINGTON
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
6
5
RI
C
K
S
BA
R
B
A
R
A
ME
L
V
I
N
6
1
5
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
1
5
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
MA
R
L
O
W
E
RO
N
A
L
D
C
7
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
7
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
RO
S
S
I
RI
C
H
A
R
D
A AN
D
R
E
A
E
8
4
0
6
YE
A
R
L
I
N
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
0
6
YE
A
R
L
I
N
G
LN WILMINGTON
RE
G
I
S
T
R
Y
AT
VI
N
E
Y
A
R
D
PL
A
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
HO
A
3
3
0
1
BE
N
S
O
N
DR
SU
I
T
E
53
5
R
A
L
E
I
G
H
,
NC
27
6
1
9
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN WILMINGTON
CO
T
H
R
E
N
FA
M
I
L
Y
TR
U
S
T
3
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
3
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
DA
L
L
O
S
RA
N
D
A
L
L
P KR
I
S
T
I
N
M
8
4
2
5
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
2
5
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN WILMINGTON
CO
T
H
R
E
N
FA
M
I
L
Y
TR
U
S
T
3
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
2
2
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
GU
O
LI
A
N
H
O
N
G
L QI
N
G
N
A
N
YA
O
4
3
6
CL
O
V
E
R
D
A
L
E
DR
WE
X
F
O
R
D
,
PA
15
0
9
0
6
0
2
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
BA
S
T
I
A
N
JA
R
V
I
S
R CA
T
H
E
R
I
N
E
A
5
1
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
5
1
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
TU
R
N
E
R
CH
R
I
S
T
O
P
H
E
R
W JE
A
N
N
E
H
5
1
5
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
5
1
5
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
MI
C
H
A
E
L
S
O
N
MA
R
T
I
N
J AN
N
PO
BO
X
11
1
7
1
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
4
7
4
6
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
MC
C
A
R
T
H
Y
JO
N
A
T
H
A
N
ER
I
N
7
3
8
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
3
8
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
KA
R
A
M
BE
R
N
A
R
D
J EI
L
E
E
N
M
7
1
0
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
1
0
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
NU
N
A
L
E
E
WA
L
T
E
R
H II
AL
L
Y
N
S
6
0
4
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
0
4
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
SM
I
T
H
CR
A
I
G
AN
D
R
E
A
8
4
1
3
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
1
3
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN WILMINGTON
OG
D
E
N
VO
L
FI
R
E
DE
P
T
IN
C
ET
A
L
7
3
7
5
MA
R
K
E
T
ST
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
8
3
1
0
SH
I
R
A
Z
WAY WILMINGTON
SP
R
A
D
L
E
Y
SA
N
D
R
A
M ET
A
L
8
3
7
6
MA
R
K
E
T
ST
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
3
7
0
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
FO
R
C
I
N
I
T
O
DA
V
I
D
DA
N
A
5
2
3
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
5
2
3
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
NI
C
H
O
L
S
O
N
MA
T
T
H
E
W
S
4
1
0
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
1
0
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
DA
V
I
D
S
O
N
BR
I
A
N
CA
T
H
E
R
I
N
E
S
8
4
0
2
RE
I
S
L
I
N
G
AV
E
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
0
2
RE
I
S
L
I
N
G
AVE WILMINGTON
RE
A
D
Y
CH
R
I
S
T
I
N
E
ET
A
L
2
0
2
0
SC
R
I
M
S
H
A
W
PL
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
1
0
2
ED
G
E
W
A
T
E
R
CLUB RD WILMINGTON
HE
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
JO
H
N
A LA
U
R
E
N
2
1
6
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
2
1
6
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
KR
I
S
T
Y
JA
C
O
B
4
1
4
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
1
4
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
MU
R
R
A
Y
BE
N
G HE
I
R
S
9
2
2
5
PI
N
E
Y
WO
O
D
S
RD
WI
L
L
A
R
D
,
NC
28
4
7
8
8
3
7
0
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
WR
I
G
H
T
CH
R
I
S
T
O
P
H
E
R
L ME
L
I
S
S
A
D
7
1
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
1
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
WH
I
T
E
MA
J
O
R
LE
E
IV
6
0
5
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
0
5
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
LE
A
RO
B
E
R
T
GL
E
N
N
ET
A
L
5
1
9
MA
R
K
E
T
ST
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
1
8
3
2
0
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
CO
S
T
E
L
L
O
RO
N
A
L
D
J NO
R
A
A
6
0
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
0
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
HI
G
H
NI
C
K
O
L
A
U
S
M KR
I
S
T
Y
M
7
1
8
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
1
8
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
BO
W
D
I
T
C
H
BR
E
N
T
G SA
R
A
N
6
3
3
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
3
3
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
MA
N
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
AA
R
O
N
D AM
A
N
D
A
P
3
0
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
3
0
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
MA
D
E
J
MI
C
H
A
E
L
J SR
DY
L
A
H
S
4
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
TH
O
M
A
S
TA
D
L RE
B
E
C
C
A
J
5
0
1
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
5
0
1
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
HE
R
R
I
N
G
HE
R
M
O
N
GR
E
G
O
R
Y
4
1
2
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
1
2
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
GR
E
E
N
JA
M
E
S
A JR
VI
V
I
A
N
T
PO
BO
X
11
1
5
7
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
4
9
7
ED
G
E
W
A
T
E
R
CLUB RD WILMINGTON
BO
N
E
A
U
RO
B
E
R
T
W LA
U
R
A
K
8
4
1
0
YE
A
R
L
I
N
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
1
0
YE
A
R
L
I
N
G
LN WILMINGTON
DO
W
D
GR
E
G
O
R
Y
P JR
KA
R
Y
L
R
6
1
3
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
1
3
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
BR
I
G
G
S
PA
U
L
PA
T
R
I
C
I
A
7
0
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
0
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
JO
S
E
KR
I
S
T
O
P
H
E
R
M KR
I
S
T
I
N
A
3
0
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
3
0
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
SH
A
F
F
I
N
PR
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
LL
C
1
5
1
5
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
ST
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
1
2
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
MO
R
G
A
N
DA
V
I
D
P MI
C
H
E
L
L
E
S
6
3
0
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
3
0
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
6
6
AL
T
M
A
N
SA
M
U
E
L
R
8
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
MU
R
R
A
Y
RO
B
E
R
T
C JR
EM
M
A
Y TR
8
3
7
0
MA
R
K
E
T
ST
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
8
3
9
0
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
CO
B
L
E
RA
Y
MA
R
I
O
N
KW
A
N
G
HY
O
N
G
5
2
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
5
2
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
ON
U
F
R
O
C
K
KE
N
N
E
T
H
MA
R
I
A
4
1
8
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
1
8
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
EU
B
A
N
K
S
JA
M
E
S
R JO
A
N
C
7
1
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
1
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
FI
E
L
D
S
HA
R
R
Y
M LE
E
A
N
N
E
P
4
3
7
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
3
7
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
LO
N
G
RO
B
E
R
T
DE
V
I
T
T
2
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
2
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
LE
A
R GL
E
N
N
ET
A
L
PO
BO
X
40
1
4
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
6
2
0
3
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
TH
O
M
A
S
RO
N
A
L
D
D TR
A
C
Y
J
5
1
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
5
1
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
JA
G
U
T
I
S
JA
R
E
D
BR
O
N
W
Y
N
7
0
2
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
0
2
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
VI
N
E
Y
A
R
D
PL
A
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
HO
A
IN
C
PO
BO
X
12
0
5
1
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
6
4
2
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
ST
A
N
F
I
E
L
D
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
L KA
T
H
R
Y
N
C
7
1
4
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
1
4
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
VI
N
E
Y
A
R
D
PL
A
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
HO
A
IN
C
3
3
0
1
BE
N
S
O
N
DR
RA
L
E
I
G
H
,
NC
27
6
0
9
6
1
4
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
LO
E
H
R
GR
E
G
O
R
Y
B AM
A
N
D
A
E
4
4
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
4
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
AL
T
M
A
N
SA
M
U
E
L
R
8
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
2
5
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
TE
R
R
Y
AD
R
I
E
N
N
E
R
7
0
1
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
0
1
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
BE
C
K
W
I
T
H
RA
Y
M
O
N
D
J LA
U
R
E
N
4
5
4
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
5
4
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
US
S
E
R
Y
CH
A
R
L
E
S
D SR
SH
E
R
R
Y
W
3
2
5
BR
E
T
O
N
S
H
I
R
E
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
8
4
1
4
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
ED
W
A
R
D
S
RI
C
K
Y
N KA
R
E
N
8
4
0
6
MA
R
K
E
T
ST
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
8
4
0
6
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
KL
I
N
E
SC
O
T
T
A AM
Y
C
6
3
8
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
3
8
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
LO
N
G
MI
K
E
L
F KA
T
H
R
Y
N
P
8
3
5
6
MA
R
K
E
T
ST
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
8
3
5
6
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
GI
R
A
R
D
DE
N
N
I
S
J
4
2
4
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
4
2
4
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
BA
L
D
I
N
E
L
L
RI
C
H
A
R
D
JE
S
S
I
C
A
A
8
4
0
5
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
0
5
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN WILMINGTON
CO
N
N
E
R
TR
A
C
I
E
LA
N
C
E
6
1
0
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
1
0
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
DE
G
R
O
O
T
RA
C
H
E
L
LY
N
N
PO
BO
X
7
N
A
N
U
E
T
,
NY
10
9
5
4
4
0
8
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
SA
N
C
H
E
Z
CA
D
E
A AL
E
X
A
N
4
1
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
1
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
MI
K
L
O
U
C
I
C
H
FR
A
N
C
I
S
J JR
LI
N
D
S
A
Y
4
1
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
1
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
WO
O
D
S
BE
R
N
I
C
E
RO
G
E
R
2
9
9
HO
L
D
E
R
RD
BA
L
T
I
M
O
R
E
,
OH
43
1
0
5
5
2
4
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
NA
G
L
E
CH
R
I
S
T
O
P
H
E
R
M AN
G
E
L
A
PA
I
G
E
CO
R64
5
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
4
5
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
NG
U
Y
E
N
HA
I
D LO
A
N
P
4
4
6
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
4
6
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
CI
V
E
L
L
I
RI
C
H
A
R
D
V JE
N
N
I
F
E
R
L
8
4
1
4
YE
A
R
L
I
N
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
1
4
YE
A
R
L
I
N
G
LN WILMINGTON
CR
O
O
M
CH
R
I
S
T
O
P
H
E
R
B AM
Y
L
7
2
6
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
2
6
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
BO
Y
E
L
L
JO
S
E
P
H
J KA
T
H
L
E
E
N
A SM
Y
T
H
E
3
0
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
3
0
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
HU
F
H
A
M
FO
R
R
E
S
T
ME
L
I
S
S
A
8
4
2
9
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
2
9
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN WILMINGTON
OL
S
O
N
PE
T
E
R
RI
C
H
A
R
D
6
0
1
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
6
0
1
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
CO
V
I
L
EL
L
I
S
M LI
F
E
ES
T
ET
A
L
3
0
5
EL
K
SU
M
M
I
T
DR
TO
D
D
,
NC
28
6
8
4
8
4
2
2
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
GO
S
L
I
N
E
DE
N
N
I
S
YV
E
T
T
E
M
8
6
7
4
GR
A
Y
S
O
N
PA
R
K
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
2
1
3
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
LE
E
D
S
JO
N
A
T
H
A
N
P JE
N
N
I
F
E
R
E H
5
0
4
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
5
0
4
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
LO
N
G
JA
C
O
B
R BR
I
T
T
A
N
Y
4
0
2
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
0
2
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
BA
U
C
O
M
KE
V
I
N
E DE
B
R
A
P
6
4
1
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
4
1
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
RE
A
L
SO
U
N
D
VE
N
T
U
R
E
S
LL
C
2
3
1
7
LY
N
N
W
O
O
D
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
3
7
1
3
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
6
7
PO
O
R
E
LE
E
L
2
1
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
2
1
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
MU
I
R
GA
R
Y
S AM
I
E
E
L
4
2
2
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
2
2
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
HI
A
T
T
RO
B
E
R
T
C ET
A
L
8
4
1
7
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
1
7
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN WILMINGTON
WA
S
S
E
R
B
E
R
G
MA
R
T
I
N
J ET
H
E
L
D
8
4
0
6
RE
I
S
L
I
N
G
AV
E
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
0
6
RE
I
S
L
I
N
G
AVE WILMINGTON
DE
LA
RO
S
A
DA
V
I
D
YA
C
K
E
L
I
N
E
M
4
3
3
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
3
3
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
WO
O
D
WI
L
L
I
A
M
MA
R
Y
7
3
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
3
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
FO
Y
AN
T
O
N
I
A
M LI
F
E
ES
T
4
2
1
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
2
1
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
LE
T
T
S
PA
U
L
J TR
A
C
Y
B
3
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
3
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
MA
N
N
JA
S
O
N
D ER
I
N
E
8
0
9
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
0
9
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
DE
M
A
R
C
O
TE
R
E
S
A
M RA
N
D
Y
7
2
2
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
2
2
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
CA
R
R
DA
N
I
E
L
C SH
E
N
A
N
J
1
4
6
1
FI
N
A
L
LA
N
D
I
N
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
2
6
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
FI
C
K
E
N
RO
L
F
H LO
R
I
A
6
2
2
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
2
2
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
GA
T
W
O
O
D
EL
D
E
N
JO
H
N
5
1
9
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
5
1
9
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
GR
E
E
N
CH
R
I
S
T
A
B
E
L
L
1
0
1
ED
G
E
W
A
T
E
R
CL
U
B
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
1
0
1
ED
G
E
W
A
T
E
R
CLUB RD WILMINGTON
HE
S
S
E
N
I
U
S
JA
Y
S BR
A
N
D
I
7
0
6
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
0
6
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
MA
K
O
KO
U
R
T
N
E
Y
C
7
3
3
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
3
3
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
WA
R
R
E
N
JO
H
N
D
5
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
5
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
JO
N
E
S
AP
R
I
L
B
4
0
5
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
0
5
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
NE
S
T
E
R
DA
L
L
A
S
LY
N
N
E
W
2
2
5
CR
E
E
K
S
I
D
E
EA
S
T
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
0
8
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
TY
L
E
R
ST
E
P
H
E
N
A DO
R
O
T
H
Y
J
8
0
4
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
8
0
4
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
FO
Y
AN
T
O
N
I
A
M LI
F
E
ES
T
4
2
1
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
3
6
2
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
BI
S
S
E
L
I
N
K
FR
A
N
K
HB
M
JE
A
N
M
8
4
3
3
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
3
3
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
LN WILMINGTON
CH
A
M
P
MC
D
‐DA
V
I
S
FO
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
PO
BO
X
12
6
8
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
2
1
0
1
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
HO
L
T
RE
A
L
ES
T
A
T
E
EN
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E
S
IN
C
PO
BO
X
53
1
5
7
F
A
Y
E
T
T
E
V
I
L
L
E
,
NC
28
3
0
5
8
3
1
2
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
MA
R
L
I
N
G
JA
M
E
S
B ET
A
L
7
2
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
2
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
LO
N
G
MI
K
E
L
F KA
T
H
R
Y
N
P
8
3
5
0
MA
R
K
E
T
ST
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
3
5
0
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
WH
E
L
D
O
N
CH
A
R
L
E
S
R
7
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
CO
L
E
N
D
A
BE
N
J
A
M
I
N
E HE
A
T
H
E
R
A
8
1
3
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NE
C
K
RD
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
1
3
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
BL
A
C
H
E
R
RY
A
N
D JE
S
S
I
C
A
C
6
2
6
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
2
6
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
PO
P
E
PR
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
ON
17
LL
C
PO
BO
X
40
1
4
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
6
8
3
1
8
MA
R
K
E
T
ST WILMINGTON
ZH
A
O
YA
N
CH
O
N
G
HU
A
LI
N
4
0
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
0
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
MI
L
L
I
K
E
N
GA
I
L
J GE
O
R
G
E
W
4
4
7
3
AM
E
L
I
A
CT
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
5
6
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
BO
U
G
H
T
O
N
RI
C
H
A
R
D
R JR
JE
N
N
I
F
E
R
6
1
6
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
1
6
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
PO
P
E
JE
R
R
Y
W
4
0
0
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
0
0
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
DE
X
T
E
R
ST
A
C
Y
P PA
T
R
I
C
I
A
L
5
0
8
SH
U
N
E
Y
ST
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
9
4
0
1
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
SA
N
T
A
N
I
E
L
L
O
AM
A
T
O
EL
A
I
N
E
M
4
0
9
LA
D
Y
BU
G
LN
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
4
0
9
LA
D
Y
BUG LN WILMINGTON
BL
T
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
LL
C
8
4
0
5
FR
E
E
S
T
O
N
E
AV
E
HE
N
R
I
C
O
,
VA
23
2
2
9
8
1
7
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
SO
R
E
N
S
E
N
SH
A
U
N
1
7
SL
O
O
P
ST
SW
A
N
S
B
O
R
O
,
NC
28
5
8
4
3
0
9
PO
R
T
E
R
S
NECK RD WILMINGTON
AE
I
N
MA
R
G
A
R
E
T
7
1
7
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
1
7
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
CR
U
M
R
I
N
E
KE
V
I
N
T CH
R
I
S
T
I
N
A
B
6
2
1
WI
N
E
R
Y
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
2
1
WI
N
E
R
Y
WAY WILMINGTON
AD
A
M
S
AN
D
R
E
W
D JO
D
I
N
7
1
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
1
4
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
6
8
HO
L
L
I
M
A
N
GR
E
G
O
R
Y
C RE
G
I
N
A
T
7
3
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
7
3
8
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
WA
G
N
E
R
TR
A
C
Y
L
2
2
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
2
2
2
0
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
ME
S
S
I
N
E
O
MI
C
H
A
E
L
CI
N
D
E
E
6
1
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
6
1
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
WA
D
E
S TR
U
S
T
NU
M
B
E
R
TW
O
2
6
1
6
HI
B
E
R
N
I
A
ST
DA
L
L
A
S
,
TX
75
2
0
4
6
0
0
TI
B
B
Y
S
DR WILMINGTON
PE
R
D
U
E
MI
C
H
A
E
L
W KA
Y
O
K
O
M
8
4
1
0
RE
I
S
L
I
N
G
AV
E
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
8
4
1
0
RE
I
S
L
I
N
G
AVE WILMINGTON
RA
Y
M
E
R
ME
L
I
S
S
A
E
3
1
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WA
Y
WI
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
1
1
3
1
2
CH
A
B
L
I
S
WAY WILMINGTON
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
8
-
6
9
1 2 2 C I N E M A D R I V E W I L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3
P H : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 0 7 F A X : ( 9 1 0 ) 7 9 1 - 6 7 6 0
The Oaks at Murray Farm
Stormwater Supplemental Information
As part of the Oaks at Murry Farm project, and any other project in the county, the applicant
understands the sensitivity and importance in both controlling the stormwater runoff from our
site and maintaining the existing drainage patterns from our adjacent properties. To that end,
we have performed the necessary on the ground surveying, investigation, soil testing, wetland
delineation and meeting with landowners that live in this area to determine the most
advantageous design to meet the points stated above. The applicant by its own accord is
placing a condition on the site of controlling the runoff from the 10 inch – 24-hour storm
(which is the 100 yr storm as defined by the New Hanover County Storm Water Design
Manual), which is significantly greater than the County required 8.05 inch – 24-hour storm
(which is the 25-yr event as defined by the New Hanover County Storm Water Design
Manual). In addition, the current drainage ditch (creek) that flows through this property will
not be filled in or cut off any existing drainage. The creek will only be piped minimally for
the road crossing required for the site.
The stormwater will be controlled by a combination of wet detention ponds in the middle of
the site and an infiltration basin on the eastern property line near Shiraz Way. The infiltration
basin was chosen in that location based on the soils test performed by a registered soil
scientist, his test yielded an infiltration rate that measured over 20 inches/hr which deems it a
perfect site for infiltration (preliminary calculations have been run utilizing a 10 in/hr
infiltration rate to remain conservative). As part of this infiltration device, strict specifications
will be provided during the construction phase to maintain the natural soil parameters, ie, to
not disturb the baseline soils which can cause such devices to not function in the manner
intended. An operations and maintenance agreement will also be required to ensure continual
maintenance after construction. The applicant in other developments has built such devices
and has the experience and construction expertise to have such facilities function as intended.
During downstream outfall analysis, it was determined that there are some existing residential
properties that have low elevations on their property without a true outfall. With this in mind
the preliminary site plan has been adjusted to account for the stormwater management
discharging to the three well defined outfall ditches (the two ditches through the middle of the
property and the roadside swale along Porters Neck Rd). The existing runoff from the
proposed development property to these low areas will effectively be reduced as the built-
upon area from the development will be collected and conveyed to the stormwater control
measures where it will be treated and over detained to meet the aforementioned requirements.
For the downstream outfalls, the design team will analyze and coordinate
information/findings with New Hanover County Engineering during the permitting process.
However, with placing the 100 yr storm condition on the site, the downstream features will
not be affected adversely by the construction of this site.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 9 - 1
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 9 - 2
PROPOSED
SITE PLAN
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 10 - 1
16 Unit Apt. Bldg.24 Unit Apt. Bldg.16 Unit Apt. Bldg.12 Unit Apt.Bldg 16 Unit Apt. Bldg.16 Unit Apt. Bldg.
16
U
n
i
t
A
p
t
.
B
l
d
g
.
30 Unit Apt.Bldg
8
9
10
11
7
3
4
5
2
16
6
17
13
14
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
12
WET
WETW
E
T
WET
WET
WET
W
E
T
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSS
SS
SSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
S
S
SSSS
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
S
S
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
S
S
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWWWW
W W
WWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WWWWWWW W WWWWW
WWW
W
W
W
W
W
W W W
W W W
1
S
S
S
S
SS
SS
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW16 Unit Apt. Bldg.24 Unit Apt. Bldg.24 Unit Apt. Bldg.
24
U
n
i
t
A
p
t
.
B
l
d
g
.
2
4
U
n
i
t
A
p
t
.
B
l
d
g
.
OAK 18OAK 24 OAK 16 GUM 40SYC 30 OAK 24OAK 30OAK 24 OAK 48 OAK 30OAK 30 OAK 25 GUM 24PEC 35GUM 30GUM 30 OAK 36OAK 48 OAK 24 OAK 60OAK 35 OAK 35 OAK 18OAK 20OAK 20OAK 18OAK 18OAK 15OAK 20 PEC 24MAG 15 OAK 54 OAK 60OAK 48OAK 72OAK 17GUM 17OAK 24OAK 15OAK 15OAK 24OAK 24OAK 36OAK 16,16
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WW
WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FMFMFMFM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FMFMFMFM
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FMFMFMFM
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
XXXFOFOFOFOWWWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W
20
'
25
'
25
'
DATE:
SCALE:
DESIGNED:
DRAWN:
CHECKED:
PE
I
J
O
B
#
:
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT:
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT:
FINAL DESIGN:
RELEASED FOR CONST:
PROJECT STATUS
REVISIONS:
DRAWING INFORMATION
SE
A
L
CLIENT INFORMATION:
REV. 2 REVISION REFLECTING ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY COMMENTS
REV. 1: REVISED TO PER COMMUNITY MEETING INPUT
1" = 200'
10/10/2019
LP
-
1
19
3
0
5
.
P
E
11/18/19
12/16/19
LOGAN DEVELOPERS, INC.
60 GREGORY ROAD, SUITE 1
SITE DATATOTAL SITE ACREAGE: $&5(6PROPERTY PINS:R02900-004-007-000, R02900-004-0
0
8
-
0
0
0
,
R02900-004-019-000, R02900-004-0
0
9
-
0
0
0
,
R03700-001-007-000, R03700-001-0
0
6
-
0
0
0
,
R02900-004-010-000, R02900-004-0
1
0
-
0
0
1
,
R03700-001-003-000, R03700-001-0
0
2
-
0
0
0
EXISTING ZONING:R-15, R20PROPOSED ZONING:RMF-L* (RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAM
I
L
Y
L
O
W
-
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
)
EXISTING USE:SINGLE FAMILY, FARM, VACANTPROPOSED USE:SINGLE-FAMILY, DUPLEX, MULTI-F
A
M
I
L
Y
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION:COMMUNITY MIXED USE & GENER
A
L
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
RMF-L ALLOWABLE DENSITY:10 DU/AC (523 UNITS)PROJECT PROPOSED DENSITY:6.18 DU/AC (324 UNITS)PROPOSED UNITSTOTAL UNIT COUNT:324 UNITSSINGLE FAMILY LOTS:62 LOTS - 65' X 120' TYP.DUPLEXES:34 UNITS (17) BUILDINGS APARTMENTS:228 UNITS (12) BUILDINGSDIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTSSINGLE FAMILYMULTI-FAM
I
L
Y
PERIMETER SETBACK:20'20'FRONT SETBACK: 20'35'REAR SETBACK:15'25'SIDE SETBACK:5' INTERIOR20' I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
10' SIDE STREET30' S
I
D
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
BUILDING SEPARATION:SINGLE FAMILY:10'SINGLE FAM. & DUPLEX:20'OTHER DWELLINGS:20'MINIMUM LOT SIZE:N/AMAX. BLDG. HEIGHT:45' (3 STORIES)
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
IN
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
B
A
S
I
N
$
&
45'
R
O
W
20
'
P
E
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
/
V
E
G
E
T
A
T
I
V
E
B
U
F
F
E
R
N
O
R
T
H
0SC
A
L
E
:
20
0
40
0
60
0
1"
=
2
0
0
'
fe
e
t
45
'
R
O
W
VE
G
E
T
A
T
E
D
BU
F
F
E
R
/
OP
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
SI
N
G
L
E
-
F
A
M
I
L
Y
L
O
T
65
'
x
1
2
0
'
,
T
Y
P
.
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWERLINES TO BE RAISED ORBURIED; PENDING DUKE ENERGY COORDINATION
$
&
3
$
6
6
,
9
(
2
3
(
1
6
3
$
&
(
$
&
$
&
7
,
9
(
2
3
(
1
6
3
$
&
(
1
(
,
*
+
%
2
5
+
2
2
'
3
$
5
.
$
&
$
&
7
,
9
(
2
3
(
1
6
3
$
&
(
(
;
&
/
8
'
,
1
*
:
(
7
/
$
1
'
6
:
,
7
+
PO
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
A
M
E
N
I
T
I
E
S
T
O
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
:
T
R
A
I
L
,
O
P
E
N
P
L
A
Y
A
R
E
A
,
DO
G
P
A
R
K
,
C
L
U
B
H
O
U
S
E
&
P
O
O
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
2
0
'
A
C
C
E
S
S
&
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
2 S
T
O
R
Y
,
1
6
U
N
I
T
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
,
T
Y
P
.
(6
T
O
T
A
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
)
$&7,9(23(163$&(:,7+27+(5AMENITIES POSSIBLE INCLUDING: COURTYARD,CLUBHOUSE & POOL, DOG PARK, ANDASSOCIATED AMENITIES
45' ROW
DU
P
L
E
X
,
T
Y
P
.
(1
7
T
O
T
A
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
M
A
X
.
)
WE
T
L
A
N
D
A
R
E
A
,
TY
P
.
24
'
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
F
O
R
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
GR
E
A
T
E
R
T
H
A
N
3
5
'
I
N
H
E
I
G
H
T
20
'
P
E
R
I
M
T
E
R
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
7-UNIT GARAGE, TYP.(7 TOTAL BUILDINGS)PRESERVE EXISTING LARGE TREES,INTEGRATE IN OPEN SPACEEXISTING TREE, TYP.
GA
T
E
-
S
E
E
NO
T
E
S
T
H
I
S
SH
E
E
T
SU
R
V
E
Y
,
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
,
&
F
L
O
O
D
P
L
A
I
N
N
O
T
E
S
:
1.
RE
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
D
E
E
D
B
O
O
K
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
O
N
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
P
L
A
N
.
2.
UT
I
L
I
T
E
S
S
H
O
W
N
H
E
R
E
O
N
A
R
E
F
R
O
M
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
V
I
S
I
B
L
E
I
N
T
H
E
F
I
E
L
D
A
N
D
M
A
P
S
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S
.
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
O
T
H
E
R
T
H
A
N
W
H
A
T
A
R
E
S
H
O
W
N
M
A
Y
E
X
I
S
T
.
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
A
R
E
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
.
3.
DE
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
W
I
L
L
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
W
I
T
H
D
U
K
E
E
N
E
R
G
Y
T
O
R
A
I
S
E
O
R
B
U
R
Y
L
O
W
P
O
W
E
R
L
I
N
E
S
AT
O
L
D
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
N
T
R
A
N
C
E
.
4.
WA
T
E
R
A
N
D
S
E
W
E
R
W
I
L
L
B
E
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
Y
C
F
P
U
A
.
5.
SU
B
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
A
R
E
E
N
T
I
R
E
L
Y
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
W
I
T
H
I
N
A
"
Z
O
N
E
X
M
I
N
I
M
A
L
F
L
O
O
D
R
I
S
K
"
AR
E
A
A
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
F
L
O
O
D
I
N
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
R
A
T
E
M
A
P
N
O
.
3
7
2
0
3
2
6
0
0
0
K
,
P
A
N
E
L
N
O
.
3
2
6
0
W
I
T
H
AN
E
F
F
E
C
T
I
V
E
D
A
T
E
O
F
A
U
G
U
S
T
2
8
,
2
0
1
8
.
GA
T
E
N
O
T
E
S
:
1.
AL
L
G
A
T
E
S
W
I
L
L
B
E
E
M
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
B
Y
E
I
T
H
E
R
K
N
O
X
B
O
X
O
R
SI
R
E
N
A
C
T
I
V
A
T
I
O
N
O
R
O
T
H
E
R
A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D
M
E
T
H
O
D
.
SI
T
E
D
A
T
A
(
C
O
N
T
'
D
)
SI
T
E
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
:
1.
AL
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
W
I
L
L
B
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
D
A
N
D
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
D
U
K
E
EN
E
R
G
Y
.
2.
AL
L
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
O
N
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
,
D
U
P
L
E
X
,
A
N
D
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
W
I
L
L
B
E
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
A
N
D
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
B
Y
B
U
I
L
D
E
R
.
3.
LI
G
H
T
F
I
X
T
U
R
E
S
T
B
D
.
EXISTING DRIVE ACCESS TO BEUPFITTED FOR PROJECTENTRANCE THIS LOCATION
SI
T
E
D
A
T
A
(
C
O
N
T
'
D
)
AP
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
:
SE
C
8
1
-
1
:
M
U
L
T
I
-
F
A
M
I
L
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
:
O
N
E
A
N
D
O
N
E
-
H
A
L
F
(
1
.
5
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
P
E
R
1
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
UN
I
T
A
N
D
T
W
O
(
2
.
0
)
S
P
A
C
E
S
P
E
R
2
+
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
U
N
I
T
S
.
PA
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
:
42
2
S
P
A
C
E
S
44
S
P
A
C
E
S
P
E
R
2
4
-
U
N
I
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
5*
4
4
=
2
2
0
30
S
P
A
C
E
S
P
E
R
1
6
U
N
I
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
6*
3
0
=
1
8
0
2
2
S
P
A
C
E
S
P
E
R
1
2
U
N
I
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1*
2
2
=
2
2
PA
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
:
42
2
S
P
A
C
E
S
(
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
A
D
A
A
N
D
G
A
R
A
G
E
S
P
A
C
E
S
)
SU
R
F
A
C
E
S
P
A
C
E
S
:
35
9
A
D
A
S
P
A
C
E
S
:
12
S
P
A
C
E
S
(
1
2
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
)
G
A
R
A
G
E
S
:
63
S
P
A
C
E
S
AM
E
N
I
T
Y
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
:
SE
C
8
1
-
1
:
C
L
U
B
S
,
P
U
B
L
I
C
,
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
U
S
E
S
:
O
N
E
(
1
)
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
F
O
R
EA
C
H
O
N
E
H
U
N
D
R
E
D
(
1
0
0
)
S
Q
U
A
R
E
F
E
E
T
O
F
G
R
O
S
S
F
L
O
O
R
S
P
A
C
E
.
AM
E
N
I
T
Y
C
L
U
B
/
P
O
O
L
H
O
U
S
E
:
4
0
0
S
F
PA
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
R
E
D
:
4
S
P
A
C
E
S
PA
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
:
8
S
P
A
C
E
S
(
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
A
D
A
S
P
A
C
E
S
-
S
H
A
R
E
D
W
I
T
H
AP
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
S
)
AD
A
S
P
A
C
E
S
:
1
S
P
A
C
E
DE
D
I
C
A
T
E
D
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
:
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
32
4
U
N
I
T
S
x
.
0
3
=
9.
7
2
A
C
11
.
7
8
A
C
(
D
E
D
I
C
A
T
E
D
)
PA
S
S
I
V
E
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
4.
8
6
A
C
5.
8
9
A
C
M
I
N
.
AC
T
I
V
E
O
P
E
N
S
P
A
C
E
:
4.
8
6
A
C
5.
8
9
A
C
MI
N
.
CO
U
N
T
Y
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
H
A
T
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
S
P
A
C
E
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
I
N
T
H
E
AM
O
U
N
T
O
F
0
.
0
3
A
C
R
E
S
P
E
R
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
U
N
I
T
.
5
0
%
O
F
T
H
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
S
P
A
C
E
SH
A
L
L
B
E
P
A
S
S
I
V
E
A
N
D
T
H
E
O
T
H
E
R
5
0
%
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
T
O
B
E
A
C
T
I
V
E
.
GR
A
V
I
T
Y
SE
W
E
R
M
H
(T
Y
P
.
)
FI
R
E
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
(
T
Y
P
.
)
8"
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
(
T
Y
P
.
)
8" GRA
V
I
T
Y
SEWE
R
(
T
Y
P
.
)
GR
A
V
I
T
Y
S
E
W
E
R
M
H
(T
Y
P
.
)
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
WA
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
EXISTINGWATERMAIN VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALENORTH SITEHWY 17 PORTERS NECK ROADMARSH OAKSDRIVE MENDENHALLDRIVEEDGEWATER CLUB ROAD REISLING AVEWINERY WAY OLD MARKET ST TO FUTCH CREEK RDJOHN JAY BURNEY JR FWYSHIRAZ WAY
GA
T
E
F
O
R
E
M
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
O
N
L
Y
;
DE
S
I
G
N
A
N
D
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
T
O
B
E
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
D
A
S
NE
E
D
E
D
W
I
T
H
;
T
Y
P
I
C
A
L
F
O
R
A
L
L
G
A
T
E
S
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
NE
I
G
H
B
O
R
H
O
O
D
P
A
R
K
/
CE
N
T
R
A
L
G
R
E
E
N
$
&
GA
T
E
-
S
E
E
NO
T
E
S
T
H
I
S
SH
E
E
T
20
'
P
E
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
/
VE
G
E
T
A
T
I
V
E
B
U
F
F
E
R
20
'
P
E
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
VE
G
E
T
A
T
E
D
B
U
F
F
E
R
BE
H
I
N
D
D
U
P
L
E
X
E
S
3 STORY, 24 UNITAPARTMENT BUILDING, TYP.(5 TOTAL BUILDING)3 STORY, 12 UNITAPARTMENT BUILDING, TYP.(1 TOTAL BUILDING)POSSIBLE LEASING OFFICE/CLUBHOUSE AMENITIESPlanning Board - January 9, 2020ITEM: 1- 11 - 1
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 2
OPPOSITION
MATERIALS
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 12 - 1
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 12 - 2
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 1
Receiving Waters Pages Creek
•SA/HQW (High Quality Waters/recreational uses)
•Listed on EPA 303(d) list
•Impaired from high levels of bacteria pathogen
•Enterococci = Bacteria Pathogens
•Prohibited shellfish harvesting area
Red-Closed
Pink-Cond Closed
Blue-Cond Open
** SA HQW designation from NC DWR Website, 303(d) list from US EPA website, shellfish info from NC DMF.Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 2
Benefits in controlling or limiting impervious
surfaces (Low density development)
•Protection of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems
•Improved water quality of receiving waterebodies
•Conservation of water resources
•Protection of public health
•Flood control
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 3
Potential Env. Results of Increased Density
•Increased impervious surface results in increased run off carrying
pollutants
•Increased run off carries more polluntants down gradient
•Increased density will result in more wet retention ponds thereby
increasing discharge of pollutants down stream. Wet detention ponds
ineffective for hydrocarbon (oil, gas, tire wear), fertilizer (nitrogen
phosphorous), fecal coliform (bacteria pathogens)
•Increased density will drive additional wetland impacts over lower
density (wetlands are natural filters present on this tract). A lower
density project can avoid on-site wetland impacts.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 4
Environmental Summary
•Despite water quality permitting since the early 70s within this drainage
area, the resultant effect is poor water quality within Pages Creek
•By allowing higher than currently zoned density the approving body is
further risking Pages Creek water quality
•Citizens of New Hanover seek out natural resources most notably water
based recreation and by changing zoning to allow for more density the
approving body places those very resources in greater jeopardy
•There are no guarantees low density will not have an affect to receiving
waters but logic tells you by increasing density you unnecessarily risk the
very natural resources that has attracted many to this region
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 5
Ab
o
u
t
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
L
e
g
e
n
d
Co
n
t
e
n
t
s
He
l
p
.
Tr
u
s
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
.
Le
g
a
l
.
Co
n
t
a
c
t
E
s
r
i
.
Re
p
o
r
t
A
b
u
s
e
.
Co
n
t
a
c
t
U
s
To
t
a
l
C
r
a
s
h
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
B
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
-
20
1
4
-
2
0
1
8
To
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
Ne
w
H
a
n
o
v
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
D
O
T
,
E
s
ri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, EPA, USDA
+−0
5
0
1
0
0
f
t
To
t
a
l
C
r
a
s
h
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
B
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
_
2
0
1
4
_
2
0
1
8
_
0
2
1
5
1
9
To
t
a
l
C
r
a
s
h
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
40
t
o
4
9
To
t
a
l
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
47
.
0
0
Fa
t
a
l
_
A
_
I
n
j
u
r
y
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
0.
0
0
B_
C
_
I
n
j
u
r
y
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
13
.
0
0
PD
O
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
34
.
0
0
Co
u
n
t
y
NE
W
H
A
N
O
V
E
R
Ro
u
t
e
A
US
1
7
Ro
u
t
e
B
SR
1
3
5
1
LR
S
R
o
u
t
e
20
,
0
0
0
,
0
1
7
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
LR
S
M
i
l
e
p
o
s
t
15
.
3
8
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
i
l
e
p
o
s
t
e
d
-
S
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
o
n
m
a
p
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
E
r
r
o
r
NO
E
R
R
O
R
Zo
o
m
t
o
De
t
a
i
l
s
Ba
s
e
m
a
p
Sh
a
r
e
Pr
i
n
t
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Fi
n
d
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
o
r
p
l
a
c
e
To
t
a
l
C
r
a
s
h
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
B
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Modify Map
Ho
m
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
1
3
-
6
Ab
o
u
t
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
L
e
g
e
n
d
Co
n
t
e
n
t
s
He
l
p
.
Tr
u
s
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
.
Le
g
a
l
.
Co
n
t
a
c
t
E
s
r
i
.
Re
p
o
r
t
A
b
u
s
e
.
Co
n
t
a
c
t
U
s
To
t
a
l
C
r
a
s
h
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
B
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
-
20
1
4
-
2
0
1
8
To
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
Ne
w
H
a
n
o
v
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
D
O
T
,
E
s
ri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, EPA, USDA
+−0
5
0
1
0
0
f
t
To
t
a
l
C
r
a
s
h
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
B
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
_
2
0
1
4
_
2
0
1
8
_
0
2
1
5
1
9
To
t
a
l
C
r
a
s
h
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
50
a
n
d
a
b
o
v
e
To
t
a
l
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
10
4
.
0
0
Fa
t
a
l
_
A
_
I
n
j
u
r
y
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
1.
0
0
B_
C
_
I
n
j
u
r
y
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
17
.
0
0
PD
O
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
86
.
0
0
Co
u
n
t
y
NE
W
H
A
N
O
V
E
R
Ro
u
t
e
A
US
1
7
Ro
u
t
e
B
SR
1
4
0
2
LR
S
R
o
u
t
e
20
,
0
0
0
,
0
1
7
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
LR
S
M
i
l
e
p
o
s
t
14
.
4
3
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
i
l
e
p
o
s
t
e
d
-
S
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
o
n
m
a
p
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
E
r
r
o
r
NO
E
R
R
O
R
Zo
o
m
t
o
De
t
a
i
l
s
Ba
s
e
m
a
p
Sh
a
r
e
Pr
i
n
t
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Fi
n
d
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
o
r
p
l
a
c
e
To
t
a
l
C
r
a
s
h
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
B
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Modify Map
Ho
m
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
1
3
-
7
Traffic Calming Assessment
Vineyard Plantation
New Hanover County, NC
Final
October 2019
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 8
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1- 13 - 9
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Executive Summary
iii Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1
Findings ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction……………. ............................................................................................................................ 5
Project Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Scope Of The Report .................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Data Collection and Summary ............................................................................................................... 9
Description of Traffic Calming Measures ............................................................................................. 11
Recommended Traffic Calming Measures and Placement .................................................................. 17
References…………. ............................................................................................................................... 19
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 10
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Executive Summary
iv Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. Data Collection Locations ........................................................................................................ 7
Figure 3. Portable Trailer-Mounted Radar Speed Display (Reference 2) ............................................ 12
Figure 4. Typical Parabolic Cross Section for Speed Hump (Reference 2) ........................................... 13
Figure 5. Recommended Speed Hump Placement .............................................................................. 14
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 11
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Executive Summary
v Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Speed and Volume Data ...................................................................................... 9
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 12
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Executive Summary
vi Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
APPENDICES
Appendix A Speed and Volume Data
Appendix B MUTCD Speed Hump Signage and Pavement Markings
Appendix C NCDOT Comments and Responses
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 13
Section 1
Executive Summary
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 14
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Executive Summary
1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document summarizes vehicle speed and volume data and provides traffic calming
recommendations for neighborhood roadways within the Vineyard Plantation community in New
Hanover County, North Carolina, at the request of the homeowners association and Premier
Management Company. The study area roadways are currently maintained by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT)—accordingly, this study was performed per scoping discussions
with NCDOT Division 3 staff and per NCDOT Division 3 Guidelines for Traffic Calming Devices (Reference
1).
The results of this study indicate 85th-percentile speeds on some neighborhood roadways are currently
in excess of the posted speed limit and are documented along with recommendations below.
FINDINGS
Riesling Avenue
▪ An average of 1,344 vehicles traveled the roadway during the seven -day study period from
May 11 through May 17, 2018.
▪ The 85th-percentile speed was calculated at 32 miles per hour (mph), more than 5 mph
above the posted speed limit.
▪ Approximately 4.4 percent of vehicles exceeded the posted speed limit by at least 10 mph.
Chablis Way east of Bella Sera Way
▪ An average of 412 vehicles traveled the roadway during the seven-day study period from
May 11 through May 17, 2018.
▪ The 85th-percentile speed was calculated at 29 mph, and the posted speed limit is 25 mph.
▪ Less than one percent of vehicles exceeded the posted speed limit by at least 10 mph.
Chablis Way west of Jadewood Drive
▪ An average of 424 vehicles traveled the roadway during the seven-day study period from
May 11 through May 17, 2018.
▪ The 85th-percentile speed was calculated at 24 mph, and the posted speed limit is 25 mph.
▪ Less than one percent of vehicles exceeded the posted speed limit by at least 10 mph.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 15
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Executive Summary
2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Winery Way
▪ An average of 512 vehicles traveled the roadway during the seven-day study period from
May 11 through May 17, 2018.
▪ The 85th-percentile speed was calculated at 29 mph, and the posted speed limit is 25 mph.
▪ Approximately 2.5 percent of vehicles exceeded the posted speed limit by at least 10 mph.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Riesling Avenue
▪ Install raised speed humps at up to three locations along the roadway.
▪ Work with local police authorities to increase speed enforcement targeting vehicles
traveling in excess of 5-10 mph of the posted speed limit.
▪ Consider the use of portable electronic speed feedback signs to make drivers aware of their
speeds.
▪ Consider the use of speed cameras to identify and fine residents who speed. Tickets or fines
would not be enforceable to non-residents.
▪ Pending NCDOT requirements, consider converting the Riesling Avenue/Chablis Way
intersection to all-way stop control to help deter cut-through traffic.
Chablis Way east of Bella Sera Way
▪ Consider the use of portable electronic speed feedback signs to make drivers aware of their
speeds.
▪ Pending NCDOT requirements, consider converting the Chablis Way/Bella Sera Way
intersection to all-way stop control to help deter cut-through traffic.
Chablis Way west of Jadewood Drive
▪ No treatments are recommended, as the measured 85th-percentile speed is less than the
posted speed.
Winery Way
▪ Work with local police authorities to increase speed enforcement targeting vehicles
traveling in excess of 5-10 mph of the posted speed limit.
▪ Consider the use of portable electronic speed feedback signs to make drivers aware of their
speeds.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 16
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Executive Summary
3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
▪ Consider the use of speed cameras to identify and fine residents who speed. Tickets or fines
would not be enforceable to non-residents.
▪ Pending NCDOT requirements, consider converting the Winery Way/Peppermint Drive
intersection to all-way stop control to help deter cut-through traffic.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 17
Section 2
Introduction
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 18
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Introduction
5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residents of the Vineyard Plantation neighborhood in New Hanover County, North Carolina have
identified speeding on several neighborhood roadways that has created a potential safety and traffic
noise issue. This document was prepared for the neighborhood homeowners association (HOA) and
Premier Management Company in response to these concerns. Figure 1 displays the site vicinity map.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) staff visited the project area on May 8, 2018 and met with
representatives from the HOA and Premier Management Company. Existing roadway widths, pavement
markings, signage, parking, and traffic conditions were confirmed during this field visit. Additionally,
HOA representatives identified areas with prior speeding issues and assisted with identifying locations
for tube data collection (explained in more detail in the next section).
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map
SCOPE OF THE REPORT
The scope of this report was developed in accordance with NCDOT guidance and per discussions with
NCDOT Division 3 staff at a formal scoping meeting held on August 15, 2019. Traffic speed and volume
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 19
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Introduction
6 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
data were collected at the following locations within the Vineyard Plantation neighborhood at the
direction of the HOA:
▪ Riesling Avenue
▪ Chablis Way east of Bella Sera Way
▪ Chablis Way west of Jadewood Drive
▪ Winery Way
These roadways serve approximately 90 homes within Vineyard Plantation and are also used by
residents outside Vineyard Plantation to access the homes between Jadewood Drive and Futch Creek
Road. Additionally, the HOA identified Riesling Avenue as a popular shortcut between Futch Creek Road
and Porters Neck Road as an alternative to the longer Champ Davis Road. The cross section of each of
these roadways consists of two 10-foot lanes with no curbs, bicycle lanes/paths, or sidewalks.
The exact placement of the tube data collection locations along these roadways is displayed in Figure 2.
This report is organized as follows:
▪ Data collection and summary
▪ Description of traffic calming measures
▪ Recommended traffic calming measures and placement
▪ Conclusion
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 20
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
1
3
-
2
1
Section 3
Data Collection and Summary
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 22
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Data Collection and Summary
9 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
DATA COLLECTION AND SUMMARY
Traffic speed and volume data were collected at the study locations for the seven-day period from May
11 through May 17, 2018. Table 1 summarizes the speed and volume data, including the following
elements:
▪ Posted speed limit: the posted speed limit is 25 mph throughout the study area.
▪ 85th-percentile speed: this is the speed at which 85 percent of vehicles travel at or below
and is typically used as a rule-of-thumb for setting posted speed limits.
▪ Percent of speeds above 35 mph: vehicles traveling at 10 mph or more above the posted
speed limit.
▪ Average daily traffic: the average number of vehicles per day over the seven-day data
collection period.
Table 1. Summary of Speed and Volume Data
Location Posted Speed Limit 85th-percentile Speed Percent of Speeds
above 35 mph Average Daily Traffic
Riesling Avenue 25 mph 32 mph 4.4 1,344
Chablis Way east of Bella Sera Way 25 mph 29 mph <0.1 412
Chablis Way west of Jadewood Drive 25 mph 24 mph 0.1 424
Winery Way 25 mph 29 mph 2.5 512
For purposes of this study, two events were used to identify a potential speeding issue:
▪ An 85th-percentile speed at least 5 mph above the posted speed limit, or
▪ A considerable amount of speeds at least 10 mph above the posted speed limit.
As shown in Table 1, the 85th-percentile speeds at all locations are within 5 mph of the posted speed
limit, with the exception of Riesling Avenue, where the 85th-percentile speed is 32 mph. Less than one
percent of speeds at the Chablis Way locations were more than 10 mph above the posted speed limit,
while 4.4 percent of speeds on Riesling Avenue and 2.5 percent of speeds on Winery Way were more
than 10 mph above the posted speed limit. In summary, the speeds on Riesling Avenue indicate a
speeding issue, and the speeds along Winery Way indicate a possible speeding issue. The speed data
collected at the two count locations along Chablis Way do not indicate a speeding issue.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 23
Section 4
Description of Traffic Calming Measures
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 24
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Description of Traffic Calming Measures
11 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
A variety of treatments were considered to reduce speeds on these roadways:
▪ Centerline and/or edge line pavement markings
▪ Radar speed displays
▪ Increased speed enforcement
▪ Speed humps
▪ Other traffic calming devices, including street closures, neighborhood traffic circles,
chicanes, chokers, speed tables, raised intersections, and center island narrowing.
These treatments are described in the following sections. Much of the information on these treatments
is derived from Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE - Reference 2).
Pavement Markings
Edge lines can be used to visually narrow the roadway, even if the pavement width is unchanged.
Additionally, a double-yellow centerline can be used in place of a single yellow centerline to narrow the
effective lane width. While lane delineation has been shown to reduce single-vehicle crashes, speed
reduction results are mixed—this is because drivers are potentially as equally likely to increase their
speed with the added perception of safety given by lane delineation as they are to decrease their speed
because of the more narrow lane width. We recommend referring to the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) for all pavement marking implementation (Reference 3).
Pavement markings come in a range of costs varying from $0.50 to $2.00 per linear foot, with the more
durable and retroreflective markings having a higher initial cost. While pavement markings on low-
volume roadways like the subject roadways typically have a longer lifespan, the need to restripe every
five to ten years makes this strategy potentially more expensive than other traffic calming measures.
Because of the relatively high cost and low potential to decrease speeds, this treatment is not
recommended.
Radar Speed Displays
The use of radar speed displays or “feedback” signage is a metho d to remind drivers that they are
speeding and encourage compliance with the posted speed limit. These displays are typically mounted
on a portable trailer equipped with radar speed detection and can be rotated to different roadways
within the neighborhood (Figure 3). They can also be permanently installed on sign posts.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 25
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Description of Traffic Calming Measures
12 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Figure 3. Portable Trailer-Mounted Radar Speed Display (Reference 2)
Radar speed displays can be relatively inexpensive compared to other more permanent traffic calming
measures, especially if the community already owns a trailer or other mounting device. While radar
speed displays have been shown to decrease speeds while in place, their residual effect after being
removed is negligible. The HOA should consider placing feedback signs on the study area roadways in
combination with other traffic calming measures.
Speed Enforcement
Vineyard Plantation is under New Hanover County jurisdiction, but the size of the County and the
relatively low traffic volume on the neighborhood roadways could make it challenging for public safety
officials to enforce speeds on neighborhood roadways.
Another option is for the HOA to take legal steps to potentially implement photo speed enforcement
that would issue fines to violators. Like radar speed displays, photo speed enforcement units are
typically portable to increase effectiveness and mitigate vandalism. Research has shown this strategy to
be effective at reducing speeds both on enforced roadways and adjacent unenforced roadways due to
the “halo” effect, whereby drivers change their behavior. Because of the high expense to deploy and
operate a photo speed enforcement system, as well as the need to combat legal challenges, this
strategy is usually only cost-effective on high-volume roadways where fees help offset maintenance
expenses. Additionally, while the HOA could fine their own residents, it is unlikely the HOA could
successfully fine visiting or “cut-through” drivers. If speeding issues on the study roadways persist, then
we recommend the HOA explore the use of photo speed enforcement within the neighborhood.
Speed Humps
One of the most widely-used traffic calming measures, engineered speed humps are typically designed
to be 12 to 14 feet in length, three to four inches in height, spaced at 300 to 600 feet apart, and
comfortably negotiable at an 85th-percentile speed of 15 to 20 mph, per NCDOT guidelines
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 26
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Description of Traffic Calming Measures
13 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
(Reference 1). It has become more common in practice to limit speed humps to 3.5 inches because
taller speed bumps increase the probability of damage to the vehicle suspension. The 12-foot length
guarantees that a passenger vehicle cannot straddle the hump, thereby reducing the likelihood of
bottoming out. The advantage of this treatment is its low cost—typically $500 to $1,000 per location—
and self-enforcing design. Unlike speed bumps, which are more abrupt and are falling out of use, speed
humps do not damage vehicle alignment or suspensions, nor do they cause much discomfort when
negotiated at a proper speed.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has produced a recommended practice for the design of
the 12-foot speed hump (currently the only traffic calming device with a universally-accepted set of
guidelines), and this is consistent with County regulations (References 3 and 4, respectively). Typically,
speed humps feature a parabolic cross section (Figure 4) and are spaced 600 to 800 feet apart,
depending on the area. Speed humps are more often applied as a “network-wide” measure to control
speeds and less so in isolated situations.
Figure 4. Typical Parabolic Cross Section for Speed Hump (Reference 2)
One potential disadvantage of speed humps is their permanence and the expense of removal if
problems arise. Another critical consideration is that speed hump placement must be sensitive to areas
such as driveways, fire hydrants, utilities, and drainage systems (in particular, near intersections). Most
importantly, speed humps should be designed, signed, and marked so that they do not become a safety
hazard—the MUTCD contains guidance for signing and marking speed humps (Reference 3). Figure 5
shows a concept layout for the potential placement of the speed humps (with consideration to spacing,
driveways, intersections, and area context) on Riesling Avenue, where the highest 85th-percentile
speeds were observed1. A total of three speed humps is recommended, spaced evenly (approximately
every 300 feet) along Riesling Avenue between Chablis Way and Futch Creek Road. Speed humps
should be appropriately signed and marked per the MUTCD—this guidance is contained in Appendix B.
Additionally, NCDOT requires speed humps be placed at least 200 feet from intersections.
1 Note that this is purely a conceptual layout and is not intended to be used for design. The placement of each speed
hump should be carefully considered individually to avoid the sensitive areas mentioned above.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 27
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
1
-
1
3
-
2
8
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Description of Traffic Calming Measures
15 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Other Traffic Calming Devices
NCDOT Division 3 provides guidance on a number of other potential traffic calming devices, including
street closures, neighborhood traffic circles, chicanes, chokers, speed tables, raised intersections, and
center island narrowing. Each of these options were explored as potential solutions, but none are
recommended for the study area roadways.
Additional Traffic Control Devices
Currently all of the intersections along the study area roadways are two -way stop controlled. While
conversion to all-way stop control is not on the list of traffic calming measures suggested by ITE or
NCDOT Division 3 guidelines, the HOA has requested consideration of this treatment as a method to
deter cut-through traffic, including at the following intersections:
▪ Riesling Avenue/Chablis Way
▪ Chablis Way/Bella Sera Way
▪ Winery Way/Peppermint Drive
Note the MUTCD explicitly states that all-way stop signs should not be used for speed control but that it
can be an applicable form of traffic control for two residential neighborhood collector streets of similar
design and operating characteristics where traffic operations would be better than two-way stop
control (Reference 3). From an examination of the tube count data summarized in this report, changing
these intersections to all-way stop control is expected to cause minimal delays on the currently
uncontrolled approaches.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 29
Section 5
Recommended Traffic Calming Measures and Placement
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 30
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
Recommended Traffic Calming Measures and Placement
17 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES AND
PLACEMENT
Riesling Avenue
▪ Install raised speed humps at up to three locations along the roadway.
▪ Work with local police authorities to increase speed enforcement targeting vehicles
traveling in excess of 5-10 mph of the posted speed limit.
▪ Consider the use of portable electronic speed feedback signs to make drivers aware of their
speeds.
▪ Consider the use of speed cameras to identify and fine residents who speed. Tickets or fines
would not be enforceable to non-residents.
▪ Pending NCDOT requirements, consider converting the Riesling Avenue/Chablis Way
intersection to all-way stop control to help deter cut-through traffic.
Chablis Way east of Bella Sera Way
▪ Consider the use of portable electronic speed feedback signs to make drivers aware of their
speeds.
▪ Pending NCDOT requirements, consider converting the Chablis Way/Bella Sera Way
intersection to all-way stop control to help deter cut-through traffic.
Chablis Way west of Jadewood Drive
▪ No treatments are recommended, as the measured 85th-percentile speed is less than the
posted speed.
Winery Way
▪ Work with local police authorities to increase speed enforcement targeting vehicles
traveling in excess of 5-10 mph of the posted speed limit.
▪ Consider the use of portable electronic speed feedback signs to make drivers aware of their
speeds.
▪ Consider the use of speed cameras to identify and fine residents who speed. Tickets or fines
would not be enforceable to non-residents.
▪ Pending NCDOT requirements, consider converting the Winery Way/Peppermint Drive
intersection to all-way stop control to help deter cut-through traffic.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 31
Section 6
References
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 32
Vineyard Plantation Traffic Calming Assessment October 2019
References
19 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
REFERENCES
1. NCDOT Division 3. Guidelines for Traffic Calming Devices. 2016.
2. Ewing, R. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers:
Washington, DC, 1999.
3. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways. USDOT: McLean, VA, 2009.
4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps
and Speed Tables. Institute of Transportation Engineers: Washington, DC, 2011.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 33
This petition has collected
1265 signatures
using the online tools at ipetitions.com
Printed on 2019-11-25
Page 1 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 34
Protect Porter's Neck
About this petition
A large developer is proposing a large development in Porters Neck, NC on a 51 acre parcel. It will
require a rezoning hearing to change from the existing R15/R20 (which has been a large family
owned farm since 1904) to mixed/multi use.
The developer's proposal on this small parcel includes 300+ apartments in several three story
buildings, 125+ duplexes and 50+ single family homes. Their proposed lots would be small, even by
Wilmington standards.
The neighbors of Porters Neck, and New Hanover/Pender counties vehemently object to this
proposal based on the environmental and traffic impacts. Additionally, the newest local elementary
school is currently over 100% capacity in its second year.
The developer held a community informational meeting on Oct. 1, 2019, as is required prior to
application for rezoning with the planning board and County Commissioners. This meeting was
attended by over 550 people in red shirts voicing their objections. The developer was not prepared
for the crowd, and provided poor answers to the community's concerns. Despite this large turnout,
and objection, the developer is still applying for the proposal without significant changes to their plan.
Let your county planning board, and elected officials with the County Commissioners, know we do
not want, and our area cannot survive this high density development!
Join us, and voice your objection, by signing this petition standing up to this poorly planned
development.
Page 2 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 35
Signatures
1. Name: Trevor Matthes on 2019-10-09 01:59:56
Comments:
2. Name: MaryScott Wilson on 2019-10-09 02:03:30
Comments:
3. Name: Melissa Matthes on 2019-10-09 02:04:43
Comments:
4. Name: Keith Renye on 2019-10-09 02:06:23
Comments: This proposed development will severely impact the environment, waterways,
family safety, road conditions, traffic flow, and so much more to an already congested
area.
5. Name: Jennifer Cox on 2019-10-09 02:08:45
Comments:
6. Name: Kellie Garrabrant on 2019-10-09 02:10:00
Comments:
7. Name: Nick High on 2019-10-09 02:10:03
Comments: This development is a terrible idea for our already congested area of town.
ReZoning this property is bad for everyone.
8. Name: Kate Hiatt on 2019-10-09 02:11:38
Comments:
9. Name: Sarah Shay on 2019-10-09 02:14:20
Comments:
10. Name: Steven Barnhill on 2019-10-09 02:14:23
Comments: I oppose this development due to the apartments included.
11. Name: Joshua Genes on 2019-10-09 02:14:50
Comments: We just do not want the apartments.
12. Name: Kenneth Wilson on 2019-10-09 02:16:52
Comments:
13. Name: Nickolaus Mitchell High on 2019-10-09 02:17:50
Comments:
Page 3 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 36
14. Name: Amy Barnhill on 2019-10-09 02:19:03
Comments:
15. Name: Angi Israel on 2019-10-09 02:19:17
Comments:
16. Name: Kristin Dallos on 2019-10-09 02:19:58
Comments:
17. Name: Dustin Daniels on 2019-10-09 02:21:13
Comments:
18. Name: Cathy Bouchard on 2019-10-09 02:21:59
Comments:
19. Name: Gary Hinson on 2019-10-09 02:22:46
Comments:
20. Name: Deanna Hudson on 2019-10-09 02:24:49
Comments: The Porters Neck area cannot handle the 1000+ cars that would be added
with this type of proposed development. It would cause major issues with traffic not to
mention adding to the already overcrowded schools in this district. This is too much for
only 51 acres of land and I strongly oppose the apartment buildings.
21. Name: Stephanie Ellis on 2019-10-09 02:26:37
Comments:
22. Name: Bronwyn Jagutis on 2019-10-09 02:28:11
Comments:
23. Name: Jennifer Crumpler on 2019-10-09 02:28:31
Comments:
24. Name: Monica mccaskill on 2019-10-09 02:29:49
Comments:
25. Name: Jodi Adams on 2019-10-09 02:30:25
Comments:
26. Name: Paige Nagle on 2019-10-09 02:31:33
Comments:
Page 4 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 37
27. Name: Martin Wasserberg on 2019-10-09 02:33:38
Comments:
28. Name: Tiffany on 2019-10-09 02:34:54
Comments:
29. Name: Joanne Cavan on 2019-10-09 02:36:07
Comments:
30. Name: Ashley on 2019-10-09 02:38:24
Comments:
31. Name: Patrick Knittel on 2019-10-09 02:40:32
Comments:
32. Name: Darren Smith on 2019-10-09 02:42:17
Comments:
33. Name: Ethel Wasserberg on 2019-10-09 02:51:00
Comments:
34. Name: Felicia on 2019-10-09 02:52:13
Comments:
35. Name: Misti Smith on 2019-10-09 03:08:32
Comments:
36. Name: Betsy Buckingham on 2019-10-09 03:16:30
Comments:
37. Name: Heather Sheehan on 2019-10-09 03:16:43
Comments: Born and raised here, there is not enough traffic equipment in place for a
development.
38. Name: Jared Jagutis on 2019-10-09 04:03:56
Comments:
39. Name: Brandi Hessenius on 2019-10-09 07:40:58
Comments:
40. Name: Frank Bisselink on 2019-10-09 08:33:11
Page 5 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 38
Comments:
41. Name: Julie Crow on 2019-10-09 09:03:18
Comments:
42. Name: Khari on 2019-10-09 09:52:02
Comments:
43. Name: Tanya Edwards on 2019-10-09 09:59:44
Comments:
44. Name: Carey on 2019-10-09 10:00:14
Comments: Porters Neck used to be quiet, full of nature and safe. Now it is being
overdeveloped just like the rest of Wilmington. Developers putting $ in the pockets while
people suffer with overcrowded resources and unsafe conditions.
45. Name: Caroline Pearson on 2019-10-09 10:04:51
Comments:
46. Name: Marylou Tooley on 2019-10-09 10:09:19
Comments: Stop building!
47. Name: Ashley McKibbin on 2019-10-09 10:11:53
Comments:
48. Name: Kevin Crumrine on 2019-10-09 10:16:20
Comments:
49. Name: Andy Adams on 2019-10-09 10:22:09
Comments:
50. Name: Robert Hiatt on 2019-10-09 10:24:01
Comments:
51. Name: Carrie Dixon on 2019-10-09 10:24:15
Comments:
52. Name: Pamela Stambaugh on 2019-10-09 10:26:31
Comments:
53. Name: Kelly McLemore on 2019-10-09 10:40:44
Comments:
Page 6 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 39
54. Name: Wendi sullivan on 2019-10-09 10:43:15
Comments:
55. Name: Christy crumrine on 2019-10-09 10:45:27
Comments:
56. Name: Stephanie Gould on 2019-10-09 11:01:36
Comments:
57. Name: Deborah Beasley on 2019-10-09 11:09:10
Comments:
58. Name: Soren Lonneberg on 2019-10-09 11:09:48
Comments:
59. Name: Shawn W McGrath on 2019-10-09 11:14:53
Comments:
60. Name: Robert Parker on 2019-10-09 11:17:51
Comments:
61. Name: Shena Carr on 2019-10-09 11:19:19
Comments: Porters neck can’t handle the amount of traffic and population this
development would introduce
We vote No
62. Name: Lori ficken on 2019-10-09 11:19:58
Comments: This area of Porters Neck is not designed to handle the additional
traffic/storm flooding that will result if this project is approved.
63. Name: Eileen Regan on 2019-10-09 11:20:34
Comments:
64. Name: Beverly Conant on 2019-10-09 11:21:16
Comments:
65. Name: Tandi Lehocky on 2019-10-09 11:22:22
Comments:
66. Name: Julie Jadick on 2019-10-09 11:24:29
Comments:
Page 7 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 40
67. Name: Gregory Loehr on 2019-10-09 11:24:33
Comments:
68. Name: Jeff Hiatt on 2019-10-09 11:27:13
Comments: Don’t destroy Porters Neck neighborhoods by over building more apartment
complexes. !!!!
69. Name: Victoria tucker on 2019-10-09 11:27:13
Comments: While I realize I live in a growing city and growth and change is inevitable, I
am opposed to this development. Growth is great for local economy and the city, but the
city needs to put the infrastructure in first, then develop it. The traffic will not be able to
accommodate it. We will have more flooding.
70. Name: Beth Locke on 2019-10-09 11:31:40
Comments:
71. Name: Jeremy Locke on 2019-10-09 11:32:33
Comments:
72. Name: Jessica Blacher on 2019-10-09 11:32:51
Comments:
73. Name: Mary Sanza on 2019-10-09 11:40:00
Comments: I am concerned about the apartments and the impact it will have on my
house's property value and surrounding traffic.
74. Name: Heidi Zeppelin on 2019-10-09 11:40:09
Comments:
75. Name: Nikki Smith on 2019-10-09 11:43:51
Comments:
76. Name: Renn Carroll on 2019-10-09 11:44:35
Comments:
77. Name: Ellen Maselli on 2019-10-09 11:46:11
Comments:
78. Name: Laura Boneau on 2019-10-09 11:47:28
Comments:
Page 8 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 41
79. Name: Laura Boneau on 2019-10-09 11:47:28
Comments:
80. Name: David Fialk on 2019-10-09 11:48:04
Comments:
81. Name: Jamie Stern on 2019-10-09 11:49:01
Comments: Anything denser than single family should be denied. Need to compel
multiple access points to Porters Neck Road. Need to also pursue connecting point to
Market Street as well.
82. Name: Janet Rodrick on 2019-10-09 11:50:23
Comments: Quality of life is the biggest issues , air quality, water availability, etc etc
Taking more trees down and crowding people in an area like this is a terrible idea!
83. Name: Janet cronemiller on 2019-10-09 11:52:32
Comments:
84. Name: Peter Sanza on 2019-10-09 11:52:33
Comments: I am against rezoning. The increased local flooding as evidenced by
Hurricane Florence is still fresh in my mind. Traffic around the PN Rd circle in the morning
and afternoon on school days is already ridiculous.
85. Name: Jaime Lang on 2019-10-09 11:53:41
Comments: No more building places for people to live without the first building the proper
infrastructure to support it. (Schools, roads, drainage, etc)
86. Name: Nate roy on 2019-10-09 11:54:18
Comments:
87. Name: Brittni adkins on 2019-10-09 11:54:34
Comments:
88. Name: Kathryn Stanfield on 2019-10-09 11:56:01
Comments:
89. Name: Camden breeden on 2019-10-09 11:57:22
Comments:
90. Name: Michael Adkins on 2019-10-09 11:57:25
Comments:
91. Name: Ani Leonard on 2019-10-09 11:58:12
Page 9 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 42
Comments:
92. Name: Michelle Shaffer on 2019-10-09 11:58:19
Comments: Do not allow more development off Porter’s Neck Rd., especially multi-use!
Too much traffic already!
93. Name: Mariah Baltezegar on 2019-10-09 11:58:52
Comments:
94. Name: Holly Stevens on 2019-10-09 11:59:57
Comments:
95. Name: Marie Stacks on 2019-10-09 12:00:32
Comments:
96. Name: Joseph Stevens on 2019-10-09 12:02:21
Comments:
97. Name: Cate on 2019-10-09 12:02:22
Comments:
98. Name: Cindi Moore on 2019-10-09 12:04:28
Comments: This unchecked overdevelopment has to stop.
99. Name: Tippin Harkins on 2019-10-09 12:04:34
Comments: Please preserve what little land we have left!
100. Name: Lisa Cookson on 2019-10-09 12:05:09
Comments:
101. Name: Robyn on 2019-10-09 12:05:43
Comments:
102. Name: Nadine Flint on 2019-10-09 12:07:04
Comments: Let’s keep our community safe! Traffic is already horrible on Porters Neck
and Market Street. Think about the impact on our schools!!
103. Name: Linda Woods on 2019-10-09 12:07:13
Comments: We need single story duplexes for retired people but definitely no more
apartments!
104. Name: Kay Howard on 2019-10-09 12:07:35
Page 10 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 43
Comments:
105. Name: Penny Jones on 2019-10-09 12:08:53
Comments: We are beginning so over built. The infrastructure here can't handle the
growth by the developer's. The environmental impact from ripping up the trees is
unbelievable.
106. Name: Brenda Rock on 2019-10-09 12:10:18
Comments: Public safety should be primary concern of County Commissioners.
107. Name: Kay Howard on 2019-10-09 12:10:42
Comments:
108. Name: Pat Gallaher on 2019-10-09 12:12:31
Comments:
109. Name: Alison Caplanson on 2019-10-09 12:14:02
Comments:
110. Name: Anna Allegretto on 2019-10-09 12:14:53
Comments: Protect Porters Neck; the area cannot support 14 apartment buildings.
111. Name: Stephanie Dickerson on 2019-10-09 12:15:02
Comments:
112. Name: Barbara VanLenten on 2019-10-09 12:19:02
Comments: A very big no
113. Name: Jo Parker on 2019-10-09 12:19:23
Comments:
114. Name: Barbara McNinch on 2019-10-09 12:20:21
Comments:
115. Name: Catt Larson on 2019-10-09 12:20:22
Comments:
116. Name: Megan OBryan on 2019-10-09 12:21:18
Comments:
117. Name: Stephanie Jackson on 2019-10-09 12:21:24
Comments:
Page 11 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 44
118. Name: Donna Baker on 2019-10-09 12:21:34
Comments: I live off of porters neck rd and this would be a major impact to this area with
more traffic etc... No problem in developing it but not with all the is purposed . Just too
many structures in such a small area ! We would need more lights too ! The traffic around
the circle is dangerous too ! Planning for all this in Wilmington was not done well !
119. Name: Sarah Wheaton on 2019-10-09 12:21:52
Comments:
120. Name: Carole Merkerson on 2019-10-09 12:21:58
Comments: Just how many car washes and apartments can you put in one little spot?
121. Name: Kiera Pridgen on 2019-10-09 12:22:00
Comments:
122. Name: ERIN Hinson on 2019-10-09 12:22:51
Comments:
123. Name: Moria Hobbs on 2019-10-09 12:24:50
Comments: The proposed redistricting plans for Porter's Neck Elementary and Holly
Shelter Middle schools for 2020 show both schools will be over capacity with current
enrollment. Do not approve rezoning to add an additional 400-500 homes to an already
overutilized school! Between the school capacity issues, serious flooding concerns, and
lack of infrastructure to handle the additional traffic, this rezoning request should be
denied without question!
124. Name: John Cavan on 2019-10-09 12:25:23
Comments: The best interests of the existing communities should take priority over the
selfish interests of the Developer and the Builder.
125. Name: Kristy High on 2019-10-09 12:25:25
Comments:
126. Name: Gerald Mancuso on 2019-10-09 12:26:17
Comments: Keep the zoning the same
127. Name: Samuel Altman on 2019-10-09 12:29:03
Comments:
128. Name: Marie-Claire Croiger on 2019-10-09 12:29:13
Comments:
Page 12 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 45
129. Name: Araceli Leon on 2019-10-09 12:30:11
Comments:
130. Name: Danielle Wilson on 2019-10-09 12:31:50
Comments: We have been asking the planning board, city and county elected officials to
stop the excessive building but sadly they continue to approve these plans—there won’t
be a tree left in the county in 5 years at the rate they are going.
131. Name: Stephanie Sheehan on 2019-10-09 12:33:26
Comments:
132. Name: Tracy on 2019-10-09 12:35:02
Comments:
133. Name: Jennifer Dicksey on 2019-10-09 12:36:28
Comments:
134. Name: Helen Ley on 2019-10-09 12:37:40
Comments:
135. Name: Kathleen Epperly on 2019-10-09 12:38:11
Comments:
136. Name: Jimmy Sampson on 2019-10-09 12:38:14
Comments:
137. Name: Martin Michaelson on 2019-10-09 12:38:57
Comments: The proposed "Special Use Permit" would be a slap in the face to all the
residents of the "Porters Neck" area. The roads and the schools cannot handle the
proposed density of 380 apartments. The R-15 zone should allow only 153 units on the
combined properties.
138. Name: Shawn on 2019-10-09 12:39:30
Comments: Please stop the over development!!
139. Name: Elaine Santaniello on 2019-10-09 12:40:06
Comments:
140. Name: Lynda Hunter on 2019-10-09 12:41:20
Comments: The impacts on this area would be catastrophic in regards to traffic
congestion, loss of green space, and over population which puts a high strain on our
infrastructure. The county needs to be more conservative and forward thinking in allowing
this sort of development which will destroy the continuity of our neighborhood.
Page 13 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 46
141. Name: Tara Harris on 2019-10-09 12:43:42
Comments: No.... just no!
142. Name: Beth Soles on 2019-10-09 12:45:11
Comments:
143. Name: Jennifer Maddux on 2019-10-09 12:45:23
Comments:
144. Name: Sabrina Cleveland on 2019-10-09 12:45:37
Comments:
145. Name: Mark Maddux on 2019-10-09 12:46:20
Comments:
146. Name: Nancy Peterson on 2019-10-09 12:46:26
Comments:
147. Name: Alexandra Harper on 2019-10-09 12:48:00
Comments:
148. Name: Jodi gartlan on 2019-10-09 12:50:10
Comments:
149. Name: Sami Genes on 2019-10-09 12:50:32
Comments:
150. Name: Denise Heye on 2019-10-09 12:50:44
Comments:
151. Name: Jamie Borum on 2019-10-09 12:52:02
Comments:
152. Name: Rusty Jones on 2019-10-09 12:52:36
Comments: No more apt. Town house . Homes need to have bigger lots not built on top
of each other are streets and utilities cant handle much more and there will be more
flooding from the extra run off of rain water .
153. Name: Jen Krex on 2019-10-09 12:53:36
Comments:
Page 14 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 47
154. Name: Del Flint on 2019-10-09 12:54:08
Comments: The developer mush align with the existing zoning regulations. Wilmington
cannot afford to let money hungry corporations ruin our piece of paradise. Once built
there is no going back!
155. Name: Francis fox on 2019-10-09 12:54:32
Comments: This area should only have single family homes. The density they are
proposing will be catastrophic to an already burdensome traffic.
156. Name: Angela Dabney on 2019-10-09 12:55:23
Comments:
157. Name: Julie hieronymus on 2019-10-09 12:56:33
Comments:
158. Name: Elizabeth DErasmo on 2019-10-09 12:57:00
Comments:
159. Name: Joanne Halls on 2019-10-09 12:57:17
Comments: The site plan is too dense for the environment and storm water impacts on
site. There is increased risk to adjacent neighborhoods and there is no plan to improve
infrastructure such and roads and safety.
160. Name: Diane schafer on 2019-10-09 12:58:31
Comments:
161. Name: Erin McCarthy on 2019-10-09 12:59:07
Comments:
162. Name: Taren Mock on 2019-10-09 12:59:15
Comments:
163. Name: Kathleen Anne Goriup on 2019-10-09 13:01:07
Comments:
164. Name: Michele Robinson on 2019-10-09 13:02:11
Comments: Please make decisions based on the wishes of your constituents....no
outlandish developments that change the neighborhoods we love...busy is not always
better!!!
165. Name: Tabitha Kitchen on 2019-10-09 13:02:35
Comments: No apartments or duplexes! Single family homes to match the current
neighborhood!
Page 15 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 48
166. Name: Heather Fleuriet on 2019-10-09 13:05:28
Comments:
167. Name: Cristina Powell on 2019-10-09 13:06:42
Comments: Hell. No.
168. Name: Paige Crews on 2019-10-09 13:07:55
Comments:
169. Name: Ben on 2019-10-09 13:09:22
Comments:
170. Name: Eric Powell on 2019-10-09 13:09:32
Comments: No. Just no.
171. Name: Randall Sands on 2019-10-09 13:10:20
Comments: I object to the proposed 51 acre Development in Porters Neck due to it
density of residents, structures, parking and roads. It does not blend with the area and its
long established zoning of single family residential and its country feel.
172. Name: Elise Thompson on 2019-10-09 13:10:48
Comments:
173. Name: William Whitley on 2019-10-09 13:11:16
Comments: the traffic consequences would be horrible for everyone on the northeast
side of the county
174. Name: Susan Sands on 2019-10-09 13:13:10
Comments:
175. Name: Susie Burch on 2019-10-09 13:13:12
Comments: Traffic is already congested.
176. Name: Brad Sands on 2019-10-09 13:15:32
Comments:
177. Name: Pablo torres on 2019-10-09 13:16:18
Comments: This project will destroy the neighborhood. I’m completely against this project.
Don’t build.
178. Name: Brooke Sands on 2019-10-09 13:16:36
Page 16 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 49
Comments:
179. Name: Tricia Rankin on 2019-10-09 13:16:51
Comments: enough!!!!! we need trees and land for water! stop being so greedy!
180. Name: Allison Luckadoo on 2019-10-09 13:16:58
Comments:
181. Name: Travis braxton on 2019-10-09 13:17:35
Comments:
182. Name: Bobbi Sikes on 2019-10-09 13:18:51
Comments:
183. Name: Nicole Reiber on 2019-10-09 13:20:15
Comments: There should be a vision for Porter’s Neck instead of haphazard development
and inefficient infrastructure. Start listening to the people who live there (for a change).
The opportunities to preserve and protect Wilmington communities are dwindling. What
could have been is largely gone thanks to poor development decisions.
184. Name: Kenneth MacDonald on 2019-10-09 13:22:11
Comments: Please, a single family neighborhood is more appropriate for that area.
185. Name: Jamie Pate on 2019-10-09 13:23:06
Comments:
186. Name: Tiffany Jones on 2019-10-09 13:24:44
Comments:
187. Name: Randy Jones on 2019-10-09 13:25:32
Comments:
188. Name: Barry Billand on 2019-10-09 13:26:20
Comments:
189. Name: Cindy Burton on 2019-10-09 13:26:26
Comments:
190. Name: Susan Polizzotto on 2019-10-09 13:26:48
Comments: The traffic this will generate in an already congested area will be horrific.
Getting from Hampstead to Wilmington (and anywhere in between) on 17 and Market
Street is already a lengthy, dangerous trek. Why are you selling out our beautiful, semi-
rural landscape? People who desire to live and work in densely populated areas should
Page 17 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 50
move elsewhere, and developers (who are only in it for the money) should be redirected
to Charlotte and the Triangle area. Stop spoiling New Hannover and Pender Counties.
191. Name: James Eubanks on 2019-10-09 13:28:07
Comments: The infrastructure along Porters Neck Road cannot handle this proposed
traffic. Only one true in-out road for the area. The PNR and Market Street intersection is
already a nightmare of accidents and near misses. Backups constantly occur on PNR
due to increased elementary school traffic and poor access.
Don't aggravate an already dangerous situation.
192. Name: Dennise Wallace on 2019-10-09 13:29:08
Comments:
193. Name: Laura Roos on 2019-10-09 13:29:55
Comments:
194. Name: Ashley Hales on 2019-10-09 13:36:07
Comments:
195. Name: Jennifer Nicole Sawyer on 2019-10-09 13:39:27
Comments:
196. Name: Brittany Knittel on 2019-10-09 13:41:31
Comments: Do the right thing Logan and build a respectable single family homes
neighborhood that is an asset to Porters Neck. Not the high density representation of
corporate greed which is the current development plan.
197. Name: Bates Toone on 2019-10-09 13:41:50
Comments: over development is ruining Wilmington.
198. Name: Brianne Jablow on 2019-10-09 13:42:37
Comments:
199. Name: Dorothy Corbett on 2019-10-09 13:43:28
Comments: No to this proposal
200. Name: Jill Manzo on 2019-10-09 13:44:15
Comments:
201. Name: Christopher Cauley on 2019-10-09 13:44:16
Comments:
202. Name: Brent Bowditch on 2019-10-09 13:45:25
Page 18 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 51
Comments:
203. Name: Judy DeMartis on 2019-10-09 13:45:36
Comments:
204. Name: Doug Dameron on 2019-10-09 13:45:42
Comments:
205. Name: Beth Tulip on 2019-10-09 13:46:00
Comments:
206. Name: Laurie Ankarlo on 2019-10-09 13:48:00
Comments:
207. Name: Barbara lucas on 2019-10-09 13:50:57
Comments:
208. Name: Brad Reiter on 2019-10-09 13:58:48
Comments:
209. Name: Michael Hudson on 2019-10-09 14:00:56
Comments:
210. Name: Donna and Tom Owens on 2019-10-09 14:03:27
Comments:
211. Name: Mimi Beckes on 2019-10-09 14:03:54
Comments: Just because they “can” does not mean they “should”. Making a plea to the
developer to use common sense and refrain from making such a detrimental decision
simply for more money. The impact on traffic alone (not to mention all the other reasons)
should be basis enough for our elected officials to reject this plan.
212. Name: Kathy Weitner on 2019-10-09 14:03:55
Comments: No to overcrowded developement
213. Name: Christina Gately on 2019-10-09 14:05:46
Comments: No to the proposal. We have more than enough traffic & drainage issues
already.
214. Name: Erin Dills on 2019-10-09 14:06:08
Comments: We DO NOT want the proposed development in our community!
Page 19 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 52
215. Name: James Stephens on 2019-10-09 14:07:16
Comments:
216. Name: Tom Ziermann on 2019-10-09 14:11:13
Comments:
217. Name: Cathyanne Amdur on 2019-10-09 14:13:17
Comments:
218. Name: Clark Helton on 2019-10-09 14:13:42
Comments: I'm not opposed to progress, but please develop / build responsibly, (single
family homes only, and leave as many trees as possible).
219. Name: Saundra Campbell on 2019-10-09 14:18:04
Comments:
220. Name: Jane Anglin on 2019-10-09 14:19:15
Comments:
221. Name: George Barnes on 2019-10-09 14:19:27
Comments:
222. Name: Lindy Jackson on 2019-10-09 14:19:30
Comments:
223. Name: alan campbell on 2019-10-09 14:21:02
Comments: not interested in re-zoning as the traffic on Porters Neck Rd is already too
heavy.
224. Name: Katherine Bumgardner on 2019-10-09 14:21:42
Comments:
225. Name: Brad Stoebig on 2019-10-09 14:23:33
Comments:
226. Name: Jeanie Baker on 2019-10-09 14:26:27
Comments:
227. Name: Jonathan Amdur on 2019-10-09 14:28:51
Comments: I am opposed to this development of property without any foresight on traffic,
enviromental, and drainage impact.
Page 20 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 53
228. Name: Lisa Arstone on 2019-10-09 14:31:01
Comments: We don’t need all the pollution run off in Paige’s creek as well as the increase
in flooding in our area with all the trees gone. Preserve our community!
229. Name: Jane Blank on 2019-10-09 14:32:31
Comments:
230. Name: MICHELLE O URBAN on 2019-10-09 14:35:17
Comments:
231. Name: Jason Lanier on 2019-10-09 14:43:58
Comments:
232. Name: Larry Fischer on 2019-10-09 14:45:58
Comments: Allotment roads are entirely to narrow and lots are too small. Market st is
already overburdened with traffic and adding a mixed use allotment such as this would
overwhelm Market adding to the current congestion which will be even worse during the
years of modifications being made to Market. It will put additional stress on local schools
and infrastructure such as power, water and sewage. Who will be responsible for
covering all these additional costs brought on by such a large development. Squeezing
so much into such a small area is nothing short of pure greed. Developers must start
thinking more about the economic and environmental impacts of new developments to
the sourrounding existing families and communities and not just on their own personal
gains
233. Name: Art on 2019-10-09 14:46:06
Comments: ...and no more Dollar Generals either !!
234. Name: Stephen Sasser on 2019-10-09 14:47:51
Comments:
235. Name: Maria Sommer on 2019-10-09 14:48:17
Comments:
236. Name: Lisa Ann Pelosi on 2019-10-09 14:50:16
Comments:
237. Name: Betsy Albright on 2019-10-09 14:53:15
Comments:
238. Name: susanne lamphier on 2019-10-09 14:54:57
Comments:
239. Name: Pamela Wilson on 2019-10-09 14:58:10
Page 21 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 54
Comments: I am completely opposed to the proposed development for this property. It
will place an unsustainable burden on resources, the environment and the community at
large.
240. Name: Pamela Wilson on 2019-10-09 14:58:11
Comments: I am completely opposed to the proposed development for this property. It
will place an unsustainable burden on resources, the environment and the community at
large.
241. Name: Geraldine Storch on 2019-10-09 15:00:02
Comments: Maybe there should be a rule that developers live in the community they
create for at least one year.
242. Name: Joan Page on 2019-10-09 15:01:29
Comments: Please consider the detriment to the Porter’s Neck area.
243. Name: Rick Duden on 2019-10-09 15:04:13
Comments: Quiet neighborhoods don't need greedy builders making it overcrowded
244. Name: Tuula Hayes on 2019-10-09 15:04:35
Comments: I strongly oppose this plan. No idea how this builder is going to strong arm
himself into our already crowded area!!!!
245. Name: Nicole Galarneau on 2019-10-09 15:09:26
Comments: We can not afford or home another mass construction
246. Name: DJ Urban on 2019-10-09 15:09:54
Comments:
247. Name: Sandra Folcher on 2019-10-09 15:10:44
Comments:
248. Name: Daniel Barbara Smith on 2019-10-09 15:11:53
Comments:
249. Name: Russ Page on 2019-10-09 15:13:14
Comments:
250. Name: Susan Mello on 2019-10-09 15:17:44
Comments:
251. Name: Elizabeth Masiero on 2019-10-09 15:19:11
Comments:
Page 22 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 55
252. Name: Keith Dove on 2019-10-09 15:19:16
Comments:
253. Name: Dana Zuckerman on 2019-10-09 15:21:42
Comments: Enough is enough. We need a high school not more apartments. The roads
are overcrowded and this isn’t going to help the issue.
254. Name: marie pendola on 2019-10-09 15:22:23
Comments:
255. Name: Dana West-Mcelwee on 2019-10-09 15:22:26
Comments: My vote is a no on developers building new residences in porters neck! Our
beautiful trees, land, and animals will be destroyed unnecessarily and we just built an
elementary school that’s maxed out!
256. Name: Dana Witt on 2019-10-09 15:22:59
Comments:
257. Name: Angel R on 2019-10-09 15:23:22
Comments:
258. Name: Jackie Robinson on 2019-10-09 15:24:52
Comments: no high density buildings in this area. We are already jammed up with traffic
issues, as well as drainage issues. We need to keep green space.
259. Name: Cris Davis on 2019-10-09 15:27:51
Comments:
260. Name: Rachel Lanier on 2019-10-09 15:28:03
Comments:
261. Name: Pat Rider on 2019-10-09 15:28:14
Comments: We were trapped by water that would not drain during Florence. And the
traffic circle on porters neck cannot handle the traffic. This large a development is not
right.
262. Name: MARGARET C COLMAN on 2019-10-09 15:29:01
Comments:
263. Name: Taryn dickens on 2019-10-09 15:37:21
Comments:
Page 23 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 56
264. Name: Samantha on 2019-10-09 15:39:57
Comments:
265. Name: Robert Huie on 2019-10-09 15:40:15
Comments: Bad idea
266. Name: Tom Riggins on 2019-10-09 15:40:52
Comments:
267. Name: Roseline Diaz-Quiroz on 2019-10-09 15:41:13
Comments:
268. Name: Clare McCutcheon on 2019-10-09 15:41:47
Comments:
269. Name: Amber Bolen on 2019-10-09 15:42:37
Comments:
270. Name: Patty Benford on 2019-10-09 15:43:27
Comments: No to the proposal
271. Name: Drew Brown on 2019-10-09 15:47:41
Comments: I object to the project
272. Name: Jenna Jamison on 2019-10-09 15:53:08
Comments:
273. Name: Kay Bilisoly on 2019-10-09 15:53:20
Comments: Absolutely oppose more concrete and less green space.
274. Name: Paul Chase on 2019-10-09 15:54:46
Comments:
275. Name: Rita Scull on 2019-10-09 15:55:02
Comments: There is already too much traffic in PN. This development would add ~1,000
more cars (2 per dwelling). Gridlock & due to water surrounding PN no or few alternate
roads.
276. Name: Jolie Russ on 2019-10-09 15:55:37
Comments: We have to STOP IT ALREADY!!!!
277. Name: Jolie russ on 2019-10-09 15:56:22
Page 24 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 57
Comments:
278. Name: Wesley Craven on 2019-10-09 15:56:56
Comments:
279. Name: Laura Rezek on 2019-10-09 16:01:44
Comments:
280. Name: Kelly Catino on 2019-10-09 16:03:28
Comments:
281. Name: Jay M Brooks on 2019-10-09 16:07:29
Comments:
282. Name: JoAnn Tamney on 2019-10-09 16:07:50
Comments: Enough already !
283. Name: Larry Graham on 2019-10-09 16:08:19
Comments: Please end the build cycle. The last few years this County has done nothing
to mitigate the traffic and flooding.
284. Name: Bobbie Favero Fricano on 2019-10-09 16:09:03
Comments:
285. Name: Lynne Rupp on 2019-10-09 16:14:58
Comments:
286. Name: Jennifer Harris on 2019-10-09 16:15:14
Comments:
287. Name: Elizabeth Dinko on 2019-10-09 16:15:54
Comments: NO to this developer.
288. Name: Curtis Dinko on 2019-10-09 16:16:58
Comments: NO to this developer.
289. Name: Ilona Monahan on 2019-10-09 16:18:38
Comments:
290. Name: patrick smith on 2019-10-09 16:19:06
Comments: NO Apartments!!
Page 25 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 58
291. Name: Cheryl Wolf on 2019-10-09 16:19:43
Comments:
292. Name: Donna Whitehill on 2019-10-09 16:20:00
Comments:
293. Name: J B Henderson on 2019-10-09 16:22:23
Comments: No rezoning!! You bought R15/R20, You sell R15/R20.
294. Name: Kayla on 2019-10-09 16:23:12
Comments:
295. Name: Jessup Katz on 2019-10-09 16:24:58
Comments: There is already too much development in that area. Traffic is a nightmare. I
live behind Big Lots and can’t even turn left onto Market St most of the time.
296. Name: Kate Norwood on 2019-10-09 16:27:33
Comments:
297. Name: Robyn Thomas on 2019-10-09 16:27:34
Comments: Resident of porters neck. Do not build here!
298. Name: Lindsey Katz on 2019-10-09 16:29:39
Comments:
299. Name: Jeremy W Gunter on 2019-10-09 16:32:00
Comments:
300. Name: Amanda Johnson on 2019-10-09 16:33:43
Comments:
301. Name: Patricia Potter on 2019-10-09 16:36:27
Comments: Our area is getting more crowded every day. Impact on schools,roads and
traffic would be devastating.
302. Name: Michele Brandon on 2019-10-09 16:37:25
Comments: We do not want more big developments in an already over populated area.
303. Name: Trisha Antley on 2019-10-09 16:41:55
Comments:
304. Name: MICHAEL CATULLO on 2019-10-09 16:48:21
Page 26 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 59
Comments: No more than single family homes!
305. Name: David Morgan on 2019-10-09 16:48:42
Comments: No to this proposal
306. Name: Michelle Morgan on 2019-10-09 16:49:09
Comments: No to this proposal
307. Name: Tony Walters on 2019-10-09 16:50:24
Comments:
308. Name: Joe Campomanes on 2019-10-09 16:51:17
Comments: This is our family's vote AGAINST Logan homes building apartments in our
community! The traffic and environmental impact will not be sustainable and will
dramatically affect the area negatively!
309. Name: Lori Daley on 2019-10-09 16:52:14
Comments: Porters Neck Rd. can't handle more traffic!
310. Name: Carol Halls on 2019-10-09 16:52:32
Comments: No to this proposal
311. Name: Marisa Gallaher on 2019-10-09 16:53:18
Comments: Please listen to your constituents! This will negatively impact this community
in numerous ways. It's time to put your constituents before the almighty dollar
312. Name: Charles Patton on 2019-10-09 16:53:26
Comments:
313. Name: Mark Greenberg on 2019-10-09 16:53:46
Comments: The current zoning should be maintained and the requested variance should
be denied. The proposed development is out of sync with the neighborhood and would
cause overly burdened infrastructure - roads, drainage, schools, etc., to become even
more of a problem. Any elected or appointed representative who approves the proposed
Logan development plan can expect major resistance because the proposed
development is WRONG FOR PORTERS NECK and WRONG FOR WILMINGTON.
314. Name: Katie Ferree on 2019-10-09 16:56:17
Comments:
315. Name: Faranak Hartwick on 2019-10-09 16:57:07
Comments:
Page 27 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 60
316. Name: Brad stich on 2019-10-09 16:57:32
Comments: I moved to the edge of the county to be a way from people. I don’t want high
density housing nearby. Why have zoning, if you keep changing it whenever a
developer requests.
317. Name: Steve Fine on 2019-10-09 16:58:57
Comments:
318. Name: Lindsay Maitland on 2019-10-09 17:00:15
Comments:
319. Name: Jean LeGwin on 2019-10-09 17:01:07
Comments: Enough already!
320. Name: Nicole Fortiscue on 2019-10-09 17:01:22
Comments:
321. Name: Ann Miller on 2019-10-09 17:07:15
Comments: Left DC area due to congestion, have lived it and know first hand this area is
not equipped to handle the multitudes of people and changes needed to accommodate
those numbers.
322. Name: Alicia Boaz on 2019-10-09 17:07:20
Comments: Traffic is already a nightmare and I’ve been here 16 years
No reason to build in that spot and cause more problems which will definitely cause more
accidents and traffic congestion on an already congested road
323. Name: Amy Clem on 2019-10-09 17:11:04
Comments:
324. Name: Gunther Kempin on 2019-10-09 17:11:08
Comments: Thank you....
325. Name: Lorie Hales on 2019-10-09 17:12:54
Comments:
326. Name: Ashley Hales on 2019-10-09 17:13:44
Comments:
327. Name: Hedley Mendez on 2019-10-09 17:18:25
Comments:
328. Name: Eric Kennedy on 2019-10-09 17:19:13
Page 28 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 61
Comments: As Woody said we need to be more like Charleston and less like Myrtle
Beach. Wilmington and surrounding has already been decimated by poor planning.
Remember Pottersville from It's a Wonderful Life? Well, SlumLord Pottersville here we
come. I'm voting for Bedford Falls and Charleston.
329. Name: Alvin Howard on 2019-10-09 17:19:15
Comments:
330. Name: Claude Reed on 2019-10-09 17:21:30
Comments:
331. Name: Cheryl Schleuss on 2019-10-09 17:21:49
Comments:
332. Name: Linda Witchey on 2019-10-09 17:23:37
Comments:
333. Name: Erica Smith on 2019-10-09 17:25:57
Comments:
334. Name: Carl Samet on 2019-10-09 17:26:21
Comments:
335. Name: Sarah Bolton on 2019-10-09 17:26:54
Comments:
336. Name: Tracee Meyer on 2019-10-09 17:27:07
Comments:
337. Name: Jane Blank on 2019-10-09 17:33:12
Comments:
338. Name: Linda Davidson on 2019-10-09 17:34:18
Comments: The. two roads into the Porters Neck area (Porters Neck and Futch Creek
Roads) are not able to handle the in and out traffic of the many people who live in this
area. The Logan development would only exacerbate the situation by adding more cars.
In addition, our area has flooded frequently in the past. With the addition of more
buildings and pavement, the excess water will have nowhere to go because almost all of
the available land has been developed. That would result in more flooding.
339. Name: Nancy Parsons on 2019-10-09 17:36:06
Comments:
Page 29 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 62
340. Name: Janie Paone on 2019-10-09 17:38:30
Comments: PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS DEBACLE!
Thank you
341. Name: Susan Underhill on 2019-10-09 17:40:32
Comments:
342. Name: Patricia Hart on 2019-10-09 17:46:33
Comments: The last things we need in Porter's Neck are, clear cutting of one of the
remaining forested areas, more cars and more apartment buildings. Please prevent this
developer's assault on our community.
343. Name: Jennifer Jones on 2019-10-09 17:47:01
Comments:
344. Name: Mary Freeman on 2019-10-09 17:47:45
Comments:
345. Name: Thomas Renart on 2019-10-09 17:49:09
Comments:
346. Name: Brittany king on 2019-10-09 17:49:36
Comments:
347. Name: Zach Schuman on 2019-10-09 17:52:18
Comments: Too many people already
348. Name: Patricia Rowell on 2019-10-09 18:06:19
Comments: No more building in wilmington!
349. Name: Zee Westbrook on 2019-10-09 18:06:47
Comments:
350. Name: Jeff Hall on 2019-10-09 18:07:09
Comments:
351. Name: Brad Kammer on 2019-10-09 18:16:13
Comments:
352. Name: Richard and Mary Fimbel on 2019-10-09 18:21:18
Comments:
Page 30 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 63
353. Name: Julie Millet on 2019-10-09 18:26:06
Comments:
354. Name: Martha Bateman on 2019-10-09 18:27:05
Comments:
355. Name: Erica haines on 2019-10-09 18:27:57
Comments:
356. Name: William Blenk on 2019-10-09 18:32:55
Comments: Apartments will be built on wetlands, where will the water go. Traffic will be
dangerous especially at the school.
357. Name: Ricardo Ruiz on 2019-10-09 18:36:59
Comments:
358. Name: Lauren zwack on 2019-10-09 18:38:35
Comments: This cannot happen! This area was not meant to become another Greenville
loop road
359. Name: Linda Retson on 2019-10-09 18:43:12
Comments:
360. Name: Charles Paone on 2019-10-09 18:47:10
Comments: Standard lack of planning and zero (-0-) forward thinking on the part of
county commissioners and planning board.
361. Name: Brooke Malone on 2019-10-09 18:52:10
Comments: As a resident who uses old Market St. daily, I am 100% opposed to this
construction. We do NOT have the infrastructure to accommodate this project.
362. Name: Jennifer Kinard on 2019-10-09 19:01:37
Comments:
363. Name: Amy Marcy on 2019-10-09 19:04:39
Comments:
364. Name: Philomena Stephens on 2019-10-09 19:05:27
Comments:
365. Name: Mary Spaven on 2019-10-09 19:08:55
Comments:
Page 31 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 64
366. Name: Kathleen Ricketts on 2019-10-09 19:13:44
Comments:
367. Name: Cindy Hudson on 2019-10-09 19:14:39
Comments:
368. Name: Jessica Morman on 2019-10-09 19:19:37
Comments: The density of this proposed property is unacceptable for the resources we
have in our area!
369. Name: Pat Crawford on 2019-10-09 19:21:15
Comments: Definitely needs more planning and thought to abutters!
370. Name: Amanda R on 2019-10-09 19:25:11
Comments:
371. Name: Patricia Blenk on 2019-10-09 19:30:04
Comments: Studies done on traffic are insufficient and ground water study is very
insufficient to allow any building on site. Schools and traffic will be gravely affected.
372. Name: Don Byrd on 2019-10-09 19:34:37
Comments:
373. Name: Sergio Esparrago on 2019-10-09 19:37:34
Comments: NO to the building of this new development! NO to adding more traffic to our
neighborhoods. NO to increasing the possibility of flooding more than it is. NO to
decreasing the value of our homes by building apartments!
374. Name: Joelle Johnson on 2019-10-09 19:38:02
Comments:
375. Name: Silvia Audi on 2019-10-09 19:43:27
Comments: This is an outrageous proposal which will make life here very difficult to
endure.
376. Name: Cynthia Olsen on 2019-10-09 19:44:06
Comments:
377. Name: Mary Sheffield on 2019-10-09 19:56:29
Comments: I live off Futch Creek. The additional traffic and loss of green space is
unacceptable. Single family homes maybe but 400 additional people with the apartments
is not.
Page 32 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 65
378. Name: Lou Villareal on 2019-10-09 19:57:08
Comments:
379. Name: Ed Sheffield on 2019-10-09 19:59:15
Comments: I The additional traffic and loss of green space is unacceptable. School
system is already over loaded. Single family homes and or townhouses maybe but 400
additional people with the apartments is not.
380. Name: Beth Howard on 2019-10-09 20:04:31
Comments: I VOTE NO ON THIS REZONING!!!!
381. Name: Robert T Brown on 2019-10-09 20:14:16
Comments: This is a wholly inappropriate and selfishly developed proposal that appears
to benefit only the developers.
382. Name: Brittany Long on 2019-10-09 20:15:17
Comments:
383. Name: Phyllis Chechile on 2019-10-09 20:19:53
Comments: I strongly reject the idea of rezoning in the Porters Neck area. The local
roads and school will be dramatically impacted with negative results. More thought needs
to be given to this type of expansion in the area before approval.
384. Name: Jennifer Boughton on 2019-10-09 20:20:33
Comments: Object rezoning of Logan Homes/ apartment project in Porters Neck
385. Name: Haley Morton on 2019-10-09 20:26:19
Comments:
386. Name: Stephanie Gilbert on 2019-10-09 20:46:15
Comments:
387. Name: Kristen witkowski on 2019-10-09 20:46:52
Comments:
388. Name: Kelly Sechrist on 2019-10-09 20:52:43
Comments: Porters Neck Plantation resident
389. Name: John and Karen Bryan on 2019-10-09 21:00:56
Comments: Oppose the building of apartments by Logan Homes behind Vineyard
Plantation.
390. Name: Mary Ann Olsinski on 2019-10-09 21:10:35
Page 33 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 66
Comments:
391. Name: Norma Gavin on 2019-10-09 21:34:07
Comments:
392. Name: Beth Steinberg on 2019-10-09 21:37:01
Comments:
393. Name: Kaylyn Patterson on 2019-10-09 21:41:15
Comments:
394. Name: Mary Jane Martin on 2019-10-09 21:50:04
Comments:
395. Name: Jeanne casper on 2019-10-09 21:51:07
Comments:
396. Name: Dominique Mackenzie on 2019-10-09 21:52:12
Comments: resident of porters crossing way
397. Name: Helen Bell on 2019-10-09 22:07:15
Comments:
398. Name: Ashley Forystek on 2019-10-09 22:23:08
Comments:
399. Name: Heather Musselwhite on 2019-10-09 22:24:28
Comments:
400. Name: Tracy Geschickter on 2019-10-09 22:27:58
Comments:
401. Name: Mrs Sandy Dickinson on 2019-10-09 22:31:34
Comments: Please deny the zoning change request of Logan Homes for this very
controversial project to prevent more over-building of multi-family units within this
proposal..
As neighboring communities voiced their opinions in the recent meeting, we welcome
single family residential under the current R-15 zoning...Thanks for your consideration of
our request.
402. Name: James McLawhorn on 2019-10-09 22:39:01
Comments:
Page 34 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 67
403. Name: Courtney Motz on 2019-10-09 22:47:16
Comments: Enough is enough!
404. Name: Susan Ferrell on 2019-10-09 22:48:48
Comments:
405. Name: Terry Love on 2019-10-09 22:52:32
Comments: I vote no to the rezoning.
406. Name: MARY OLEARY on 2019-10-09 23:00:04
Comments: this area does not need another apartment building also there is only 1 exit
unless you want to go to Hampstead. Please consider our petetion ,thank you
407. Name: PAUL OLEARY on 2019-10-09 23:02:36
Comments:
408. Name: Rose Biangardi on 2019-10-09 23:17:13
Comments: Stop this overbuilding madness
409. Name: Anthony Rodrick on 2019-10-09 23:18:03
Comments:
410. Name: Cristy on 2019-10-09 23:21:44
Comments:
411. Name: Ian Butler on 2019-10-09 23:21:55
Comments:
412. Name: Linda DeMartis on 2019-10-09 23:25:54
Comments:
413. Name: Catherine Owen on 2019-10-09 23:31:38
Comments:
414. Name: Allison Tam on 2019-10-09 23:33:49
Comments:
415. Name: John Crapo on 2019-10-09 23:49:14
Comments:
416. Name: Kristin Crapo on 2019-10-09 23:49:45
Comments:
Page 35 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 68
417. Name: Trec Tisdale on 2019-10-09 23:53:11
Comments: This is crap. Apartment residents pay no taxes and now will overcrowd
already overcrowded schools. There is no proper and safe infrastructure to support this
crap and overdevelopment.
418. Name: Melissa Hufham on 2019-10-09 23:54:40
Comments: Please do not put apartments in our neighborhood .
419. Name: Tamara Agnell on 2019-10-09 23:55:31
Comments: Please stop the over building in Wilmington, NC. It is horrible, look at what is
happening in Ogden on Military Cut-off down Station Road.
420. Name: Sarah Wilson on 2019-10-09 23:58:32
Comments:
421. Name: Courtenay Malyj on 2019-10-10 00:01:18
Comments:
422. Name: William Segur on 2019-10-10 00:08:44
Comments:
423. Name: Sandy Zabriskie on 2019-10-10 00:11:42
Comments: I respectfully vote to disapprove the project as it is currently being presented.
The parcel was not originally zoned for high density housing and should not be now.
Keep consistent with the current neighborhoods: Build single family homes preserving
much of the natural vegetation. Please respect our community and our families.
424. Name: Derek Kuperus on 2019-10-10 00:12:02
Comments:
425. Name: Ryan Nyquist on 2019-10-10 00:13:39
Comments: I oppose this new development.
426. Name: Laura Lazour on 2019-10-10 00:14:13
Comments: Too much density for the area! Deny the zoning change of request.
427. Name: L Dolan on 2019-10-10 00:15:48
Comments:
428. Name: Lisa Jones on 2019-10-10 00:21:56
Comments:
Page 36 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 69
429. Name: Kelly Capobianco on 2019-10-10 00:28:34
Comments:
430. Name: Shannon Burns on 2019-10-10 00:35:00
Comments:
431. Name: Jenn Sulloway on 2019-10-10 00:37:31
Comments:
432. Name: Linda McBriety Stecklein on 2019-10-10 00:40:11
Comments: Please consider the infrastructure and other new development.
433. Name: Kyle Phillips on 2019-10-10 00:41:42
Comments: NOT in favor of development
434. Name: Lisa Brown on 2019-10-10 00:41:47
Comments:
435. Name: Patricia Reeves on 2019-10-10 01:04:25
Comments:
436. Name: Jan Gouck on 2019-10-10 01:05:34
Comments:
437. Name: Heather Ohm-Fisher on 2019-10-10 01:06:10
Comments:
438. Name: JR Kelly on 2019-10-10 01:08:52
Comments: Makes absolutely no sense. Why would this be considered when the
infastructure and traffic are out of control
439. Name: Addy on 2019-10-10 01:14:33
Comments:
440. Name: Ashley Barnes on 2019-10-10 01:16:21
Comments: This madness has got to be stopped.
I invite anyone in charge of allowing this ridiculous proposal, to drive down Market Street
at ANY time between 6 am and midnight. This area CAN NOT handle any further
development, period.
441. Name: Lynn Regan on 2019-10-10 01:21:36
Comments:
Page 37 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 70
442. Name: Alexander Batchelder on 2019-10-10 01:21:46
Comments: I would have no objection to single family homes.
443. Name: Loma Siegel on 2019-10-10 01:22:02
Comments: NOT in favor of this development
444. Name: Jane Ramsey on 2019-10-10 01:30:44
Comments: I do not wish the Logan development to proceed as planned
445. Name: Linda Padezanin on 2019-10-10 01:33:49
Comments: I am not in favor of this proposal. The infrastructure cannot handle what we
have now. Traffic was horrendous before they added the lowes and chick fila. With this
proposal it would create more traffic nightmares. The county should have learned after
hurricane florence that we have too much concrete and no place for the water to drain.
Until the county can address this issue as well as drainage, I vote no.
446. Name: Barbara H Lewis on 2019-10-10 01:34:09
Comments:
447. Name: Patricia Luciano on 2019-10-10 01:39:48
Comments: Stop BUILDING!!!
448. Name: Wendy Prins on 2019-10-10 01:47:33
Comments:
449. Name: Amy Smith on 2019-10-10 01:53:58
Comments:
450. Name: Brooke Acas on 2019-10-10 01:59:47
Comments:
451. Name: Kathy Dennis on 2019-10-10 02:05:59
Comments: Please stop this
452. Name: Tara Martine on 2019-10-10 02:06:52
Comments:
453. Name: Mary Cusick on 2019-10-10 02:07:38
Comments: Current infrastructure cannot handle this project!!
454. Name: Patti Briggs on 2019-10-10 02:12:15
Comments: No! to the huge number of apartments, townhouses and parking in the small
space, where flooding and traffic are already a severe problem!!
Page 38 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 71
455. Name: Vicki Dowdy on 2019-10-10 02:12:43
Comments:
456. Name: Jacob Furbee on 2019-10-10 02:12:58
Comments:
457. Name: Robert Dowdy on 2019-10-10 02:13:50
Comments:
458. Name: Michele Sulwer on 2019-10-10 02:16:51
Comments:
459. Name: Nicole on 2019-10-10 02:18:50
Comments: Please stop the madness !!! The roads and schools are awful worst I the
state
460. Name: Diane Mauceri on 2019-10-10 02:22:15
Comments:
461. Name: Patricia Smith on 2019-10-10 02:26:09
Comments:
462. Name: Mary Anne Paul on 2019-10-10 02:36:47
Comments: This is a serious petition please give it your attention
463. Name: Heather Gunter on 2019-10-10 02:44:32
Comments:
464. Name: Debra Stauss on 2019-10-10 03:21:04
Comments:
465. Name: Jacob Brinson on 2019-10-10 03:22:35
Comments:
466. Name: Lizsiel Brinson on 2019-10-10 03:27:03
Comments:
467. Name: James Strickland on 2019-10-10 03:33:01
Comments:
468. Name: Kimberly Brumsey on 2019-10-10 04:22:27
Page 39 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 72
Comments:
469. Name: Pam Hudson on 2019-10-10 05:43:01
Comments:
470. Name: KAREN Brunt on 2019-10-10 07:43:08
Comments: Drainage / flooding needs to be addressed before we allow more building -
need to think ahead
471. Name: Peter Langer on 2019-10-10 09:13:24
Comments:
472. Name: Andrea karns on 2019-10-10 09:16:07
Comments:
473. Name: Amie Gilmore on 2019-10-10 09:33:30
Comments:
474. Name: Jaci Webb-Dempsey on 2019-10-10 09:37:16
Comments: The unfettered growth in this area has already had devastating effects
(dangerous traffic, inadequate green space creating damaging rain runoff, strain on
county services, etc.) with no consideration of safety or quality of life for current residents
and taxpayers.
475. Name: Carine McConekey on 2019-10-10 10:06:39
Comments: Too much!!
476. Name: Craig Stevens on 2019-10-10 10:10:21
Comments:
477. Name: Marcie Joynes on 2019-10-10 10:10:34
Comments:
478. Name: Tasha Fritz on 2019-10-10 10:12:54
Comments:
479. Name: Lisa Erling on 2019-10-10 10:14:24
Comments:
480. Name: Linda Ritenour on 2019-10-10 10:25:11
Comments:
Page 40 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 73
481. Name: Chris Dicksey on 2019-10-10 10:38:32
Comments:
482. Name: Kim Nunn on 2019-10-10 10:41:55
Comments:
483. Name: Lee Ann Wright on 2019-10-10 10:48:25
Comments:
484. Name: Whitney Daughtry on 2019-10-10 10:55:26
Comments:
485. Name: Jeremy Reynolds on 2019-10-10 10:58:08
Comments:
486. Name: Trish Ziermann on 2019-10-10 11:05:10
Comments:
487. Name: Etty Lam on 2019-10-10 11:06:52
Comments:
488. Name: Katie Hinely on 2019-10-10 11:13:36
Comments:
489. Name: Sara Lewis on 2019-10-10 11:20:08
Comments:
490. Name: Tia Lee on 2019-10-10 11:22:45
Comments:
491. Name: Sarah Tun on 2019-10-10 11:25:10
Comments:
492. Name: Naymyo Tun on 2019-10-10 11:26:07
Comments:
493. Name: Katie Carney on 2019-10-10 11:49:52
Comments:
494. Name: Brenda hall on 2019-10-10 11:52:49
Comments:
Page 41 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 74
495. Name: vicky hanes on 2019-10-10 11:56:54
Comments:
496. Name: Robyn Meek on 2019-10-10 12:08:42
Comments:
497. Name: Carol Cease on 2019-10-10 12:14:10
Comments:
498. Name: Drew Arndt on 2019-10-10 12:21:43
Comments:
499. Name: Richard Rossi on 2019-10-10 12:23:32
Comments:
500. Name: Elizabeth Cottle on 2019-10-10 12:28:41
Comments:
501. Name: Linwood Cottle on 2019-10-10 12:29:55
Comments:
502. Name: Eric Cutrell on 2019-10-10 12:36:19
Comments:
503. Name: Lynn Goodman on 2019-10-10 12:37:16
Comments:
504. Name: Paige Brumit on 2019-10-10 12:37:50
Comments:
505. Name: Lindsay Mikloucich on 2019-10-10 12:38:30
Comments:
506. Name: Frank Mikloucich on 2019-10-10 12:39:05
Comments:
507. Name: Kimberly Z Lundy on 2019-10-10 12:47:07
Comments:
508. Name: Chanze McCaskill on 2019-10-10 13:02:55
Comments:
Page 42 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 75
509. Name: Bianca Ebersole on 2019-10-10 13:03:26
Comments:
510. Name: Amanda Robinette on 2019-10-10 13:11:25
Comments:
511. Name: Deedee Gasch on 2019-10-10 13:13:45
Comments: Nothing has changed since the original zoning that would make high density
apartments and duplexes feasible. We don’t have better roads, more accessible
entrance/exits to the area, alternate roads to access/exit, schools with capacity to handle
more students, or environmental safeguards to prevent flooding during with
overpopulating a low lying and flood prone area. This is bad for Porters Neck.
512. Name: Cathy Bagley on 2019-10-10 13:26:49
Comments:
513. Name: Kristi Harris on 2019-10-10 13:30:13
Comments:
514. Name: Lacy Phillips on 2019-10-10 13:30:34
Comments:
515. Name: Allen Baker on 2019-10-10 13:38:32
Comments:
516. Name: Kaitlin Rinaldi on 2019-10-10 13:45:39
Comments:
517. Name: Brian Pisani on 2019-10-10 13:52:31
Comments:
518. Name: kara Pisani on 2019-10-10 13:53:46
Comments:
519. Name: david creech on 2019-10-10 14:00:58
Comments:
520. Name: Barbara Walker on 2019-10-10 14:02:58
Comments: This will severely effect our communities. Poorly planned.
Rethink this. Upscale homes would be nice
521. Name: Laura Schultz on 2019-10-10 14:09:56
Comments:
Page 43 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 76
522. Name: Brenden Donovan on 2019-10-10 14:21:07
Comments: We do not have the infrastructure IE schools, or roads for this magnitude of a
development in Porters Neck.
523. Name: Rosalie Calarco on 2019-10-10 14:27:56
Comments:
524. Name: Wendy Ellis on 2019-10-10 14:57:35
Comments: Too much!
525. Name: Kathleen Moon on 2019-10-10 14:59:33
Comments:
526. Name: Jim Sweetwood on 2019-10-10 15:05:56
Comments:
527. Name: Denise Lewis on 2019-10-10 15:06:12
Comments:
528. Name: Jamie Howell on 2019-10-10 15:19:05
Comments:
529. Name: Melanie Smallwood on 2019-10-10 15:32:10
Comments:
530. Name: Shane Johnson on 2019-10-10 15:35:38
Comments: Apartments will exercabate already prevalent flooding. Single family homes
are fine. Please, no apartments!
531. Name: Elisabeth Myers on 2019-10-10 15:42:51
Comments:
532. Name: Rebecca Francis on 2019-10-10 15:43:43
Comments:
533. Name: Nina Vance on 2019-10-10 15:44:10
Comments:
534. Name: Amanda Mountford on 2019-10-10 15:47:33
Comments: This area cannot accommodate these additional residents.
Page 44 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 77
535. Name: Sarah Parks on 2019-10-10 15:52:06
Comments:
536. Name: Karen Miller on 2019-10-10 15:56:28
Comments:
537. Name: Jennifer Henson on 2019-10-10 16:00:47
Comments:
538. Name: Roger Kramer on 2019-10-10 16:02:17
Comments:
539. Name: MaryAnn Murray on 2019-10-10 16:03:16
Comments: No apartments PLEASE!
540. Name: Brooke Johnson on 2019-10-10 16:08:19
Comments:
541. Name: Tim Johnson on 2019-10-10 16:11:08
Comments:
542. Name: Kathy Bassett on 2019-10-10 16:13:03
Comments: Traffic will be nightmare especially on the circle!
543. Name: Erin Langston on 2019-10-10 16:18:41
Comments: We know this area will be developed but please be reasonable with the scale
of the project. Cramming an excessive number of dwellings in for the sake of profits hurts
our environment and degrades the quality of life for residents already residing here.
544. Name: bonnie bird on 2019-10-10 16:20:23
Comments:
545. Name: Randy Dallos on 2019-10-10 16:24:01
Comments:
546. Name: Grace Wadford on 2019-10-10 16:31:14
Comments:
547. Name: Jerry Stahr on 2019-10-10 16:33:46
Comments: We need to stop the over development of New Hanover County!
548. Name: Heidi Campomanes on 2019-10-10 16:33:57
Page 45 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 78
Comments:
549. Name: David Brandon on 2019-10-10 16:44:26
Comments:
550. Name: Heidi Smith on 2019-10-10 16:49:20
Comments: Traffic is already dangerously out of control I think the area. Adding another
300+ residents without proper adjustments to traffic patterns/roads will only create further
bottlenecks
551. Name: Peggy Hochuli on 2019-10-10 16:51:24
Comments:
552. Name: Alexis Vogelsong on 2019-10-10 16:52:14
Comments: This is a horrible idea. The traffic during business/school hours is already an
issue!! We have a new school and several new communities already just built or being
built which also adds to current traffic nightmare. I strongly oppose this land use idea!!!
553. Name: Happy - Jeff Jones on 2019-10-10 16:52:16
Comments:
554. Name: Cindy Fearnhead on 2019-10-10 16:59:21
Comments:
555. Name: Amy smith on 2019-10-10 16:59:29
Comments: We at porters neck already encounter way to much traffic in and out. I
absolutely do NOT support this new development!
556. Name: Kerrie Grant on 2019-10-10 17:15:01
Comments: Reasonable development is to be expected but the excessive number of
apartments and houses on tiny lots planned by Logan would put an intolerable strain on
roads, services and schools. It will definitely affect the quality of life of all existing
residents.
557. Name: Nina Gibson on 2019-10-10 17:15:24
Comments:
558. Name: Kim Eaves on 2019-10-10 17:15:48
Comments:
559. Name: Dawn Poignonnec on 2019-10-10 17:24:14
Comments:
Page 46 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 79
560. Name: Renee Ertischek on 2019-10-10 17:31:44
Comments: There is also concern for water problems.
561. Name: debra pennington on 2019-10-10 17:37:26
Comments:
562. Name: Amoreena Cook on 2019-10-10 17:38:31
Comments:
563. Name: Matt Dickens on 2019-10-10 17:41:20
Comments:
564. Name: Susan James on 2019-10-10 17:41:28
Comments:
565. Name: Taylor Anderson on 2019-10-10 17:46:37
Comments:
566. Name: Karen Lambert on 2019-10-10 17:49:14
Comments:
567. Name: Suzanne Neurauter on 2019-10-10 18:17:04
Comments:
568. Name: John Walsh on 2019-10-10 18:27:46
Comments:
569. Name: David Warren on 2019-10-10 18:41:51
Comments: Drowning in development and we have very little infrastructure to support it.
570. Name: Kayla on 2019-10-10 19:09:13
Comments: This town can not handle anymore growth. Absolutely ridiculous how this
town looks in the last couple of years even more so the last year! Let the people breathe!
571. Name: Nancy Cowen on 2019-10-10 19:13:49
Comments:
572. Name: Kristine ludtke on 2019-10-10 19:21:11
Comments:
573. Name: Charles Kitchen on 2019-10-10 19:38:42
Comments:
Page 47 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 80
574. Name: Bruce Band on 2019-10-10 19:56:58
Comments:
575. Name: Kelly L Meadows on 2019-10-10 20:10:48
Comments: We have enough congestion in our corner of the county already. This would
only add to our endless problems with traffic.
576. Name: Nancy Fenstermacher on 2019-10-10 20:10:54
Comments:
577. Name: Kate on 2019-10-10 20:26:35
Comments: No more apartments and condos!
578. Name: william garling on 2019-10-10 20:28:42
Comments:
579. Name: Bryan Harrington on 2019-10-10 20:35:53
Comments:
580. Name: Tracy Nicholson on 2019-10-10 20:53:41
Comments:
581. Name: Ben Howell on 2019-10-10 20:56:52
Comments:
582. Name: Pam Calhoun on 2019-10-10 21:02:13
Comments:
583. Name: Scott Gowdy on 2019-10-10 21:06:33
Comments: I oppose the new proposed development off of Porters Neck Road.
584. Name: Kendra Harrison on 2019-10-10 21:07:48
Comments:
585. Name: Danielle Knipp on 2019-10-10 21:19:05
Comments:
586. Name: Michele Connelly on 2019-10-10 21:36:57
Comments:
587. Name: Diana Wallace on 2019-10-10 21:41:47
Page 48 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 81
Comments: I am opposed to the development
588. Name: Ed Weinberg on 2019-10-10 21:41:49
Comments: Outrageous plan without adequate roads to school for approximately 500
kids 2 times per day! Plus all those going to work in the AM. Must have traffic light at
entrance and exits for getting out of Blue Point to Market (255 homes) children’s buses
and adults to work. You are adding more than 250% to population (total more than 770
homes)!!!
589. Name: Any Giddens on 2019-10-10 21:42:57
Comments:
590. Name: Robin Riggs on 2019-10-10 21:47:23
Comments:
591. Name: Erica Jones on 2019-10-10 21:56:18
Comments:
592. Name: Alice Fortier on 2019-10-10 21:57:20
Comments:
593. Name: Kenneth Fortier on 2019-10-10 21:58:20
Comments:
594. Name: Michelle Myers on 2019-10-10 21:58:40
Comments:
595. Name: Rebecca Linek on 2019-10-10 21:59:27
Comments:
596. Name: Wade Myers on 2019-10-10 22:00:06
Comments:
597. Name: Celeste Anderson on 2019-10-10 22:00:22
Comments:
598. Name: Jennifer Hendren on 2019-10-10 22:04:17
Comments:
599. Name: Steve Hamburger on 2019-10-10 22:20:24
Comments:
Page 49 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 82
600. Name: Christine villari on 2019-10-10 22:22:54
Comments:
601. Name: Elizabeth Knight on 2019-10-10 22:30:53
Comments:
602. Name: Natalie Reinhart on 2019-10-10 22:34:16
Comments:
603. Name: Valerie Fackler on 2019-10-10 22:56:55
Comments:
604. Name: Doris Tulloch on 2019-10-10 22:58:44
Comments:
605. Name: Judy Fenton on 2019-10-10 23:12:49
Comments:
606. Name: Laura Craft on 2019-10-10 23:13:04
Comments:
607. Name: Rob Fenton on 2019-10-10 23:13:56
Comments:
608. Name: Lillian Ashley on 2019-10-10 23:29:49
Comments: My family and I have lived in the Porter's Neck community for the last 4
years. We love our neighborhood and our neighbors. In order to keep the integrity of our
community it is imperative that it not be developed beyond its reasonable capacity. Our
area is already overwhelmed with massive volumes of commuter traffic and people
moving to the area and a development as large as this would be devastating. There is not
enough infrastructure in place to handle the load of a planned community of this
magnitude. Please keep our streets safe for our children and pets, family and friends and
stop this development from being approved.
609. Name: Chris ONeal on 2019-10-10 23:33:08
Comments:
610. Name: Jennifer Raynor on 2019-10-10 23:36:04
Comments: No more neighborhoods in PN!
611. Name: Michael Wax on 2019-10-10 23:43:14
Comments:
Page 50 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 83
612. Name: Gil Brueckner on 2019-10-10 23:44:07
Comments: Opposed to the proposed development
613. Name: Judy Wax on 2019-10-10 23:44:08
Comments:
614. Name: Lauren Sykes on 2019-10-10 23:44:53
Comments: Its just too much
615. Name: Kristin Pleasant on 2019-10-10 23:46:42
Comments:
616. Name: Brandi Scott on 2019-10-10 23:50:18
Comments:
617. Name: Cindy Murray on 2019-10-10 23:50:22
Comments: Against the current plan
618. Name: Diane Levine on 2019-10-10 23:52:56
Comments:
619. Name: Tammy Tann on 2019-10-10 23:54:05
Comments: DON’T BUILD!!
620. Name: Cheryl Patton on 2019-10-10 23:56:58
Comments:
621. Name: Christel Filak on 2019-10-11 00:01:51
Comments:
622. Name: Heather Prezioso on 2019-10-11 00:04:48
Comments:
623. Name: Susan on 2019-10-11 00:06:22
Comments: Against the proposed development.
624. Name: Linda Taylor on 2019-10-11 00:11:06
Comments:
625. Name: William Rinaldi on 2019-10-11 00:21:08
Comments:
Page 51 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 84
626. Name: Wilson Rogers on 2019-10-11 00:25:08
Comments: I oppose this resining.
627. Name: Joy on 2019-10-11 00:33:13
Comments: Stop with this irresponsible over crowding for MONEY!!
This will have detrimental impacts on wilmington as a whole and you all know it so please
STOP!
628. Name: Sarah McIntosh on 2019-10-11 00:34:45
Comments:
629. Name: Cathleena Fonville on 2019-10-11 00:47:59
Comments: Against the proposed development.
630. Name: Judi Cody on 2019-10-11 00:53:24
Comments: It’s time for our commissioners start being responsible to our environment
and our wildlife. Military Cutoff and Eastwood are no longer attractive. The roads are
too busy. Doing this in Porters Neck would be another irresponsible act by our
commissioners. Vote them out, especially Woody White
631. Name: Cynthia Carroll on 2019-10-11 01:05:09
Comments: STOP THE INSANITY!!
632. Name: William Fenstermacher on 2019-10-11 01:05:57
Comments:
633. Name: Lisa Gritton on 2019-10-11 01:09:44
Comments: My family is against a large apartment complex that leaves no green space
increasing the traffic that is already horrible in Porters neck and hurting property values.
634. Name: Emily Hudson on 2019-10-11 01:10:33
Comments:
635. Name: Shaun Penniman on 2019-10-11 01:11:08
Comments: Way too much traffic for this area!
636. Name: Kathy Murchison on 2019-10-11 01:11:48
Comments: Stop development until we upgrade infrastructure
637. Name: Chikako Sugawara on 2019-10-11 01:12:52
Comments:
638. Name: Heath Vaughan on 2019-10-11 01:20:21
Page 52 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 85
Comments:
639. Name: Courtney on 2019-10-11 01:29:18
Comments:
640. Name: Crystal Bienias on 2019-10-11 01:45:06
Comments:
641. Name: David Forcinito on 2019-10-11 01:47:20
Comments:
642. Name: Christine M Burke on 2019-10-11 01:56:53
Comments:
643. Name: Daniel Cain on 2019-10-11 02:08:13
Comments:
644. Name: Lee Snyder on 2019-10-11 03:16:41
Comments:
645. Name: David Schultz on 2019-10-11 03:25:32
Comments: This is a very irresponsible proposal. This project will be very harmful to the
community and will over burden the surrounding infrastructure.
646. Name: Ashley Paterson on 2019-10-11 03:27:16
Comments:
647. Name: Carrie Cavanaugh on 2019-10-11 03:55:51
Comments:
648. Name: Mary Vogelsong on 2019-10-11 04:09:01
Comments:
649. Name: Edward Vogelsong on 2019-10-11 04:09:55
Comments:
650. Name: Ashley McKinney on 2019-10-11 04:29:20
Comments:
651. Name: Lisa Talerico on 2019-10-11 06:00:29
Comments: No development please!
Page 53 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 86
652. Name: Tammi Dagostino on 2019-10-11 08:37:37
Comments:
653. Name: Cody Hoffman on 2019-10-11 09:23:07
Comments: The Porter's Neck area has already seen unprecedented growth in the last
five years; the congestion on Market street has already become unbareable and
UNSAFE. Porter's Neck (Blair) Elementary was just completed two years ago to relieve
overcrowding, adding a community of this size would return that burden to our teachers
and students. There are already multiple hosing developments under construction within
1.5 of this proposed location, i.e. Waterstone, and the Townhomes at Planation Landing.
NO MORE IRRESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN PORTERS NECK!
654. Name: Caroline Dickenson on 2019-10-11 09:42:49
Comments:
655. Name: Kelly on 2019-10-11 10:05:29
Comments:
656. Name: Lindsay Lonneberg on 2019-10-11 10:18:30
Comments:
657. Name: Susan thompson on 2019-10-11 10:26:20
Comments: Traffic nightmare in the making
658. Name: Kathy Hudson on 2019-10-11 10:55:25
Comments:
659. Name: Jack Hudson on 2019-10-11 10:57:20
Comments:
660. Name: Cynthia isyk on 2019-10-11 11:04:35
Comments: County commissioners do not care, it's all about money
661. Name: pia gronning on 2019-10-11 11:06:26
Comments:
662. Name: Walter Nunalee on 2019-10-11 11:06:38
Comments:
663. Name: Shannon Puschaver on 2019-10-11 11:08:24
Comments: Over development is plaguing Wilmington. We are not being responsible to
the current residents or to those who build buy these homes considering that affects of
storms and flooding. There is already a huge issue with this that was exposed by
Florence. This development is irresponsible, bottom line.
Page 54 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 87
664. Name: Sheila Wilson on 2019-10-11 11:09:41
Comments:
665. Name: Zach on 2019-10-11 12:02:19
Comments:
666. Name: Zach on 2019-10-11 12:05:09
Comments: Build that wall!
667. Name: Scott Robinson on 2019-10-11 12:14:31
Comments: Support your constituents and limit over development...it will ruin a good
thing!
668. Name: Cindy East on 2019-10-11 12:15:26
Comments:
669. Name: Beverly DeLuise on 2019-10-11 12:31:08
Comments:
670. Name: Ron Patterson on 2019-10-11 12:37:40
Comments: No!
671. Name: Karyl Dowd on 2019-10-11 12:47:38
Comments:
672. Name: Jacqueline Ross on 2019-10-11 12:54:20
Comments: Dont you think we should make more things to do around here before
building more quick cash homes? I mean where are all the new people gonna go? Food
lion and the car wash? Maybe swing by dollar General on their way home? Theres
nothing to do around here except get stuck in traffic, glad youre helping the problem with
your greed!
673. Name: Jennifer Patterson on 2019-10-11 12:55:25
Comments: No apartments, no duplexes, no more traffic congestion, EMS already
overloaded as are the schools PLEASE
674. Name: Kahlim Miller on 2019-10-11 12:58:10
Comments:
675. Name: Fernandez-Villa on 2019-10-11 13:04:05
Comments:
Page 55 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 88
676. Name: Jen Onley on 2019-10-11 13:12:38
Comments:
677. Name: Richard Nettell on 2019-10-11 13:22:38
Comments:
678. Name: Sandra Bass on 2019-10-11 13:29:43
Comments:
679. Name: Emanuel Klein on 2019-10-11 13:54:15
Comments:
680. Name: Jasmine on 2019-10-11 14:09:16
Comments:
681. Name: Yvonne Spencer on 2019-10-11 14:18:17
Comments: Native North Carolinian, family has lived in Porters Neck since the early 60's.
Please protect our neighborhood and not allow multi-family dwellings.
682. Name: Kimberly Crockett on 2019-10-11 14:28:44
Comments:
683. Name: Julie A Edwards on 2019-10-11 14:46:59
Comments: The lack of study with regard to traffic impact, and appropriate drainage
indicates very irresponsible planning on the part of the developer. Single family homes
could be managed, but not appartments. Too dense for this neighborhood.
684. Name: English Tuttle on 2019-10-11 14:59:15
Comments: This is horrible for the people who live on Tibbys
685. Name: Liz Moore on 2019-10-11 15:00:46
Comments:
686. Name: Carole Magyar on 2019-10-11 15:15:19
Comments:
687. Name: Danielle SILVESTRI on 2019-10-11 15:16:40
Comments:
688. Name: Cvcole on 2019-10-11 15:31:55
Comments: Will Logan Builders cover the future infrastructure, environmental, and
personal disaster costs which will be incurred by his greedily, for profit only, paving over
of needed drainage areas and his for-profit overloading of this regional carrying capacity?
Page 56 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 89
Who will bear these future costs? Logan? The County? Taxpayers? Homeowners?
689. Name: Allyn Nunalee on 2019-10-11 15:39:02
Comments:
690. Name: Teresa Morgan on 2019-10-11 15:49:11
Comments: Greatly concerned about the branch in Tibbys Branch. The branch flows
from low (drought conditions) to moderate (normal rain conditions) to high (hurricane
conditions). A major hurricane will overflow the banks. When I asked the developer why
the branch was not on his map, He said "You mean that ditch?". That ditch holds a
significant amount of water from the land he wants to build on. The property sold on
Tibbys side was always thought to be a part of our development. We will back up to
drainage ponds and duplexes with a minimum buffer. If the propsal goes through,I would
ask the developer to consider a considerable hedge row and tree buffer to be installed.
We did not buy in this neighborhood with the intention of living by duplexes and
apartments. No one is against development, just make it similar single family homes like
the existing communities around the proposed development
691. Name: Jerry Pope on 2019-10-11 15:49:11
Comments: Absolutely opposed to rezoning. Traffic is dangerous enough on Porters
Neck Rd as it is. Same for anywhere between the new Walmart and just north of Scotts
Hill
692. Name: Amanda welliver on 2019-10-11 15:59:01
Comments:
693. Name: Joe welliver on 2019-10-11 15:59:42
Comments:
694. Name: Barbara raynor on 2019-10-11 16:00:26
Comments:
695. Name: Meredith Lambert on 2019-10-11 16:04:18
Comments:
696. Name: Diana Calomino on 2019-10-11 16:24:35
Comments:
697. Name: Simon Robson on 2019-10-11 16:38:36
Comments:
698. Name: Lynda Brooks on 2019-10-11 16:45:30
Comments: County officials need to understand that we do not support uncontrolled
growth and will remember their actions on election day!
Page 57 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 90
699. Name: JON on 2019-10-11 16:46:01
Comments:
700. Name: Laura Adams on 2019-10-11 16:55:28
Comments:
701. Name: Kristal Moore on 2019-10-11 17:19:34
Comments: Too much growth, too fast, failing infrastructure.... stop lining people’s
pockets at the expense of our communities!
702. Name: Ben Ligotti on 2019-10-11 17:39:23
Comments: This devoloment would be a disaster.
703. Name: Albert Dias on 2019-10-11 17:44:14
Comments:
704. Name: Jennifer Lopatka on 2019-10-11 17:57:34
Comments:
705. Name: Jennifer Bakane on 2019-10-11 18:01:22
Comments:
706. Name: Brenda Stater on 2019-10-11 18:37:23
Comments: Could we at least get the overpass finished??
707. Name: Jean Lion on 2019-10-11 19:12:45
Comments:
708. Name: David Pate on 2019-10-11 19:34:09
Comments:
709. Name: Joe Cap on 2019-10-11 19:40:16
Comments:
710. Name: Lynne Loeser on 2019-10-11 19:40:34
Comments: If this goes forward (which I hope it does not) could we please ask for some
considerations for natural buffers between existing homes and preservation of natural
areas and trees
711. Name: Chelsea Robson on 2019-10-11 19:47:21
Comments:
Page 58 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 91
712. Name: Pennie Mattingly on 2019-10-11 19:52:30
Comments:
713. Name: Edward Lion on 2019-10-11 20:13:33
Comments:
714. Name: Denny Loeser on 2019-10-11 20:16:56
Comments: Infrastructure can not handle this growth.
Sewers, water and traffic etc.
715. Name: Kristina woodard on 2019-10-11 20:25:53
Comments:
716. Name: Dawn Spencer on 2019-10-11 20:29:57
Comments:
717. Name: Jason call on 2019-10-11 20:40:34
Comments:
718. Name: Elizabeth Jordan on 2019-10-11 20:43:32
Comments: This proposed reasoning and development is atrocious! Have you NO regard
for the environment and quality of life!?!? SHAME ON YOU! NO, NO, NO to this
proposal!!!
719. Name: John Lehmann on 2019-10-11 21:09:36
Comments:
720. Name: Tom Paranto on 2019-10-11 21:19:22
Comments: No way will this project move forward.
721. Name: Dana greer on 2019-10-11 21:36:39
Comments:
722. Name: Beckett Jagutis on 2019-10-11 21:48:59
Comments:
723. Name: Ela Mac Jagutis on 2019-10-11 21:49:43
Comments:
724. Name: Jeff price on 2019-10-11 21:58:43
Comments: Preserve what is left of the diminishing natural habitat in the greater
Page 59 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 92
Wilmington area.
725. Name: Jim Fisher on 2019-10-11 23:00:54
Comments:
726. Name: Alexa French on 2019-10-12 00:34:56
Comments: Stop development in Porters Neck. Look what happened at Plantation
Landing Dr. -- crammed in townhomes being built that don't fit with the rest of the
surrounding community.
727. Name: Alecia Scheiber on 2019-10-12 01:38:33
Comments: There is no funds for new schools much less improvements to the current
ones. Take this into consideration and realize you are also creating more congestion in
an area that cannot take anymore.
728. Name: Melissa Schosek on 2019-10-12 01:44:02
Comments:
729. Name: Patty Piner on 2019-10-12 02:15:01
Comments:
730. Name: Jessica Beckerich on 2019-10-12 03:30:14
Comments:
731. Name: Sabrena Reinhardt on 2019-10-12 09:42:06
Comments:
732. Name: Elizabeth Hourigan on 2019-10-12 10:18:16
Comments:
733. Name: Danielle on 2019-10-12 10:30:28
Comments:
734. Name: Sherry Kooyman on 2019-10-12 10:35:19
Comments:
735. Name: Megan Nunez on 2019-10-12 11:05:06
Comments: If this passes this will ruin our neighborhood.
736. Name: Dennis Brownlee on 2019-10-12 11:10:19
Comments: This will cause an excess of traffic.
Page 60 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 93
737. Name: Katherine Knight on 2019-10-12 11:29:16
Comments: Not only are you destroying more free space but added more traffic to a
congested area to add more houses and
apartments that Wilmington does not need. What we need are better job opportunities
and additional schools. This is a greedy and senseless proposal
738. Name: Julie Barefoot on 2019-10-12 11:40:36
Comments:
739. Name: Robert Bagley on 2019-10-12 12:21:00
Comments:
740. Name: Jenny Parlier on 2019-10-12 12:43:55
Comments:
741. Name: Cade Sanchez on 2019-10-12 12:53:31
Comments:
742. Name: Sherwood Evans on 2019-10-12 13:16:59
Comments:
743. Name: Liz Eggleston on 2019-10-12 13:26:50
Comments: Against additional development in Porters
Neck area.
744. Name: Kyle J on 2019-10-12 15:31:31
Comments:
745. Name: Julie Bordo on 2019-10-12 16:02:11
Comments: Enough!!! This will harm our community in too many ways. NO!
746. Name: Julie Rosen on 2019-10-12 16:11:29
Comments:
747. Name: Susan La Forgia on 2019-10-12 16:26:10
Comments:
748. Name: Johnsawyer on 2019-10-12 16:36:30
Comments:
749. Name: Chris Smith on 2019-10-12 17:42:00
Comments: Stop the County's Greed and irresponsible actions by not protecting the
residents
Page 61 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 94
750. Name: Wendy Fonvielle on 2019-10-12 17:51:24
Comments: Build a nice new development that will enhance the area, but absolutely no
apartments please!
751. Name: Shannon Reynolds on 2019-10-12 20:29:03
Comments:
752. Name: Ashley Pierce on 2019-10-12 21:23:11
Comments:
753. Name: Karlee Isenhart on 2019-10-12 22:48:41
Comments:
754. Name: Francine Klein on 2019-10-13 02:24:41
Comments:
755. Name: Nina Walker on 2019-10-13 02:27:28
Comments:
756. Name: Jaclyn Simoneau on 2019-10-13 02:56:31
Comments:
757. Name: Jeff Hufham on 2019-10-13 03:32:16
Comments:
758. Name: Kelly Domino on 2019-10-13 03:57:57
Comments:
759. Name: Ryan Blacher on 2019-10-13 12:22:36
Comments: Against the rezone, area is too congested and schools are already full.
760. Name: Elizabeth Johnston on 2019-10-13 12:27:45
Comments:
761. Name: Jonathan P McCarthy on 2019-10-13 12:30:43
Comments:
762. Name: C Cadden on 2019-10-13 12:58:08
Comments: Single family homes only. The Porters Neck fire station response time will be
negatively affected by the increased traffic backups at the Market St. light.
Page 62 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 95
763. Name: Dianne Cadden on 2019-10-13 12:59:36
Comments:
764. Name: Ryan Edwards on 2019-10-13 13:02:00
Comments:
765. Name: Racheal Smith on 2019-10-13 13:05:51
Comments:
766. Name: Kyria Henry on 2019-10-13 13:09:35
Comments:
767. Name: Rebecca Labonne on 2019-10-13 13:57:58
Comments:
768. Name: Jenifer Capps on 2019-10-13 14:12:15
Comments:
769. Name: Karen McCarthy on 2019-10-13 15:08:33
Comments:
770. Name: Nicole on 2019-10-13 15:10:00
Comments:
771. Name: Edward Penniman on 2019-10-13 15:12:01
Comments: The traffic study as presented at the Community Meeting was inadequate
and misleading.
772. Name: Connie Johnson on 2019-10-13 15:12:01
Comments:
773. Name: Charles Gibson on 2019-10-13 15:18:29
Comments:
774. Name: Deb Gibson on 2019-10-13 15:19:48
Comments:
775. Name: Trish Salvant on 2019-10-13 15:23:48
Comments:
776. Name: Jennifer Waldrop on 2019-10-13 16:01:28
Comments:
Page 63 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 96
777. Name: Rudolf Russart on 2019-10-13 16:02:58
Comments:
778. Name: Robert W Latstetter on 2019-10-13 16:30:14
Comments:
779. Name: Leah McCall on 2019-10-13 17:37:54
Comments:
780. Name: Jeffrey Johnson on 2019-10-13 17:43:43
Comments:
781. Name: April Jones on 2019-10-13 17:44:06
Comments:
782. Name: Laine on 2019-10-13 17:59:00
Comments:
783. Name: Megan Demolina on 2019-10-13 18:46:47
Comments:
784. Name: Jill Moody on 2019-10-13 19:15:51
Comments:
785. Name: Christophe Moody on 2019-10-13 19:17:10
Comments:
786. Name: Trisha on 2019-10-13 20:06:17
Comments:
787. Name: Deb Seed on 2019-10-13 20:10:01
Comments: We do not need any high density living here. The infrastructure /flooding
won’t hold it, and its a family area. Single family homes are ok. Just please don’t allow it.
Rather build hi density the other side of 17
788. Name: Heather Yarborough on 2019-10-13 22:17:53
Comments:
789. Name: Kendall Murphy on 2019-10-13 23:06:48
Comments:
Page 64 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 97
790. Name: Cari Guerin on 2019-10-13 23:40:10
Comments:
791. Name: Cathy Andrews on 2019-10-13 23:44:29
Comments:
792. Name: Rob Hartwick on 2019-10-14 00:02:21
Comments:
793. Name: Will Hall on 2019-10-14 02:11:19
Comments:
794. Name: aubrey andrews on 2019-10-14 02:24:57
Comments:
795. Name: olivia on 2019-10-14 02:28:53
Comments:
796. Name: Taylor s on 2019-10-14 02:33:36
Comments:
797. Name: Caroline Peterson on 2019-10-14 02:35:01
Comments:
798. Name: Shayla on 2019-10-14 02:41:00
Comments:
799. Name: sheridan lycett on 2019-10-14 02:42:38
Comments:
800. Name: Reagan Turner on 2019-10-14 02:51:26
Comments:
801. Name: abigail on 2019-10-14 02:51:50
Comments:
802. Name: addy blanton on 2019-10-14 04:02:42
Comments:
803. Name: Joni Naudet on 2019-10-14 04:58:42
Comments:
Page 65 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 98
804. Name: Caroline Chambliss on 2019-10-14 09:09:29
Comments:
805. Name: Lynn Matthews on 2019-10-14 10:21:11
Comments: I’m opposed
806. Name: haley goens on 2019-10-14 10:45:17
Comments:
807. Name: Kayla C on 2019-10-14 11:50:14
Comments:
808. Name: Jack jones on 2019-10-14 12:58:17
Comments:
809. Name: Peter Olson on 2019-10-14 13:12:05
Comments:
810. Name: Jacob c on 2019-10-14 13:51:55
Comments: Build another high school not more houses
811. Name: Gracyn Dwyer on 2019-10-14 13:54:28
Comments:
812. Name: jessi brown on 2019-10-14 13:55:04
Comments:
813. Name: Brittany on 2019-10-14 13:59:28
Comments:
814. Name: Lily on 2019-10-14 14:09:02
Comments:
815. Name: Claire R on 2019-10-14 14:10:08
Comments:
816. Name: Joan OKelly on 2019-10-14 14:17:37
Comments: Already the roads cannot handle the traffic. Build better roads and first. Very
bad planning which is going to lead to chaos! Think ahead.
817. Name: Patrick Kerr on 2019-10-14 14:41:01
Comments: Wilmington and surrounding areas is being ruined by large development. Our
Page 66 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 99
infrastructure cannot support large development and green areas are lost forever.
818. Name: Grace Clavadetacher on 2019-10-14 15:06:02
Comments:
819. Name: Maggie Stephens on 2019-10-14 15:15:47
Comments:
820. Name: kianna on 2019-10-14 15:22:35
Comments:
821. Name: kensie williams on 2019-10-14 15:29:29
Comments:
822. Name: Madeline key on 2019-10-14 15:33:30
Comments:
823. Name: Madeline key on 2019-10-14 15:33:33
Comments:
824. Name: Gary waters on 2019-10-14 15:54:27
Comments:
825. Name: Connie Flores on 2019-10-14 16:32:51
Comments:
826. Name: bridgette corpus on 2019-10-14 16:53:07
Comments:
827. Name: Siena Carilli on 2019-10-14 17:16:25
Comments:
828. Name: Siena Carilli on 2019-10-14 17:16:36
Comments:
829. Name: Chloe Allen on 2019-10-14 17:23:37
Comments:
830. Name: Matt Nicholson on 2019-10-14 17:26:03
Comments:
831. Name: Tracy Nicholson on 2019-10-14 17:27:41
Page 67 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 100
Comments:
832. Name: Cate Cornelius on 2019-10-14 18:47:52
Comments:
833. Name: Christi Natale on 2019-10-14 20:03:53
Comments:
834. Name: Jenny Leeds on 2019-10-14 21:46:29
Comments: The proposed development will have severe consequences for Tibbys
Branch. We have the potential to experience MORE flooding. The Porter's Neck area
does not have the infrastructure to support this many new residents.
835. Name: John Newby on 2019-10-14 21:49:21
Comments: Keep the land at the current residential zoning limit
836. Name: Meara on 2019-10-14 21:54:05
Comments:
837. Name: nathan stilwell on 2019-10-14 21:56:42
Comments: Idk
838. Name: Tara Laymon on 2019-10-14 23:03:02
Comments:
839. Name: Melissa G Mclaughlin on 2019-10-15 00:38:35
Comments:
840. Name: Melissa Peters on 2019-10-15 01:09:18
Comments:
841. Name: Jennifer Tilghman on 2019-10-15 10:37:16
Comments:
842. Name: Bonnie McNay on 2019-10-15 13:42:24
Comments: I can't imagine the strain this will cause to an already overbuilt area with
more crawling traffic, more road rage and stress on schools, infrastructure and general
quality of life. Stop the greed of overbuilding!
843. Name: Trentt James on 2019-10-15 13:55:43
Comments:
Page 68 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 101
844. Name: Jenny Hsu on 2019-10-15 17:00:48
Comments:
845. Name: Kristina fanning on 2019-10-16 02:08:35
Comments:
846. Name: Marley fanning on 2019-10-16 02:09:10
Comments:
847. Name: Robin Jeffers on 2019-10-16 02:11:13
Comments:
848. Name: Barry gritton on 2019-10-16 02:22:58
Comments:
849. Name: Amy James on 2019-10-16 09:54:22
Comments:
850. Name: Sarah Matheny on 2019-10-16 10:19:32
Comments:
851. Name: Joshua Dills on 2019-10-16 10:58:24
Comments:
852. Name: Donna Updegrove on 2019-10-16 11:27:18
Comments:
853. Name: Lisa Grogan on 2019-10-16 11:38:45
Comments:
854. Name: Amanda Tuttle on 2019-10-16 12:15:01
Comments:
855. Name: Ian Fanning on 2019-10-16 14:13:10
Comments:
856. Name: Rhonda Goebel on 2019-10-16 15:15:43
Comments:
857. Name: Sheila White on 2019-10-16 15:32:14
Comments: All this traffic would be traveling through my neighborhood. Please no
apartments!!! Single family homes only!!! Let's keep the neighborhood quality at a level
Page 69 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 102
similar to the surrounding neighborhoods!
858. Name: Ann O'Leary on 2019-10-16 15:57:29
Comments: Density of homes should be no higher than that of the immediately
surrounding neighborhoods
859. Name: Ginny Jones on 2019-10-16 18:01:10
Comments: Traffic and accidents on Market St. and environmental impacts by over-
development are already out of control. Put a moratorium on high-density developments
in this area and preserve single-family zoning.
860. Name: Leanne Esteves on 2019-10-16 18:16:35
Comments:
861. Name: Dianna Carson on 2019-10-16 20:15:53
Comments:
862. Name: Amiee muir on 2019-10-16 22:35:40
Comments: No apartment
863. Name: Tom Freeman on 2019-10-16 23:27:32
Comments:
864. Name: Liz on 2019-10-16 23:45:06
Comments: Do not allow this development!!
865. Name: samuel colman on 2019-10-17 00:55:47
Comments: if your going to build
build homes not apartments
this is not the city
866. Name: Greg herring on 2019-10-17 02:05:30
Comments:
867. Name: Diane Ross on 2019-10-18 08:27:14
Comments: do not permit with current housing levels. Reduce number of apartments and
townhouses.
868. Name: John P Ruppe on 2019-10-18 09:56:37
Comments:
869. Name: Gary Denton on 2019-10-18 11:20:26
Comments: This area can not accommodate another 800 and 1000 more people on this
Page 70 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 103
two lane country road, not to mention the existing over crowding in our new elementary
school. No to this development as it exists. No apartments!
870. Name: William Y Doran on 2019-10-18 11:29:25
Comments:
871. Name: John Hunter on 2019-10-18 13:04:54
Comments:
872. Name: John Koropatnick on 2019-10-18 13:04:55
Comments: In this narrow patch of land it is being designed for 14 apartment buildings
with 575 parking spaces, plus town homes and single family homes. To get right to the
point, our small traffic circle at Porters Neck Road, Sharaz Way and Edgewater Club
Road leading to Figure Eight Island and Blair Elementary School will be overwhelmed. I
addition, the traffic light at Porters Neck Road and Market Street is already challenged by
all the commercial development at that intersection, which continues to grow with a new
hotel being built.
At the information session conducted over a week ago, it was standing room only with
200 people held outside by the fire marshal. They were allowed in later for an unplanned
second session. Residents are very concerned. If unchecked, The "Port City" will soon
have to change its nick name to the "Apartment/Storage Unit" city.
We hope to organize and engage some of our more influential residents on Bald Eagle
Lane and Figure Eight Island to help in at least modifying the proposed development to
something realistic. Being reasonable people, growth and development is a good thing,
over development and high concentration of residents is not. With a more measured
decision process on your part, perhaps you will modify the development to just single
family homes, and not the apartments and town homes being proposed.
873. Name: Judy Wells on 2019-10-18 13:44:09
Comments:
874. Name: J Lawrence Jamieson on 2019-10-18 13:45:55
Comments: I am completely opposed to this development plan
875. Name: Carol Anderson on 2019-10-18 14:00:37
Comments:
876. Name: Jeanne Gordon on 2019-10-18 14:04:40
Comments:
877. Name: Carolyn D Cebula on 2019-10-18 14:44:51
Comments:
Page 71 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 104
878. Name: William Piner on 2019-10-18 15:06:43
Comments: Unbridled development will destroy our neighborhood while the developers
take the money and run.
879. Name: Robert Gordon on 2019-10-18 15:51:23
Comments:
880. Name: Roger Wells on 2019-10-18 16:16:56
Comments: The Logan Development in Porters Neck should not be approved. The roads
near the planned development do not have the capacity to handle the traffic for the
proposed high density development. The proposed development will create traffic safety
issues for Porters Neck residents and elementary school students, families driving to the
school and school buses.
The parcel must remain at its current zoning level.
881. Name: Maurice Snavely on 2019-10-18 18:05:24
Comments:
882. Name: Cathy Grampp on 2019-10-18 18:07:21
Comments:
883. Name: Susan Keifer on 2019-10-18 18:25:57
Comments:
884. Name: Ken Ross on 2019-10-18 18:30:41
Comments: This is nothing but a huge negative for Porters Neck. Increased traffic we
don't need. Will drive more traffic thru The Vineyards which has lot of young families w/
kids.
Will also have a negative affect on property values.
885. Name: Ray Cardella on 2019-10-18 19:10:29
Comments: The area is primarily a single family community and should remain as is.
Additionally, the proposed development woundi bring about extreme congestion to an
already overcrowded roadway system. Further, our new school would face then
insurmountable task of accommodating the additional students which woulld be a result
of the proposed develop. Enough is enough! Vote no to the developers plan. Thank you,
Ray Cardella
886. Name: jim Stathis on 2019-10-18 19:22:20
Comments: The overall environment will be impacted negatively and we need to voice
our concerns.
887. Name: Francis Pinkston on 2019-10-18 20:07:59
Page 72 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 105
Comments: This development, as it stands, should not be approved. Change to single
family homes to blend in with the rest of this beautiful community.
888. Name: Coleen W Huse on 2019-10-18 20:39:39
Comments:
889. Name: Dorothy Mazepa on 2019-10-18 20:44:42
Comments: In addition to the overcrowding of the neighborhood school, what about a
traffic study? What about the fact there is another large development going in next to the
school? How is our community supposed to handle this?
890. Name: Shirley A Gerrior on 2019-10-18 20:55:40
Comments: A real negative for the area--traffic and environmental impact studies need to
be done.
891. Name: Peggy J Glass on 2019-10-18 21:05:58
Comments:
892. Name: William Bartlett on 2019-10-18 21:09:19
Comments: This is the greatest threat to my neighborhood since I have been here. This
includes two major hurricanes. I will follow the votes and work to ensure that anyone who
votes for this project is held accountable at the ballot box.
893. Name: Tina Bartlett on 2019-10-18 22:21:12
Comments:
894. Name: Michelle Bowen on 2019-10-18 22:50:17
Comments:
895. Name: Faye E Egan on 2019-10-19 00:14:08
Comments: I am strongly opposed to this development
896. Name: Matt Lopatka on 2019-10-19 00:36:51
Comments: Market street cannot handle the traffic now!!! Do not let this happen. There
is already more apartments being built at Marsh Oaks.
897. Name: George Dodson on 2019-10-19 00:41:09
Comments: I hope you would not even consider approving. Traffic is at a standstill two -
three times a day now turning on to Market Street
898. Name: Joanne purnell on 2019-10-19 00:42:08
Comments: We already have gridlock in the notch end of town and mainly one road in
and out of the Porters Neck area. We do not need to add to this.
Page 73 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 106
899. Name: John Mize on 2019-10-19 00:51:06
Comments: The congestion already present in this area argues against any additional
homes or apartments. Our roads cannot support any more residents.
900. Name: Kelli Kuperus on 2019-10-19 01:18:04
Comments:
901. Name: Laura Lee Handel on 2019-10-19 01:18:46
Comments: We need to stop this proposal
902. Name: Ryan Kuperus on 2019-10-19 01:18:50
Comments: Local infrastructure is already suffering. Adding more apartments in not a
solution to this problem.
903. Name: Amy k on 2019-10-19 01:30:48
Comments:
904. Name: Arthur Miles on 2019-10-19 01:46:41
Comments:
905. Name: Denise Cherewich on 2019-10-19 01:52:08
Comments:
906. Name: Grace Cooley on 2019-10-19 02:52:47
Comments:
907. Name: Jacob long on 2019-10-19 03:06:07
Comments:
908. Name: Priscilla Jack on 2019-10-19 05:14:12
Comments:
909. Name: Mugnos jeanine on 2019-10-19 09:45:22
Comments: Our Neighborhood cannot support the traffic this plan would generate (As is
we have overcrowded streets like Market) endanger kids walking home from school as
well as the animal life living in the land of the proposed development
910. Name: Gail keller on 2019-10-19 10:43:27
Comments:
911. Name: D Ellen Gallo on 2019-10-19 12:15:48
Page 74 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 107
Comments:
912. Name: Laura Drew on 2019-10-19 12:16:55
Comments:
913. Name: Ann Keller on 2019-10-19 12:36:23
Comments:
914. Name: Julie Terrell on 2019-10-19 12:37:42
Comments:
915. Name: Karen Zink on 2019-10-19 13:02:41
Comments: I am extremely concerned about this density affecting flood control and traffic.
916. Name: Deborah Woods on 2019-10-19 13:11:10
Comments: Porters Neck already is too densely populated. There is only one main road
leading to Market Street that is already congested. A secondary smaller road makes it
difficult to head south on Market Street. Logan has not performed adequate tests on
flooding or traffic congestion. Moreover our property values will go down! Do Not Allow
Rezoning for Logan
917. Name: Grant Applewhite on 2019-10-19 13:34:16
Comments: strongly opposed to this dense population project
918. Name: Bryan Keller on 2019-10-19 13:34:22
Comments: This development should be refused. Way too much density and lack of
infrastructure !!
919. Name: Larry Monahan on 2019-10-19 13:46:55
Comments:
920. Name: Susan Flater on 2019-10-19 14:17:45
Comments: I think the proposed development is too dense for that area, especially with
only one main road to carry all the traffic, which is already congested.
921. Name: Eileen Gallagher on 2019-10-19 14:18:52
Comments:
922. Name: Yona Bar-Zeev on 2019-10-19 14:20:43
Comments:
923. Name: Greg Whitacre on 2019-10-19 14:48:40
Comments:
Page 75 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 108
924. Name: Lauren Dwyer on 2019-10-19 14:57:18
Comments:
925. Name: Richard D Ferguson on 2019-10-19 15:11:07
Comments: I am not in favor of this change to our community.
926. Name: Roberta Michael Gillman on 2019-10-19 15:47:45
Comments:
927. Name: Brian Parsons on 2019-10-19 16:07:48
Comments: We moved here to get away from the over-development and resulting over-
population of a Washington, DC suburb. We fear that the proposed development will
result in similar increases of crime, pollution, congestion, and pose a safety risk to our
children. The current population of the Porters Neck area is more than sufficient to
support the already growing number of local businesses.
928. Name: A Christine Conry on 2019-10-19 17:19:25
Comments: No apartments , no apartments, no apartments ...
929. Name: Marvin Siefers on 2019-10-19 17:53:31
Comments: I am totally against this construction for all the reasons we local citizens have
clearly defined and presented!
930. Name: Elaine Weinert on 2019-10-19 17:59:36
Comments:
931. Name: James D Barkley on 2019-10-19 18:00:39
Comments: Single family homes only!!!
932. Name: Patricia J Moisa on 2019-10-19 19:43:48
Comments:
933. Name: Madeline Watson on 2019-10-19 22:05:27
Comments:
934. Name: Danielle Jernigan on 2019-10-19 22:09:28
Comments:
935. Name: Timothy Conry on 2019-10-19 22:34:44
Comments: Add the cost for upgrading the local fire house for the addition of equipment
to handle taller structures.
Page 76 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 109
936. Name: Suzanne Relyea on 2019-10-19 23:00:01
Comments:
937. Name: Allison Bart on 2019-10-19 23:21:47
Comments: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
938. Name: LouiseCaglaran on 2019-10-20 00:00:12
Comments: It
939. Name: Linda Tobin on 2019-10-20 01:00:25
Comments:
940. Name: Elisa D Holt on 2019-10-20 03:43:55
Comments:
941. Name: Marguerite Curtis on 2019-10-20 04:05:44
Comments:
942. Name: Charlotte Ferguson on 2019-10-20 12:00:00
Comments:
943. Name: John Lyon on 2019-10-20 12:54:22
Comments:
944. Name: Berni Walsh on 2019-10-20 13:10:50
Comments: If this was your community, would you approve this?
945. Name: Stan Weinrich on 2019-10-20 14:02:09
Comments: An Utterly Ridiculous Proposal !!!
The Planning Board must not support this fiasco.
946. Name: Rainer Kienle on 2019-10-20 15:57:01
Comments: The high population density of the proposed project will create a traffic
nightmare. Unacceptable!
947. Name: WILLIAM PICKELL on 2019-10-20 16:55:14
Comments: This project is completely Unacceptable, get a grip on this type of
development !
948. Name: Martha Barbour on 2019-10-20 17:24:00
Comments: Object to rezoning of Logan Homes development in Porters Neck. Both
Porters Neck Road and Market Street cannot take any more traffic. What has happened
to Wilmington? Building is occurring on every inch of land available without any regard to
Page 77 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 110
our infrastructure of the roads, neighborhoods, and the environment.
Please stop!!
949. Name: Deb Seed on 2019-10-20 18:04:22
Comments: Way too hi density for the area,
no supporting infrastructure at all! This will reduce home values and change the character
of our neighborhood.
950. Name: Sara Aarthun on 2019-10-20 18:10:58
Comments: Too high a density for traffic and good use of land for waste water
management
951. Name: Ann Johnson on 2019-10-20 18:14:47
Comments:
952. Name: John Barbour on 2019-10-20 18:24:57
Comments: Traffic in the Porters Neck is already an issue. If this development goes
through it will be a traffic nightmare since the infrastructure is not compatible to handle
this size of this development.
953. Name: Bette Northup on 2019-10-20 18:41:53
Comments:
954. Name: Ernie Northup on 2019-10-20 18:43:41
Comments:
955. Name: Delores and Serge Claire on 2019-10-20 20:08:02
Comments:
956. Name: Nancy Fisher on 2019-10-20 20:32:53
Comments:
957. Name: Stephanie Haley on 2019-10-21 13:15:26
Comments:
958. Name: daniel m smith on 2019-10-21 13:29:25
Comments: The proposed development makes no sense and will negatively alter our
community. If you must build apartments do so on the other side of Route 17
959. Name: Edward Seed on 2019-10-21 14:35:35
Comments:
960. Name: Rolf Ficken on 2019-10-21 16:11:01
Page 78 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 111
Comments: Virtually all traffic from this development will dump through the already
congested PN traffic circle as majority of traffic will be heading towards the downtown
direction. The amount of traffic resulting from the proposed population density cannot be
handled and will effectively block in fire station. Apartments on this site make absolutely
no sense.
961. Name: Emily Powell on 2019-10-21 21:30:19
Comments:
962. Name: Maryann Bridges on 2019-10-22 15:38:58
Comments:
963. Name: Heidi Johnson on 2019-10-22 17:01:47
Comments:
964. Name: Andy Johnson on 2019-10-22 17:05:17
Comments:
965. Name: Suzanne Thrasher on 2019-10-22 17:07:20
Comments:
966. Name: Janeth Dill on 2019-10-22 17:20:10
Comments:
967. Name: Stephen Nickol on 2019-10-22 17:38:57
Comments: If this new project is approved I suggest we get sheets of paper to hand out
to drivers when the traffic gets gridlocked. The paper will have the names an address of
the officials that approved the project.
968. Name: Jessica Herring on 2019-10-22 17:45:22
Comments:
969. Name: Gregg Yoder on 2019-10-22 17:46:22
Comments:
970. Name: Amanda Herring on 2019-10-22 17:47:38
Comments:
971. Name: Kathleen Herring on 2019-10-22 17:48:31
Comments:
972. Name: David J Martindale on 2019-10-22 18:28:38
Comments: We are 100% against the proposed development as structured.
Page 79 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 112
973. Name: Carolyn Stokley on 2019-10-22 18:39:53
Comments: Until all communities in Porters Neck have water and sewer, plus roads to
handle additional traffic we do not need this sort of housing. Fix the infrastructure before
allowing this kind of growth.
974. Name: Gwendoline F Healy on 2019-10-22 19:09:01
Comments: Traffic and flooding are my main concerns. This area cannot handle it
already. If this goes through it will be disastrous to the entire community. Surely common
decency can prevail above greed!
975. Name: John McElwee on 2019-10-22 19:55:30
Comments: Against this development
976. Name: Jake Hanna on 2019-10-22 20:09:10
Comments: The infrastructure of Porters Neck Road cannot possibly handle the influx of
traffic. If this developer is allowed to have this land rezoned, a precedent will be set for
any other developer acquiring land trying to rezone to multi family.
977. Name: John M Nelson on 2019-10-23 02:19:50
Comments:
978. Name: Erica Nelson on 2019-10-23 02:20:28
Comments:
979. Name: Keri Anne Simonelli on 2019-10-23 02:37:04
Comments:
980. Name: Heather King on 2019-10-23 03:50:13
Comments:
981. Name: Linda McKarney on 2019-10-23 11:25:04
Comments: Listen to your locals. Obviously bad planning and needs further examination.
982. Name: John Natale on 2019-10-23 11:57:59
Comments:
983. Name: Felicia Natale on 2019-10-23 13:19:29
Comments:
984. Name: Josh Hartzell on 2019-10-23 14:51:46
Comments:
Page 80 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 113
985. Name: Haley Moon on 2019-10-23 17:06:34
Comments: Enough is enough, leave some of the beauty of Wilmington!
986. Name: Tracey Callahan on 2019-10-23 18:58:25
Comments: Mother Nature says that Logan Builders needs re think their proposal maybe
cut it in half! They are being greedy and will pay for their greed!
987. Name: Deidre Gould on 2019-10-23 19:24:41
Comments:
988. Name: Mark Hardy on 2019-10-23 21:53:07
Comments:
989. Name: Mary Beth Hardy on 2019-10-23 21:54:22
Comments:
990. Name: Ann Latstetter on 2019-10-23 23:57:25
Comments:
991. Name: Catherine Logan on 2019-10-24 12:15:02
Comments:
992. Name: Madeleine on 2019-10-24 12:16:56
Comments:
993. Name: Beverly Reed on 2019-10-24 16:53:25
Comments:
994. Name: Laura Webb on 2019-10-24 17:43:54
Comments:
995. Name: phyllis salatino on 2019-10-24 17:56:03
Comments:
996. Name: Diane Wood Cortiglio on 2019-10-24 18:45:45
Comments: Please, we are experiencing so much more traffic and flooding issues now
this congested road cannot tolerate any more!
997. Name: Mary Melia on 2019-10-24 19:06:06
Comments:
998. Name: Merv Wilkinson on 2019-10-24 20:02:26
Page 81 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 114
Comments: The inadequacy of revised infrastructure is at a tipping point in many newly
developed areas in Wilmington. Please let us not add to the problem without proper short
, medium and long term logistical planning
999. Name: Ein Dawson on 2019-10-24 20:20:10
Comments: Enough! We chose this area for our retirement home because of its beauty.
Don’t destroy it by high density building, increased traffic, and flooding potential.
1000. Name: Cathy Fisher on 2019-10-24 21:21:43
Comments: Additional traffic, demands and strain on infrastructure, and negative
environmental impact are reasons to deny application
1001. Name: Debby Hogston on 2019-10-24 21:35:55
Comments: No apartments
1002. Name: Nancy Tillett on 2019-10-24 21:36:10
Comments:
1003. Name: Mary Bradley on 2019-10-24 22:19:28
Comments: The size and scope of the development will affect Not only the beauty and
serenity of the area, it will affect traffic as well. I would expect New Hanover to reassess
all of our taxes to a lower rate if this development moves forward.
1004. Name: John Bradley on 2019-10-24 22:25:15
Comments: We recently moved to Porters Neck to enjoy the privacy and lifestyle of the
area. It is untenable to us that a developer who expects the good will of the people would
think that apartments near an established golf community in a private area is acceptable.
The area appears to have a high water table which may pose a problem to existing
homes if such a large development is allowed.
1005. Name: Penny Riggs on 2019-10-24 22:52:15
Comments:
1006. Name: Janet Little on 2019-10-24 22:56:03
Comments:
1007. Name: Robert Lee on 2019-10-24 23:52:16
Comments:
1008. Name: Kristal Lee on 2019-10-24 23:53:15
Comments:
1009. Name: Bailey Lee on 2019-10-24 23:54:01
Comments:
Page 82 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 115
1010. Name: Carol Haycraft on 2019-10-25 00:08:50
Comments:
1011. Name: Kathryn Price on 2019-10-25 01:55:12
Comments:
1012. Name: Kristen Harlach on 2019-10-25 08:40:52
Comments: I object to this proposal because our schools are already over crowded and
the traffic has been deadly. Including loss of life and Futch Creek intersection and a child
being hit on PN road while a women was passing a school bus. Porters Neck Road and
Futch Creek U -turn are the only options for leaving our neighborhoods.
1013. Name: Clem Surak on 2019-10-25 11:17:23
Comments:
1014. Name: Sandra Liversidge on 2019-10-25 11:23:31
Comments: There is no room for over a 1,000 vehicles to be traveling Futch Creek Road
and those that filter into it. This much development in an all ready heavily developed
area would impact the environment terribly.
1015. Name: Ed Fonvielle on 2019-10-25 12:41:17
Comments: Please, rethink your proposed development and bring it in line with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
1016. Name: Thomas Liversidge on 2019-10-25 12:58:04
Comments:
1017. Name: Joan Cocozziello on 2019-10-25 14:57:11
Comments: I oppose this building under any circumstances
1018. Name: Faye Thornton on 2019-10-25 16:41:31
Comments: Do not need more cars and people. Needs to get rid of apartment and do
only homes. Will need to work on and be responsible for ways out Porter Neck Road and
Futch Creek is already to busy.
1019. Name: Suzi Snyder on 2019-10-25 17:14:04
Comments: Porters Neck Road already has more traffic than it can handle. Getting out of
Blue Point can take 5 minutes. You can also change the ridiculous 45 mph zone that
stretches for a mile and endangers the lives of people turning into or out of traffic on
Porters Neck Road.
1020. Name: Walter Burgess on 2019-10-25 18:12:27
Comments:
Page 83 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 116
1021. Name: Dan V Malone Jr on 2019-10-25 18:14:08
Comments: nope
1022. Name: Andrew Gates on 2019-10-25 18:18:58
Comments:
1023. Name: chantal N Dewall on 2019-10-25 18:21:46
Comments:
1024. Name: Kristi Moore on 2019-10-25 18:34:30
Comments:
1025. Name: Rocco Quaranto on 2019-10-25 18:48:41
Comments:
1026. Name: John Henderson on 2019-10-25 18:57:31
Comments: The immediate area simply cannot handle the additional traffic and water
runoff.
1027. Name: Susan Berry on 2019-10-25 18:58:19
Comments:
1028. Name: Latishia Johnson on 2019-10-25 18:59:01
Comments:
1029. Name: Fran Scarlett on 2019-10-25 19:05:57
Comments: Current infrastructure cannot support this kind of development.
1030. Name: Winston West on 2019-10-25 19:09:00
Comments:
1031. Name: William Pearson on 2019-10-25 19:11:51
Comments: The proposed number of units on this property is far more than the original
R15/20 and would be completely out of place in the neighborhood that is single Family
homes along with the area roads not being able to handle the added traffic. R15/20
zoning seems to make sense.
1032. Name: Alex badakpendou on 2019-10-25 19:23:55
Comments: very bad idea. We need resources ie schools, recreation, family friendly
communities to improve existing and long time residents, not more apartments bldg.
Page 84 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 117
1033. Name: Leanne Nicosia on 2019-10-25 19:31:52
Comments:
1034. Name: Stuart White on 2019-10-25 19:51:27
Comments: This area is more suited to single family homes than apartments. The
drainage is a big concern as is the major increase in traffic, all funneled through the family
homes that border thie planned development.
1035. Name: John Crysler on 2019-10-25 19:57:09
Comments: The traffic congestion on PN road and the PN traffic circle would be
hazardous with this builder's plan coupled with a new school and fire station close to the
PN traffic circle.
1036. Name: Richard Sanchez on 2019-10-25 20:05:38
Comments:
1037. Name: Heather Duskey on 2019-10-25 20:14:24
Comments: Please no building!
1038. Name: Chris Duskey on 2019-10-25 20:15:04
Comments:
1039. Name: Carol Crysler on 2019-10-25 20:20:29
Comments: Don’t think the County Commisioners and the Planning Board understand the
amount of traffic on Porters Neck Rd and Market St.
1040. Name: Wanda Terrell on 2019-10-25 20:31:06
Comments:
1041. Name: Rabi Patoki on 2019-10-25 20:42:51
Comments:
1042. Name: Jeff and Kathleen Boyell on 2019-10-25 21:05:19
Comments:
1043. Name: Tina on 2019-10-25 21:08:00
Comments:
1044. Name: Kristin Jose on 2019-10-25 21:27:50
Comments:
1045. Name: Kris Jose on 2019-10-25 21:28:51
Comments:
Page 85 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 118
1046. Name: Pam on 2019-10-25 21:33:36
Comments:
1047. Name: Tracy Wagner on 2019-10-25 22:04:02
Comments:
1048. Name: Greg Mroz on 2019-10-25 22:29:09
Comments:
1049. Name: Mindy Yates on 2019-10-25 23:03:40
Comments:
1050. Name: Bonnie Sanchez on 2019-10-25 23:28:30
Comments:
1051. Name: William Ritenour on 2019-10-26 01:26:40
Comments:
1052. Name: Therese Wagner on 2019-10-26 02:54:37
Comments: NO APARTMENTS-BAD IDEA ON SO MANY LEVELS, traffic alone on
porters neck rd will be nightmare, just this week a boy was hit getting on the bus , after
lady drove thru red lights on bus
1053. Name: Kris Jose on 2019-10-26 10:18:19
Comments:
1054. Name: Chad Hinders on 2019-10-26 10:23:15
Comments:
1055. Name: Robert Kaess on 2019-10-26 11:23:58
Comments: This proposal to build 406 dwelling units on 51 acres far exceeds any land
use all of Porters Neck. It disregards community safety, degrades property value, and
disrespects quality of life.
1056. Name: Travis Dant on 2019-10-26 12:27:09
Comments:
1057. Name: Halley White on 2019-10-26 13:22:14
Comments: Thoughtful, careful and long-term zoning and development is necessary to
maintain the integrity and value of New Hanover County.
Page 86 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 119
1058. Name: Ben Ligotti on 2019-10-26 17:02:11
Comments:
1059. Name: William Mountford on 2019-10-26 17:39:36
Comments:
1060. Name: Kristie McGrady on 2019-10-26 19:19:39
Comments:
1061. Name: nancy mckean on 2019-10-26 20:46:02
Comments: please no more building. the traffic is bad enough, and adding more will
cause more accidents, a child was already hurt waiting for school bus.
1062. Name: Bobbi Crawford on 2019-10-27 00:19:34
Comments:
1063. Name: Misty A Jensen on 2019-10-27 00:21:21
Comments:
1064. Name: John Natale Jr on 2019-10-27 00:31:11
Comments:
1065. Name: Meg Newcomb on 2019-10-27 01:19:27
Comments: No more development please! Consider all the traffic on Market and the
frequent accidents. Enough is Enough! How about a park instead. Perhaps with pool?
1066. Name: Rachel Mroz on 2019-10-27 01:57:30
Comments:
1067. Name: Megan Moore on 2019-10-27 01:59:36
Comments:
1068. Name: Stephen Fortlouis on 2019-10-27 03:19:49
Comments: Please maintain the integrity of Porter’s Neck.
1069. Name: Denise LEsperance on 2019-10-27 11:01:53
Comments:
1070. Name: Paula Perkins on 2019-10-27 14:57:04
Comments:
1071. Name: Carol Lasch on 2019-10-27 15:11:01
Page 87 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 120
Comments: Not smart for our community, for once can we get the board to just say no!!!
1072. Name: Alice Buchanan on 2019-10-27 16:12:16
Comments:
1073. Name: Linda Masters on 2019-10-27 17:13:48
Comments: This is way too many homes, town houses apartments for this area.
1074. Name: Ron Smith on 2019-10-27 17:40:12
Comments:
1075. Name: joan Perry on 2019-10-27 19:09:23
Comments: Apartments bring traffic, lower property values and crime rates increase. No
thank you.
1076. Name: Adam Schroeder on 2019-10-28 02:25:56
Comments: The commissioners should consider the impact on State road 17 (Market
Street. Especially now that construction has begun from Military cutoff to I140. It will take
a few years to complete the planned construction and this development would only add to
the congestion of Market Street.
1077. Name: Lawrence Ward on 2019-10-28 10:23:38
Comments:
1078. Name: Susan Ward on 2019-10-28 10:24:59
Comments:
1079. Name: Jodie Hall on 2019-10-28 12:49:44
Comments:
1080. Name: Kevin Casey on 2019-10-28 14:57:15
Comments: Protect Porter’s Neck!!!
1081. Name: Melissa Raymer on 2019-10-28 15:45:35
Comments: protect porter's neck. too much traffic.
1082. Name: Mary Ann Beltracchi on 2019-10-28 16:53:24
Comments:
1083. Name: Beth Manson on 2019-10-28 17:17:59
Comments:
Page 88 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 121
1084. Name: Heather Dant on 2019-10-28 17:57:14
Comments:
1085. Name: Ronald Manson on 2019-10-28 18:39:37
Comments:
1086. Name: Nora Costello on 2019-10-28 19:21:10
Comments:
1087. Name: Paul Stern on 2019-10-28 19:23:47
Comments: We need to make this an egress issue to solve so we address traffic load in
VP. Also, pushing for single family residence density only, no attached or multi-family.
1088. Name: Kent Halac on 2019-10-28 19:25:29
Comments:
1089. Name: Lawrence D Knoerl on 2019-10-28 19:26:59
Comments: I own the house at 715 Chablis Way. I strongly oppose the development of
apartments and duplexes being proposed by the developer. Please do not approve the
rezoning being requested by the developer.
1090. Name: John Kirkwood on 2019-10-28 19:30:58
Comments:
1091. Name: Casey Mako on 2019-10-28 19:31:29
Comments:
1092. Name: Katie on 2019-10-28 19:33:51
Comments:
1093. Name: Todd Walls on 2019-10-28 19:35:33
Comments:
1094. Name: Chris Nagle on 2019-10-28 19:37:17
Comments: I strongly oppose Logan Homes request to build any type of apartments due
to safety concerns for our young children over increased traffic directly in front of my
home.
1095. Name: Mike Brown on 2019-10-28 19:42:01
Comments: Hard no on apartments.
1096. Name: Regina Holliman on 2019-10-28 19:44:46
Comments:
Page 89 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 122
1097. Name: Regina Holliman on 2019-10-28 19:47:09
Comments:
1098. Name: John Geist on 2019-10-28 19:48:40
Comments:
1099. Name: Brittni Scott on 2019-10-28 19:49:46
Comments:
1100. Name: Juliana Adkins on 2019-10-28 19:51:08
Comments:
1101. Name: Richard Boughton on 2019-10-28 19:58:20
Comments:
1102. Name: Bryon Nazelrod on 2019-10-28 20:03:13
Comments:
1103. Name: Debra Pennington on 2019-10-28 20:05:32
Comments:
1104. Name: Jim McManus on 2019-10-28 20:08:42
Comments: Well thought out and planned growth is good for WILMINGTON and it’s
citizens. Haphazard over-development by unscrupulous developers is destructive to
existing communities and environments. I hope our commissioners are not blinded by
additional tax dollars.
1105. Name: Brad Shaver on 2019-10-28 20:08:49
Comments:
1106. Name: Wing Li on 2019-10-28 20:18:31
Comments:
1107. Name: Jamie Howell on 2019-10-28 20:20:56
Comments: I 100% oppose this plan!!! I cannot fathom the increase in traffic, the number
of children needing to attend an already at-capacity school and the impact to the property
values in the surrounding neighborhoods. Single family homes...if we have to, then yes.
Multi-unit dwellings....NO!
1108. Name: Amy Kline on 2019-10-28 20:37:22
Comments: 100% object to this plan! This will cause a traffic nightmare to all surrounding
neighborhoods.
Page 90 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 123
1109. Name: Kevin Thompson on 2019-10-28 21:35:07
Comments:
1110. Name: Yuhong Cai on 2019-10-28 21:38:21
Comments:
1111. Name: Yunlong li on 2019-10-28 21:41:15
Comments:
1112. Name: LINDA S WRIGHT on 2019-10-28 21:44:30
Comments:
1113. Name: Lori valenti on 2019-10-28 22:08:32
Comments:
1114. Name: Vicky Nazelrod on 2019-10-28 23:19:23
Comments:
1115. Name: Kimberly Winslow on 2019-10-29 00:20:33
Comments: We all know the type of development being proposed will have a huge,
negative impact on the value of our homes as well
causing major traffic issues in Porters Neck (as if traffic isn’t already bad enough).
Thank you.
1116. Name: Reggie Cox on 2019-10-29 01:24:39
Comments: In my opinion, if anything is built there it should be single family residences
that are relatively close to the existing neighborhood. I also think if anything is built there
they should be required to not only tie into Futch Creek Road but find a way to tie into
Porters Neck Road.
1117. Name: Eileen Karam on 2019-10-29 01:37:09
Comments:
1118. Name: Tricia Deckert on 2019-10-29 02:16:32
Comments:
1119. Name: Diane Molchan on 2019-10-29 03:14:25
Comments: Opposed to developer's proposed type of apartments. It would cause major
traffic issues on Porters Neck Road. Land should only by used for single family homes as
originally zoned.
Page 91 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 124
1120. Name: Jen Fernandez-Villa on 2019-10-29 10:27:43
Comments:
1121. Name: Michael Brown on 2019-10-29 12:05:03
Comments:
1122. Name: Bryan C on 2019-10-29 13:07:17
Comments: Keep the zone as originally planned for single family homes.
1123. Name: Tom Ledford on 2019-10-29 13:26:03
Comments:
1124. Name: Cady McLawhorn on 2019-10-29 14:11:13
Comments:
1125. Name: Sharon Hammond on 2019-10-29 15:36:41
Comments:
1126. Name: Bill Milholland on 2019-10-29 15:56:51
Comments: PLEASE do not let this go through without changes. At the VERY LEAST,
restrict this to single family homes to reduce the potential density that will make for over-
crowding of our roads and school.
1127. Name: Mary Elizabeth Wood on 2019-10-29 17:49:39
Comments: The traffic alone would be unsustainable. Has the DOT even looked at this?
1128. Name: david scott on 2019-10-29 18:05:53
Comments: To add apartments to this area with the 2 limited entry/exit points is would be
a traffic nightmare. Single family homes -in keeping with the fabric of the community!
1129. Name: Dave rowe on 2019-10-29 18:50:26
Comments: Too many apartments and how about road infrastructure? How about use
taxes for other needed areas?
1130. Name: William Best on 2019-10-29 19:43:43
Comments:
1131. Name: Lois Penniman on 2019-10-29 23:42:50
Comments:
1132. Name: Grace on 2019-10-30 01:08:49
Comments:
Page 92 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 125
1133. Name: Matthew Martin on 2019-10-30 01:34:14
Comments:
1134. Name: Walter Busbee on 2019-10-30 10:35:48
Comments: This development will have major flooding,traffic and other negative impacts.
1135. Name: Matthew Erwin on 2019-10-30 14:59:10
Comments:
1136. Name: PATSY MACKMULL on 2019-10-30 15:06:11
Comments:
1137. Name: Virgil King on 2019-10-30 16:07:54
Comments:
1138. Name: Michael Pinson on 2019-10-30 19:22:07
Comments: Apartments are too much for the infrastructure of the neighboring
communities. I understand what the developer is trying to accomplish but the
neighborhood is not ready as planned. It would be best for single family homes only.
1139. Name: Mitch Johnston on 2019-10-30 19:55:44
Comments:
1140. Name: Paula Scott on 2019-10-30 22:52:22
Comments: No! Do not want the development!! No!
1141. Name: Daniel Richani on 2019-11-01 09:46:12
Comments:
1142. Name: david mccarthy on 2019-11-01 15:46:31
Comments:
1143. Name: Steve Beuth on 2019-11-01 16:30:51
Comments: Too much traffic, accidents, and overrun schools. This is shameful how we
don't control this out-of-hand growth.
1144. Name: Mary alpin on 2019-11-02 18:22:06
Comments:
1145. Name: pam bryden on 2019-11-03 00:38:28
Comments: Stop Logan. Do traffic study on PN Rd
Page 93 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 126
1146. Name: Sarah valenti on 2019-11-03 12:29:14
Comments:
1147. Name: Patrick Calomino on 2019-11-03 18:51:34
Comments:
1148. Name: Mary Corcoran on 2019-11-03 21:04:09
Comments:
1149. Name: EILEEN RUI on 2019-11-05 20:23:00
Comments:
1150. Name: Marco Meier on 2019-11-05 20:24:03
Comments:
1151. Name: Jeff Stanfield on 2019-11-06 12:46:21
Comments: It's the responsibility of the commissioners to protect the interests and quality
of life for the citizens of New Hanover county, not to maximize a developers profits.
1152. Name: Shawn Murphy on 2019-11-06 17:09:57
Comments:
1153. Name: Greer Creech on 2019-11-07 22:47:03
Comments:
1154. Name: Jennifer Singleton on 2019-11-08 23:38:10
Comments: No more building!!
1155. Name: Irene Henderson on 2019-11-10 13:28:32
Comments:
1156. Name: Ashley Perritt on 2019-11-11 02:13:08
Comments:
1157. Name: Sarah Fish on 2019-11-11 22:38:43
Comments: Enough - too much development!
1158. Name: Dana Laymon on 2019-11-12 03:19:38
Comments:
1159. Name: Karlyn Stanfield on 2019-11-12 04:50:35
Comments:
Page 94 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 127
1160. Name: Caraline Martin on 2019-11-12 14:32:06
Comments:
1161. Name: Jennifer Glass on 2019-11-12 18:44:53
Comments:
1162. Name: Thomas King on 2019-11-12 20:42:40
Comments:
1163. Name: Brynn Raynor on 2019-11-12 20:50:05
Comments:
1164. Name: Nick Raynor on 2019-11-12 20:51:43
Comments:
1165. Name: Katherine Carlson on 2019-11-12 22:59:19
Comments:
1166. Name: Deborah Colclough on 2019-11-13 03:45:22
Comments:
1167. Name: Amy on 2019-11-13 09:41:45
Comments: Opposed to any apartments.
1168. Name: Mary Hinsdale on 2019-11-13 11:30:04
Comments: North Wilmington is at max capacity. In the 20 years I have lived here we
have never flooded in these neighborhoods until the last few years. Our traffic has
exponentially increased to the point that it used to take me 10 minutes to get to work and
now it takes 30. What is best for the well being of the Community should trump a
developer wanting to make money. We will fight these type of development plans as
much as we can and New Hanover County should too. Get behind your people New
Hanover County, no one wants this.
1169. Name: Sara Maurer on 2019-11-13 15:30:14
Comments: Opposed to apartments.
1170. Name: Daniel Check on 2019-11-13 15:37:44
Comments:
1171. Name: Terry Wright on 2019-11-13 16:54:10
Comments:
Page 95 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 128
1172. Name: Ryan Konrady on 2019-11-13 17:19:04
Comments:
1173. Name: Courtney Kingston on 2019-11-13 17:21:26
Comments:
1174. Name: Jennifer Zielinski on 2019-11-13 20:52:04
Comments:
1175. Name: Debbie Fogle on 2019-11-13 22:56:15
Comments:
1176. Name: Kara Sweeney on 2019-11-13 23:01:06
Comments:
1177. Name: Katharine Hesmer on 2019-11-13 23:40:29
Comments:
1178. Name: Ally Thornton on 2019-11-14 01:03:47
Comments:
1179. Name: Randi Kinney on 2019-11-14 02:19:24
Comments:
1180. Name: Stephanie Johnson on 2019-11-14 06:25:51
Comments: Trying to turn left from Futch Creek Road (behind Porters Neck Plantation)
onto Champ Davis is risky now due to poor visibility and curves in the road in both
directions. Adding potentially 500-1000 more cars would make that left hand turn next to
impossible.
1181. Name: Amber Lang Smith on 2019-11-14 18:11:55
Comments:
1182. Name: Al Caperna on 2019-11-14 18:37:07
Comments: This is a very stable family community. Having an apartment completely
changes the dynamics and make it not as safe And relational as we currently have.
1183. Name: Kathleen Caperna on 2019-11-14 18:38:12
Comments: This is a safe quiet family neighborhood & apartments & transients Would
completely change that ... and not for the better!
1184. Name: Jeffrey DeJulio on 2019-11-14 21:53:49
Comments: Single Family homes.
Page 96 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 129
1185. Name: Christie DeJulio on 2019-11-14 21:54:35
Comments: Single family homes
1186. Name: Daniel Tozour on 2019-11-15 00:07:22
Comments:
1187. Name: Rano Mathew on 2019-11-15 00:49:36
Comments:
1188. Name: Frank Wells on 2019-11-15 01:06:52
Comments:
1189. Name: Bryan Stephany on 2019-11-15 02:05:58
Comments:
1190. Name: Doug Messina on 2019-11-15 02:06:29
Comments:
1191. Name: William Brown on 2019-11-15 02:10:07
Comments: Please no more apartments in our suburb. Affluent home buyers do love and
future ones will love this area.
1192. Name: Seth perry on 2019-11-15 02:39:01
Comments:
1193. Name: Kristen Smith on 2019-11-15 02:48:44
Comments: The almighty dollar shouldn't trump our community.
1194. Name: Chris Smith on 2019-11-15 02:49:18
Comments:
1195. Name: Julia Lee on 2019-11-15 12:42:43
Comments:
1196. Name: Elizabeth Dixon on 2019-11-15 14:02:43
Comments:
1197. Name: Ryan Zielinski on 2019-11-15 14:42:02
Comments: Single Family
1198. Name: Joan Desantis on 2019-11-15 19:57:12
Page 97 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 130
Comments:
1199. Name: Melanie A Romano on 2019-11-15 20:02:09
Comments: No apartment complex!!
1200. Name: Christy Dameron on 2019-11-16 18:25:38
Comments:
1201. Name: Paul Johnson on 2019-11-16 18:48:39
Comments: The intensity of this project cannot be supported by the local infrastructure
and institutions. Porters Neck Road in particular is over burdened today and additional
traffic lows could endanger citizens and property. This road already had a child struck by
a car last month, probably from a frustrated driver trying to get through a traffic tieup.
What this are needs is lower density zoning to help mitigate traffic growth and storm
water challenges. Thank you. Paul Johnson
1202. Name: Michelle Ferris on 2019-11-16 18:50:54
Comments:
1203. Name: Shawn Carroll on 2019-11-16 19:21:38
Comments: Adamantly opposed to this project. The proposed density is inconsistent with
the area, the local school is already at capacity, and infrastructure is not suited for
additional traffic and stormwater impacts.
1204. Name: Caroline Pearson on 2019-11-16 20:16:25
Comments:
1205. Name: Joan Eubanks on 2019-11-16 22:08:52
Comments:
1206. Name: Bridgette Valdivia on 2019-11-17 01:14:59
Comments:
1207. Name: Andrea Johnson on 2019-11-17 03:52:52
Comments:
1208. Name: Ron Russ on 2019-11-17 09:58:48
Comments: We can’t handle the additional water run off. Traffic is already terrible. This is
really unnecessary and pray for our neighborhood.
1209. Name: Moria Rooney on 2019-11-17 12:37:04
Comments:
Page 98 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 131
1210. Name: Mariam Metius on 2019-11-17 12:55:22
Comments: I live in Blue Point and I am against this expansion. Porters Neck Road
cannot handle the current traffic flow, let alone additional traffic. Don't ruin our
environment!
1211. Name: Vann Zick on 2019-11-17 13:10:27
Comments:
1212. Name: Carl Zick on 2019-11-17 13:11:27
Comments:
1213. Name: Carrie Carver on 2019-11-17 13:12:38
Comments:
1214. Name: Kimberly Kopaczewski on 2019-11-17 13:16:18
Comments:
1215. Name: Brandy garris on 2019-11-17 13:57:22
Comments:
1216. Name: Samantha Thompson on 2019-11-17 15:06:56
Comments:
1217. Name: Kathleen Boyle on 2019-11-17 15:32:57
Comments:
1218. Name: Michelle Cornett on 2019-11-17 18:20:08
Comments:
1219. Name: David Sweeney on 2019-11-17 18:23:50
Comments:
1220. Name: Ellie Ivy on 2019-11-17 20:05:28
Comments: Porters Neck can’t handle any high density residential zoning!
1221. Name: Lorna Moran on 2019-11-17 20:55:57
Comments: If the commissioner’s are listening to those that voted them in this should
never get approved. If it does, it’s time for new commissioner’s.
1222. Name: Laurel Thornton on 2019-11-17 21:33:54
Comments: Porters Neck cannot handle the traffic this would create.
Page 99 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 132
1223. Name: James Steele on 2019-11-18 03:38:07
Comments: Over Developement.....do not proceed !!!
1224. Name: Denyse McDonnell on 2019-11-18 15:14:56
Comments:
1225. Name: Leslie Armstrong on 2019-11-18 16:10:13
Comments:
1226. Name: Emil Trabulsi on 2019-11-18 16:48:42
Comments: Enough is enough
1227. Name: Jared Millet on 2019-11-18 18:09:30
Comments:
1228. Name: Kathy Natale on 2019-11-18 18:10:10
Comments:
1229. Name: Deborah and Comey Dilanjian on 2019-11-18 18:40:14
Comments: Go away and build you duplexes somewhere else remote. Away from are
already congested roads.
1230. Name: Penny Brinkley on 2019-11-19 02:48:31
Comments: Against Logan Development in Porters Neck
1231. Name: Katie Meekins on 2019-11-19 03:09:13
Comments:
1232. Name: Tammy Pruden on 2019-11-19 06:25:37
Comments: The community impact of more dense residential apartments would
compromise and negatively effect traffic, current residents, and tourists by creating a
more dense populated area consuming already stretched resources and utilities.
1233. Name: Steve Miller on 2019-11-19 12:36:26
Comments: I think it's wonderful for our community to show which opposition to this
development to the board of commissioners and the planning board. However, I'm
skeptical of the response of a board which is so dominated my people so closely tied to
the real estate industry. That's why I have decided to run for a seat on the county board
of commissioners.
1234. Name: Alli Luckadoo on 2019-11-19 18:39:08
Comments:
Page 100 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 133
1235. Name: Ryan Luckadoo on 2019-11-19 18:39:54
Comments:
1236. Name: Christine Sampson on 2019-11-19 18:42:35
Comments:
1237. Name: Imer Smith on 2019-11-19 20:56:06
Comments: I am not in favor. Roads needs work in this area
1238. Name: Ken Madsen on 2019-11-19 21:01:48
Comments: Infrastructure will not support proposal.
1239. Name: Diane Carapella on 2019-11-19 22:51:33
Comments:
1240. Name: Susan and John La Forgia on 2019-11-20 21:32:34
Comments: We are opposed to Rezoning 51-acre parcel from R15/R20 for mixed/multi
use by Logan Homes.
1241. Name: Caroline Manoogian on 2019-11-21 01:53:49
Comments:
1242. Name: Stephen Anderson on 2019-11-21 02:49:33
Comments: Edgewater Club Rd
1243. Name: Christa Macsay on 2019-11-21 02:57:03
Comments:
1244. Name: Tracie Conner on 2019-11-21 10:23:29
Comments:
1245. Name: Heather Renye on 2019-11-21 13:36:02
Comments: The impacts this will have on traffic and schools is disastrous. The facts are
not facts, the data collected in traffic studies is inaccurate. Adding this many people to
such a small area would be dangerous Considering there are only 2 roads to escape in
case of an emergency.
1246. Name: Trevor Yates on 2019-11-21 13:38:35
Comments:
1247. Name: Wing Li on 2019-11-21 13:43:36
Comments:
Page 101 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 134
1248. Name: Melissa Quaranto on 2019-11-21 14:41:51
Comments:
1249. Name: Inbal Claudio on 2019-11-21 14:55:27
Comments:
1250. Name: Angela Dabney on 2019-11-21 15:24:03
Comments:
1251. Name: Jeff dabney on 2019-11-21 15:26:55
Comments: Why must we fill every green space with houses???? No one in their right
mind would agree that all these new home does not affect traffic. Stop the building!!!!
1252. Name: Sarah Cain on 2019-11-21 15:34:47
Comments:
1253. Name: Kelli Kuperus on 2019-11-21 16:05:26
Comments:
1254. Name: Jason Zilewicz on 2019-11-21 16:16:00
Comments:
1255. Name: Addy Penniman on 2019-11-21 16:55:17
Comments:
1256. Name: Pam Poindexter on 2019-11-21 17:05:39
Comments:
1257. Name: Susan on 2019-11-21 18:47:48
Comments: No more development! Roads cannot handle it. Too much crime. Too many
accidents. Stop. Enough is enough.
1258. Name: Leslie on 2019-11-21 18:49:52
Comments: I oppose
1259. Name: John on 2019-11-21 18:55:47
Comments: Be careful of what you wish for... If DR Horton gets involved (I hear they have
a back-up offer on the property) you will end up with $199,000 poorly built homes. That
will bring in the wrong type of people to our neighborhood!
I don't like apartments, but at least Logan is a reputable builder who is proposing homes
at similar or higher prices than the neighborhoods around it.
Page 102 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 135
1260. Name: Rocco Giuseppe Poveromo on 2019-11-21 23:56:58
Comments: Our Community is overstressed and overpopulated with not enough room on
the roads or in the schools
1261. Name: Daniel Thompson on 2019-11-22 01:53:38
Comments:
1262. Name: Celine Barefoot on 2019-11-22 13:02:00
Comments:
1263. Name: Alethea Jenkins on 2019-11-22 15:43:55
Comments:
1264. Name: Tara Gatliff on 2019-11-23 14:08:53
Comments:
1265. Name: Tim Jacobs on 2019-11-24 01:51:12
Comments: The area doesn't need anymore development or traffic.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 103 of 103
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 136
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 137
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 138
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 139
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 140
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 141
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 142
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 143
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 144
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 145
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 146
N E W HA N OV E R C O U N T Y P L A N N I N G B OA R D
R EQ U E S T F O R B OA R D A C T I O N
M E E T I N G DAT E : 1/9/2020
Regular
DE PA R T M E N T: Planning P R E S E N T E R(S ): B rad Schuler, Senior Planner
C O N TA C T(S ): B rad Schuler, Wayne C lark, Planning & L and U se D irector
S U B J EC T:
P ublic Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z 19-12) – Request by Design S olu4ons on behalf of the property owner, Raiford G. Trask J r. Rev
Trust, to rezone approximately 10.35 acres of land located north of the 3300 block of Paramount Way in the
N orthchase P lanned Development, and south of I nterstate 140, from O&I , Office and I ns4tu4onal District, and R-
15 Residen4al District, to R-5, M oderate-High Residen4al District.
B R I E F S U M M A RY:
T he applicant is proposing to rezo ne approximately 10.35 acres from O &I and R -15 to R -5. T he site is located
between the N orthchase Planned D evelopment and I -140.
T he property is currently split zoned. About 6.9 acres is zoned O &I and 3.4 acres is zoned R -15. T he O &I district
permits office and ins4tu4onal related uses (like medical and professio na l offi c es, religio us ins4tu4o ns, a nd schools)
and low density residen4al housing (maximum of 2.5 du/ac).
T he current zoning o f the property would allo w up to 26 dwelling units at a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per
acre if the f ull site was develo ped with residen4al uses. T he proposed R -5 district would allow up to 83 dwelling units
at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Alterna4vely, mo st non-residen4al uses a llo wed within the O &I
district typica lly generate more traffi c than a residen4al use. I t is expected tha t the propo sed zo ning would generate
less trips than a typical office related use permi:ed by-right in the O &I district.
B ecause this is a general map amendment and no t a co ndi4o nal rezo ning, uses that would be allo wed o n the property
are those allowed by right or by Special U se Permit in the R -5 district. A conceptual site pla n is no t included with this
applica4on, however, if approved, the develo pment of the site must co mply with the standards o f the R -5 distric t and
other applicable regula4ons, including buffering and stormwater standards.
T he only current access to the site is through N orthchase, specifically from C handler Drive. T his road then connects to
N orthchase Pa rkwa y whic h connec ts to N . C o llege Ro ad at two signalized intersec4o ns. T he majo rity o f the roadway
network within N orthchase, including the above routes, is maintained by N C D OT.
Typically, single-family dwellings generate appro ximately o ne trip in the peak ho urs, while townho mes generate
approximately 0.5 trips in the peak ho urs. T he co mbina4on of single-f amily ho mes and o ffice uses currently permi:ed
by the exis4ng zoning would be expected to generate more traffic than a to wnhouse develo pment under the proposed
zoning. A development consis4ng o f 83 to wnhomes would generate a bout 40-50 trips in the peak hours. A general
office building consis4ng o f 20,000 square feet would generate about the same amount o f trips during the A M peak
hour.
T he subject site is classified as General Residen4al in the 2016 C omprehensive Plan. T he proposed R -5 zoning district is
generally C O N S I S T E N T with the 2016 C omprehensive Pla n because it would provide a n o rderly transi4o n between
the exis4ng single-family residen4al neighborhoods and I nterstate 140, promotes mo re diverse housing op4ons, and is
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2
in-line with the density recommenda4ons for the adjacent C o mmunity Mixed U se area and for planned developments
in a General Residen4al area.
S T R AT EGI C P L A N A L I G N M E N T:
R EC O M M E N D E D M OT I O N A N D R EQU E S T E D A C T I O N S :
S taff recommends approval of this applica4on and suggests the following mo4on:
I move to A P P R OV E the propo sed rezoning to a R -5 district. I fi nd it to be C O N S I S T E N T with the purposes and intent
of the C o mprehensive Plan because the proposal would pro vide an o rderly transi4on between the exis4ng single-
family residen4al neighborho o ds and I ntersta te 140, promotes more diverse housing o p4ons, and is in-line with the
density reco mmenda4o ns for the adjacent C ommunity Mixed U se area and for planned developments in a General
Residen4al area. I also find A P P R OVA L o f the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the
proposal supports opportuni4es for mo re a ffordable housing and assists with providing a range o f ho using types to the
area.
A lterna4ve M o4on for Denial
I mo ve to D E N Y the pro posed rezoning to a R -5 district. While I fi nd it to be C O N S I S T E N T with the purposes and
intent o f the C omprehensive Plan because the proposal would provide an orderly transi4on between the exis4ng
single-family residen4al neighbo rhoods and I nterstate 140, pro mo tes more diverse housing o p4ons, and is in-line with
the density recommenda4ons for the adjacent C ommunity Mixed U se area and for planned developments in a General
Residen4al area, I find D E N I A L o f the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the propo sal is
not co nsistent with the desired cha racter of the surro unding community and the density will a dversely impact the
adjacent neighborhoods.
C O U N T Y M A N AG E R'S C O M M E N T S A N D R EC O M M E N DAT I O N S : (only M anager)
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2
SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z19-12)
Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, Raiford G. Trask Jr. Rev Trust, to rezone
approximately 10.35 acres of land located north of the 3300 block of Paramount Way in the
Northchase Planned Development, and south of Interstate 140, from O&I, Office and Institutional
District, and R-15 Residential District, to R-5, Moderate-High Residential 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 approval or denial of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Staff Suggested Motion:
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a R-5 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with
the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposal would provide an
orderly transition between the existing single-family residential neighborhoods and Interstate
140, promotes more diverse housing options, and is in-line with the density recommendations
for the adjacent Community Mixed Use area and for planned developments in a General
Residential area. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public
interest because the proposal supports opportunities for more affordable housing and assists
with providing a range of housing types to the area.
Alternative Motion for Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a R-5 district. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with
the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposal would provide an
orderly transition between the existing single-family residential neighborhoods and Interstate
140, promotes more diverse housing options, and is in-line with the density recommendations
for the adjacent Community Mixed Use area and for planned developments in a General
Residential area, I find DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because the proposal is not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community
and the density will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed rezoning to a R-5 district. I find it to be
[Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because [insert
reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
I also find [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 2
Z19-12 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 1 of 10
STAFF REPORT FOR Z19-12
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z19-12
Request:
Rezoning to a R-5 Moderate-High Residential District
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions Raiford G. Trask Jr.
Location: Acreage:
North of the Northchase Planned Development, near the
intersection of Chandler Drive and Paramount Way 10.35
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
R02600-003-010-000 General Residential
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Undeveloped
The property would be allowed to
be developed in accordance with
the R-5 district
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
O&I and R-15 R-5
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North I-140 I-1, R-15
East Single-Family Residential PD (Northchase)
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 1
Z19-12 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 2 of 10
South Single-Family Residential PD (Northchase)
West Undeveloped, I-140 PD, I-1
ZONING HISTORY
July 7, 1972 Initially zoned R-15 (Area 8B)
August 3, 1998 The western portion of the property rezoned to O&I (Z-630).
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer CFPUA water and sewer service would require main line extension. Specific
design will be determined during site plan review.
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire
District, New Hanover County Station Murrayville
*Schools
Castle Hayne Elementary, Trask Middle, and Laney High Schools
*See the attached New Hanover County Schools, NC Redistricting Study 2020: Options
Statistics
Recreation Blue Clay Park, Northern Regional Park
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation No known conservation resources
Historic No known historic resources
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 2
Z19-12 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 3 of 10
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 10.35 acres from O&I and R-15 to
R-5.
The property is currently split zoned. About 6.9 acres is zoned O&I and 3.4 acres is zoned
R-15. The O&I district permits office and institutional related uses (like medical and
professional offices, religious institutions, and schools) and low density residential housing
(maximum of 2.5 du/ac).
The current zoning of the property would allow up to 26 dwelling units at a maximum density
of 2.5 dwelling units per acre if the full site was developed with residential uses. The
proposed R-5 district would allow up to 83 dwelling units at a maximum density of 8
dwelling units per acre. Alternatively, it is estimated that O&I zoned portion of the property
could support about 150,000 square feet of office related uses, based on a typical 25%
building area and 2-story building(s). Although that amount of office space is theoretically
possible on a 7-acre site, it is not practical to expect the market would support facilities that
large, if at all, at this location due to the access limitation of I-140 leaving the only current
road connection to the site through the residential portion of Northchase.
Existing Zoning
Proposed R-5 R-15 (approx 3.4
acres)
O&I (approx 6.9
acres)
Min Lot Size
(Conventional) 15,000 sf 15,000 sf 5,000 sf
Max Density
2.5 du/ac
(Performance)
10.2 du/ac
(High Density SUP)
2.5 du/ac
(Performance)
10.2 du/ac
(High Density
SUP)
8 du/ac
Max Dwelling
Units for Subject
Property
9 (Performance)
35 (High Density
SUP)
17 (Performance)
70 (High Density
SUP)
83
Commercial
Uses
Limited (ex.
kennels,
recreation, and
convenience stores
w/ SUP)
Variety of office,
institutional and
medical related
uses.
Limited (ex.
recreation,
day care,
parks,
libraries)
The R-5 district allows duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, townhomes, and accessory
dwelling units. However, the district prohibits mobile homes and typical multi-family
development, like apartments, allowing a maximum of 4 units within any residential
structure. In addition, the special use permit for high density developments is not permitted
in the R-5 district, and the number of permitted nonresidential uses is reduced.
If townhomes are developed, a minimum 20-foot buffer is required around the southeastern
property line of the project because the proposed development is adjacent to single-family
dwellings within Northchase. In addition, the townhome units will be restricted to a maximum
height of 35 feet, which is the same standard applied in the R-15 district, and more
restrictive than the 40-foot height maximum applied in the O&I district. Compliance with
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 3
Z19-12 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 4 of 10
these provisions will be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee during the subdivision
review process.
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 R-5
district. A conceptual site plan is not included with this application, however, if approved,
the development of the site must comply with the standards of the R-5 district and other
applicable regulations, including buffering and stormwater standards.
The adjacent portion of Northchase east of the site has a history of flooding due to the
area’s topography and marginal drainage system. It is possible existing homes in this
portion of Northchase have finished floor elevations below a 100-year flood elevation.
Over 100 homes sustained flood damage during Hurricane Florence, which was a 500 to
1000-year storm event that totaled over 30 inches of rain.
The downstream outfall for this area flows north and crosses I-140, Blue Clay Road, and N.
College Road eventually draining to Prince George Creek.
Downstream Outfall
The County was recently awarded a grant to remove debris and sedimentation from streams
and waterways impacted by Hurricane Florence in the unincorporated areas of the County.
The County is also seeking additional funding to increase the capacity of the drainage
system serving the site and the Board of Commissioners recently voted to establish a
stormwater service aimed at assisting with the maintenance and improvement of the
drainage features within the County. The stormwater service will become effective in July
2020.
While the area contains drainage challenges, a rezoning from O&I to R-5 is generally
considered to be a down zoning in that the permitted uses in a residential district are less
intense and typically generate less impervious coverage and traffic. Further the site must be
designed to comply with the County’s stormwater standards regardless of the zoning district
it is developed under.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 4
Z19-12 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 5 of 10
TRANSPORTATION
The only current access is to the site is through Northchase, specifically from Chandler Drive.
This road then connects to Northchase Parkway which connects to N. College Road at two
signalized intersections. The majority of the roadway network within Northchase, including
the above routes, is maintained by NCDOT.
Typically, single-family dwellings generate approximately one trip in the peak hours, while
townhomes generate approximately 0.5 trips in the peak hours. The combination of single-
family homes and office uses currently permitted by the existing zoning would be expected
to generate more traffic than a townhouse development under the proposed zoning. A
development consisting of 83 townhomes would generate about 40-50 trips in the peak
hours. A general office building consisting of 20,000 square feet would generate about
the same amount of trips during the AM peak hour.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 5
Z19-12 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 6 of 10
Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses
There have not been any recent Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA) in the area that provide data
on intersections along N. College Road adjacent to Northchase, however, a 2017 TIA
completed for the Cape Landing subdivision estimated that the intersection of N. College
Road and Blue Clay Road would operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) in 2021
when that development is expected to be completed.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 6
Z19-12 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 7 of 10
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. Pumpkin Creek
Convenience Store
5,000 sf Convenience
Market with Gas Pumps
Approved February 3, 2018
2018 Build Out Year
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of:
Extension of the existing eastbound left turn lane on Blue Clay Road at N. College Road.
Extension of the existing southbound left turn lane on N. College Road at Blue Clay Road.
Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
Phase 1 of the Cape Fear Community College expansion.
Development Status: No construction has started at this time.
2. Cape Landing 126 Single-Family Dwellings
Approved December 21,
2017
2021 Build Out Year
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of:
Extension of the existing eastbound left turn lane on Blue Clay Road at N. College Road.
Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
Phase 1 of the Cape Fear Community College expansion.
Development Status: 62 lots have been platted, most of which now contain occupied single-
family dwellings. The extension of the turn lane has not been completed at this time and is
required to be installed with the second phase of the development unless it is installed by
the Pumpkin Creek convenience store first.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area or Special Flood Hazard Area.
The property is within the Prince George 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) and Class III (severe limitation) soils,
however, CFPUA sewer services is available with main line extension.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 7
Z19-12 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 8 of 10
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 General Residential
Place Type
Description
Focuses on lower-density housing and associated civic and commercial
services. Typically, housing is single-family or duplexes. Commercial uses
should be limited to strategically located office and retail spaces, while
recreation and school facilities are encouraged throughout.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 8
Z19-12 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 9 of 10
Analysis
The subject site is designated as General Residential, the intent of which is
to preserve existing residential neighborhoods and provide opportunities
for similar lower density residential development and supportive
commercial, civic, and recreational development. Because of the general
nature of place type borders, sites located in proximity to the boundaries
between place types could be appropriately developed in accordance with
either place type.
This site is transitional, located between the residential portion of the
Northchase planned development and the I-140 Bypass and immediately
adjacent to vacant land designated as a Community Mixed Use place type.
Given its place type designation and proximity to Community Mixed Use,
the type of office and commercial development allowed in the current O&I
zoning designation could be appropriate; however, because it can only
currently be accessed by Chandler Dr., residential uses would be more
compatible with the existing development pattern.
The proposed R-5 zoning district allows a maximum slightly higher than the
6 unit per acre density identified as preferable in General Residential
areas, but the limited residential developments allowed in the district are
more aligned with the intent of a General Residential place than the types
of nonresidential uses and large multifamily buildings allowed in O&I. In
addition, the maximum 8 units per acre allowed in R-5 is in line with the
adjacent Community Mixed Use place type and the moderate density
preferred for planned developments in a General Residential area.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed R-5 zoning district is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because it would provide an orderly transition between
the existing single-family residential neighborhoods and Interstate 140,
promotes more diverse housing options, and is in-line with the density
recommendations for the adjacent Community Mixed Use area and for
planned developments in a General Residential area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this application and suggests the following motion:
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a R-5 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposal would
provide an orderly transition between the existing single-family residential
neighborhoods and Interstate 140, promotes more diverse housing options, and is in-
line with the density recommendations for the adjacent Community Mixed Use area and
for planned developments in a General Residential area. I also find APPROVAL of
the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal
supports opportunities for more affordable housing and assists with providing a range
of housing types to the area.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 9
Z19-12 Staff Report PB 1.9.2020 Page 10 of 10
Alternative Motion for Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a R-5 district. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
proposal would provide an orderly transition between the existing single-family
residential neighborhoods and Interstate 140, promotes more diverse housing options,
and is in line with the density recommendations for the adjacent Community Mixed Use
area and for planned developments in a General Residential area, I find DENIAL of
the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is
not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community and the density
will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 10
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 1
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 1
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 1
APPLICANT
MATERIALS
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 6 - 1
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 6 - 2
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 1
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 2
3DJHRI
+RZZRXOGWKHUHTXHVWHG]RQHFKDQJHEHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHSURSHUW\¶VFODVVLILFDWLRQRQWKH/DQG
&ODVVLILFDWLRQ0DS"
:KDWVLJQLILFDQWQHLJKERUKRRGFKDQJHVKDYHRFFXUUHGWRPDNHWKHRULJLQDO]RQLQJLQDSSURSULDWHRUKRZLV
WKHODQGLQYROYHGXQVXLWDEOHIRUWKHXVHVSHUPLWWHGXQGHUWKHH[LVWLQJ]RQLQJ"
+RZZLOOWKLVFKDQJHRI]RQLQJVHUYHWKHSXEOLFLQWHUHVW"
,IDQDSSOLFDQWUHTXHVWVGHOD\RIFRQVLGHUDWLRQIURPWKH3ODQQLQJ%RDUGRU%RDUGRI&RXQW\
&RPPLVVLRQHUVEHIRUHQRWLFHKDVEHHQVHQWWRWKHQHZVSDSHUWKHLWHPZLOOEHFDOHQGDUHGIRUWKH
QH[WPHHWLQJDQGQRIHHZLOOEHUHTXLUHG,IGHOD\LVUHTXHVWHGDIWHUQRWLFHKDVEHHQVHQWWRWKH
QHZVSDSHUWKH%RDUGZLOODFWRQWKHUHTXHVWDWWKHVFKHGXOHGPHHWLQJDQGDUHXQGHUQRREOLJDWLRQ
WRJUDQWWKHFRQWLQXDQFH,IWKHFRQWLQXDQFHLVJUDQWHGDIHHLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHDGRSWHGIHH
VFKHGXOHDVSXEOLVKHGRQWKH1HZ+DQRYHU&RXQW\3ODQQLQJZHEVLWHZLOOEHUHTXLUHG
%\P\VLJQDWXUHEHORZ,XQGHUVWDQGDQGDFFHSWDOORIWKHFRQGLWLRQVOLPLWDWLRQVDQGREOLJDWLRQVRI
WKH]RQLQJGLVWULFWIRUZKLFK,DPDSSO\LQJ,XQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKHH[LVWLQJRIILFLDO]RQLQJPDSLV
SUHVXPHGWREHFRUUHFW,XQGHUVWDQGWKDW,KDYHWKHEXUGHQRISURYLQJZK\WKLVUHTXHVWHGFKDQJH
LVLQWKHSXEOLFLQWHUHVW,FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVDSSOLFDWLRQLVFRPSOHWHDQGWKDWDOOLQIRUPDWLRQ
SUHVHQWHGLQWKLVDSSOLFDWLRQLVDFFXUDWHWRWKHEHVWRIP\NQRZOHGJHLQIRUPDWLRQDQGEHOLHI
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
6LJQDWXUHRI3HWLWLRQHUDQGRU3URSHUW\2ZQHU3ULQW1DPH
CynthiaA Wolf08/30/19 CYNTHIA A WOLF
Thistractisdefinedasaplace-typeofGeneralResidentialontheComprehensivePlan,butisborderedbyaninterstatehighway
andadjacenttobothUrbanandCommunityMixed-Useplace-types.Althoughtheoverlyingdesignationsuggestsanideal
densityof1-6unitsperacre,theslightlyhigherdensityof8unitsperacreallowedwithinanR-5districtwouldbeconsistentwith
transitioningbetweenbusyhighwaycorridorsandmorethemoreestablishedresidentialneighborhoodsinNorthChase.
Thetractiscurrentlysplit-zonedbyanO&I,office&institutional,districtandanR-15,residentialdistrict.However,theonly
accessisthroughtheNorthChaseneighborhoodstreets-whichisnotconvenientforthecommercialusescustomarily
developedinthatzone.RezoningtheentiretracttoR-5forahigherdensity,but100%residential,developmentwould
ultimatelycreatelessvehiculartripgenerationthanmanyofthealternativeusesallowedinthecurrentdistrict.
TheComprehensivePlanpromotesfosteringsustainablegrowththroughsensibleinfillwhereadequateservicesarealready
available.Allowingincreaseddensityonthispropertywillimprovetheformandfunctionofanunderutilizedsite,maximize
landuseefficiency,andisagoodeconomicdevelopmentopportunity.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 3
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
2
-
7
-
4
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
2
-
7
-
5
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 6
Legal Description for
Rezoning
Beginning at a point located North 38022’42” East, 30.26 feet from a point at the end of the
northeastern boundary of Chandler Drive (NC S.R. 2640), a fifty‐foot (50’) public right‐of‐way;
said right‐of‐way shown on a plat entitled “Regency Manor – Section 4,” and recorded among
the land records of the New Hanover County Registry in Map Book 34, at Page 249; said point
also being the westernmost corner of Lot 61 on that plat; and running thence from the point of
beginning:
North 19026’38” East, 558.19 feet to a point in the southeastern right‐of‐way of Interstate 140,
a public right‐of‐way; thence with that boundary,
North 47046’44” East, 75.72 feet to a point; thence
North 49043’34” East, 533.81 feet to a point; thence
North 51007’48” East, 47.45 feet to a point; thence
North 50056’26” East, 12.35 feet to a point; thence
North 50056’23” East, 293.48 feet to a point; thence
Along a curve to the right, having a Radius of 2673.88 feet and Length of 231.65 feet, a Chord
of North 56059’10” East, 231.58 feet to a point; thence leaving the right‐of‐way,
South 03023’29” West, 362.77 feet to a point; thence
South 38044’42” West, 1163.65 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 10.35 acres
more or less.
Planning Board - January 9, 2020
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 7
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
2
0
IT
E
M
:
2
-
7
-
8