Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJANUARY 9 2020 MINUTES 1 | Page Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board January 9, 2020 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on January 9, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Members Present Staff Present Donna Girardot, Chair Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director Paul Boney, Vice Chair Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Colin J. Tarrant Brad Schuler, Senior Planner Ernest Olds Rebekah Roth, Senior Planner Jeffrey B. Petroff Gideon Smith, Current Planner Thomas ‘Jordy’ Rawl Ron Meredith, Current Planner Members Absent H. Allen Pope Chair Donna Girardot called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Current Planner, Gideon Smith led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Girardot read the procedures for the meeting and welcomed the audience. Approval of December 2019 Minutes Board Member Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Jeffrey Petroff to APPROVE the December 2019 minutes as drafted. Motion to approve carried 6-0. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Rezoning Request (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. This request was continued from the December 5, 2019 Planning Board meeting. Board Member Colin J. Tarrant requested recusal from the item due to a professional conflict. Board member Ernest Olds made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Jordy Rawl to recuse Mr. Tarrant. Motion to recuse Mr. Tarrant carried 5 -0. Senior Planner Brad Schuler stated that the proposal was continued from the December 2019 planning board meeting because at that meeting the applicant had requested time to make changes to the site plan to lower the density. Mr. Schuler provided a review of the original proposal, the applicant’s revised conceptual plan and provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area along with an overview referred to in the staff report. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Land Planner and Landscape Architect, Allison Engebretson, representative for Logan Developers, Inc., stated that the updated application for the proposed development, The Oaks at Murray Farm, eliminated 82 units – for a proposed total of 324 units (228 apartments, 34 duplex units, and 62 single-family dwellings). In addition, the applicant lowered the building height for six of the proposed multi-family buildings, increased buffers, and upgraded the stormwater design capacity to accommodate a 100- year event. The revised plan included a right turn lane at Futch Creek Road that would cut queuing times in half from the 2 | Page current condition. Ms. Engebretson stated that the revised plan included a variety of green space that included community parks for each housing type that would be linked by sidewalks and trails. She stated that an appraiser had evaluated the area and had found no evidence that the proposed project would have any negative impact on property values of the surrounding area. She then distributed the findings to the Board. She stated that the applicant recognized Porter’s Neck as a higher-end community at the mouth of the newly opened I-140 bypass that lacked housing diversity and the proposal provided housing options near a regional transportation network. Land owner, Sandee Murray Spradley spoke in support of the project. Chair Girardot opened to the speakers in opposition. Conor Regan of Regan Law Firm, PLLC spoke on the behalf of the Vineyard Plantation Homeowners Association, Inc. He presented to Deputy County Attorney, Sharon Huffman, a petition with approximately 1,000 signatures who were in opposition of the project. Mr. Regan also presented aerial photography of the property and surrounding area where he emphasized that the plan lacked a rational basis and did not follow the CZD Conditional Zoning District procedure. He stated the proposal was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and constitutes spot zoning. Jonathan McCarthy, resident of Winery Way, presented slides regarding past traffic accidents along the Market Street and Futch Creek Road intersection and expressed concerns regarding current safety and traffic issues in the area. Due to expiration of the opposition rebuttal period, Chair Girardot consulted with the Board and extended an additional 15- minutes for opposition to allow nine more speakers to come forward. Christina Crumrine, resident of Winery Way, stated that she had concerns regarding the children, community and the school district’s capacity that would be affected by the development proposal. Kerri Allen, Coastal Advocate for the Southeast Region of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, stated that after reviewing the zoning request, their main concern was that there wasn’t enough information provided to evaluate total potential impacts and to be able to make an informed decision. Dana Forcinito, resident of Tibby’s Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed concerns regarding flooding and stormwater management. Mark Greenburg, resident of Sawmill Court, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that there was no connectivity in this development and therefore, not in the public’s best interest. Wayne Hoffman, resident of Plantation Landing Drive, expressed concern of the adequacy of existing services in the area. Emanuel Kline, resident of Congressional Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. Yvonne Spencer, resident of Tibby’s Drive, read the email that she had written as a concerned citizen and had emailed to each of the Board members. Chair Girardot closed the opposition portion of the hearing and opened to the applicant rebuttal. Ms. Engebretson responded to some of the oppositions concerns. She stated that in regard to the comment regarding the lack of consistency with the zoning, the Comprehensive Plan allows for diversity in housing types and patterns. In response the US 17 Hampstead Bypass not being completed and traffic remaining on Market Street, Ms. Engebretson stated that the first homes for sale or apartments for rent would commence in 2023. She stated that, the Military Cutoff Extension project was projected to complete in 2022 and has estimated to take approximately 9,000 vehicles off Market Street. Dan Fisk, Chief Consulting Engineer with Paramounte Engineering Inc., spoke about stormwater requirements and culverts. He stated that the applicant was exceeding the 25-year storm requirement by designing 100-year storm infrastructure. 3 | Page Tim Clinkscales, Engineer with Paramounte Engineering Inc., spoke about infrastructure and utilities. He stated that Tibby’s Branch subdivision and part of Porter’s Neck Road did not currently have sewer services. He stated that after their discussions with Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), they would provide the depth that would be required for interconnectivity for septic tanks and water. He stated that this would also aid in any water pressure concerns in the area. In regard to the culvert, it would be maintained and the flow would be leaving at the same flow rate as today. He concluded by stating that they definitely understood the flooding issues in the area and had taken into account the downstream analysis. Rynal Stephenson, Traffic Engineer with Ramey Kemp & Associates Inc., stated that his firm had prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project in coordination with NCDOT and the WMPO. He stated that they will comply with all requirements that were issued and the improvements will help with safety and congestion. Chair Girardot opened to opposition rebuttal. Mr. Regan stated that the property was within a 0.5 miles of SA Waters. He stated that even with the Military Cutoff Road extension project, traffic would still exist in the area which would cause safety issues at certain intersections. He stated that there were also other proposed developments in the Porter’s Neck area that would add to traffic. He stated that in regard to function and character, the proposed development isolated the density away from access to the community mixed‑use area. He stated that it provided no direct access to Market Street or a major artery without project residents having to travel through lower density uses which was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Girardot asked the Board if there were any questions for either the applicant or the attorney in opposition. In response to Board questions, Mr. Stephenson clarified that the level of service had not been evaluated with the revised updated plan. It had been evaluated with the single turn lane on the Futch Creek and Old Market intersection, based on 400-plus units. In response to Board questions, Ms. Engebretson stated that the anticipated development schedule would initiate at the Old Market Street area. She stated that Phase I would commence with the apartment construction; Phase II would consist of the duplexes; and Phase III would follow with the single family homes that would be semi-custom and most likely require more construction time. Andrew Smith of Logan Developers stated that all the infrastructure would be installed prior to construction and proceed front to back throughout the entire project. In response to Board questions, Mr. Smith clarified for Mr. Boney, that Logan Homes had every intention of completing all phases of the project and not just building apartments as the opposition’s contention. Mr. Smith stated that to reassure the Board, he stated that Logan Homes has a strong track record in the community and has taken pride in their work since 1996. He stated it would not be feasible to let the land sit because of the large investment they had made. He stated that it would cost them money if they didn’t finish the project to completion. In response to the Board’s concern about the safety of the parking lot drive aisles, Ms. Engebretson responded that her client would entertain different designs that allowed parking off the main corridor. She explained that should the project be approved it would have to go through the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process, and any number of things would be revised for safety and emergency services. She expressed that their first priority was to build a safe, happy and healthy community. From the suggestion of the Board, the applicant agreed to eliminate one building to provide more room for off street parking. In response to Board questions, Mr. Regan, stated that the Vineyard Plantation Home Owners had not presented an alternative development plan to the owner. He stated he could not speak for everyone in the area but that his client was not against Logan Homes developing property on the Murray tract; they were opposed to the density, specifically related to the apartments. Mr. Regan added that they were concerned with putting a very dense community, at the back of the community and routing apartment residents through the existing R-15 zoned housing. In response to Board request, Mr. Dan Cumbo with NCDOT confirmed the time frames for the US 17 Hampstead Bypass and Military Cutoff Road extension projects. He stated that in regard to the merging lanes onto the I-140 Bypass, NCDOT had a project 4 | Page coming that would add southbound exits for merging off of US 17. He stated that, NCDOT had also been looking into a project to add northbound exit lanes off US 17. He confirmed that there were no plans now for signalization. In response to Board questions regarding flooding, Mr. James Iannucci, New Hanover County Engineer, stated a lot of the area had been developed before stormwater regulations were in place. He stated that since September 2000, the county has had regulations in place to control the 8.0-inch rain event and was pursuing a stormwater service program. He added that county engineering and county planning coordinate with CFPUA on any project that comes forward. He stated that he didn’t anticipate any problems with water or sewer capacity in terms of this specific project that may affect residents. In response to Board questions regarding stormwater, Mr. Fisk clarified that what had been proposed, complied with the County Stormwater Ordinance. He stated that, in regard to impervious surface, the use does not matter, stormwater-wise. Mr. Fisk confirmed that Hurricane Florence was greater than a 100-year storm event. He stated that with a hurricane, such as Florence, stormwater may exceed capacity of retention ponds, and there would be overflow that would flow downhill. In response to Board questions, Mr. Clinkscales stated that there were properties in the basin, that were developed before there was any stormwater ordinance, and therefore water came from other neighborhoods from the north, which contributed to the downhill flow. In response to Board questions, Mr. Logan stated the price points for the three proposed housing types. He stated that single family would average $400,000 to $459,000, duplexes would average around $375,000, and the apartment rents would average $1,100 - $1,800, depending on floor plan and current market rates. In response to Board questions, Mr. Cumbo, clarified that the Military Cutoff Road extension project was estimated to be completed in 2022 and would divert approximately 9,000 trips. Ms. Engebretson clarified that the proposed development anticipated the first home would be for sale, in 2023. Chair Girardot close the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. In response to Board questions, Mr. Smith stated that there was a huge demand for luxury apartment home living, not only locally but nationwide. He stated that there has been a fast rise in renter households aged 60-years and above that had driven the surge in renters. He stated that this demographic desired mobility, centralized services and to be close to transportation. In response to Board questions, Ms. Engebreston stated the apartment community Amberleigh Shores had more density than what they had proposed and were all three story buildings. In regard to the traffic issue, the Board suggested the applicant make the travel path easier by providing a dedicated road that provided traffic to go out toward Old Market Street rather than traversing through an apartment parking lot. In response to Board suggestion, Ms. Engebreston stated that the applicant was open to design refinement. She stated that she thought they could take a bit of the open space and work through some of the issues without sacrificing the intent of the plan. Paul Boney made a MOTION, to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-L District. He stated he found it to be consistent with the purposes in the Comprehensive Plan because it provided an orderly transition of uses from higher intensity to lower intensity, provided for a range of housing types and was in line with the recommended densities of the Community Mixed‑Use and General Residential place types. He stated that, he found approval of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because although it increased traffic in the area, the proposed would benefit the community by providing diverse housing options. He stated that approval was subject to the following conditions: 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 U.S. 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. 5 | Page 4. A reduction of the number of apartment by two 24 unit buildings or 48 units total and rework the parking. Chair Girardot asked the applicant’s representative, Ms. Engebretson, if that was acceptable for her client. Ms. Engebretson stated that the developer felt they had reached the bottom of the ability to break that density down any further. She stated that they had already dropped 82 units and that was as far as they were willing to go; therefore, it was not acceptable to the developer. Chair Girardot, hearing no amendment to the motion, asked if there was another motion. Hearing none, op ened to Board deliberation. Mr. Olds stated he was in favor of improving the apartment corridor and less density . Chair Girardot stated, she was in favor of the apartments because the average cost of a single family home in Wilmington was $354,548 and that fewer people could afford to make that type of investment. She stated that she felt they had an obligation to provide this type of housing and that this proposed luxury resort style living would complement the area. She stated that she was in support of Ms. Engebretson suggestion which would move the parking off of the main corridor to accommodate the emergency vehicles. Mr. Jordy Rawl asked that, to help alleviate some of the traffic issues whether the applicant would be open to gating the apartment complex off from the rest of the single‑family residential development. In response, Ms. Engebretson stated that after conferring with her client, the developer agreed to a gate with key card access and would be amenable at the apartments. Chair Girardot closed the public hearing. Mr. Boney moved to amend the MOTION by revision of item # 4. To reduce the apartment development by one 24‑unit building and to rework the parking, with an additional condition, item # 5, to install a gate limiting access from the apartments back through the single‑family development back to Shiraz way and with key-card access to Market Street. Ms. Engebreston stated that the revised condition would be acceptable to her client. Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Ernest Olds, to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-L District. The Board found 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 was in-line with the recommended densities of the Community Mixed Use and General Residentia l place types. They also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request was 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. 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 U.S. 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. 4. To reduce the apartment development by one 24‑unit building and to rework the parking 5. A gate must be installed between the proposed multi-family section of the project and the duplex housing preventing eastbound travel from the apartments and only allowing westbound travel for residents of the duplex and single-family housing in the development. Emergency vehicles would be able to go in either direction. The motion to approve carried 6-0. 6 | Page 2. Rezoning Request (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. Senior Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler stated that, in regard to the 40 to 50 trips during peak hours, there was only one ingress and egress through the Northchase subdivision. He stated that the other access was Chandler Drive which had two options to travel to North College. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and acknowledged the applicant. Land Planner Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions, LLC, representative for the property owner, presented maps, conceptual illustrations and gave a brief overview of the proposal. She stated that it had been zoned O&I back in 1998 and since then was rather isolated by I-40, which came through around 2005. Ms. Wolf stated that single access at Chandler Drive was part of the Northchase recorded plats of that community at the time. She stated that Chandler Drive was a state maintained curb and guttered residential collector street as far as its standard and width. She stated that it was set aside by the corporation for future development access to these properties and a piece of land that could be a transitional type of property along I‑140. She stated that issues of flooding within existing neighborhoods had historically been a problem for the Northchase community. She state d that the runoff of the development of this site will be handled by the same method whether it was developed commercial or residential. Ms. Wolf explained that with all its building conditions, R‑5 assures no more intense housing than four attached townhomes. She concluded by stating that it was in compliance and reasonable because it does give diverse housing options, serves as a transition and that its density is within those policies and guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Girardot opened to the speakers in opposition. Mr. Charles Myers, attorney representative of the Northchase Homeowners Association (HOA). Mr. Myers stated that they were all present, to oppose the project on multiple grounds. He stated that Northchase was a 961‑lot planned development that was developed back in the 1980’s. He stated that the lots adjacent to the parcel sought to be rezoned were around 15,000 square feet and consistent with an R‑15 zoning. He stated that there wasn’t an easement in place in order for someone to access Chandler Drive to get to the parcel that is proposed to be rezoned. Mr. Myers passed out a copy of the recorded map of Regency Manor to the Board and County Deputy Attorney, Sharon Huffman. Mr. Myers stated that he did not find that the parcel had been deeded to the NCDOT for public right-of-way. He concluded by stating that the association felt that if something was to be built back there, it should be in harmony and consistent with what is there now and that was essentially an R‑15 zoning. Christine Sprow, resident of Brucemont Drive, stated that she was a member of the Northchase Board of Directors and property owner that would be affected by the rezoning. She presented pictures that showed issues related to flooding, drainage and traffic concerns in the area. She stated that the number one concern with the proposal, was the proposal to rezone at almost three times the density. She concluded by stating, the drainage was a serious concern, and we would expect to see some plans that would show additional drainage help and whether or not there's any impact analysis done as to what is going to happen when you increase that density. Jim Klungle, resident of Paramount Way, expressed concerns about the ditch and flooding in the area. He stated that the applicant has not presented a plan for stormwater and stated he was concerned because stormwater runoff comes directly through his property. Chair Girardot stated that the opposition was out of time but asked if there were any opposing speakers in opposition that co uld speak in regard to something that had not already been mentioned. Matthew Yurcek, Building Consultant, resident of Caesar Court, stated that he was also a property owner in the area. He also commented that the intersection at Chandler Drive and Premiere Court has flooded over five times in the last two years. He 7 | Page stated that his biggest concern was Chandler Drive in regard to traffic and safety issues. Joan Mancuso, resident of Monticello Court stated that she was not directly affected by the proposed development but wanted to bring up some items for everyone to be aware of in the area. She concluded by stating that the proposal would eliminate a huge track of trees in the area. David McKirachan, resident of Chandler Drive, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated concerns regarding increases in traffic and the safety of children. Francis Cappella, resident of Dalton Court, requested that, should the project go through, to consider the egress on the north side and leaving Paramount Way and Chandler Drive as it was . He stated that this would eliminate the problems that you have heard throughout the evening here. Paul Kontz, resident of Paramount Way, stated that he kept hearing the words “transitional area” during the evening and assumed that to mean to transition traffic from a low density area into the higher density area. He stated that it wouldn’t happen because this rezoning would create bottlenecks. George David, resident of Claymore Drive, stated that he was most concerned with the safety of the children because the rezoning would result in vehicles traveling at much higher speeds. He asked the Board to consider this community as if it were their own family members and keep this in mind when making their final decision. Chair Girardot closed the opposition portion of the hearing and opened to the applicant rebuttal. In response to opposition comments, Ms. Wolf stated that some of the folks were incorrect about density. She clarified that the maximum density of an R‑5 District of this acreage would be 83 units total regardless of housing type. She stated that the R-5 type of development was consistent with the type of house prices and communities in that area. Ms. Wolf stated that she did not state that the parcel wouldn’t support O&I use but clarified that the office and institutional uses that were attached to the property currently, were not the best use or most desirable use for the tract. She stated that NCDOT had not accepted the connection and probably won't accept that extension of Chandler Drive because it's a dead end. She added that the master plan of Northchase showed that as an interconnection for the future. Ms. Wolf clarified that the county's land records have always showed it was a part of the roadway system and that it was not a taxed parcel. She also stated we have had conversations about a Quit Claim to clear up any confusion, but it was designed to be the connection to get to that land. Ms. Wolf stated that in regard to flooding, the proposal was at the downstream of the mentioned ditch. She added that flooding issues were caused by localized ponding because of inadequate grading and backup of downstream due to damming – which was evident in the Northchase community. Chair Girardot closed the applicant rebuttal and opened to opposition rebuttal. Mr. Meier stated that in regard to Ms. Wolf’s comment about the community, he stated that Northchase was a subdivision with its own Home Owner’s Association and therefore, would never be a part of the community. He stated that if the applicant wanted to rezone the O&I to R‑15 it would be very consistent with what was in the general neighborhood of Northchase, currently. Dan Sanford, Vice-President of the Northchase Homeowners Association, stated that they understood the applicant had a right to develop. They understood that the road was paved by the NCDOT but stated that any idea or illusions about our association not doing due diligence on drainage and our ditch maintenance has been vetted by the county and we were commended by it. He stated that they had checked with a third‑party who verified, assessed and also agreed that our ditches are above average for a community. Mr. Sanford stated that we're doing all we can, yet, we can't sustain more than 5 to 6 inches of rain. He stated that the local area would be much more open to listen to ideas about an R‑15 because of the development that goes along with that versus the R‑5. He reiterated that they understand the right to develop and use the road. He stated they couldn’t get the water out and that 487 homes rely on the north end of those pipes for the water to exit our community. He concluded by stating that they had not seen anything to alleviate any problems that we have from that. Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion. 8 | Page In response to Board questions, Mr. Iannucci stated that in between Smith Creek and Prince George’s Creek had been identified as one of the priority areas where improvements would help to reduce the impacts of flooding. He stated that the county had received a grant through emergency watershed protection to remove downed trees and sediments from the creeks to try and improve the flow. In response to Board questions, Mr. Iannucci stated there were a combination of issues at Northchase in regard to ditches and culverts. He stated there was a permitted system in place and those systems were maintained by Northchase and their HOA. He stated there were NCDOT drainage systems in the rights-of-way but as far as a comprehensive, maintained system, the County Commissioners just passed a stormwater services division which will aid in improvements that carry water across the county. Mr. Iannucci stated that an overall drainage study was needed that identified improvements once debris has been removed to see how things flowed. After Board deliberation, some members concluded that they needed more certainty on the flooding issue and reluctant for the project to proceed until the county had embarked on a comprehensive study and the stormwater program was in place. Mr. Olds stated that he wasn’t in favor of increased density at the end of that road and the O&I Zoning was not appropriate for the site, therefore, not in support. Mr. Tarrant stated that he shared the sentiment Mr. Olds, and stated he was concerned about the transition piece from lower densities to higher densities and the traffic that it would generate in the residential R‑15 neighborhood. Mr. Petroff stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Boney, and that it was unfair to put the entire burden on the applicant. He believed that Ms. Wolf and her team would handle their own stormwater runoff and not injure the adjoining neighborhood. Ernest Olds made a MOTION, SECONDED by Colin Tarrant to DENY the proposed rezoning to a R-5 district. While he found 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, he found DENIAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal was not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community and the density will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods. The vote on the motion to deny was 3-3. OTHER BUSINESS Development Code Update (Unified Development Ordinance Project) Senior Long Range Planner Rebekah Roth provided an update on the county’s development code update and gave some information on the steps moving forward. She stated that the anticipated date for the update to go before the Board of Commissioners was tentatively scheduled for their February 3rd meeting. She stated that as they prepare for the final public hearing associated with Phase II of the project, they will also be moving forward with Phase III – the targeted code updates that the county’s consulting firm, Clarion will largely be drafting. She stated that to determine the full scope of amendments and the timeline for moving forward, Clarion would be holding some stakeholder interviews and preparing a memo describing their recommendations. She explained that once the Board provided their direction on how to proceed, the y would begin work on the targeted updates, while staff works on the administrative clean-up amendments. With no other business, Chair Donna Girardot adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jyll Gartin Planning Administration Specialist Please note: that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.