07 JULY 2019 PB MINUTES - APPROVED
1 | P a g e
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
July 11, 2019
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on July 11, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the André Mallette
Training Facility, 230 Government Center in Wilmington North Carolina.
Members Present Staff Present
Thomas ‘Jordy’ Rawl, Chair Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director
Donna Girardot, Vice-Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
H. Allen Pope Brad Schuler, Senior Planner
Ernest Olds Rebekah Roth, Senior Planner
Jeffrey B. Petroff Ron Meredith, Current Planner
Gideon Smith, Current Planner
Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
Members Absent
Paul Boney
Edward T. (Ted) Shipley, III
Chair Thomas 'Jordy' Rawl called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the Pledge of
Allegiance. Chair Rawl read the procedures for the meeting and that Vice Chair Donna Girardot was to be the planning
board representative at the August 12th County Commissioners meeting.
1. Rezoning Request (Z19-07) – Requested by Parker & Associates on behalf of the property owner, Clearly Development,
Inc., to rezone approximately 47.58 acres of land located near the 2500-2600 block of Castle Hayne Road, from R-15,
Residential District, to R-10, Residential District. This Item was continued from the June 6, 2019 Planning Board meeting.
Current Planner Ron Meredith stated this item was continued from the June 6, 2019 Planning Board meeting. At that meeting
the Planning Board requested additional information including a rationale for the rezoning, an explanation of how the
stormwater would be affected, and an overview of the entire Riverside subdivision in order to provide context. Mr. Meredith
provided information pertaining to the site, number of units, location, and land classification; showed maps, and aerials of the
property and surrounding area along with an overview referred to in the staff report. He concluded by stating the property
was within the General Residential place type and the requested rezoning was generally consistent with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Rawl opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Lori Morris from Parker and Associate representing Clearly Development, Inc. presented the overall site plan, including the
additional lots if approved. Ms. Morris addressed concerns the Board had about the stormwater system, stating that the
originally designed system would accommodate the additional lots and that their state permit would just need to be
amended to reflect the built-upon area. Ms. Morris also stated that the impact to traffic would be an increase of less than
one percent.
Chair Rawl asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Morris stated that the rezoning would allow for some affordable housing based on smaller
lots and smaller houses.
Senior Planner Brad Schuler clarified for the Board that the applicant could add 38 lots under the proposed rezoning; however,
the applicant currently anticipates only being able to accommodate 26 additional lots given the infrastructure in place.
2 | P a g e
In response to Board questions, Charles Lanier, an attorney representing the developer addressed affordability by stating that
the price point would be entry-level based on market conditions. Mr. Lanier did not give a specific price range but indicated it
would be less than $300,000. He stated the price points would be based on infrastructure, land costs and competition between
builders which would drive down housing cost. Mr. Lanier stated that the reduced lot size would reduce the housing size which
would reduce the price point of the home, but that he could not give an estimate on how much the cost of the home would be
reduced as a result of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Lanier confirmed that stormwater pond was oversized based on the overall
design of the site and there would not be an increase in built upon area (BUA).
In response to the Board questions, planning staff indicated that there would be no change to the level of service on Castle
Hayne Road. Mr. Lanier added that there would be traffic improvements to the intersection at Castle Hayne Road. Mr. Shuler
indicated that under the Performance Residential Standards they would have a 20-foot perimeter setback as well as interior
spacing requirements between structures.
In response to Board questions, Jason Houston with Parker and Associates clarified that front half of the development was
already under construction and that the back portion already had major infrastructure in place. Mr. Houston indicated that the
BUA for stormwater would be reduced with the additional 26 lots and that no additional mitigation would be included. Mr.
Houston stated they have over designed their stormwater to the 25-year storm which is above the requirement. He added that
upon approval they would submit their updated stormwater permit to the County and the State.
Chair. Rawl closed the applicant’s presentation and opened for speakers in opposition.
Will and Pamela Thornton residents of Horn Place Drive, spoke in opposition stating concerns about traffic, and negative effects
to property value. Mr. Thornton stated difficulties turning left onto Castle Hayne Road off of Horn Place Drive and that existing
traffic during shift changes at the Hitachi/GE facility and Wrightsboro Elementary increase congestion. Mr. Thornton stated his
concern about a negative impact to his property value and that the proposed rezoning was about yielding a higher profit and not
about affordable housing. He thought that smaller lots do not fit with the character of the surrounding areas. Mrs. Thornton
expressed her frustration with having to turn onto Castle Hayne Road from Horn Place Drive. She stated that other families have
also had trouble turning onto Castle Hayne Road.
Patricia Morton, a resident of Horn Place Drive, spoke in opposition stating concerns about traffic, density, and the affordability
of the proposed new homes. She appreciated that there will be a stop light included with proposed project but still had
concerns that Castle Hayne Road cannot accommodate the increase in traffic. Ms. Morton expressed doubts about the
affordability of the proposed housing and concerns about how close the houses would be to one another.
Jonathan Moore, a resident of Chadwick Avenue, spoke in opposition of the proposal stating concerns about negative effects to
property value and flooding. Mr. Moore had concerns about negative impacts to his property value based on the rezoning. He
then stated concerns about flooding cause by the site where his property has been effected. He also indicated that current
stormwater drains were not working properly. He stated his displeasure in having to pay out of pocket to improve drainage and
clear out trees on his property. He concluded by stating how wet the property naturally was.
Chair. Rawl closed the opposition portion and opened to applicant rebuttal.
Mr. Houston addressed the opposition’s concerns and explained that the traffic impact was less than one percent and would
results in one extra car every six minutes. Mr. Houston added that while the width of the intersection had been widened to
include a right turn, left turn and through lane, the new traffic signal poles had not been constructed yet. Mr. Houston stated
that sewer infrastructure was constructed, including a pump station, with the capacity to serve not only their area but adjacent
areas and neighboring properties. Mr. Houston explained that they were not developing in any wetlands and that silt would be
typical after rain events since roadways have not been paved yet. He then noted that they would help anyone having drainage
issues caused by their site and clarified that the berm helps to collect stormwater so that it is treated onsite per the stormwater
regulations.
Chair Rawl opened to opposition rebuttal.
3 | P a g e
Brent Johnson spoke in opposition stating concerns about increased density, traffic, and flooding. He stated that the areas
surrounding the proposed site were historically zoned R-20 and that a recently built subdivision just down the road was R-15.
He acknowledged that Castle Hayne Road would be upgraded but currently was not capable of handling the extra traffic. Mr.
Johnson then expressed concerns that the stormwater ponds for the subdivision would not be able to handle storm events like
Hurricane Florence. He agreed with the original rezoning to R-15.
Chair Rawl closed opposition’s rebuttal and opened Board discussion.
Mr. Petroff, Vice Chair Girardot, Mr. Olds and Chair Rawl all stated their concerns about the proposed density. Mr. Olds
addressing traffic concerns indicated there were traffic improvements identified in the area. Mr. Olds felt affordability in the
original rezoning was achieved and saw no incremental difference from additional lots. Chair Rawl indicated that the existing
project does include apartments that would add density in an appropriate area. Chair Rawl was not in favor of the rezoning and
called for a motion.
Vice Chair Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board member Ernest Olds to recommend to the Board of Commissioners
to DENY the proposed rezoning to a R-10 Residential District. Though they found the request to be CONSISTENT with the
purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, they found the denial of the request to be not reasonable and in the public
interest because the density was not reasonable for this area.
Upon vote, motion denied 5-0.
2. Public Hearing Rezoning Request (Z-965M) – Request by Lee Law Firm, on behalf of the property owner, Inlet Watch
Development Partners, LLC, for a modification to an existing (CZD) B-2 zoning district, located at 7275 Carolina Beach
Road, to allow for outdoor boat/RV storage.
Current Planner Gideon Smith provided information pertaining to location, land classification, zoning, use standards and
conditions; showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area along with an overview referred to in
the staff report. He concluded by stating the property was within the Community Mixed Use place type and the proposed
rezoning was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
In response to Board questions regarding buffering between the proposed storage area and adjacent residential uses,
Mr. Smith explained that the ordinance requires landscaping be installed between the fence and the property line but
that the applicant was proposing to install additional landscaping either between the fence and the storage area, or
between the fence and the property line adjacent to the Inlet Watch subdivision. The buffer had not been installed
previously as it would have been triggered by the construction of the fourth building approved as part of the original
application. An approval of the modified conditional district would require the landscaping be installed right away. He
also verified that if the fourth building were ever constructed, the applicant would be required to comply with all
conditions of the original approval.
Chair Rawl opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Michael Lee with the law firm Michael Lee Kaess, representing the applicant, provided the history of the property. Mr.
Lee presented how the applicant had addressed community concerns such as stormwater and impervious surface
coverage, lighting and light bleed, landscaping, fencing, and buffering. Mr. Lee stated that the impervious surface
coverage did not change and the site is engineered to handle the amount of stormwater generated. He noted that the
floodlights on the rear of the back building that had been shining onto adjacent residential properties were turned off
and that the two light poles associated with the project were designed for neighborhoods and streets and were in
compliance with all ordinance requirements. Additionally, there were light poles constructed that were intended for
neighborhoods and streets and they comply with all ordinance requests. Mr. Lee then stated that the applicant
installed landscaping along Radnor Road and the fence line. Mr. Lee then showed a series of pictures from the view of
the Inlet Watch subdivision and invited up Mr. Adam Sosne to explain further the improvements that have been
installed.
4 | P a g e
Adam Sosne, developer and owner of the subject property, presented information and addressed concerns from the
community meeting. He stated that the project was based on the market and could be completed in phases rather
than all at once. He stated that the project approved in the original rezoning was being constructed in stages, with the
third and fourth buildings added as market demand increased. He explained that the management company in charge
of the storage facility had begun leasing both indoor storage and outdoor space following the hurricane in 2018, which
was not part of the originally approved conditional rezoning. Mr. Sosne accepted responsibility and stated that once he
realized that outdoor was not a part of the original approved rezoning, he had submitted a modification to include
outdoor storage. Mr. Sosne continued to explain how they built an 8-foot fence when a 6-foot was all that was
required. In addition, he explained how they planted 15 to 16-foot crape myrtles and wax myrtles to provide more
buffering. He stated he gained some insight from the community meeting and was able to address lighting concerns
and move some of the recreational vehicles so they would be shielded from view.
Mr. Lee concluded the presentation by highlighting that the applicant had installed an 8-foot instead of the required 6-
foot fence due to elevation changes and grading as well as installing additional landscaping that was not originally
required to address the concerns of adjacent residents.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Lee confirmed that irrigation had been installed for all vegetation along the interior
and exterior of the fence.
Chair Rawl opened for speakers in opposition.
Jeanne Benfield, a resident of Inlet Watch, stated her concerns about the requested modification and frustration with
the property owner. Ms. Benfield was concerned her direct view of the property would have a negative impact on her
property value and that there were sections of the site that did not have adequate buffering. She expressed frustration
that the property owner had assured the neighboring community that no outdoor storage would be included and with
his lack of communication with neighbors to address their concerns. In addition, she had concerns about the use of
commercial vehicles on the property and sought assurance that the applicant would maintain the fencing and
vegetative buffers.
Judy Odom a resident and President of the Inlet Watch home owner’s association, spoke in opposition stating she
wanted assurance that the applicant would address all of the community’s concerns. She alleged that the applicant had
intentionally left the site of the fourth building undeveloped in order to include outdoor storage. She stated her
frustration about the community meeting for the project as she thought someone from the planning board was to
attend. Ms. Odom wanted assurance that the application would follow the conditions placed on the storage facility and
that those conditions would remain should the property be sold.
Amy Boles, a resident of Inlet Watch, spoke in opposition stating her frustration with large vehicles parked in sight of
her property even after she thought the applicant was denied outdoor storage in the original rezoning request. She
was also frustrated about not receiving an answer from the applicant when asked about removal of vehicles in the
outdoor lot.
William Boles a resident of Inlet Watch spoke in opposition stating that he had concerns that the property had been in
violation since 2018, and that the buffer was not opaque as required.
Chair Rawl closed the opposition portion and opened to applicant rebuttal.
Addressing opponent’s comments, Mr. Lee clarified that outdoor storage was never requested and thus was never
denied and if the modification request was denied the applicant would remove all outdoor storage. He also clarified
that a member from planning staff was to attend the community meeting, not a Planning Board member. He clarified
that current leases for vehicle storage had not been terminated as the applicant was waiting for the results of the
modification public hearing but would comply with restrictions against their storage if the modification were not
approved. Mr. Lee clarified the fence along Radnor road was approved and required to look like a wrought iron fence.
He stated the vegetation included was more then what was required for the buffer. He reiterated that an 8-foot fence
was installed instead of a 6-foot fence and that the fence now wrapped the entire back of the property. He also stated
5 | P a g e
that irrigation was in place and could be extended. Addressing concerns about maintaining vegetation, Mr. Lee stated
the applicant spent a lot of money for plantings and it would be in his best interest to maintain them. Mr. Lee then
clarified the height of the buildings were specified in the ordinance and that the recreational vehicles were treated to
that same standard. He then addressed a comment about a particular section of fencing that was not in place but
could be installed if some vegetation were removed. Mr. Lee stated that additional vegetation was lost due to
Hurricane Florence and from additional stormwater mitigation that was required by County Engineering.
Responding to Board questions Mr. Lee pointed out the fence locations on a map shown on the screen. Mr. Lee then
stated Mr. Sosne had been unaware the management company was leasing outdoor storage space. Mr. Lee stated that
the site of the fourth building was intentionally paved in order to minimize silt runoff during storms and designed for a
building from the beginning. Mr. Lee stated the foundation for the existing buildings were concrete. Mr. Sosne
clarified that using concrete was the most cost effective way to cover the site.
Chair Rawl opened the opposition rebuttal.
Ms. Boles stated that the applicant mentioned that trees came down during the hurricane but only two trees came
down. Ms. Boles pointed them out on a map shown on the screen.
Ms. Odom stated her concern stating that all the improvements made on the applicant’s property were not addressed
until the applicant knew they were out of compliance and came forward with the proposed modification. She specified
that no improvement was made between December 2018 and June 2019 and wanted assurance that any buffers
required as a condition of any approval of the zoning modification would be maintained.
Chair Rawl closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Smith clarified that the height measurement is from the established grade to the
highest peak of the vehicle, excluding antennas. Mr. Smith then clarified that in the ordinance commercial vehicles are
not permitted in boat and RV storage lots but in this case that U-hauls were considered an accessory use. Mr. Schuler
added that the conditions of the rezoning run with the land.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Shuler clarified the buffers are to be at least 6 feet tall from the grade in which the
buffers are installed, and must be between the proposed use and the property line. Mr. Smith stated that anything
within 45 feet of the property line would need to be less than 12 feet tall and anything beyond 45 feet could be taller
than 12 feet.
In response to a Board question, Planning Director Wayne Clark confirmed that zoning staff would be responsible for
enforcement and stated the process for notification of a violation.
The Board then stated conditions to be added to the district and asked the applicant if that was acceptable.
Mr. Lee and Mr. Sosne agreed to the conditions presented.
Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Ernest Olds to recommend to the Board of Commissioners
to APPROVE the modification to the conditional district; they found that it to be consistent with the purposes and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan because commercial uses are appropriate in the Community Mixed Use place type
and the proposed use is similar to the existing facility already in place. They also found it to be in the public interest
because the proposal minimizes the visual impact to the surrounding community by providing additional landscaping
and buffering while providing services that minimizes vehicle miles traveled. They stated that the existing conditions
placed on the original Conditional Zoning District shall remain in effect and this approval was subject to the following
additional conditions:
Conditions to be added to the District:
6 | P a g e
1. In addition to the required opaque landscape buffering, the property owner shall buffer the eastern side of the
boat/RV lot by:
a. Retaining the existing 8-foot-high wood fence, and
b. Planting an additional evergreen hedge between the boat/RV lot and adjacent residential properties that
will provide a continuous screen and be of a species that reaches at least 15 feet tall at full maturity, such as
wax myrtles or other similar species.
2. The property owner shall minimize the visual impact of the subject property by limiting the height of the
boats/RVs stored on site, as indicated below. Measurement shall be taken from the established grade to the
highest point of the boat or vehicle, excluding any antennas.
a. No boat/RV exceeding 14 feet in height shall be stored within the outdoor storage area.
b. No boat/RV exceeding 12 feet in height shall be stored within 45 feet of the eastern fence line.
3. The required landscape buffer along Radnor Road shall be supplemented with additional vegetation to reach
100% opacity by November 1, 2019. The additional landscaping shall consist of Red Tips, Oleanders, or other
fast growing shrubs, be a minimum of four feet in height at the time of planting, and be planted close together
to ensure opacity.
4. The property owner shall continue to maintain, and keep in good condition, the fencing and landscaping on
the eastern side of the boat/RV storage lot.
5. No dry stacking of boats shall be permitted on the subject property.
6. No repairing, washing, cleaning, or any other maintenance, or occupancy of vehicles, RVs, trailers, boats, or
trucks shall be permitted on the site.
7. All lights must be shielded in a manner so that light from the fixture does not directly radiate to adjacent
properties.
The motion to approve carried 5-0.
OTHER BUISNESS
Development Code Update (Unified development Ordinance Project)
Senior Long Range Planner Rebekah Roth provided an update on the county’s development code update and summary. Ms. Roth
stated at their July,1 2019 the Board of Commissioners voted to approve the first text amendment associated with the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) project which added eight new zoning districts. Ms. Roth stated all of the changes have been
made to the Zoning Ordinance and were posted online. Ms. Roth explained the next phase of the project would include the
reorganization of the seven existing codes into one Unified Development Ordinance. She noted that this phase would primarily
be a clarification of existing practices and any updates or fixes to current standards would be brought to the Planning Board for
direction during an upcoming meeting. She anticipated that additional information would be brought to the Planning Board
once consultant drafts were vetted by staff.
In addition, Mr. Clark provided a brief update on the types and densities of residential projects that were being discussed with
staff and indicated that future conversations might be needed given the increased densities recommended by the
Comprehensive Plan.
With no other business, Chair Rawl adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Please note: that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.