Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04 PB AGENDA PACKET NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse 24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC 28401 Members of the Board Paul Boney, Chair | Jeffrey P Petroff, Vice-Chair Thomas 'Jordy' Rawl | Ernest Olds | Donna Girardot | H. Allen Pope | Colin J. Tarrant Rebekah Roth, Director| Ken Vafier, Planning Manager APRIL 1, 2021 6:00 PM Mee2ng Called to Order by Chair, Paul Boney Pledge of Allegiance by Planning Manager, Ken Vafier Approval of Minutes (March 4, 2021) REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS The Planning Board may consider substanal changes in these peons as a result of objecons, debate, and discussion at the meeng, including rezoning to other classificaons. 1 Public Hearing Rezoning Request (Z21-04) – Request by RSC Engineering, PLLC, on behalf of the property owner, Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity, Inc., to rezone approximately 4.9 acres of land located in the 3200 block of Reminisce Road from R-20, Residen2al-20 District, to (CZD) R-10, Condi2onal Residen2al-10 District, in order to develop an 11-lot subdivision. 2 Public Hearing Rezoning Request (Z21-05) - Request by Design Solu>ons, on behalf of the property owner, Bonnie D. & David M. Narron, to rezone approximately 0.8 acres of land located at 3419 N. Kerr Avenue from AR, Airport Residen>al, to (CZD) B-1, Neighborhood Business, in order to develop a vehicle service sta>on. 3 Quasi-Judicial Hearing Special Use Permit Request (S21-02) – Request by TowerCo 2013, LLC, on Behalf of the Property Owner, Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc., for a Special Use Permit for a Wireless Support Structure within a (CUD) R-20 Residen>al District, located at 719 Champ Davis Road. 4 Public Hearing Text Amendment Request (TA21-01) - Request by New Hanover County to amend Ar>cles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Unified Development Ordinance for compliance with recent state law and to perform ongoing maintenance to refine and clarify assorted ordinance provisions Planning Board - April 1, 2021 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/1/2021 Regular DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Ron Meredith, Current Planner CONTACT(S): Ron Meredith; Brad Schuler, Senior Planner; Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing Rezoning Request (Z21-04) – Request by RSC Engineering, PLLC, on behalf of the property owner, Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity, Inc., to rezone approximately 4.9 acres of land located in the 3200 block of Reminisce Road from R-20, Residen@al-20 District, to (CZD) R-10, Condi@onal Residen@al-10 District, in order to develop an 11-lot subdivision. BRIEF SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to construct an 11-lot single-family subdivision. As currently designed, the proposal will comply with the County’s standards for a conven)onal subdivision with no lots proposed less than 10,000 square feet. The internal subdivision road will be constructed to the County’s private roadway standards and maintained by the proposed subdivision’s home owner’s associa)on. According to the applicant, required stormwater facili)es will be provided via a roadside swale, and no stormwater pond is intended for the subdivision. The applicant has applied for Stormwater Permits with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and New Hanover County Engineering. The current R-20 zoning of the site would allow up to 9 lots at a density of 1.9 du/ac under the County’s performance residen)al standards. The proposed 11 lots equate to an overall density of 2.24 du/ac with lots ranging from about 12,000 square feet to about 15,000 square feet. The R-20 district is the predominant zoning in the surrounding area; however, the area also includes R-15 and R-10 districts. The nearby Walnut Hills subdivision was ini)ally zoned to the R-10 district in 1974. When the R-20 district was first applied to this area in the 1970’s, public u)li)es were limited, and many homes in the unincorporated areas of the County u)lized private well and sep)c. Water and wastewater is now available in the area, and the applicant is proposing connec)ons to the CFPUA water and wastewater systems. The County recently approved two other rezonings to the R-10 district for nearby proper)es in the last few years. The Boun)ful Village development was rezoned to a condi)onal R-10 district in 2018. Also, about 16 acres of County owned property at the 3100 block of Castle Hayne Road was rezoned to an R-10 district in 2020 and conveyed to Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity for a workforce housing subdivision. Access is proposed to be provided to the subject property from Reminisce Road, an NCDOT maintained road that connects to Rockhill Road. In addi)on, the nearby public street network in the Apple Valley subdivision connects to Oakley Road to the south. Both Oakley Road and Rockhill Road connect to Castle Hayne Road. The applicant has also designed the site to allow for a future connec)on to the adjacent undeveloped parcel to the northeast. In 2020, a traffic signal was installed at the intersec)on of Oakley Road and Castle Hayne Road. As currently zoned, it is es)mated the site would generate about 10-11 trips during the peak hours. Under the Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 proposed R-10 zoning, the proposed 11 detached single-family homes are es)mated to generate about 13 trips during the peak hours. The expected net difference in traffic would be an increase of about 2-3 trips. The property does not contain any Special Flood Hazard Areas or Natural Heritage Areas. Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Wrightsboro Elementary School, Holly Shelter Middle School, and New Hanover High School. Students may apply to aFend public magnet, year-round elementary, or specialty high schools. A maximum of 9 dwelling units would be permiFed under the current R-20 zoning base density, and 11 units could be developed under the proposed condi)onal zoning for an increase of 2 dwelling units. Based on a generalized historic genera)on rate, staff would es)mate the new project would generate roughly one addi)onal student. However, affordable housing developments may be more likely to provide housing for families with school-age children, so the proposed rezoning may generate more students than would be es)mated using the historic genera)on rate es)mates. The rezoning will result in two addi)onal lots, which are expected to have minimal impact on the surrounding areas. The proposed lot sizes and single-family housing type are similar to exis)ng development in the neighborhood, and recent rezonings to the R-10 district have been approved for proper)es in the area. The proposed condi)onal R-10 rezoning is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density is in line with the residen)al housing densi)es outlined for General Residen)al areas, and the proposal is also consistent with the exis)ng development paFern of the surrounding area. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Intelligent Growth & Economic DevelopmentEncourage development of complete communi)es in the unincorporated countyEnsure NHC has appropriate housing to support business growth RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposal and suggests the following mo)on: I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a Condi)onal R-10 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density is in line with the residen)al housing densi)es outlined for General Residen)al areas. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is also consistent with the exis)ng development paFern of the surrounding area. Alterna@ve Mo@on for Denial I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a Condi)onal R-10 district. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density is in line with the residen)al housing densi)es outlined for General Residen)al areas, I find DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the exis)ng development paFern of the surrounding area and will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods. ATTACHMENTS: Descrip)on Z21-04 Script PB Z21-04 Staff Report PB Z21-04 Zoning Map Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 Z21-04 Future Land Use Map Z21-04 Neighboring Properties Map Applicant Materials CS Z21-04 Application Package Proposed Site Plan CS Z21-04 Concept Plan COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z21-04) Rezoning Request (Z21-04) – Request by RSC Engineering, PLLC, on behalf of the property owner, Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity, Inc., to rezone approximately 4.9 acres of land located in the 3200 block of Reminisce Road from R-20, Residential-20 District, to (CZD) R-10, Conditional Residential-10 District, in order to develop an 11-lot subdivision. 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 an 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 R-10 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density is in line with the residential housing densities outlined for General Residential areas. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is also consistent with the existing development pattern of the surrounding area. Example Motion of Denial I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a Conditional R-10 district. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density is in line with the residential housing densities outlined for General Residential areas, I find DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the existing development pattern of the surrounding area and will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 1 - 1 Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial: I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed rezoning to a Conditional R-10 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 - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 1 - 2 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 1 of 12 STAFF REPORT FOR Z21-04 CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: Z21-04 Request: Rezoning to a Conditional R-10 district Applicant: Property Owner(s): Sonya Edens with RSC Engineering, PLLC Cape Fear Habitat For Humanity Inc. Location: Acreage: 3200 Block of Reminisce Road 4.90 acres PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type: R02500-003-004-000 General Residential Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Undeveloped Single-Family Residential Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: R-20, Residential R-20 District (CZD) R-10, Conditional R-10 district SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE ZONING North Single-Family Residential R-20 East Single-Family Residential (Rivendell Bay, Oakley Circle) R-20, R-15 South Single-Family Residential (Apple Valley) R-20 West Single-Family Residential (Apple Valley and Walnut Hills) R-20, R-10 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 1 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 2 of 12 ZONING HISTORY July 1, 1974 Initially zoned R-20 (Area 10A) COMMUNITY SERVICES Water/Sewer Water and sewer service is available through CFPUA via a mainline extension and pump station. Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire District, New Hanover County Station Wrightsboro. Schools Wrightsboro Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and New Hanover High Schools. Recreation Optimist Park, Northern Regional Park, Blue Clay Bike Park CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conservation No known conservation resources Historic No known historic resources Archaeological No known archaeological resources Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 2 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 3 of 12 PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN  The applicant is proposing to construct an 11-lot single-family subdivision.  As currently designed, the proposal will comply with the County’s standards for a conventional subdivision with no lots proposed less than 10,000 square feet. The proposed development provides about 0.49 acres of open space, which meets the County’s requirement of providing 10% open space.  The internal subdivision road will be constructed to the County’s private roadway standards and maintained by the proposed subdivision’s home owner’s association.  According to the applicant, required stormwater facilities will be provided via a roadside swale. No stormwater pond is intended for the subdivision. The applicant has applied for a Stormwater Permit with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). According the NCDEQ, the subdivision meets the Built Upon Area (BUA) requirement of less than 24% to design for a low density Stormwater Permit. The applicant has also applied for a Stormwater Permit with New Hanover County Engineering. Applicant’s Conceptual Site Plan with Staff Markups ZONING CONSIDERATIONS  The current R-20 zoning of the site would allow up to 9 lots at a density of 1.9 du/ac under the County’s performance residential standards. The proposed 11 lots equate to an overall density of 2.24 du/ac with lots ranging from about 12,000 square feet to about 15,000 square feet.  The R-20 district is the predominant zoning in the surrounding area; however, the area also includes R-15 and R-10 districts. The nearby Walnut Hills subdivision was initially zoned to the R-10 district in 1974. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 3 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 4 of 12  When the R-20 district was first applied to this area in the 1970’s, public utilities were limited, and many homes in the unincorporated areas of the County utilized private well and septic. Water and wastewater is now available in the area, and the applicant is proposing connections to the CFPUA water and wastewater systems.  The County recently approved two other rezonings to the R-10 district for nearby properties in the last few years. The Bountiful Village development was rezoned to a (CZD) R-10 district in 2018. Also, about 16 acres of County owned property at the 3100 block of Castle Hayne Road was rezoned to an R-10 district in 2020 and conveyed to Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity for a workforce housing subdivision. AREA SUBDIVISIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 4 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 5 of 12 TRANSPORTATION  Access is proposed to be provided to the subject property from Reminisce Road, an NCDOT maintained road that connects to Rockhill Road. In addition, the nearby public street network in the Apple Valley subdivision connects to Oakley Road to the south. Both Oakley Road and Rockhill Road connect to Castle Hayne Road.  The applicant has also designed the site to allow for a future connection to the adjacent undeveloped parcel to the northeast.  A traffic signal was installed at the intersection of Oakley Road and Castle Hayne Road in 2020. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 5 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 6 of 12  As currently zoned, it is estimated the site would generate about 10-11 trips during the peak hours. Under the proposed (CZD) R-10 zoning, the proposed 11 detached single- family homes are estimated to generate about 13 trips during the peak hours. The expected net difference in traffic would be an increase of about 2-3 peak hour trips when compared to the current zoning.  The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).  Because a TIA is not required, staff has provided the volume to capacity ratio for Castle Hayne Road near the subject site. While volume to capacity ratio, based on average daily trips, can provide a general idea of the function of adjacent roadways, the delay vehicles take in seconds to pass through intersections is generally considered a more effective measure when determining the Level of Service of a roadway. The volume to capacity ratio indicates capacity currently exists in this area to accommodate the small change in estimated trips. NCDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) - 2020 Road Location Volume Capacity V/C Castle Hayne Road 1,000 feet south of Rockhill Road 16,324 19,603 0.83 Intensity Approx. Peak Hour Trips Existing Development: Undeveloped 0 AM / 0 PM Typical Development under Current Zoning: 9 Single-Family Dwellings 11 AM / 10 PM Proposed Development: 11 Single-Family Dwellings 13 AM / 13 PM Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 6 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 7 of 12 Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses Nearby NC STIP Projects:  STIP Project U-5863 o Project to widen Castle Hayne Road from I-140 to Division Drive. This project will add a center turn lane or median to sections of the road. o The current construction schedule for this project is to begin right-of-way acquisition in 2029. Nearby Traffic Impact Analyses: There are no pending or approved Traffic Impact Analyses within the proximity of the subject property that are anticipated to affect this request. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 7 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 8 of 12 ENVIRONMENTAL  The property does not contain any Special Flood Hazard Areas or Natural Heritage Areas.  According to the applicant there is no evidence of regulated wetlands within the area of the property to be developed.  The property is within the Ness Creek (C;Sw) watershed.  Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the property consist of Class I (suitable/slight limitation) and Class II (moderate limitation) soils; however, the project will connect to CFPUA sewer and water services. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS SCHOOLS  Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Wrightsboro Elementary School, Holly Shelter Middle School, and New Hanover High School. Students may apply to attend public magnet, year-round elementary, or specialty high schools.  A maximum of 9 dwelling units would be permitted under the current R-20 zoning base density, and 11 units could be developed under the proposed conditional zoning for an increase of 2 dwelling units.  Based on a generalized historic generation rate*, staff would estimate the new project would generate roughly one additional student. However, affordable housing developments may be more likely to provide housing for families with school-age children, so the proposed rezoning may generate more students than would be estimated using the historic generation rate estimates. Development Type Intensity Estimated Student Generation (generalized historic student generation rate)* Existing Development Undeveloped Total: 0 students Typical Development under Current R-20 Zoning 9 residential units Total: 2 students Proposed (CZD) R-10 Zoning 11 residential units Total: 3 students** * Generalized historic generation rates are calculated by dividing the projected New Hanover County public school student enrollment for the 2020-2021 school year by the estimated number of dwelling units in the county. Currently, there are an average of 0.24 public school students (0.11 for elementary, 0.05 for middle, and 0.08 for high) generated per dwelling unit across New Hanover County. These numbers are updated annually and include students attending out-of-district specialty schools, such as year-round elementary schools, Isaac Bear, and SeaTECH. Generation rates do not take into account different housing types and different locations, which typically yield different numbers of students. ** The estimated student generation calculation results in a difference of fewer than one student being generated from the proposed rezoning compared to current zoning (2.16 compared with 2.64).  Since the proposed development is likely to have a build-out date within 5 years, staff has outlined existing school capacity to provide a general idea of the potential impact on public schools. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 8 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 9 of 12  These numbers do not reflect any future capacity upgrades that may occur over the next five years or changes to student populations. School Enrollment* and Capacity** - 2020-2021 Estimates * Enrollment is based on the New Hanover County Schools enrollment that was projected for the 2020-2021 school year. ** Capacity calculations were determined by New Hanover County Schools for the 2020-2021 school year and are based on NC DPI Facility Guidelines & Class Size Requirements. Modifications refer to specific program requirements unique to a particular school. These may include exceptional children’s classrooms beyond the original building design, classrooms to serve a unique population such as ESL, or classrooms designated for art and music if the building wasn’t specifically designed with those spaces.  The recent facility needs survey that has been prepared by Schools staff includes the most current NC Department of Public Instruction (DPI) student growth projections and school capacity data. It does not include student growth projections and available capacity for individual schools, but it appears that planned facility upgrades, combined with changes to student enrollment patterns, will result in adequate capacity district-wide over the next five years if facility upgrades are funded. NEW HANOVER COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN  One of the goals of the New Hanover County Strategic Plan for 2018-2023 is to encourage the development of complete communities in the unincorporated county by increasing access to goods and services and providing for a range of housing types and price points.  The subject site is within the Wrightsboro community area. The proposed project includes single-family housing and is located more than one mile away from existing retail and service providers, so it would not impact the percentage of homes within a one-mile radius of basic goods and services or the diversity of the community's housing types.  While the Wrightsboro area is one of the communities in the unincorporated county with more affordable housing options, the number of for-sale units in the overall County serving residents making less than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) is limited. As a Habitat for Humanity project, the proposed subdivision would assist in providing the range of price points envisioned by the strategic plan for the County as a whole. Level Total NHC % Capacity School Enrollment of Assigned School Capacity of Assigned School w/ Portables % of Capacity of Assigned School Funded Capacity Upgrades Elementary 97% Wrightsboro 547 564 97% None Middle 107% Holly Shelter 917 934 98% None High 105% New Hanover 1,532 1,648 93% None Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 9 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 10 of 12 REPRESENTATIVE DEVELOPMENTS Representative R-20 Developments: Representative R-10 Developments: Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 10 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 11 of 12 Representative Habitat for Humanity Development: CONTEXT AND COMPATIBILITY  The rezoning will result in two additional lots, which are expected to have minimal impact on the surrounding areas.  The applicant proposes that the lots range from about 12,000 square feet to about 15,000 square feet. The proposed lot sizes and single-family housing type are similar to existing development in the neighborhood.  Recent rezonings to the R-10 district have been approved for properties in the area. 2016 COMPREHENSIVE 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 - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 11 Z21-04 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 12 of 12 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. Types of uses include single-family residential, low-density multi-family residential, light commercial, civic, and recreational. Analysis The subject parcel is located off of Reminisce Road about one mile west of Castle Hayne Road, a minor arterial roadway. The site is located between the GE employment center to the north and the Wrightsboro community- level commercial node at the intersection of Castle Hayne Road and N. Kerr Avenue to the south. This area was designated as General Residential to provide for development consistent with the existing lower density neighborhoods in a place where a mix of uses is less appropriate. The proposed development with its density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre would provide a residential development consistent with the density recommendation for this place type (up to 8 dwelling units per acre) and is only slightly higher than the maximum density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre permitted in the surrounding R-20 district. In addition, the proposed lot sizes will be similar to adjacent residential neighborhoods. Consistency Recommendation The proposed conditional R-10 rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density is in line with the residential housing densities outlined for General Residential areas, and the proposal is also consistent with the existing development pattern of the surrounding area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposal and suggests the following motion: I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a Conditional R-10 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density is in line with the residential housing densities outlined for General Residential areas. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is also consistent with the existing development pattern of the surrounding area. Alternative Motion for Denial I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a Conditional R-10 district. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density is in line with the residential housing densities outlined for General Residential areas, I find DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the existing development pattern of the surrounding area and will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 12 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 3 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 4 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 5 - 1 APPLICANT MATERIALS Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 6 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 2 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 3 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 4 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 5 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 6 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 7 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 8 - 1 GALA ACRES C1Engineering, PLLC SUBDIVISION LAYOUT ● PROJECT SITE Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 1 - 9 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/1/2021 Regular DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Brad Schuler, Senior Planner CONTACT(S): Brad Schuler; Rebekah Roth, Interim Planning and Land Use Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing Rezoning Request (Z21-05) - Request by Design Solu4ons, on behalf of the property owner, Bonnie D. & David M. Narron, to rezone approximately 0.8 acres of land located at 3419 N. Kerr Avenue from AR, Airport Residen4al, to (CZD) B-1, Neighborhood Business, in order to develop a vehicle service sta4on. BRIEF SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking to rezone approximately 0.8 acres of land located at 3419 N. Kerr Avenue from AR to (CZD) B- 1 in order to develop a vehicle service sta3on. The business seeking the rezoning (First Quality Imports) has an exis3ng loca3on in Wrightsboro on Castle Hayne Road approximately one quarter mile south of N. Kerr Ave. Under the proposed B-1 zoning district, vehicle service sta3ons are restricted to performing repairs of vehicles that are minor in nature such as tune ups, oil changes, and 3re replacement, etc. Major repairs that require assembly or disassembly of engine parts, body parts, transmissions, etc. are prohibited in the B-1 zoning district. As currently zoned, the subject site would be permi<ed 1 residen3al lot with a minimum area of 30,000 square feet. A development of this scale would generate about 1 trip during the peak hours. The proposed development would increase the es3mated number of peak hour trips by about 15-20 trips. The es3mated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis. The property is located on a minor arterial road and abuts the Wrightsboro commercial node and commercial zoning to the west. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies the site as Community Mixed Use. Overall, the proposal is generally CONSISTENT with the plan because the proposed business is consistent with the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type. In addi3on, the proposed use would provide an appropriate transi3on from lower density housing located north of N. Kerr Ave and the Airport Commerce employment center located to the south and east of the subject site where higher intensity uses are encouraged. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Intelligent Growth & Economic DevelopmentEncourage development of complete communi3es in the unincorporated countyCi3zens have daily needs met by NHC businesses and support themIncrease the diversity and number of higher- wage jobsRetain and grow exis3ng businesses and jobs RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 Staff recommends approval of the proposal and suggests the following mo3on: I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a Condi3onal B-1 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed business is consistent with the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the site is located on a minor arterial street near exis3ng commercial services, the use would have limited traffic impacts, and approval supports the success of an exis3ng business. [Op4onal] Note any condi3ons to be added to the district: 1. A connec3on and easement for a future parking lot cross-access shall be provided to the undeveloped land adjoining the site to the east. Alterna4ve Mo4on for Denial I move to DEN Y the proposed rezoning to a Condi3onal B-1 district. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed business is consistent with the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type, 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 intensity will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods. ATTACHMENTS: Descrip3on Z21-05 Script PB Z21-05 Staff Report PB Z21-05 Zoning Map Z21-05 Future Land Use Map Z21-05 Neighboring Properties Map Applicant Materials CS Z21-05 Application Package Proposed Site Plan CS Z21-05 Proposed Concept Plan COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z21-05) Request by Design Solutions, on behalf of the property owner, Bonnie D. & David M. Narron, to rezone approximately 0.8 acres of land located at 3419 N. Kerr Avenue from AR, Airport Residential, to (CZD) B-1, Neighborhood Business, in order to develop a vehicle service station. 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 an 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 for Approval I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a Conditional B-1 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed business is consistent with the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the site is located on a minor arterial street near existing commercial services, the use would have limited traffic impacts, and approval supports the success of an existing business. [Optional] Note any conditions to be added to the district. 1. A connection and easement for a future parking lot cross-access shall be provided to the undeveloped land adjoining the site to the east. Example Motion for Denial I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a Conditional B-1 district. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed business is consistent with the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type, 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 intensity will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1 Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial: I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed rezoning to a conditional B-1district. 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 - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 2 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 1 of 12 STAFF REPORT OF Z21-05 CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: Z21-05 Request: Rezoning to a Conditional B-1 district Applicant: Property Owner(s): Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions Bonnie D. & David M. Narron Location: Acreage: 3419 N. Kerr Avenue 0.8 PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type: R03316-004-018-000 Community Mixed Use Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Undeveloped Vehicle Service Station Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: AR, Airport Residential (CZD) B-1 SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE ZONING North Commercial Services, Single-Family Residential, Undeveloped Land B-1, AR East Single-Family Residential AR South Single-Family Residential, Undeveloped Land, Commercial Services AR, B-2 West Commercial Services B-1, B-2 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 1 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 2 of 12 ZONING HISTORY October 4, 1976 Initially zoned AR (Area Airport) COMMUNITY SERVICES Water/Sewer Water services are available through CFPUA. Sanitary sewer is available through CFPUA with a force main connection or can be serviced by a private septic system approved and permitted by the NHC Health Department. Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire District, New Hanover County Wrightsboro Station Schools Wrightsboro Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and New Hanover High Schools Recreation Optimist Park CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conservation No known conservation resources Historic No known historic resources Archaeological No known archaeological resources Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 2 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 3 of 12 APPLICANT’S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN Includes Staff Markups • The applicant is proposing to construct a 6,000 square foot vehicle service station. • Under the proposed B-1 zoning district, vehicle service stations are restricted to performing repairs of vehicles that are minor in nature such as tune ups, oil changes, and tire replacement, etc. Major repairs that require assembly or disassembly of engine parts, body parts, transmissions, etc. are prohibited in the B-1 zoning district. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 3 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 4 of 12 ZONING CONSIDERATIONS • The AR district in this area was established in 1974. At the time, the purpose of the AR district was to promote low density housing in the vicinity of the Airport and discourage uses which tend to concentrate large number of people like schools, hospitals, and rest homes. • While the site is zoned AR, it directly abuts B-1 zoning within the Wrightsboro commercial node. • As currently zoned the subject site would be permitted 1 residential lot with a minimum area of 30,000 square feet. • The subject 0.8-acre site is currently part of a parent parcel approximately 2.27 acres in area. The residual property is not included with this proposal and will remain zoned AR. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 4 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 5 of 12 AREA SUBDIVISIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 5 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 6 of 12 TRANSPORTATION • Access is proposed to be provided to the subject property from N. Kerr Ave, an NCDOT- maintained minor arterial street. • The proposed driveway will consist of two egress lanes and one ingress lane. A parking lot cross-access connection will also be provided to the undeveloped portion of the parent parcel. • As currently zoned, it is estimated the site would generate about 1 trip during the peak hours if developed at the permitted density. The proposed development would increase the estimated number of peak hour trips by about 15-20 trips. • The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). • Because a TIA is not required to analyze transportation impacts at this time, Staff has provided the volume to capacity ratio for the adjacent roadway near the subject site. While volume to capacity ratio, based on average daily trips, can provide a general idea of the function of adjacent roadways, the delay vehicles take in seconds to pass through intersections is generally considered a more effective measure when determining the Level of Service of a roadway. However, the available volume to capacity data indicates capacity currently exists in this area. NCDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) - 2019 Road Location Volume Capacity V/C N. Kerr Ave Castle Hayne Road to Blue Clay Road 9,500 18,000 0.52 • According to the TIA completed for the nearby Wrightsboro Commons project, the Castle Hayne Road and N. Kerr Ave intersection was estimated to operate at a “D/E” Level of Service (LOS) in 2021 when Phase 1 of that project was expected to be completed. Intensity Approx. Peak Hour Trips Existing Development: Undeveloped 0 AM / 0 PM Typical Development under Current Zoning: 1 Single-Family Dwelling 1 AM / 1 PM Proposed Development: 6,000 Square Foot Vehicle Service Station 14 AM / 19 PM Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 6 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 7 of 12 Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses Nearby NC STIP Projects: • STIP Project U-5863 o Project to widen Castle Hayne Road from I-140 to Division Drive. This project will add a center turn lane or median to sections of the road. o The project is currently scheduled to begin construction after 2029. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 7 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 8 of 12 Nearby Traffic Impact Analyses: Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs) 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. Wrightsboro Commons • 226 Multi-Family Units • TIA approved November 28, 2018 • 2023 Build Out Year The TIA requires improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable improvements consisted of: • Installation of a new signal plan at the intersection of N. Kerr Avenue and Castle Hayne Road. Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA: • Riverside Development Status: Project is currently being reviewed by the Technical Review Committee Proposed Development Land Use/Intensity TIA Status 2. Riverside • 165 Single-Family Dwellings • 72 Multi-Family Units • TIA approved August 13, 2015 • 2019 Build Out Year The TIA requires improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable improvements consisted of: • Installation of an eastbound right turn lane on Riverside Drive at Castle Hayne Road. Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA: • River Bluffs • Trasco Distribution Center Development Status: Currently under construction. The required roadway improvement has not been installed at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL • The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area or Special Flood Hazard Area. • The property is within the Ness Creek watershed. • Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the property consist of Class II (moderate limitation) soils. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 8 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 9 of 12 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REPRESENTATIVE DEVELOPMENTS Representative Developments of AR: Representative Developments of B-1: Ace Hardware in Wrightsboro Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 9 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 10 of 12 First Quality Imports in Wrightsboro Context and Compatibility • The property is located on a minor arterial road and abuts the Wrightsboro commercial node. • The business seeking the rezoning (First Quality Imports) has an existing location in Wrightsboro on Castle Hayne Road approximately one quarter mile south of N. Kerr Ave. 2016 COMPREHENSIVE 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 - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 10 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 11 of 12 Future Land Use Map Place Type Community Mixed Use Place Type Description Focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors. Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational, commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential. Analysis The Comprehensive Plan classifies the Wrightsboro commercial node and the adjacent N. Kerr Avenue corridor as Community Mixed Use. It is the intent of the plan to allow for the continued growth of this node with commercial services and moderate to high density residential development while also providing a transition between the lower density housing to the north and the higher intensity Airport Commerce employment center to the south and east. The subject site is located on the boundary of the existing commercial node making it appropriate for lower intensity commercial uses that will help provide that transition, such as the proposed vehicle service station. The vehicle service station is also consistent with the types of commercial uses that would be appropriate in a Community Mixed Use place type and would provide services to the surrounding community. Consistency Recommendation The proposed rezoning for a vehicle service station is generally CONSISTENT with the types of commercial uses encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposal and suggests the following motion: I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a Conditional B-1 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed business is consistent with the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the site is located on a minor arterial street near existing commercial services, the use would have limited traffic impacts, and approval supports the success of an existing business. [Optional] Note any conditions to be added to the district: 1. A connection and easement for a future parking lot cross-access shall be provided to the undeveloped land adjoining the site to the east. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 11 Z21-05 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 12 of 12 Alternative Motion for Denial I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a Conditional B-1 district. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed business is consistent with the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type, 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 intensity will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 12 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 3 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 4 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 5 - 1 APPLICANT MATERIALS Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 6 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 6 - 2 Page 1 of 6 Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 12-2020 NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 Telephone (910) 798-7165 FAX (910) 798-7053 planningdevelopment.nhcgov.com CONDITIONAL ZONINGAPPLICATION This application form must be completed as part of a conditional zoning application submitted through the county’s online COAST portal. The main procedural steps in the submittal and review of applications are outlined in the flowchart below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the application, are set out in Section 10.3.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Public Hearing Procedures (Optional) Pre-Application Conference 1 Community Information Meeting 2 Application Submittal & Acceptance 3 Planning Director Review & Staff Report (TRC Optional) 4 Public Hearing Scheduling & Notification 5 Planning Board Hearing & Recom- mendation 6 Board of Commissioners Hearing & Decision 7 Post-Decision Limitations and Actions 1.Applicant and Property Owner Information Applicant/Agent Name Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent) Company Company/Owner Name 2 Address Address City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Phone Phone Email Email Cindee Wolf Design Solutions P.O. Box 7221 Wilmington, NC 28406 910-620-2374 cwolf@lobodemar.biz Bonnie D. & David M. Narron 3415 N. Kerr Avenue Wilmington, NC 28405 910-540-7422 (Contact: Bonnie Narron) bonnie@firstqualityimports.com Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 1 Page 2 of 6 Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 12-2020 2.Subject Property Information Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s) Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s) Future Land Use Classification 3.Proposed Zoning, Use(s), & Narrative Proposed Conditional Zoning District: Total Acreage of Proposed District: Please list the uses that will be allowed within the proposed Conditional Zoning District, the purpose of the district, and a project narrative (attach additional pages if necessary). Note: Only uses permitted in the corresponding General Use District are eligible for consideration within a Conditional Zoning District. 4.Proposed Condition(s) Note: Within a Conditional Zoning District, additional conditions and requirements which represent greater restrictions on the development and use of the property than the corresponding general use district regulations may be added. These conditions may assist in mitigating the impacts the proposed development may have on the surrounding community. Please list any conditions proposed to be placed on the Conditional Zoning District below. Staff, the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners may propose additional conditions during the review process. 3419 N Kerr Avenue 312907.67.9698 [R03316-004-018-000] RA Community Mixed-Use Reference Site Plan for layout, proosed improvements & details. The purpose of the Neighborhood Business (B-1) district is to provide lands that accommodate arange of small-scale, low-intensity, neighborhodd-serving commercial development that providesgoods and services to residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Ordinance regulations and theConditional District process are intended to ensure that potential adverse impacts of any use are mitigated through building layout, buffering, visual screening and landscaping for aesthetics. The proposed use for "vehicle services, minor," is not dissimilar to other businesses in the area. Itincludes repairs of small and/or personal vehicles consisting on a minor nature, such as tune-ups,oil changes, chassis lubrication, tire change or repair, wheel alighment, and muffler repair orinstallation. No major services, such as assembly or disassembly of engine or body parts, orpainting would be permitted 0.806 ac.+/- CZD / B-1 0.806 ac.+/- Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 2 Page 3 of 6 Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 12-2020 5.Traffic Impact Please provide the estimated number of trips generated for the proposed use(s) based off the most recent version of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must be completed for all proposed developments that generate more than 100 peak hour trips, and the TIA must be included with this application. ITE Land Use: Trip Generation Use and Variable (gross floor area, dwelling units, etc.) AM Peak Hour Trips: PM Peak Hour Trips: 6.Conditional Zoning District Considerations The Conditional Zoning District procedure is established to address situations where a particular land use would be consistent with the New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the objectives outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance and where only a specific use or uses is proposed. The procedure is intended primarily for use with transitions between zoning districts of dissimilar character where a particular use or uses, with restrictive conditions to safeguard adjacent land uses, can create a more orderly transition benefiting all affected parties and the community at-large. The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed Conditional Zoning district meets the following criteria. 1.How would the requested change be consistent with the County’s policies for growth and development, as described in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, applicable small area plans, etc. Automobile Care Center (942) 6000 s.f. GFA 14 19 The policies for growth & development encourage continued efforts to attract and maintainbusinesses. The petitioner has operated a successful enterprise here in New Hanover Countyfor several years, but currently occupies leased space. The petitioner already owns this landand lives adjacent to the subject tract. The property is accessed directly from North Kerr Avenue, a major thoroughfare in the County, along which business activities are mostconveninent & appropriate. Sustainability of the County depends on sensible in-fill andmaximizing land use efficiency. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 3 Page 4 of 6 Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 12-2020 2.How would the requested Conditional Zoning district be consistent with the property’s classification on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map. 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 requested rezoning is simply an extension of similar businesses along N. Kerr Avenue from its intersection with Castle Hayne Road, where residential development has been burgeoning over thepast several years. Locating services in a commercial node is good planning strategy. The difference isthat the proposed project is subject to all current requirements and regulations, so will mitigate anyadverse impacts to the remaining few homes along the corridor. The tract is identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a "Community Mixed-Use" place-type.The plan suggests higher densities or more intensive uses to support the sourrounding residentialneighborhoods. The proposed project is an acceptable transition use along the busy road corridor. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 4 Page 5 of 6 Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 12-2020 Staff will use the following checklist to determine the completeness of your application. Please verify all of the listed items are included and confirm by initialing under “Applicant Initial”. If an item is not applicable, mark as “N/A”. Applications determined to be incomplete must be corrected in order to be processed for further review; Staff will confirm if an application is complete within five business days of submittal. Application Checklist Applicant Initial … This application form, completed and signed … Application fee: x $600 for 5 acres or less x $700 for more than 5 acres x $300 in addition to base fee for applications requiring TRC review … Community meeting written summary … Traffic impact analysis (if applicable) … Legal description (by metes and bounds) or recorded survey Map Book and Page Reference of the property requested for rezoning … Conceptual Plan including the following minimum elements: Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels and roads x Proposed use of land, building areas and other improvements o For residential uses, include the maximum number, height, and type of units; area to be occupied by the structures; and/or proposed subdivision boundaries. o For non-residential uses, include the maximum square footage and height of each structure, an outline of the area structures will occupy, and the specific purposes for which the structures will be used. x Proposed transportation and parking improvements; including proposed rights-of-way and roadways; proposed access to and from the subject site; arrangement and access provisions for parking areas. x All existing and proposed easements, required setbacks, rights-of-way, and buffers. x The location of Special Flood Hazard Areas. x A narrative of the existing vegetation on the subject site including the approximate location, species, and size (DBH) of regulated trees. For site less than 5 acres, the exact location, species, and sized (DBH) of specimen trees must be included. x Approximate location and type of stormwater management facilities intended to serve the site. x Approximate location of regulated wetlands. x Any additional conditions and requirements that represent greater restrictions on development and use of the tract than the corresponding general use district regulations or additional limitations on land that may be regulated by state law or local ordinance … One (1) hard copy of ALL documents and site plan. Additional hard copies may be required by staff depending on the size of the document/site plan. … One (1) digital PDF copy of ALL documents AND plans CW CW CW CW CW CW CW N/A Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 5 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 2 - 7 - 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 2 - 7 - 8 Legal Description for a  Conditional Zoning District   Over Part of 3419 N. Kerr Avenue    Beginning at a point in the southern boundary of N. Kerr Avenue (formerly known as the  Wrightsboro / Winter Park Road); a 100’ public right‐of‐way (S.R. 1322); said point being  approximately 775 feet along that boundary from its intersection with the eastern boundary of  Castle Hayne Road, a 100’ public right‐of‐way (N.C. Hwy. 133); and running thence from the  point of beginning with the N. Kerr Avenue right‐of‐way,    North 88048’ East, 160.07 feet to a point; thence  South 00030’ West, 223.82 feet to a point; thence  North 88003’ West, 160.05 feet to a point; thence  North 00030’ East, 215.02 feet to the N. Kerr Avenue right‐of‐way, the point and place of   Beginning, containing 35,107 square feet, or 0.806 acres, more or less.    Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 9 REPORT OF COMMUNITY MEETING NOTIFIACTION BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING ORIDINANCE FOR CONDITIONAL DISTRICT REZONINGS Project Name: First Quality Imports / 3419 N. Kerr Avenue Proposed Zoning: RA to (CZD) B-1 for a Vehicle Services / Minor Automotive Shop The undersigned hereby certifies that written notice of a project proposal and an exhibit of the site layout for the above proposed zoning application was sent to the adjacent property owners set forth on the attached list by first class mail, and provided to the Planning Department for notice of the Sunshine List on February 16, 2021 . The mailing gave the recipients opportunity to contact us with questions or comments via telephone or email. Copies of the written notices and the site layout are attached. The persons responding were: Reference attached list of contacts received from calls or emails, and the associated dialogue. Date: March 1, 2021 Applicant: Design Solutions By: Cindee Wolf Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 10 Community Information Contacts Project:  First Quality Imports NameAddressEmail (Optional) Sandra Stiles3416 N. Kerr Ave srhstiles@gmail.com Cindee WolfProject Planner cwolf@lobodemar.biz Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 11 1 cwolf@lobodemar.biz From:cwolf@lobodemar.biz Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 2:10 PM To:'sandra stiles' Cc:'bonnie@firstqualityimports.com'; 'David Narron'; 'icrcontracting@aol.com' Subject:RE: First Quality Imports Ms. Stiles,  We appreciate your comments & they will be included in the community information report that accompanies the  rezoning submittal.    Our County continues to evolve with new residents, and Wrightsboro and the Kerr Avenue corridor certainly have  changed over the years, too.  The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is intended to steer future development, which  promotes locating neighborhood services close to those customers they service.  Updated Ordinances also provide for  more landscaping & site improvements to mitigate impacts to surrounding properties.    Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you have questions or need additional information.  Thank you.    Cindee Wolf               From: sandra stiles <srhstiles@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 12:19 PM  To: cwolf@lobodemar.biz  Subject: First Quality Imports    C. Wolf    We went through this several years ago and at that time 2 rows of "Adjacent Property Owners" showed up to the  meetings and made it quite clear to our then to our new neighbors that we didn't want our neighborhood rezoned or  their "car fix it shop"!!!!!!!!!! If you look at the map of our neighborhood it shows a neat rectangle of all of our houses  bordered by commercial businesses. We are an old established group of neighbors and absolutely do not want their  commercial establishment plopped down within our neighborhood.     We informed both the planning Board and Commissioners that we vehemently opposed having our neighborhood  rezoned to allow their "car fix it shop" " to be built. I also expressed to the commissioners that I could never imagine  they would want this "car fix it shop" set down the the middle of their own neighborhood! This shop would be catty  cornered from my own front yard!  Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 12 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 2 - 7 - 1 3 Ad j a c e n t s  Ow n e r s  wi t h i n  a 50 0 '  Pe r i m e t e r : OW N E R  NA M E A D D R E S S C I T Y  ST A T E  ZI P S I T U S  AD D R E S S BR I N S O N  PR O P E R T Y  HO L D I N G S  LL C 3 1 0 8  KI T T Y  HA W K  RD   WI L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 5 3 5 0 1  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON CO R B E T T  PA C K A G E  CO M P A N Y P O  BO X  21 0 W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 2 H A R N E T T  AV E  WILMINGTON CR O W D E R  JO N  C VI R G I N I A  T 1 5 1  HO R N E  PL A C E  DR   WI L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 1 3 3 2 9  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON DU N C A N  JA M E S  T JR 1 0 9  RE D  FO X  RD   WI L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 9 3 4 0 1  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON HE R R I N G  MA R I L Y N  B HR S 3 4 1 2  KE R R  AV E  N W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 5 3 4 1 2  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON HO M M E S  MA R K  TA M A R A  CH A P P E L L 5 1 2 6  MA S O N B O R O  HA R B O U R  RD   WI L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 9 3 5 0 9  HA R N E T T  AVE  WILMINGTON IN M A N  DA N  E MA R I E  P 1 8 0 2  BR I E R W O O D  RD   WI L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 5 3 5 1 2  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON JA M E S  ME L A N I E 3 5 0 5  HA R N E T T  AV E   WI L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 1 3 5 0 5  HA R N E T T  AVE  WILMINGTON LA  BE L L A  AI R O S A  LL C 3 5 0 0  KE R R  AV E  N W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 5 3 5 0 0  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON LA  BE L L A  AI R O S A  LL C 6 2 5  KI M B E R L Y  CT   RO C K Y  PO I N T ,  NC  28 4 5 7 3 5 0 4  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON LA N E  MA R I E  B 3 4 0 0  KE R R  AV E  N W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 5 3 4 0 0  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON NA R R O N  DA V I D  M BO N N I E  D 3 4 1 5  KE R R  AV E  N W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 5 3 4 1 5  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON OU T E R  RI M  EN T E R P R I S E S  IN C 3 5 0 8  KE R R  AV E  N W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 5 3 5 0 8  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON SE B R E L L  WI L L I A M  H JR  MA R T H A  M 3 3 2 5  KE R R  AV E  N W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 5 3 3 2 3  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON SE B R E L L  WM  H JR  MA R T H A  M 3 3 2 5  KE R R  AV E  N W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 5 3 3 2 5  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON SE C U N D I N O  JO S E  FA U S T I N A  RO B L E S  ET A L 36 2 6  CA R O L I N A  BE A C H  RD   WI L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 1 2 3 5 0 1  HA R N E T T  AVE  WILMINGTON SP E N C E R  WI L L I A M    MA R Y  BE L I A  GR A C E Y 1 2 0 4  HI G H W A Y  10 7  S  DE L  RI O ,  TN  37 7 2 7 3 5 0 1  HA R N E T T  AVE  WILMINGTON ST I L E S  HU B E R T  A SA N D R A 3 4 1 6  KE R R  AV E  N W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 5 3 4 1 6  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON TE L S T A R  LL C 3 5 1 1  HA R N E T T  AV E   WI L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 1 3 5 1 1  HA R N E T T  AVE  WILMINGTON WI L L I A M S  JA N E T  HE R R I N G  ET A L 5 1 1  AS H L E Y  PL   JA C K S O N V I L L E ,  NC  28 5 4 6 3 4 2 0  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON WI L L I A M S  JA N E T  HE R R I N G  ET A L 5 1 1  AS H L E Y  PL   JA C K S O N V I L L E ,  NC  28 5 4 6 3 4 0 8  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON WI L L I A M S  JA N E T  HE R R I N G  ET A L 5 1 1  AS H L E Y  PL   JA C K S O N V I L L E ,  NC  28 5 4 6 3 4 0 4  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON WI L L I A M S  JA N E T  HE R R I N G  ET A L 5 1 1  AS H L E Y  PL   JA C K S O N V I L L E ,  NC  28 5 4 6 3 4 2 0  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON WR I G H T S B O R O  HO L D I N G S  LL C 3 8 0 7  PE A C H T R E E  AV E  ST E  20 0 W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 3 3 5 0 9  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON WR I G H T S B O R O  HO L D I N G S  LL C 3 8 0 7  PE A C H T R E E  AV E  ST E  20 0 W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 3 3 5 0 7  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON WR I G H T S B O R O  HO L D I N G S  LL C 3 8 0 7  PE A C H T R E E  AV E  ST E  20 0 W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 3 2 5 3 0  CA S T L E  HAYNE RD  WILMINGTON WR I G H T S B O R O  VO L  FI R E  DE P T 3 5 1 5  KE R R  AV E  N W I L M I N G T O N ,  NC  28 4 0 1 3 5 1 5  KE R R  AVE N WILMINGTON Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 2 - 7 - 1 4 Project Information Notice February 16, 2021    To: Adjacent Property Owners    Re: 3419 N. Kerr Avenue / First Quality Imports    The Owners of this property are interested in developing a portion of it to relocate their  existing automotive service business.  An exhibit of the general site layout is attached.  This  proposal would require a Conditional Zoning District approval from New Hanover County.      A Conditional Zoning District allows particular uses to be established only in accordance with  specific standards and conditions pertaining to each individual development project.   Essentially, this means that only that use, structures and layout of an approved proposal can be  developed.  The County requires that the developer notify the property owners within a 500’ adjacency to  the project and hold a meeting for any and all interested parties.  This is intended to provide  neighbors with an opportunity for explanation of the proposal, and for questions to be  answered concerning project improvements, benefits, and impacts.    Due to the current COVID‐19 issue, however, a meeting cannot be held at this time.  In lieu of  that, you can contact the land planner, Cindee Wolf, with comments or questions at:  Telephone:  910‐620‐2374, or  Email: cwolf@lobodemar.biz    We can also set up an on‐line meeting for a forum with multiple parties if requested.  Please let  me know if you are interested in that alternative and arrangements will be made.  All contact,  comments, concerns, and recommendations must be recorded in a report delivered to the  County along with the rezoning application.    Prior to this project being reviewed by the Planning Board & Commissioners, you will receive  subsequent notices of the agendas directly from the County.  Those meetings provide public  hearings for comment on any issues pertinent to approval of the proposal.    We appreciate your interest and look forward to being a good neighbor and an asset to the  community.   Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 15 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 2 - 7 - 1 6 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 8 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 8 - 2 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/1/2021 Regular DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Ken Vafier, Planning Supervisor CONTACT(S): Ken Vafier; Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director SUBJECT: Quasi-Judicial Hearing Special Use Permit Request (S21-02) – Request by TowerCo 2013, LLC, on Behalf of the Property Owner, Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc., for a Special Use Permit for a Wireless Support Structure within a (CUD) R-20 Residen=al District, located at 719 Champ Davis Road. BRIEF SUMMARY: The applicant is reques"ng a special use permit to construct and operate a 150' tall wireless support structure on a 12 acre parcel which is a part of The Davis Community on Porters Neck Road. The Davis Community was originally established in 1966, and has since con"nued to expand in size and scope using a combina"on of rezonings, special use permit approvals, and minor and major modifica"ons to approvals. In June 2020, The Davis Community received approval of a condi"onal use rezoning to further expand the facility, which included a stormwater infiltra"on basin and wetland conserva"on areas on the subject tract. Currently, there are 3 cellular antennae suppor"ng AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon located on a water tank in the center of the main Davis campus. In order to complete the planned expansion, the water tank is proposed to be decommissioned and removed. In order to maintain and improve cellular coverage in the immediate area, the applicant is proposing to relocate the antennae on a new 150’ tall monopole style telecommunica"ons tower with an associated equipment storage and carrier lease areas within a 110’ x 110’ (12,100 sf) area on the subject parcel. The tower height will total 155’ with the inclusion of a 5’ lightning rod extending from the top of the 150’ monopole structure. Cellular antenna will be placed at heights of 145’, 130’, and 120’, with space for an addi"onal carrier to collocate on the tower at a height of 110’. Access to the tower site will be provided via a new 30’ wide access easement from Porters Neck Road, approximately 155’ in length to the tower site. The proposed access easement into the site is approximately one half mile east of the roundabout connec"ng Porters Neck Road, Edgewater Club Road, and Shiraz Way. Maintenance at the proposed tower is es"mated to generate approximately 2 trips per month in the AM peak hours, having virtually no impact on traffic on the nearby road network. As the carriers' antennae on the site are located on the water tank within the Davis Community’s main campus, which is proposed to be decommissioned and removed, reloca"on of the antennae to a new monopole tower is proposed in order to maintain and improve cellular coverage in the area. Photographic simula"ons from various vantage points in the immediate vicinity provided with the applica"on show the tower’s an"cipated visual impact. The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject property as General Residen"al. The intent of this place type is to provide opportuni"es for lower density residen"al development and suppor"ve commercial, civic, and recrea"onal development. While wireless support structures and other infrastructure are common in contemporary land development paBerns, the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address their loca"on. However, the Comprehensive Plan’s implementa"on guidelines do aim to support business success, workforce development, and Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 economic prosperity, and telecommunica"ons infrastructure, when placed to best serve the needs of surrounding residents, business, and ins"tu"onal uses, can help to advance those goals. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Example Mo=on for Approval: Mo"on to approve, as the Board finds that this applica"on for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the Staff Report. [OPTIONAL] Note any addi"onal findings of fact related to the four required conclusions. [OPTIONAL] Note any condi"ons be added to the development: Example Mo=on for Denial: Mo"on to deny, as the Board cannot find that this proposal: 1. Will not materially endanger the public health or safety; 2. Meets all required condi"ons and specifica"ons of the Unified Development Ordinance; 3. Will not substan"ally injure the value of adjoining or abuJng property; 4. Will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County. [State the finding(s) that the applicaon does not meet and include reasons why it is not being met] ATTACHMENTS: Descrip"on S21-02 Script S21-02 Staff Report S21-02 Zoning S21-02 Future Land Use S21-02 Neighboring Properties Applicant Materials Cover S21-02 Application S21-02 Full Application Package COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 SCRIPT for SPECIAL USE PERMIT Application (S21-02) Request by TowerCo 2013, LLC on behalf of the property owner, Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc., for a Special Use Permit for a wireless support structure located at 719 Champ Davis Road. 1. Swear witnesses: Announce that “the Special Use Permit process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any person wishing to testify must be sworn in. All persons who signed in to speak and wish to present competent and material testimony please step forward to be sworn in. Thank you.” 2. This is a quasi-judicial 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. 3. Conduct hearing, as follows: a. Staff presentation b. Applicant’ s presentation (up to 15 minutes) c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes) d. Applicant’s cross examination/rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) e. Opponent’s cross examination/rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) 4. Close the hearing 5. Board discussion 6. Ask Applicant whether he/she agrees with staff findings. 7. Vote on the Special Use Permit application. Motion to approve the permit - All findings are positive. Motion to approve the permit, subject to conditions specified below: (State Conditions) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Motion to deny the permit because the Board cannot find: a. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed for the following reason: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ b. That the use meets all required condition and specifications: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ c. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 1 - 1 d. That the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Example Motion for Approval: Motion to approve, as the Board finds that this application for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the Staff Report. [OPTIONAL] Note any additional findings of fact related to the four required conclusions. [OPTIONAL] Also, that the following conditions be added to the development: Suggested Condition(s): Example Motion for Denial: Motion to deny, as the Board cannot find that this proposal: 1. Will not materially endanger the public health or safety; 2. Meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance; 3. Will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property; 4. Will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County. [State the finding(s) that the application does not meet and include reasons to why it is not being met] Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 1 - 2 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 1 of 12 STAFF REPORT OF S21-02 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: S21-02 Request: Special Use Permit in order to develop a Wireless Support Structure Applicant: Property Owner(s): TowerCo 2013, LLC Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc. Location: Acreage: 719 Champ Davis Road 12.01 PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type: R03700-002-002-001 General Residential Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Undeveloped Property Wireless Support Structure Current Zoning: (CUD) R-20 SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE ZONING North Undeveloped/Single-Family Residential (Porters Neck Plantation) R-20 East Single-Family Attached Residential, Continuing Care Retirement Community (Plantation Village) R-20 South Undeveloped/Single-Family Residential (Porters Neck Plantation) R-20 West Continuing Care Retirement Community (The Davis Community – Main Campus) (CUD) R-20 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 1 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 2 of 12 ZONING HISTORY July 6, 1971 June 6, 2020 Initially zoned R-20 (Area 5) Rezoned to (CUD) R-20 as part of Davis Community Expansion COMMUNITY SERVICES Water/Sewer Water and Sewer is available through CFPUA but not necessary for this use Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire District, Porters Neck Station Schools Porters Neck Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and Laney High Schools Recreation Pages Creek Park Preserve, Ogden Park CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conservation The southeastern portion of the site contains a small area of pocosin wetlands, however, this area of the site is not anticipated to be disturbed. Historic No known historic resources Archaeological No known archaeological resources Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 2 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 3 of 12 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN • The subject site is located on a 12-acre parcel which is a part of The Davis Community, a Senior Living Community originally established in 1966. Since its establishment, the campus has continued to expand in size and scope using a combination of rezonings, special use permit approvals, and minor and major modifications to approvals. • In June 2020, The Davis Community received approval of a conditional use rezoning to further expand the facility, which included a stormwater infiltration basin and wetland conservation areas on the subject tract. • Currently, there are 3 cellular antennae supporting AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon located on a water tank in the center of the main Davis campus. In order to complete the planned expansion, the water tank is proposed to be decommissioned and removed. In order to maintain and improve cellular coverage in the immediate area, the applicant is proposing to relocate the antennae on a new 150’ tall monopole style telecommunications tower with an associated equipment storage and carrier lease areas within a 110’ x 110’ (12,100 sf) area on the subject parcel. • The tower height will total 155’ with the inclusion of a 5’ lightning rod extending from the top of the 150’ monopole structure. Cellular antenna will be placed at heights of 145’, 130’, and 120’, with space for an additional carrier to collocate on the tower at a height of 110’. Existing Campus General Location of Proposed Tower and Equipment Area Current Antennae Location General Location of Approved 2020 Subject Parcel Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 3 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 4 of 12 • The tower will be situated within a 60’ x 60’ (360 sf) fenced in area with required buffers and landscaping meeting UDO requirements. Four carrier lease storage areas will be included within this area. Proposed Site Plan with Staff Markups Existing Campus Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 4 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 5 of 12 ZONING CONSIDERATIONS • New wireless support structures are permitted in the R-20 district with the approval of a Special Use Permit, and are subject to supplemental standards in Section 4.3.3 C of the UDO. These standards generally address setbacks, other agency certifications, signage and landscaping, aesthetic appearance, and collocation. • As proposed, the site plan meets the specifications of Section 4.3.3.C of the UDO. • With the approval of the Conditional Use Rezoning request in June 2020, the underlying zoning district was designated as R-20, with an accompanying Special Use Permit for a Continuing Care Retirement Community. This request would constitute an additional principal use being permitted via Special Use Permit on a portion of the site. AREA SUBDIVISIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 5 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 6 of 12 TRANSPORTATION Primary Routes to Arterial Roadways • Access to the tower site will be provided via a new 30’ wide access easement from Porters Neck Road, approximately 155’ in length to the tower site. • Porters Neck Road is an NCDOT-maintained Minor Collector road as shown on the WMPO Functional Classification Map. The proposed access easement into the site is approximately one half mile east of the roundabout connecting Porters Neck Road, Edgewater Club Road, and Shiraz Way. According to NCDOT, a driveway permit will be required for the proposed use. • Maintenance at the proposed tower is estimated to generate approximately 2 trips per month in the AM peak hours, having virtually no impact on traffic on the nearby road network. The estimated trip generation from this requests is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 6 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 7 of 12 • Due to the estimated low trip generation, a full analysis of pending or approved Traffic Impact Analyses within the proximity of the subject property was not conducted as they are not anticipated to affect this request. In addition, there are no major NCDOT projects planned within the proximity of the subject property that are anticipated to affect this request. ENVIRONMENTAL • The site does not contain any Special Flood Hazard Areas or Natural Heritage Areas. Areas of the parcel contain jurisdictional wetlands, which are not proposed to be impacted by the proposal. • The subject property is located within the Pages Creek Watershed, which drains to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. • Soils at the site are Stallings Fine Sand, according to the Soil Survey for New Hanover County. These soils have moderate limitations on septic suitability; however, it is not anticipated that use of a septic system will be necessary for this use. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Context and Compatibility • Currently, carrier antennae on the site are located on the water tank within the Davis Community’s main campus, which is proposed to be decommissioned and removed. • Relocation of the antennae to a new proposed monopole tower on the new site will maintain and improve cellular coverage in the area. • Photographic simulations from various vantage points in the immediate vicinity provided with the application show the tower’s anticipated visual impact. • The subject parcel contains a significant amount of mature vegetation which will assist in mitigating visual impacts of the proposed tower. The vegetation is proposed to remain with the exception of areas to be cleared for the stormwater infiltration basin, tower equipment area, and access easement. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 7 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 8 of 12 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. Types of uses include single-family residential, low-density multi-family residential, light commercial, civic, and recreational. Analysis The intent of the General Residential place type is to provide opportunities for lower density residential development and supportive commercial, civic, and recreational development. While wireless support structures and other infrastructure are common in contemporary land development patterns, the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address their location. However, the Comprehensive Plan’s implementation guidelines do aim to support business success, workforce development, and economic prosperity, and telecommunications infrastructure, when placed to best serve the needs of surrounding residents, business, and institutional uses, can help to advance those goals. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 8 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 9 of 12 STAFF PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT: Staff has conducted an analysis of the proposed use and the information provided as part of the application package and has created preliminary findings of fact for each of the conclusions required to be reached to approve the special use permit request. These preliminary findings of fact and conclusions are based solely on the information provided to date, prior to any information or testimony in support or opposition to the request that may be presented at the upcoming public hearing at the Board meeting. Conclusion 1: The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. Water and sewer infrastructure and capacity are available to serve the site but are not necessary for the proposed use. B. The subject property is located in the New Hanover County Northern Fire Service District. C. Access to the tower site will be provided by a new access easement from Porters Neck Road, which is an NCDOT maintained street. D. The subject site does not host any known cultural or archaeological resources. Jurisdictional wetlands on-site are not proposed to be impacted by the proposal. E. The proposed use will have virtually no traffic impact on the surrounding transportation network. Conclusion 2: The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance. A. Wireless Communication Facilities including Wireless Support Structures are allowed by Special Use Permit in the R-20, Residential zoning district provided that the project meets the standards of Section 4.3.3 C of the Unified Development Ordinance. B. Section 4.3.3.C.(1)(a) requires that the setback for any tower, antenna, or related wireless support structure in any zoning district shall be setback from any existing residential property line or residential zoning district boundary a distance equal to the height of the tower as measured from the base of the tower. The location of the proposed 155’ tall tower (including the 5’ lightning rod) will be 155.1’ from the nearest property line to the south, meeting the setback requirement of Section 4.3.3.C.(1)(a). C. Section 4.3.3.C(1)(b) requires that all applicants seeking approval shall also submit a written affidavit from a qualified person or persons, including evidence of their qualifications, certifying that the construction or placement of such structures meets the provisions of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 322, as amended, section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. 1455(a), in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and all other applicable federal, state and local laws. The statement must certify that radio frequency emissions from the antenna array(s) comply with the FCC standards. The statement shall also certify that both individually and cumulatively the proposed facilities located on or adjacent to the proposed facility will comply with current FCC standards. Documentation in the application package meets these requirements. D. Section 4.3.3.C(1)(d) regulates the signage allowed on the tower and related equipment. Signage proposed on the site consists of identification, registration, and safety signs which are compliant with this ordinance provision. E. Section 4.3.3.C(6)(a)(1) requires that the minimum distance between the tower and any other adjoining parcel of land or road must be equal to the minimum setback described in Section Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 9 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 10 of 12 4.3.3.C.(1)(a), plus any additional distance necessary to ensure that the tower, as designed, will fall within the tower site. The proposed location complies with this provision, and no evidence has been submitted suggesting that additional distance is necessary. F. Section 4.3.3.C(6)(a)(2) requires the applicant to submit photographs and statements as to the potential visual and aesthetic impacts on all adjacent residential zoning districts. Information provided in the application packet meets this requirement. G. Section 4.3.3.C(6)(b) requires a landscaped buffer with a base width not less than 25 feet and providing 100% opacity, in addition to a minimum 8 ft. tall fence surrounding the tower base. The proposed landscape buffer shown on the applicant’s submitted site plan meets this requirement. H. Section 4.3.3.C(6)(c) requires that wireless support structures over 150’ in height shall be engineered to accommodate a minimum of two additional providers. The proposed tower is 150’ tall and has been designed to accommodate a total of four providers’ antennae and equipment, meeting this ordinance requirement. I. Section 4.3.3.C(6)(d) prohibits the storage of equipment, hazardous waste, or materials not needed for the operation, prohibits outdoor storage yards in a tower equipment compound, and prohibits habitable space within this area. The applicant’s proposal complies with this ordinance section. J. Section 4.3.3.C(6)(e) requires that, when the proposed tower site is within 10,000 feet of an airport or within any runway approach zone, the applicant submit Form 7460 to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to assure compliance with all FAA standards. An FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation has been provided by the applicant and indicates that the site and proposal are in compliance with FAA regulations. Conclusion 3: The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. The location of the proposed wireless support structure is on a portion of a parcel approved as part of The Davis Community to be used for stormwater management and wetlands conservation. The tower site and associated equipment storage area will be on a 110’ x 110’ (12,100 sf) leased area within this parcel and is not proposed to impact any wetland areas. B. The nearest residential structures range from approximately 450’ to the east and 500’ to the southwest of the proposed tower location. The tower site is adjacent to an institutional use to the northwest, approximately 480’ from the nearest structure, and is adjacent to undeveloped or recreational land on other boundaries. C. Predominant land uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject site are undeveloped, institutional, and residential. D. A 25’ wide buffer surrounding the tower base and equipment compound will provide visual screening. E. Evidence has been submitted in the form of an impact analysis by David Smith, MAI, SRA, that the proposal will not have significant adverse impact on adjoining and abutting properties. F. No contradictory evidence has been submitted that this project will substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 10 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 11 of 12 Conclusion 4: The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County. A. The subject site is currently undeveloped and a portion of the site has previously been approved under a Conditional Use Rezoning request to contain a stormwater infiltration basin and wetlands conservation areas. No wetlands are proposed to be impacted by this request. B. The tower site is located adjacent to residential areas to the east and southwest, with the nearest residential properties located approximately 450’ to the east and 500’ to the southwest of the proposed tower location. The tower site is adjacent to an institutional use to the northwest, approximately 480’ from the nearest structure, and is adjacent to undeveloped land on other boundaries. C. The site is classified as General Residential by the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The intent of the General Residential place type is to provide opportunities for lower density residential development and supportive commercial, civic, and recreational development. While wireless support structures and other infrastructure are common in contemporary land development patterns, the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address its’ location. However, the Comprehensive Plan’s implementation guidelines do aim to support business success, workforce development, and economic prosperity, and telecommunications infrastructure, when placed to best serve the needs of surrounding residents, business, and institutional uses, can help to advance those goals. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 11 S21-02 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 12 of 12 EXAMPLE MOTIONS Example Motion for Approval: Motion to approve, as the Board finds that this application for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the Staff Report. [OPTIONAL] Note any additional findings of fact related to the four required conclusions [OPTIONAL] Note any conditions be added to the development: [List Conditions] Example Motion for Denial: Motion to deny, as the Board cannot find that this proposal: 1. Will not materially endanger the public health or safety; 2. Meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance; 3. Will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property; 4. Will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County. [State the finding(s) that the application does not meet and include reasons why it is not being met] Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 2 - 12 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 3 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 4 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 5 - 1 APPLICANT MATERIALS Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 6 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 6 - 2 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 7 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 7 - 2 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 7 - 3 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 7 - 4 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 7 - 5 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 7 - 6 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 2 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 3 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 4 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 5 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 6 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 7 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 8 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 9 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 10 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 11 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 12 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 13 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 14 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 15 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 16 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 17 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 18 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 19 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 20 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 21 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 22 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 23 1 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD NEW HANOVER COUNTY AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TOWERCO 2013 LLC’S APPLICATION ) PROJECT NARRATIVE FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ) AND CONSTRUCT A 150-FOOT MONOPOLE ) STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ) WITH WITH A FIVE-FOOT LIGHTNING ROD FOR) NEW HANOVER COUNTY OVERALL TOWER HEIGHT OF 155 FEET ) UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE I. STATEMENT OF APPLICATION TowerCo 2013 LLC (“TowerCo” or “Applicant”), pursuant to the requirements set forth in the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (“Ordinance”), files this Special Use Permit Application seeking approval to construct and operate a 150-foot monopole antenna wireless communication facility (150-foot monopole tower with a five-foot lightning rod for an overall height of 155 feet). The monopole wireless communication tower will be located within a 110-foot by 110-foot leased area of a 12-acre parcel owned by Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc. and located at 1011 Porters Neck Road, Wilmington, North Carolina (Tax Parcel Identification Number R03700-002-002-001). The property is zoned R-20. The new 155-foot monopole wireless communication facility is necessary so that AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”), T-Mobile, Verizon, the First Responder Network Authority (“FirstNet”), and another potential wireless provider may attach their antennas to the tower and continue to provide wireless services to the area pursuant to their licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon currently have their antennas located on an existing water tank on the adjacent property to the west that is located at the 1000 block of Porters Neck Road. The property where the water tank is located is comprised of 67.38 acres, is owned by the same property owner as the site for the new monopole tower (Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc.), and is where The Davis Community, a senior care campus, is located (“he Davis Community Property”). The Davis Community was constructed on the property in 1966, and has been expanded several times since 1966. Currently The Davis Community consists of a 179-bed skilled nursing facility, a 123- unit assisted living facility, a pharmacy, administrative buildings, a water tank, parking areas, and open space areas. On June 15, 2020, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners approved a conditional use rezoning request (Z20-07) for the Davis Community Property so that the main campus could be expanded to an adjacent 17.91-acre parcel that will consist of a four-story 150- unit independent living multi-family building, 32 assisted living duplexes, a wellness center, a central services building, and a memorial garden. The existing storm water retention pond will be removed from the Davis Community Property, and a new infiltration basin will be constructed on Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 24 2 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 the adjacent 12-acre parcel to the southeast where the monopole wireless community facility will be located. As part of the expansion of the Davis Community, the water tank on the Davis Community Property will be removed to accommodate the expansion. Therefore, AT&T, T- Mobile, and Verizon will have to remove their antennas from the water tank, and the carriers need to locate their antennas on the proposed 155-foot monopole on the adjacent property in order to continue providing wireless service in this area of the County. It is important to emphasize that this application is for a replacement tower for the water tank where the wireless carriers’ antennas are currently located. With the relocation of the antennas from the water tank to the proposed monopole, Verizon will move its existing antennas to the 120-foot position on the monopole, T- Mobile will move its antennas to the 130-foot position on the monopole, and AT&T will move its antennas to the 145-foot position on the monopole. With the new monopole, coverage will therefore be continued and enhanced in the area. The monopole will be located 859.5 feet from the property to the north, 279.4 feet from the property to the east, 155.1 feet from the property to the south, and 258.5 feet to the property to the west. The site will be accessed by a proposed 30-foot wide ingress-egress and utility easement off of the Porters Neck Road. Please refer to the Overall Parcel Plan, Sheet C1, of the construction drawings located under Tab 7 of the application binder. The tower compound will be secured by an eight-foot tall chain link fence with three strands, one additional foot, of barbed wire around the top of the perimeter of the fenced compound. Please refer to Sheets C3 and C4 of the construction drawings for the fence details. The monopole will comply with all FAA regulations and federal, state, and local regulations, as well as all applicable regulations of the County’s Ordinance. In short, this site is an ideal location for a wireless communication facility so that the antennas for AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon can be relocated from the water tank. The proposed site will ensure that the wireless carriers will be able to continue providing service to this part of New Hanover County. III. BACKGROUND Modern wireless communications include far more than cellular and digital phone networks. Today, wireless communications include a great number of services, such as voice, advanced messaging, data, real-time information (news, weather, sports, etc.), photographs, video, entertainment, and connections to social media. The number of services that are available continues to increase. The convenience, safety and efficiency benefits--as well as the “connectedness” with the world -- achieved through digital phones (and especially the latest generation of “smart phones”) has created a tremendous demand for these and other burgeoning services. It is projected that within the next few years, fully three-quarters of the American population will utilize a wireless device to communicate on a daily basis. It is clear that wireless infrastructure is needed to serve a growing population of wireless customers, especially since roughly one of five traditional U.S. landline phone users has switched to “wireless-only.” Today, more than 247 billion emails and 90 billion “tweets” are sent each day, and it is projected that video-over-instant messaging and video calling will increase seven-fold in the next few years. Individuals and households are not the only ones who are going wireless. Businesses increasingly depend on wireless service to conduct their businesses, and more people are working remotely from their homes and away from their businesses’ physical locations. For example, more than three times as many small businesses Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 25 3 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 today strongly agree that wireless technology is key to staying competitive -- 49 percent versus 16 percent in 2007. The FCC has designated and auctioned a limited number of radio spectra for wireless communication providers to deliver wireless communications services across the United States. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon hold those licenses. The FCC’s grant of wireless licenses comes with a mandate that the licensees substantially complete construction of their respective communication systems expeditiously. To complete their systems, licensees must develop an infrastructure or system of strategically placed, low-powered antennas. The signal for the antennas is limited by factors such as variations of the terrain and the finite capacity of signals at any given time; therefore, each antenna covers a limited geographic area. The antennas are, thereby, placed in such a way as to provide contiguous coverage and fill the gaps throughout a given region, as well as to provide sufficient and consistent capacity. In addition, in 2017, the Department of Commerce and FirstNet signed a 25-year contract with AT&T to build the first nationwide wireless network for America’s first responders. The FirstNet network is planned to cover all 50 states, five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, rural communities, and tribal lands. The proposed tower will be utilized by AT&T to support the deployment of FirstNet as well as their existing wireless network needs. For further information about the FirstNet deployment, please refer to Tab 6 of the application binder or online at https://www.firstnet.gov. IV. STATEMENT OF NECESSITY The voice and data signals for mobile wireless telecommunications systems travel through the air to receiving and transmitting antennas. The antennas must be at a height sufficient to simultaneously provide coverage for users in the surrounding territory. In unserved areas (or where the antennas’ capacity has been reached), calls are “dropped” when a caller enters such areas and calls cannot be made. In selecting the proposed site, it was determined that constructing a new tower on property adjacent to the Davis Community Property where the water tank is located would be ideal and would provide consistent, needed and expanded coverage. TowerCo, a build-to-suit vendor, has applied for the Special Use Permit to construct the wireless communication facility upon approval from the County to do so. The proposed tower is required so that wireless coverage may continue to be provided by the wireless carriers in the surrounding area. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 26 4 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 V. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPERTY OWNER TOWER OWNER / APPLICANT CARRIER AND AUTHORIZED AGENT The property owner, Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc., entered into a Ground Lease Agreement with TowerCo on September 17, 2020 to allow TowerCo to lease a 110-foot by 110-foot (12,100 square foot) area of the property to construct a wireless communication facility within the lease area. Upon approval by the County, TowerCo will construct, own, operate, and maintain the wireless communication facility. Karen Kemerait with Fox Rothschild, LLP has been retained by TowerCo to assist with the New Hanover County permitting and approval process, to submit the application to the County, and to represent the Applicant and the property owner before the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners at the hearings. TowerCo and its agents will at all times cooperate with the County in the permitting, construction, maintenance, and operation of this proposed facility. VI. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ARTICLE 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.2.7. – Residential 20 (R-20) District A. Purpose The purpose of the Residential-20 (R-20) District is to provide lands that accommodate primarily very low-density residential development and recreational uses. District regulations discourage development that substantially interferes with the quiet residential and recreational nature of the district. B. Concept C. Use Standards Allowed uses and use-specific standards for principal, accessory, and temporary uses are established in Article 4: Uses and Use-Specific Standards. ARTICLE 4: USES AND USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS Section 4.2. – Allocation of Principal Uses Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 27 5 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 Section 4.2.1. - Principal Use Permissions Wireless Communication Facilities including Wireless Support Structures and Substantial Modifications are permitted by Special Use Permit in the R-20 zoned district of New Hanover County. The monopole wireless communication facility is proposed to be constructed on property located at 719 Champ Davis Road in Wilmington, North Carolina. The property is located in a R-20 zoned district of the County. Section 4.3.3. – Civic and Institutional Uses Section 4.3.3.C. – Communication and Information Facilities 1. General Requirements for all Communication and Information Facilities. The following standards shall apply to all communication and information facilities: a. Setbacks Except for amateur radio antenna up to 90 feet, any tower, antenna, or related wireless support structure in any zoning district shall be set back from any existing residential property line or residential zoning district boundary a distance equal to the height of the tower as measured from the base of the tower. In no case shall the setback for any tower, antenna, or related structure be less than 50 feet. The proposed 155-foot monopole will meet and exceed the setback requirement. The monopole will be located 859.5 feet from the property to the north, 279.4 feet from the property to the east, 155.1 feet from the property to the south, and 258.5 feet to the property to the west. Please refer to the Overall Parcel Plan, Sheet C1, of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder. b. Certification Required All applicants seeking approval shall also submit a written affidavit from a qualified person or persons, including evidence of their qualifications, certifying that the construction or placement of such structures meets the provisions of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §332, as amended, section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. §1455(a), in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and all other applicable federal, state and local laws. The statement must certify that radio frequency emissions from the antenna array(s) comply with the FCC standards. The statement shall also certify that both individually and cumulatively the proposed facilities located on or adjacent to the proposed Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 28 6 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 facility will comply with current FCC standards. In accordance with NCGS 160D-932, the county cannot base its permitting decision on public safety implications of radio frequency emissions of wireless facilities. Please refer to Applicant’s January 19, 2021 affidavit of certifications provided under Tab 10 of the application binder. c. Expert Review Outside experts and disputes are subject to the following provisions: 1. Siting of telecommunications facilities may involve complex technical issues that require review and input by outside experts. Staff may require the applicant to pay the reasonable costs of a third- party technical study for a proposed facility. Selection of expert(s) to review the proposal shall be at the sole discretion of the decision- making body. 2. If the applicant for a telecommunications facility claims that one or more standards of this ordinance are inconsistent with federal law as applied to a particular property, or would prohibit the effective provision of wireless communications within the relevant market area, the decision-making body may require that the applications be reviewed by a qualified engineer for a determination of the accuracy of such claims. Any costs shall be charged to the applicant. Acknowledged. d. Signage Signage shall comply with the following standards. 1. Attaching commercial messages for off-site or on-site advertising shall be prohibited. Acknowledged. 2. The only signage that is permitted upon an antenna, wireless support structure, equipment cabinet, or fence shall be information and for the purpose of identifying: i. The antenna support structure (such as ASR registration number); ii. The party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facility; iii. Its current address and telephone number; Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 29 7 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 iv. Security or safety signs; v. Property manager signs for the tower (if applicable); and vi. Signage appropriate to warn the general public as to the use of the facility for radio frequency transmissions. Applicant acknowledges the above. Please see Sheet C4 of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder for the site signage details. 2. Amateur Radio Antenna Not Applicable. 3. Antenna & Towers Ancillary to the Principal Use Not Applicable. 4. Collocations 5. Non-Substantial Modification Not Applicable. 6. Other Wireless Communication Facilities including New Wireless Support Structures and Substantial Modifications a. Where Special Use Permits are required, all of the following standards shall be applied, and all requirements must be met. Additional conditions may be determined to mitigate negative impacts, and the permit shall be approved only if all negative impacts can be mitigated. No reduction in setbacks may be granted for this use for increased buffers. 1. The minimum distance between the wireless support structure and any other adjoining parcel of land or road must be equal to the minimum setback described in Subsection 4.3.C.1.a. above, plus any additional distance necessary to ensure that the wireless support structure, as designed, will fall within the wireless support structure site. The 155-foot monopole will be located 859.5 feet from the property to the north, 279.4 feet from the property to the east, 155.1 feet from the property to the south, and 258.5 feet to the property to the west. Please refer to the Overall Parcel Plan, Sheet C1, of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 30 8 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 2. The applicant shall provide simulated photographic evidence of the proposed appearance of the wireless support structure and wireless facilities from four vantage points and a statement as to the potential visual and aesthetic impacts on all adjacent residential zoning districts. The simulation shall include overall height; configuration; physical location; mass and scale; materials and color (including proposals for stealth structures); and illumination. While not required by the Ordinance, the Applicant conducted a balloon test prior to preparing the photographic simulations. The balloon test demonstrated that the monopole will not be visible in many of the surrounding vantage points. In those areas where the monopole will be visible, only the top of tower will be visible. Please refer to Tab 15 of the application binder for the photographic simulations. 3. Concealed (stealth) or camouflaged facilities are encouraged when the method of concealment is appropriate to the proposed location. Attached stealth facilities may include but are not limited to: painted antenna and feed lines to match the color of a building or structure, faux windows, dormers, or other architectural features that blend with an existing or proposed building or structure. Freestanding stealth facilities typically have a secondary, obvious function such as a church steeple, windmill, silo, light standards, flagpole, bell/clock tower, water tower, or tree. A monopole is proposed for this site. 4. The proposed appearance of concealed or non-concealed facilities shall be evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding community prior to submission of the special use permit application. Applicants shall meet with Planning and Land Use staff for a preliminary review of proposed appearance in order to assure each facility will impose the least obtrusive visual impact. Acknowledged. b. A landscaped buffer with a base width not less than 25 feet and providing 100 percent opacity shall be required within the wireless support structure site to screen the exterior of protective fencing or walls. The base station and equipment compound of the wireless support structure and each guy wire anchor must be surrounding by a fence or wall not less than eight feet in height. The area surrounding the tower site is wooded, and a 25-foot vegetative buffer will be preserved around the fenced compound area to provide a natural buffer. Please refer to the Site Plan, Sheet C2, and the Landscaping Plan, Sheet L1, of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 31 9 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 There will be an eight-foot high chain link fence surrounding the 60-foot by 60-foot compound within the 110-foot by 110-foot leased area. Around the top perimeter of the fence, there will be three strands of barbed wire (1- foot), and there will be a locked gate to the fenced compound. Please refer to the fencing details provided on Sheets C3 and C4 of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder. The proposed wireless antenna support structure will be a 155-foot monopole, and it will not require guy wire anchors. c. All wireless support structures shall be constructed to accommodate collocation. Structures over 150 feet in height shall be engineered to accommodate at a minimum two additional providers. Structures 150 feet or less in height shall be engineered to accommodate at a minimum one additional providers. The proposed 155-foot monopole will be structurally designed to accommodate the antennas of four wireless carriers. AT&T’s antennas will be located at the 145-foot position on the tower, T-Mobile’s antennas will be located at the 130-foot position on the tower, Verizon’s antennas will be located at the 120-foot position on the tower, and there will be room to accommodate the antennas of an additional carrier at the 110-foot position on the tower. Please refer to Sheet C5 of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder. d. Equipment compounds shall comply with the following standards: 1. Shall not be used for the storage of any equipment or hazardous waste (e.g., discarded batteries) or materials not needed for the operation. No outdoor storage yards shall be allowed in a tower equipment compound. Acknowledged. 2. Shall not be used as a habitable space. Acknowledged. e. The applicant shall submit form 7460 to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to assure compliance with all FAA standards and to resolve issues of concern, including required lighting, possible transmission interference or other conflicts when the proposed wireless support structure site is located within 10,000 feet of an airport or within any runway approach zone. Please see the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation provided under Tab 12 of the application binder. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 32 10 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 7. Nonconforming Wireless Support Structures Not Applicable. ARTICLE 10: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Section 10.2 – Standard Review Procedures 10.2.2. – Pre-Application Conference A. Purpose The purpose of the pre-application conference is to provide an opportunity for the applicant and staff to review submittal requirements, procedures, and schedules for an anticipated development application. A pre-application conference is also intended for the applicant and staff to discuss the scope, features, and impacts of the proposed development. B. Applicability A pre-application conference is required for applications for planned development (see Section 10.3.4.). A pre-application conference may be requested and held at the applicant’s option for any other development application reviewed under this ordinance. C. Effect The pre-application conference is intended as a means of facilitating the review process. Discussions held in accordance with this section are not binding on the county or the applicant. Official reviews of development applications do not begin until a form application is submitted and determined to be complete. A pre-application conference was held on January 7, 2021 with Ken Vafier, Planning Manager, and Marty Little, Long Range Planner, of the New Hanover County Planning and Land Use Department, Karen Kemerait of Fox Rothschild LLP, and David Hockey, Director of Zoning for TowerCo. 10.2.3. – Community Meeting A. Purpose The purpose of a community information meeting is to inform owners and residents of nearby lands about a proposed development application, and to provide the applicant an opportunity to hear comments and concerns about the development proposal as a means of resolving conflicts and outstanding issues, where possible. B. Applicability 1. Unless a report is submitted in accordance with subsection 2 below, a community information meeting that complies with the requirements in this section is required prior to submittal of any of the following applications: Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 33 11 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 a. Conditional rezonings; b. Planned developments; and c. Special use permits for uses classified as intensive industry. 2. An applicant may submit an application identified in subsection 1 above without first holding a community information meeting if the applicant submits with the application a report documenting efforts that were made to arrange such a meeting and stating the reasons such a meeting was not held. 3. The adequacy of a meeting held or report submitted shall be considered by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners, as appropriate, in their decisions, but shall not be subject to judicial review. 4. For applications other than those identified in subsection 1 above, a community information meeting may be held in accordance with this section at the option of the applicant. While not required by the Ordinance, the Applicant intends to conduct a community information meeting after submittal of the Special Use Permit. C. Procedure 1. Notification a. The applicant shall provide written notice by mail or other agreed upon measure at least ten days prior to the date of the community information meeting. Notice shall be provided to the Planning Department and to each owner of record of land within 500 feet of and on the property subject to the application. b. The County shall provide notice of the community information meeting by e-mail to the Sunshine List. 2. Conduct of Meeting and Written Summary. a. The community information meeting shall be open to the public. At the meeting, the applicant shall explain the development proposal and application, inform attendees about the application review process, respond to questions or concerns neighbors raise about the proposed application, and discuss ways to resolve any conflicts or concerns. b. The applicant shall prepare a written summary of the meeting. The summary shall be included with the application materials and contain the following information: 1. Date, time and location of the meeting; 2. List of meeting attendees; 3. Summary of issues discussed; Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 34 12 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 4. Description of any changes or adjustments made to the proposal as a result of the comments and concerns received by the applicant; and 5. Any other information the applicant deems appropriate. Acknowledged. 10.2.4. – APPLICATION SUBMITTAL AND ACCEPTANCE A. Authority to File Applications 1. Unless expressly stated otherwise in this Ordinance, development applications reviewed under this Ordinance shall be submitted by: a. The owner, contract purchaser, or any other person having a recognized property interest in the land on which development is proposed; or b. A person authorized to submit the application on behalf of the owner, contract purchaser, or other person having a recognized property interest in the land, as evidenced by a letter or documentation signed by the owner, contract purchaser, or other person having a recognized property interest in the land. The application will be submitted by Karen M. Kemerait of Fox Rothschild LLP, Authorized Agent, on behalf of the Applicant, TowerCo 2013 LLC, and Property Owner, Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc. Karen Kemerait’s acknowledgement as agent is evidenced in the Special Use Permit Application. 2. Applications for text amendments and zoning map amendments may be submitted by any person, organization, or interested party, including the Board of Commissioners, the Planning Board, or County Staff. 10.3.5. – SPECIAL USE PERMIT A. Purpose A use designated as a special use in Table 4.2.1.: Principal Use Table, in a particular zoning district, is a use that may be appropriate in the district, but because of its nature, extent, and external impacts, requires special consideration of its location, design, and methods of operation before it can be deemed appropriate in the district and compatible with its surroundings. The purpose this section is to establish a uniform mechanism for the review of special uses to ensure they are appropriate for the location and zoning district where they are proposed. The construction of the proposed 155-foot monopole wireless communication facility is permitted with a Special Use Permit in the R-20 zoned district where proposed. This tower is essential and necessary to continue to provide the coverage that is currently being provided from the adjacent water tank. As the water tank will be removed from the Davis Community Property, the wireless carriers’ antennas on the water tank need to be moved to the proposed monopole. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 35 13 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 This tower will ensure that continued wireless coverage is provided to support the surrounding residences, businesses, and those traveling through this area of the County. Also, this tower will ensure that emergency services coverage is available to the area, including The Davis Community and the Plantation Village independent senior living facility. The proposed tower will be helpful to this area of the County, as it will be utilized by AT&T to support the deployment of FirstNet. B. Applicability Approval of a special use permit in accordance with this section is required before development of any use identified as a special use in Table 4.2.1.: Principal Use Table. Acknowledged. C. Special Use Permit Procedure D. Special Use Permit Review Standards The Board of County Commissioners shall approve an application for a special use permit only if it reaches each of the following conclusions based on findings of fact supported by competent, substantial, and material evidence presented at the hearing: 1. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and approved. The proposed 155-foot monopole will not endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed on the 12-acre parcel. Not only will the proposed monopole not endanger the public health or safety, but it will instead enhance the public health and safety of the community in the surrounding area by ensuring that coverage remains in the area. The monopole is needed as a replacement site for the water tank where the antennas of AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon are currently located. As mentioned previously, as part of the expansion of The Davis Community, the water tank on the Davis Community Property will be removed to accommodate the expansion of the facility. Therefore, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon will have to remove their antennas from the water tank, and the carriers need to locate their antennas on the proposed monopole in order to continue providing wireless service in this area of the County. With the relocation of the antennas from the water tank, Verizon will move its antennas to the 120-foot position on the monopole, T-Mobile will move its antennas to the 130-foot position on the monopole, and AT&T will move its antennas to the 145-foot position on the monopole. The wireless carriers will thus be able to continue providing coverage to the area. Thousands of facilities such as this one are located throughout the State of North Carolina (and tens of thousands nationwide). None presents any threat or danger to public health or safety. Radio emissions from the facility will comply with all federal laws, including those established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the emissions will fall well below emission standards for this type of facility, as established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Please refer to the statement of certification that this facility will be in Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 36 14 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 compliance with FCC emission standards located under Tab 10 of the application binder. In addition, the proposed monopole will increase the public safety because this tower is strategically located for FirstNet’s broadband network for first responders. Residents and those traveling through the proposed coverage area will be able to place and receive calls during emergencies. Wireless communications is a public safety necessity. Seventy-four percent of Americans who own mobile phones say that they have used their hand-held devices in emergency situations and gained valuable help. Most importantly, in times of natural disasters, wireless communication consistently emerges as the essential – and often only – means for emergency communication. New Hanover County first responders, residents, businesses, and travelers in the coverage area will be able to access 911 emergency services in the event that severe weather or other unforeseen circumstances down traditional landline communication services. Thus, the first responders, residents, businesses, and travelers in this area of the County will directly benefit from the availability of continued wireless telecommunications services. 2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications of this Ordinance. The proposed monopole meets or exceeds all required conditions and specifications of the Ordinance. A wireless communication facility is permitted as a Special Use in the R-20 zoning district of the County. The Applicant confirms that it will comply with all state, federal, and local laws, including the rules and regulations listed in the Ordinance, regarding the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed wireless communication facility. 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or the use is a public necessity; and The proposed monopole will not injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. The tower will be located on a large 12-acre parcel, and mature trees will surround the tower site. Because the tower is located on a large parcel with mature trees, the tower will not be visible from many of the surrounding vantage points. In the areas where the monopole will be visible, only the top of tower will be visible. (Please refer to Tab 15 of the application binder for the photographic simulations.) Also, the monopole will be located a great distance from all adjoining properties: 859.5 feet from the property to the north, 279.4 feet from the property to the east, 155.1 feet from the property to the south, and 258.5 feet to the property to the west. A 25- foot vegetative buffer will be preserved around the fenced compound area to buffer the tower. (Please refer to the Site Plan, Sheet C2, and the Landscaping Plan, Sheet L1, of the construction drawings located under Tab 7 of the application binder.) Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 37 15 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 The proposed tower is necessary so that AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon may continue to provide wireless coverage and services when the water tank on the Davis Community Property is removed. The continued coverage will benefit those who live and work in the surrounding area. David A. Smith, NC State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, provides his expert opinion that the proposed monopole will not have an adverse effect on the property values of adjoining or abutting properties. Please refer to the property report prepared by David Smith provided under Tab 16 of the application binder. 4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County. The proposed monopole is an allowable use in the R-20 zoned district with a Special Use Permit. The proposed tower will be in harmony with the area and in general conformity with the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as the proposed tower will fit in well on the property and the area, and will benefit the surrounding area, as wireless coverage and services will continue to be available to those who live, work, and travel through the area. Furthermore, the site for the tower is a 12-acre tract of land, and mature trees will surround the tower site. The monopole will be located a great distance from all adjoining properties: 859.5 feet from the property to the north, 279.4 feet from the property to the east, 155.1 feet from the property to the south, and 258.5 feet to the property to the west. The proposed tower is a low impact use, as it is an unmanned facility that is not open to the public. It will generate no more than two to four vehicle trips per month (for maintenance purposes), and it will not generate any odor or noise. The tower will not generate additional traffic or be of any significant impact to the nearby roads. Accordingly, the tower will be in harmony with the area. The proposed monopole is in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan because it will provide the wireless communication infrastructure necessary to support the educational and economic activities of nearby residents, businesses, and students. 10.3.6. SITE PLAN A. Purpose B. Applicability C. Major and Minor Site Plans Distinguished D. Major Site Plan Procedure Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 38 16 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 E. Minor Site Plan Procedure F. Site Plan Review Standards 1. The proposed development and uses in the site plan comply with Article 3: Zoning Districts, and Article 4: Uses and Use-Specific Standards. 2. The development proposed in the site plan and its general layout and design comply with all the standards in Article 5: General Development Standards, and Article 6: Subdivision Design and Improvement. 3. The development proposed in the site plan complies with all conditions of approval in any development approval or permit to which the plan is subject; and 4. The development proposed in the site plan complies with all other applicable standards in this Ordinance and all other County regulations. Applicant has reviewed all of the above referenced site plan review standards and acknowledges that the development plans submitted with this application under Tab 7 of the application binder comply with all of the above. VII. CONCLUSION The proposed wireless communication facility (a 150-foot monopole with a five-foot lightning rod, for an overall height of 155 feet) meets all requirements of the New Hanover County Zoning Unified Development Ordinance and is in conformity with the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The proposed monopole will be an integral part of continuing AT&T’s, T- Mobile’s, Verizon’s wireless communication service and providing service for FirstNet in this area of the County. TowerCo hereby respectfully requests that this Special Use Permit Application be approved. Respectfully submitted on this 3rd day of February, 2021. /s/ Karen M. Kemerait Karen M. Kemerait NC Zoning Counsel for TowerCo 2013 LLC Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 39 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 40 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 41 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 42 COVER SHEET T1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING AND LAND USE PERMIT INFORMATION PHONE: ATTN.: 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE WILMINGTON, NC 28403 (910) 798-7165 KEN VAFIER NORTH DRIVING DIRECTIONS VICINITY MAP CONSULTANT NUMBER OF CARRIERS: USE: TOWER TYPE: TOWER HEIGHT: MUNICIPALITY: STATE: PROJECT SUMMARY NEW HANOVER COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA MONOPOLE TOWER 150' (155' TO HIGHEST APPURTENANCE) 3 PROPOSED, 1 FUTURE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND UNMANNED EQUIPMENT SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 PROPERTY OWNER CONTACTS PHONE: ATTN.: CORNELIA NIXON DAVIS INC 1011 PORTERS NECK RD WILMINGTON, NC 28411 (910) 686-7195 CHARLES LONG POWER COMPANY PHONE: ATTN.: CUSTOMER SERVICE DUKE ENERGY (800) 452-2777 DEVELOPER TOWERCO 2013 LLC 5000 VALLEYSTONE DR #200 CARY, NC 27519 ATTN: DWAYNE LYERLY FLOOD INFO SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN FEMA FLOOD MAP AREA 3720317900K DATED 08/28/2018 WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X. SHEET NO.SHEET TITLE T1 COVER SHEET --SITE SURVEY (SHEET 1 OF 2) --SITE SURVEY (SHEET 2 OF 2) T2 APPENDIX N1 GENERAL NOTES C1 OVERALL PARCEL PLAN C1.1 OVERALL SITE PLAN C2 SITE PLAN C3 FENCE, GATE, AND COMPOUND DETAILS C4 SITE SIGNAGE DETAILS C5 ANTENNA AND TOWER ELEVATION DETAILS L1 LANDSCAPING PLAN SHEET INDEX NEW HANOVER COUNTY SHERIFF PHONE: ATTN.: 316 PRINCESS ST WILMINGTON, NC 28411 (910) 798-4200 CUSTOMER SERVICE NEW HANOVER COUNTY FIRE RESCUE STATION 14 PHONE: ATTN.: 8310 SHIRAZ WAY WILMINGTON, NC 28411 (910) 798-7420 CUSTOMER SERVICE FROM NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE: HEAD SOUTH TOWARD NC-1613/DAVIS DR 144 FT; TURN LEFT ONTO BOULDERSTONE WAY 236 FT; TURN RIGHT ONTO NC-1613/DAVIS DR 0.7 MI; TURN LEFT ONTO WALDO ROOD BLVD 0.7 MI; TURN RIGHT ONTO SW CARY PKWY 5.2 MI; USE THE RIGHT LANE TO MERGE ONTO US-1 N/US-64 E VIA THE RAMP TO RALEIGH 0.2 MI; MERGE ONTO US-1 N/US-64 E 2.1 MI; USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TAKE EXIT 1A TO MERGE ONTO I-40 E TOWARD US-64 E/BENSON/ROCKY MT 8.4 MI; KEEP RIGHT AT THE FORK TO STAY ON I-40 E, FOLLOW SIGNS FOR BENSON/WILMINGTON 115 MI; TAKE EXIT 416A-416B TOWARD TOPSAIL ISLAND/NEW BERN 0.9 MI; MERGE ONTO I-140 E 04 MI; CONTINUE ONTO NC-140 4.9 MI; CONTINUE ONTO US-17 N/MARKET ST 0.4 MI; TURN RIGHT ONTO FUTCH CREEK RD/MARKET ST 1.3 MI; CONTINUE ONTO CHAMP DAVIS RD, DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE LEFT 0.4 MI. WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE ADDRESS (E-911 TBD) 719 CHAMP DAVIS RD WILMINGTON, NC 28411 NEW HANOVER COUNTY LATITUDE: 34° 17' 30.97" N LONGITUDE: 77° 46' 08.73" W TAX/PIN #: R03700-002-002-001 ZONING: R-20 TOWERCO SITE ID: NC0281 at t & SITE KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 421 FAYETTEVILLE ST, SUITE 600 RALEIGH, NC 27601 PHONE: (919) 653-2942 ATTN.: AVERY FANN PARENT PARCEL: R03700-002-002-001 ZONING: R-20 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 43 APPENDIX T2 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A NOTE: SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PAD, PREFABRICATED EQUIPMENT CABINETS AND GENERATOR. NO NEW BUILDING BEING CONSTRUCTED. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 44 1.00 GENERAL NOTES GENERAL NOTES N1 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 45 SURVEY NOTE: NORTH SCALE: 1" = 450' OVERALL PARCEL PLAN1 C1 OVERALL PARCEL PLAN C1 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 46 NORTH SCALE: 1" = 80' OVERALL SITE PLAN1 C1.1 OVERALL SITE PLAN C1.1 SURVEY NOTE: SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 47 N O R T H SCALE: 1" = 20' SITE PLAN1 C2 SITE PLAN C2 SITE NOTES: SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 48 FENCE NOTES: FENCE, GATE, AND COMPOUND DETAILS C3 NOT TO SCALE CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE ELEVATION1 C3 NOT TO SCALE MUSHROOM STOP2 C3 NOT TO SCALE SITE COMPOUND SURFACE DETAIL3 C3 NOT TO SCALE SECTION AT FENCE4 C3 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 49 YELLOW BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING 3 NOTICE-RFE SIGN Beyond this point:Radio frequency fields at this site may exceed FCCrules for human exposure. For your safety, obey all posted signs and site guidelines for working in radio frequency environments. All personnel should have electromagnetic energy (EME) awareness training. All personnel entering this site must be authorized. Obey all posted signs. Assume all antennas are active. Before working on antennas, notify owners and disable appropriatetransmitters. Maintain minimum 3 feet clearance from all antennas. Do not stop in front of antennas. Use personal RF monitors while working near antennas. Never operate transmitters without shields during normal operation. Do not operate base station antennas in equipment room. NOTICE In accordance with Federal CommunicationsCommission rules on radio frequency emissions 47 CFR 1.1307(b) NOTICE 1 NO-TRESPASSING SIGN BLACK LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ RADIO FREQUENCY ENVIRONMENT AREAAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY BEYOND THIS POINT! Personnel proceeding beyond this poinrt must obey all posted signs, site guidelines and Federal Regulations for working in radio frequency environments. In accordance with Federal Regulationson radio frequency emissions. WHITE LETTERING BLUE BACKGROUND w/NOTICE 6 NOTICE-RF SIGN (BLUE) 12" WIDE X 18" HIGH BLACK LETTERING YELLOW BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ Beyond this point:Radio frequency fields at this site may exceed FCCrules for human exposure. For your safety, obey all posted signs and site guidelines for working in radio frequency environments. In accordance with Federal Communications Commission rules on radio frequencyemissions 47 CFR 1.1307(b) BLACK LETTERING YELLOW BACKGROUND w/!CAUTION BLACK LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING RED BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING RED BACKGROUND w/! NO TRESPASSING VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED WARNING XXXXXXX RED LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ WHITE W/BLACK LETTERING 4 WARNING-RF SIGN (RED) 7 FCC REGISTRATION SIGN 12" WIDE X 18" HIGH 20 WIDE X 4" HIGH 5 CAUTION-RF SIGN (YELLOW) 12" WIDE X 18" HIGH WHITE BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING WHITE LETTERING GREEN BACKGROUND w/ This is a TowerCo Antenna Site Site ID: For information call: 2 TOWERCO - SITE ID SIGN 12" HIGH X 24" WIDE (OPERATIONS PROVIDED) 844-218-8549 INFORMATION 18" HIGH X 24" WIDE (OPERATIONS PROVIDED) 12" HIGH X 18" WIDE (OPERATIONS PROVIDED) FCC TOWER REGISTRATION NO. NC0281 SITE SIGNAGE DETAILS C4 NOT TO SCALE SIGN PLACEMENT PLAN VIEW1 C4 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL SIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS2 C4 NOT TO SCALE SIGN PLACEMENT FRONT GATE VIEW3 C4 N O R T H SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 50 FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY- NO SIGNATURE REQUIRED ANTENNA AND TOWER ELEVATION DETAILS C5 NOT TO SCALE MONOPOLE TOWER ELEVATION1 C5 NOT TO SCALE ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE2 C5 NOT TO SCALE ANTENNA ORIENTATION PLAN3 C5 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 NOTES: Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 51 LANDSCAPING PLAN L1 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION OF HIS WORK WITH THAT OF ALL OTHER CONTRACTORS. THIS PLAN DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY UTILITIES. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL ABOVE GROUND AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2.THE QUALITY AND SIZE OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST CURRENT STANDARDS AS SET FORTH IN ANSI Z60.180 - AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. 3.ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT COVERED BY HARDSCAPE OR PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE COVERED WITH SEED AND STRAW. 4.PLANT SUBSTITUTION MAY BE PERMITTED ONLY AFTER PROOF THAT SPECIFIED PLANTS ARE UNAVAILABLE AND THE REQUEST HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE NEAREST EQUIVALENT OBTAINABLE SIZE AND VARIETY OF THE PLANT HAVING THE SAME ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS AS THE PLANT SPECIFIED 5.MINOR PLANT LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS MAY BE MADE IN THE FIELD TO ENSURE ACCESS TO UTILITY JUNCTION BOXES, FREE SITE LIGHTING OF FUTURE TREE CANOPY INTERFERENCE AND ALLOW UNINHIBITED PEDESTRIAN / VEHICULAR CIRCULATION ON ALL PAVEMENTS OR FOUNDATIONS. 6.ALL SHRUB MASSES OF TWO OR MORE SHALL BE EDGED INTO A PLANTING BED AND MULCHED PER DETAIL. ALL INDIVIDUAL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL HAVE A MULCH SAUCER EQUAL IN DIAMETER TO THE PLANTING PIT DIAMETER AND SHALL BE MULCHED AS SHOWN ON THE DETAILS. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL BED EDGES SHALL BE A DEEP CUT CLEAN SPADE EDGE. 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT EACH TREE OR SHRUB PIT WILL DRAIN BEFORE INSTALLING PLANT MATERIAL. HE SHALL FILL THE HOLE WITH SIX INCHES (6") OF WATER THAT SHOULD PERCOLATE OUT WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. SHOULD ANY AREA NOT DRAIN PROPERLY, A PERFORATED DRAIN LINE SHALL BE INSTALLED, OR THE PLANTS RELOCATED. 8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER IMMEDIATELY IF HE ENCOUNTERS ANY UNSUITABLE SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS, SOIL DEPTH, LATENT SOILS, HARD PAN, UTILITY LINES, OR OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WILL JEOPARDIZE THE HEALTH AND VIGOR OF THE PLANTS. SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR NOT NOTIFY THE OWNER OF A PROBLEM AREA, HE WARRANTS THAT THE AREAS ARE SUITABLE FOR PROPER GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALL PLANTS INSTALLED. 9.THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD VERIFY LANDSCAPING/TREE PLANTING LOCATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH WATER, SEWER, AND GAS LINES. 10.PLANTS SHALL BE SO TRAINED IN DEVELOPMENT AND APPEARANCE AS TO BE UNQUESTIONABLE SUPERIOR IN FORM, COMPACTNESS AND SYMMETRY. THEY SHALL BE SOUND, HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, WELL BRANCHED AND DENSELY FOLIATED WHEN IN LEAF, AND FREE OF DISEASE AND INSECT ADULT EGGS, PUPAE OR LARVAE. THEY SHALL HAVE HEALTHY, WELL-DEVELOPED ROOT SYSTEMS AND SHALL BE FREE FROM PHYSICAL DAMAGE OR OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT THRIVING GROWTH. 11.THERE SHALL BE NO CIRCLING OR GIRDLING ROOTS. CIRCLING ROOTS SHOULD BE CUT IN AT LEAST ONE PLACE. 12.THERE SHOULD BE ONE DOMINANT LEADER TO THE TOP OF THE TREE WITH THE LARGEST BRANCHES SPACED AT LEAST 6 INCHES APART. THERE CAN BE TWO LEADERS IN THE TOP 10% OF THE TREE IF IT IS OTHERWISE OF GOOD QUALITY. 13.THE TREE CANOPY SHOULD BE SYMMETRICAL AND FREE OF LARGE VOIDS. CLEAR TRUNK SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 40% OF TREE HEIGHT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS. CLEAR TRUNK SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT HEIGHT TO CLEAR SURROUNDING USES THAT MAY BE IMPACTED BY THE FUTURE GROWTH OF THE TREE. 14.OPEN TRUNK AND BRANCH WOUNDS SHALL BE LESS THAN 10% OF THE CIRCUMFERENCE AT THE WOUND AND NO MORE THAN 2 INCHES TALL. PROPERLY MADE PRUNING CUTS ARE NOT CONSIDERED OPEN TRUNK WOUNDS. THERE SHOULD BE NO CONKS OR BLEEDING, AND THERE SHOULD BE NO SIGNS OF INSECTS OR DISEASE ON MORE THAN 5% OF THE TREE. 15.IF ANY OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET, TREES MAY BE REJECTED. 16.TREE PROTECTION DEVICES MUST BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING, GRUBBING, OR GRADING OF THE SITE BY THE LOCAL ARBORIST. LANDSCAPING TO BE REMOVED SYMBOL QTY. NAME ORDINANCE SCALE: 1" = 20' LANDSCAPING PLAN1 L1 N O R T H Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 52 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 53 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 54 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 55 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 56 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 57 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 58 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 59 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 60 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 61 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 62 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 63 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 64 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 65 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 66 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 67 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 68 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 69 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 70 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 71 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 72 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 73 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 74 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 75 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 76 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 77 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 78 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 79 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 80 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 81 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 82 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 83 IMPACT ANALYSIS OF A PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON ADJOINING OR ABUTTING PROPERTIES LOCATED ON 719 CHAMP DAVIS ROAD NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AS OF JANUARY 22, 2021 FOR KAREN KEMERAIT FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 434 FAYETTEVILLE STREET SUITE 2800 RALEIGH, NC 27601 BY DAVID A SMITH, MAI, SRA 2007 FRONT STREET DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27705 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 84 PART ONE - INTRODUCTION Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 85 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA 2007 FRONT STREET DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27705 PHONE (919) 493-1534 smithappraiser@verizon.net January 26, 2021 Karen Kemerait Fox Rothschild LLP 434 Fayetteville Street Suite 2800 Raleigh, NC 27601 As requested, I have inspected the site of a proposed telecommunications tower and the adjoining or abutting properties. The proposed tower would be located at 719 Champ Davis Road in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The purpose of this assignment is to determine if the proposed tower would substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties. The intended use of this assignment is to assist the approving body in determining if the proposed tower should be approved. The intended users of this report are officers and employees of Fox Rothschild LLP and anyone they designate. As requested, a summary report has been prepared. This is not an appraisal, but is a consulting assignment. This report assumes that the proposed tower has been constructed. The properties were inspected on January 22, 2021 which is the effective date of this analysis. I made all necessary investigations and analyses. Based on a set of plans of the proposed tower, an inspection of the proposed tower site, the adjoining or abutting properties, an analysis of data gathered and facts and conclusions as contained in the following report of 28 pages and addenda, and subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions as stated, it is my opinion that the proposed tower would not have significant adverse impact on adjoining or abutting properties. I certify that I have personally inspected the site of the proposed tower and those properties that adjoin or abut the property. I further certify that I have no interest either present or contemplated in the property and that neither the employment to make this analysis nor the compensation is contingent upon the result of the analysis. Respectfully submitted, David A. Smith, MAI, SRA NC State-Certified General Real Estate Appraiser #A281 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 86 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE-INTRODUCTION PAGE Letter of Transmittal 1 Table of Contents 2 Certification 3 PART TWO-PREMISES OF THE ANALYSIS Statement of Competence 4 Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions 4 General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 4 Purpose, Intended Use and Users of the Report 5 Definition of Value 5 Date of Analysis and Date of Report 6 Property Rights 6 Scope of Work 7 PART THREE-PRESENTATION OF DATA Description of Tower Site Property 8 Description of the Proposed Tower and Leased Area 8 Description of Adjoining and Abutting Properties 9 PART FOUR-ANALYSIS OF DATA AND CONCLUSIONS Effect of the Proposed Telecommunications Tower 11 Conclusion 22 Qualifications of the Appraiser 23 ADDENDA Area Map Neighborhood Map Aerial Map Tax Card Zoning Map Deed Tower Details Photographs of Proposed Tower Site Photographs of Adjoining Properties and Across the Road Deer Crossing Location Map Deer Crossing Aerial Big Cypress Tower Details Deer Crossing Photographs Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 87 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 3 - CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief,... The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this report. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. No one provided significant real property assistance to the person signing this certification. The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of the report, I have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. This assignment was not made, nor was the report rendered on the basis of a requested minimum valuation, specific valuation, or an amount, which would result in approval of a credit transaction. Unless otherwise stated in this report, I have not performed any services regarding the subject property within the three year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment as an appraiser or in any other capacity. David A. Smith, MAI, SRA Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 88 PART TWO – PREMISES OF THE REPORT Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 89 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 4 - STATEMENT OF COMPETENCE I have completed all of the requirements to become a state certified general appraiser for the State of North Carolina and all of the requirements for the MAI designation. In addition I have successfully completed USPAP courses and continuing education seminars for forty years as well as preparing real estate appraisal reports over the same period. More detailed information about the courses and seminars are in the qualifications section of this report. I have prepared similar analyses and feel competent to perform this analysis. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS AND HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS An extraordinary assumption is an assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, which if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions. A hypothetical condition is something that is contrary to what exists but is supposed for the purpose of the analysis. This analysis assumes that the proposed tower has been constructed as planned. No other extraordinary assumptions or hypothetical conditions are made. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The report has been made with the following general assumptions: 1. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. 2. The appraiser by reason of this report is not required to give further consultation or testimony or to be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. 3. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 90 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 5 - public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. 4. Definitions used in this report have been taken from The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 5th ed., published by the Appraisal Institute, copyright 2010, unless otherwise stated. 5. I relied on a set of plans identified as “Tower Co, at&t, Wilmington WT RELO, SITE ADDRESS (E-911 TBD), 719 CHAMP DAVIS RD, WILMINGTON, NC 28411, NEW HANOVER COUNTY prepared by Kimley Horn and last dated December 9, 2020. For purposes of this report this information is assumed to be correct. Copies of pages from these plans are in the addenda. These plans were supplied by Trisha Butler of Fox Rothschild LLP. 6. I relied on public records from the New Hanover County GIS and Register of Deeds and antennasearch.com for information regarding properties analyzed in this report. For purposes of this report, this information is assumed to be correct. PURPOSE, INTENDED USE AND USERS OF THE REPORT The purpose of this assignment is to determine if the proposed tower would have significant adverse impact on adjoining or abutting properties. The intended use of this assignment is to assist the approving body in determining if the proposed tower should be approved. The intended users of this report are officers and employees of Fox Rothschild, LLC and anyone they designate. DEFINITION OF VALUE The opinions of value in this analysis are the market values. The definition of market value is that used by federally regulated financial institutions. This definition is as follows: Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 91 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 6 - The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests; 3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. DATE OF ANALYSIS AND DATE OF REPORT The effective date of the analysis is January 22, 2021. The date of the report is January 26, 2021. PROPERTY RIGHTS The ownership interest considered in this analysis is the fee simple interest. The properties may be leased or have other property rights transferred, but the effect is for the fee simple value of the properties. The definition of fee simple as used in this report is: Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 92 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 7 - Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of the report involves collection and confirmation of data relative to the property with the proposed tower and the adjoining or abutting properties. I made an inspection of the proposed tower site and referred to a set of plans for the tower. I also made an exterior inspection, from the street right-of-way of those properties that adjoin or abut the proposed tower property. I researched properties around existing cell towers to locate those that sold for comparison purposes. I located properties in a subdivision, Deer Crossing, near a tower in Big Cypress south of Wilmington. Some of the dwellings had a clear view of the tower and others were further away with no view of the tower. I compared these properties to judge the effect of the proposed tower on property that adjoin or abut the proposed tower. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 93 PART THREE – PRESENTATION OF DATA Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 94 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 8 - DESCRIPTION OF TOWER SITE PROPERTY Since the purpose of this report is to estimate the impact of the proposed tower on adjoining and abutting properties and not the property the tower is on, only a brief description of the site where the tower is proposed will be given. More detail of the site is in the addenda. According to public records from New Hanover County, the property where the tower will be located is located at 719 Champ Davis Road. It is owned by Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc. The tax office identifies the property with a record number of R03700-002-002-001 and the property is located in a CUD R-20 zoning district for New Hanover County. The property is located on the north side of Porters Neck Road, the east side of Champ Davis Road and the south side of Jeanelle Moore Boulevard. The property is reported to be 12 acres in size. The site is unimproved. Part of the property is in the process of being cleared for a storm retention pond. This area is on the northern part of the property and the area around the tower will continue to be wooded. Photographs of the subject are in the addenda. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TOWER AND LEASED AREA The tower will be located in the southern portion of the site near Porters Neck Road. At its closest points it will be 155.1 feet from Porters Neck Road, 258.5 feet from Champ Davis Road, 859.5 feet from Jeanelle Moore Boulevard and 279.4 feet from the eastern boundary. The leased area will be 110 by 110 feet with a 30 foot wide gravel ingress-egress and utility easement leading from Porters Neck Road to the tower site. There will be a 60 by 60 foot area enclosed with an eight foot high chain link fence with 3 strand barbed wire. The site will be landscaped as required by the zoning ordinance. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 95 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 9 - The tower will be 150 feet high with a 5 foot lightning rod. It will be of monopole design and have space for four platforms. It will be unlit. The equipment structures for the tower will be below the level of the chain link fence. ADJOINING AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES Since the property is bordered on three sides by streets only two properties adjoin or abut the property. A chart of these properties follows: Abutting and Adjoining Properties Owner Plantation Village Inc Plantation Village Inc Tax Reference R03700-002-011-000 R03700-002-012-000 Land Use Unused Land Unused Land Zoning Residential Residential Land Size 1.8 1.83 Improvements None None Properties directly across the streets are: Across Champ Davis Across Porters Neck Across Jeanelle Moore Owner Cornelia Nixon Davis Nursing Home Forest Creek Plantation, Inc Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc Tax Reference R03700-001-005-000 R03700-003-146-000 R03700-002-319-000 Land Use Nursing Convalescent Unused Land Unused Land Zoning Office & Institutional Residential Residential Land Size 37.45 15.84 6.51 Nearby is Plantation Village, a senior living community and Forest Creek @ Porters Neck Planation part of a larger residential development with a country club and golf course. Another golf course, Eagle Point, is also nearby. Photos of several of properties in the area are in the addenda. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 96 PART FOUR – ANALYSIS OF DATA AND CONCLUSIONS Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 97 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 11 - EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER The potential adverse effects from any proposed improvement are: environmental hazards, noise, odor, lighting, traffic and visual impact. Based on the plans of the proposed tower and conversations with those associated with it, there will be no environmental hazards associated with the proposed use. Also after construction there should be no significant adverse noise since the site is unmanned and none of the proposed items produce any significant noise. The improvement should also not produce any adverse odors. Also traffic should not cause any significant adverse impact since the facility requires only periodic maintenance. If the tower is visible this has the potential to cause adverse impacts to other properties. The tower site will be fenced and landscaped as required. All of the non-tower improvements will be screened by the fencing and not be visible off of the property. The only potential adverse effect is the visual impact of the tower itself on other properties. The tower will be much shorter than most cell towers, 150 feet in height, unlit with no exterior antenna. The only adjoining or abutting properties are two vacant residential tracts owned by a senior living facility located further east. Immediately across the streets are two properties owned by the owners of the tower site or a related party. A third property immediately across the street is another vacant residential tract. The property to the north is owned by the same owner as the tower site and is 859.5 feet from the northern property boundary plus the right-pf-way of Jeanelle Moore Boulevard. The property to the west is owned by a related party. It is 258.5 feet from the tower plus the right-o-way of Champ Davis Road. The property to the south is undeveloped and is 155.1 feet from the tower plus the right-of- way of Porters Neck Road. The property to the east is 279.4 feet from the tower and is undeveloped. The area of the site where the tower will be located is heavily wooded and only the tower itself will be visible. To determine potential effects of the proposed tower I did an analysis of single family dwellings near an existing tower. Using a national web site that locates communications towers, AttennaSearch.com Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 98 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 12 - I located a tower on 1300 Big Cypress Drive in Hanover County south of Wilmington. This tower is 147 feet in height and was built in 2009. It is unlit, of monopole design like the subject. There is a neighborhood, Deer Crossing, about 300 feet from this tower. Deer Crossing contains some 130 single family dwellings mostly two stories in height. I did an analysis of the initial sales of these dwellings to determine if they were adversely affected by the proximity of this tower. I adjusted the properties for all significant differences: closing date, land value, year built, garage size, porch size, deck size, patio sizes, number of baths and fireplaces. I then divided the adjusted dwelling value by its square footage. I analyzed the properties on two basis, proximity and visibility. Proximity – I separated the dwellings into four groups based on their proximity to the tower and analyzed them on a chart on the attached chart. There are five properties in close proximity to the tower and they gave an average adjusted per square foot value of $80.93 per square foot. The 25 properties that were next closest gave an average per square foot value of $77.28 per square foot. The next 35 gave a per square foot average of $77.00 per square foot and the final 42 gave a value of $78.01. The overall average for all of the properties is $77.63. The indications are very close and the properties closest to the tower actually have the higher per square foot value. This indicates that the cell tower does not adversely affect property value. Visibility – I also considered whether the tower is visible from each dwelling and whether that visibility is from the front yard or back yard and whether the view is clear or partially obscured. 25 properties have a clear view of the tower from their backyards and gave an average adjusted per square foot value of $76.39. 14 properties have a clear view of the tower from their front yards and gave a per square foot value of $77.50. 6 have an obscured view of the tower from their backyard and have an average value of $79.36. 4 have an obscured view from their front yard and have an average value of $79.95. 58 have no view of the tower and have an average per square foot value of $77.85. Again the per square foot indications are quite close indicating that the cell tower does not adversely affect property value. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 99 - 13 - PROXIMITY Address Closeness Sold Price Closing Date Year Built Garage Open Porch Deck Patio Full Baths Half Baths FP Total Adjust Adjusted Sales Price Living Area SF Per SF 1117 Deer Hill Same Block $187,000 8/24/2011 2011 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $130,305 1592 $81.85 1113 Deer Hill Same Block $287,000 3/29/2012 2012 484 272 3 1 0 40,542 $263,582 3072 $85.80 1109 Deer Hill Same Block $265,000 6/29/2011 2011 484 120 210 3 1 1 40,555 $238,464 3072 $77.63 1105 Deer Hill Same Block $204,000 9/29/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $159,837 2070 $77.22 1101 Deer Hill Same Block $211,000 7/14/2011 2011 462 85 120 2 1 1 33,462 $162,100 1973 $82.16 $80.93 1013 Deer Hill One Block $252,500 6/13/2011 2011 484 210 120 3 1 1 42,941 $219,617 3072 $71.49 1009 Deer Hill One Block $250,000 5/20/2011 2011 462 108 120 3 1 1 38,912 $219,487 3024 $72.58 1005 Deer Hill One Block $264,000 12/16/2011 2011 462 108 506 108 3 1 0 45,705 $226,729 3036 $74.68 1004 Deer Hill One Block $233,500 3/30/2011 2011 484 102 204 3 1 1 39,918 $201,224 3072 $65.50 1008 Deer Hill One Block $203,000 10/31/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $155,110 1980 $78.34 1001 Deer Hill One Block $179,500 10/28/2011 2011 260 105 120 2 1 1 28,209 $120,422 1455 $82.76 1221 Deer Hill One Block $206,000 5/20/2011 2011 462 102 120 2 1 1 34,027 $155,600 2004 $77.64 1217 Deer Hill One Block $200,000 10/12/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $151,596 1980 $76.56 1213 Deer Hill One Block $195,000 7/7/2014 2013 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $131,301 1592 $82.48 1205 Deer Hill One Block $248,000 5/25/2011 2011 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $217,902 3072 $70.93 1201 Deer Hill One Block $204,000 12/30/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $156,282 1980 $78.93 1209 Deer Hill One Block $191,000 5/28/2013 2013 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $131,016 1455 $90.05 1229 Deer Hill One Block $200,000 4/26/2011 2010 420 85 2 1 1 31,431 $151,222 1994 $75.84 1225 Deer Hill One Block $241,000 3/12/2012 2011 462 108 120 3 1 0 35,257 $209,369 3024 $69.24 6402 New Hope One Block $213,000 4/5/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $156,318 1980 $78.95 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 100 - 14 - 6406 New Hope One Block $194,000 8/10/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $138,713 1980 $70.06 6410 New Hope One Block $199,000 8/21/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $143,541 1592 $90.16 6414 New Hope One Block $176,000 3/30/2012 2011 260 105 120 2 1 1 28,209 $117,327 1455 $80.64 6409 New Hope One Block $251,000 3/18/2011 2011 484 96 160 3 0 1 36,145 $229,880 3240 $70.95 6405 New Hope One Block $207,500 4/26/2012 2012 420 168 120 2 1 0 31,331 $148,994 1592 $93.59 6401 New Hope One Block $221,000 9/11/2012 2012 440 100 160 2 1 0 29,927 $174,546 2120 $82.33 6413 Fawn Settle One Block $221,000 5/24/2012 2012 420 220 120 2 1 0 33,056 $169,722 1990 $85.29 6417 Fawn Settle One Block $247,000 9/24/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $210,973 3072 $68.68 6409 Fawn Settle One Block $238,000 5/12/2011 2011 462 99 120 3 1 1 38,613 $204,452 3018 $67.74 1621 Soaring Spirit One Block $202,000 4/4/2012 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $151,826 1980 $76.68 $77.28 1304 Deer Hill Two Blocks $202,000 1/27/2011 2010 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $158,165 1980 $79.88 1308 Deer Hill Two Blocks $239,200 1/3/2011 2010 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $214,724 3240 $66.27 1312 Deer Hill Two Blocks $232,000 5/16/2011 2010 483 99 120 3 1 1 39,229 $197,410 3063 $64.45 1320 Deer Hill Two Blocks $195,000 6/22/2011 2010 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $143,954 1980 $72.70 1324 Deer Hill Two Blocks $253,000 6/26/2013 2013 462 99 120 3 1 1 38,613 $212,196 3024 $70.17 1325 Deer Hill Two Blocks $204,000 1/14/2013 2010 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $152,014 1980 $76.77 1321 Deer Hill Two Blocks $224,000 6/28/2013 2013 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $169,756 2120 $80.07 1317 Deer Hill Two Blocks $190,000 12/1/2010 2010 441 277 675 2 1 0 39,266 $133,194 1973 $67.51 1309 Deer Hill Two Blocks $195,000 3/11/2011 2010 420 388 2 1 0 37,830 $140,659 1980 $71.04 1305 Deer Hill Two Blocks $174,000 1/25/2011 2010 274 299 2 1 1 34,256 $111,105 1399 $79.42 1301 Deer Hill Two Blocks $195,000 6/23/2011 2010 463 108 120 2 1 0 30,599 $146,183 2003 $72.98 6425 Fawn Settle Two Blocks $200,000 3/22/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $147,412 1980 $74.45 6421 Fawn Settle Two Blocks $202,000 5/29/2013 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $139,175 1592 $87.42 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 101 - 15 - 1009 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $220,000 6/21/2012 2012 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $172,603 1973 $87.48 1005 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $213,000 7/30/2012 2012 462 205 120 2 0 1 34,164 $159,275 2004 $79.48 1001 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $226,000 3/27/2014 2013 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $172,477 1973 $87.42 1004 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $263,000 8/20/2012 2012 484 102 204 3 1 1 39,918 $230,607 3072 $75.07 1008 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $226,000 5/13/2013 2012 420 100 266 2 1 1 33,704 $170,120 1987 $85.62 1100 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $199,000 9/26/2012 2012 441 85 192 2 1 0 29,672 $147,717 1973 $74.87 1104 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $174,000 11/15/2012 2012 260 225 0 2 1 0 27,735 $111,437 1455 $76.59 1108 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $177,000 8/30/2012 2012 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $120,292 1462 $82.28 1112 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $195,000 11/30/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $141,658 1980 $71.54 1116 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $193,000 9/27/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $141,376 1980 $71.40 1120 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $222,000 11/5/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $172,725 1980 $87.24 1124 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $244,000 8/8/2013 2013 484 48 120 3 0 1 34,285 $208,822 3233 $64.59 1129 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $200,000 2/10/2012 2012 462 102 182 2 1 0 30,785 $149,807 2004 $74.75 1125 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $263,500 4/19/2013 2013 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $225,865 3072 $73.52 1121 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $202,000 8/22/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $148,002 1980 $74.75 1117 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $213,000 8/8/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $156,318 1990 $78.55 1113 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $171,500 8/9/2012 2012 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $114,268 1462 $78.16 1109 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $223,000 10/19/2012 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $170,960 2130 $80.26 1000 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $199,000 5/13/2014 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $131,925 1592 $82.87 1609 Soaring Spirit Two Blocks $268,000 2/16/2012 2012 484 222 120 3 1 1 43,339 $236,097 3072 $76.85 1605 Soaring Spirit Two Blocks $223,000 2/21/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $170,052 1980 $85.89 1601 Soaring Spirit Two Blocks $284,000 10/25/2012 2012 484 120 120 3 1 1 39,955 $253,933 3072 $82.66 $77.00 6432 Fawn Settle More $225,000 1/4/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $178,606 2150 $83.07 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 102 - 16 - 6436 Fawn Settle More $205,000 12/27/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $153,165 1980 $77.36 6440 Fawn Settle More $239,000 12/20/2012 2012 484 102 220 120 2 1 1 39,249 $194,241 2786 $69.72 6500 Fawn Settle More $255,000 12/19/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $218,199 3072 $71.03 6504 Fawn Settle More $208,000 5/22/2013 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $145,715 1592 $91.53 6508 Fawn Settle More $237,000 11/29/2012 2012 440 100 192 2 1 0 32,855 $187,700 2130 $88.12 6516 Fawn Settle More $209,000 12/3/2012 2012 462 102 120 2 1 1 34,027 $152,587 2004 $76.14 6520 Fawn Settle More $196,000 12/31/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $138,251 1592 $86.84 6524 Fawn Settle More $246,000 2/5/2013 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $197,661 2130 $92.80 6528 Fawn Settle More $228,000 12/20/2012 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $176,764 2130 $82.99 6532 Fawn Settle More $274,000 12/31/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 0 35,702 $246,231 3072 $80.15 6536 Fawn Settle More $234,000 7/9/2013 2013 440 100 2 1 0 28,859 $185,964 2120 $87.72 6533 Fawn Settle More $234,000 9/16/2014 2014 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $179,067 1973 $90.76 6527 Fawn Settle More $224,000 12/18/2014 2014 440 100 120 2 1 0 29,660 $166,522 2120 $78.55 6521 Fawn Settle More $182,000 9/4/2013 2014 484 119 120 3 0 0 32,985 $131,729 3064 $42.99 6515 Fawn Settle More $225,000 12/6/2013 2013 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $168,532 2120 $79.50 6509 Fawn Settle More $287,000 10/27/2014 2014 484 102 120 2 1 0 31,015 $259,540 3408 $76.16 6503 Fawn Settle More $283,000 10/7/2013 2013 484 96 300 3 0 1 37,079 $251,220 3233 $77.70 1508 Soaring Spirit More $267,000 11/9/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $238,055 3145 $75.69 1604 Soaring Spirit More $191,000 7/2/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $134,661 1592 $84.59 1608 Soaring Spirit More $230,000 9/27/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 0 32,222 $198,940 3233 $61.53 1616 Soaring Spirit More $199,000 5/30/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $148,343 1990 $74.54 1513 Soaring Spirit More $224,000 8/4/2013 2013 462 102 120 2 1 0 30,371 $171,327 2004 $85.49 1509 Soaring Spirit More $194,000 9/25/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $142,537 1980 $71.99 1505 Soaring Spirit More $193,000 12/31/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 0 1 29,449 $138,965 1990 $69.83 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 103 - 17 - 1501 Soaring Spirit More $200,000 8/9/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $149,504 1980 $75.51 1413 Soaring Spirit More $218,000 1/3/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $168,123 1980 $84.91 1409 Soaring Spirit More $225,000 12/11/2012 2012 484 102 208 2 1 0 34,543 $182,279 2786 $65.43 1405 Soaring Spirit More $186,000 12/13/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $127,251 1592 $79.93 1401 Soaring Spirit More $224,000 12/10/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 0 0 25,794 $173,772 1990 $87.32 1202 Whispering Doe More $194,000 3/1/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $144,564 1980 $73.01 1206 Whirpering Doe More $253,500 11/21/2012 2012 484 96 140 3 0 1 36,011 $221,650 3233 $68.56 1210 Whispering Doe More $190,000 9/6/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $132,663 1980 $67.00 1209 Whispering Doe More $227,000 9/19/2014 2014 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $171,355 1980 $86.54 1205 Whispering Doe More $244,000 6/25/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $212,600 3233 $65.76 1201 Whispering Doe More $238,000 1/4/2013 2012 484 102 120 2 1 0 31,015 $202,220 2786 $72.58 6502 Settles Dream More $242,000 11/13/2013 2013 440 100 280 2 1 1 34,384 $186,783 2130 $87.69 6506 Settlers Dream More $201,000 9/18/2013 2013 440 40 120 2 0 1 28,044 $144,514 1832 $78.88 6510 Settlers Dream More $225,000 9/17/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $173,824 1980 $87.79 6514 Settlers Dream More $212,000 11/15/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $152,960 1980 $77.25 6518 Settlers Dream More $262,000 5/14/2013 2013 462 108 108 3 1 0 35,177 $227,215 3024 $75.14 6521 Settlers Dream More $231,000 8/21/2014 2014 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $170,602 1980 $86.16 $78.01 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 104 - 18 - VISIBILITY Address Sold Price Closing Date Year Built Garage Open Porch Deck Patio Full Bath Half Bath FP Total Adjust Adjusted Sales Price Living Area SF Total 6409 Fawn Settle Backyard $238,000 5/12/2011 2011 462 99 120 3 1 1 38,613 $204,452 3018 $67.74 6425 Fawn Settle Backyard $200,000 3/22/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $147,412 1980 $74.45 6421 Fawn Settle Backyard $202,000 5/29/2013 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $139,175 1592 $87.42 6417 Fawn Settle Backyard $247,000 9/24/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $210,973 3072 $68.68 6413 Fawn Settle Backyard $221,000 5/24/2012 2012 420 220 120 2 1 0 33,056 $169,722 1990 $85.29 6533 Fawn Settle Backyard $234,000 9/16/2014 2014 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $179,067 1973 $90.76 6527 Fawn Settle Backyard $224,000 12/18/2014 2014 440 100 120 2 1 0 29,660 $166,522 2120 $78.55 6521 Fawn Settle Backyard $182,000 9/4/2013 2014 484 119 120 3 0 0 32,985 $131,729 3064 $42.99 6515 Fawn Settle Backyard $225,000 12/6/2013 2013 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $168,532 2120 $79.50 6509 Fawn Settle Backyard $287,000 10/27/2014 2014 484 102 120 2 1 0 31,015 $259,540 3408 $76.16 6503 Fawn Settle Backyard $283,000 10/7/2013 2013 484 96 300 3 0 1 37,079 $251,220 3233 $77.70 1513 Soaring Spirit Backyard $224,000 8/4/2013 2013 462 102 120 2 1 0 30,371 $171,327 2004 $85.49 1509 Soaring Spirit Backyard $194,000 9/25/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $142,537 1980 $71.99 1505 Soaring Spirit Backyard $193,000 12/31/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 0 1 29,449 $138,965 1990 $69.83 1501 Soaring Spirit Backyard $200,000 8/9/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $149,504 1980 $75.51 1413 Soaring Spirit Backyard $218,000 1/3/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $168,123 1980 $84.91 1409 Soaring Spirit Backyard $225,000 12/11/2012 2012 484 102 208 2 1 0 34,543 $182,279 2786 $65.43 1405 Soaring Spirit Backyard $186,000 12/13/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $127,251 1592 $79.93 1401 Soaring Spirit Backyard $224,000 12/10/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 0 0 25,794 $173,772 1990 $87.32 1129 Whispering Doe Backyard $200,000 2/10/2012 2012 462 102 182 2 1 0 30,785 $149,807 2004 $74.75 1125 Whispering Doe Backyard $263,500 4/19/2013 2013 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $225,865 3072 $73.52 1121 Whispering Doe Backyard $202,000 8/22/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $148,002 1980 $74.75 1117 Whispering Doe Backyard $213,000 8/8/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $156,318 1990 $78.55 1113 Whispering Doe Backyard $171,500 8/9/2012 2012 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $114,268 1462 $78.16 1109 Whispering Doe Backyard $223,000 10/19/2012 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $170,960 2130 $80.26 $76.39 1117 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $187,000 8/24/2011 2011 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $130,305 1592 $81.85 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 105 - 19 - 1113 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $287,000 3/29/2012 2012 484 272 3 1 0 40,542 $263,582 3072 $85.80 1109 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $265,000 6/29/2011 2011 484 120 210 3 1 1 40,555 $238,464 3072 $77.63 1105 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $204,000 9/29/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $159,837 2070 $77.22 1101 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $211,000 7/14/2011 2011 462 85 120 2 1 1 33,462 $162,100 1973 $82.16 1013 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $252,500 6/13/2011 2011 484 210 120 3 1 1 42,941 $219,617 3072 $71.49 $79.36 6432 Fawn Settle Frontyard $225,000 1/4/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $178,606 2150 $83.07 6436 Fawn Settle Frontyard $205,000 12/27/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $153,165 1980 $77.36 6440 Fawn Settle Frontyard $239,000 12/20/2012 2012 484 102 220 120 2 1 1 39,249 $194,241 2786 $69.72 6500 Fawn Settle Frontyard $255,000 12/19/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $218,199 3072 $71.03 6504 Fawn Settle Frontyard $208,000 5/22/2013 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $145,715 1592 $91.53 6508 Fawn Settle Frontyard $237,000 11/29/2012 2012 440 100 192 2 1 0 32,855 $187,700 2130 $88.12 1508 Soaring Spirit Frontyard $267,000 11/9/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $238,055 3145 $75.69 1100 Whispering Doe Frontyard $199,000 9/26/2012 2012 441 85 192 2 1 0 29,672 $147,717 1973 $74.87 1104 Whispering Doe Frontyard $174,000 11/15/2012 2012 260 225 0 2 1 0 27,735 $111,437 1455 $76.59 1108 Whispering Doe Frontyard $177,000 8/30/2012 2012 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $120,292 1462 $82.28 1112 Whispering Doe Frontyard $195,000 11/30/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $141,658 1980 $71.54 1116 Whispering Doe Frontyard $193,000 9/27/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $141,376 1980 $71.40 1120 Whispering Doe Frontyard $222,000 11/5/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $172,725 1980 $87.24 1124 Whispering Doe Frontyard $244,000 8/8/2013 2013 484 48 120 3 0 1 34,285 $208,822 3233 $64.59 $77.50 6402 New Hope Frontyard Obscured $213,000 4/5/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $156,318 1980 $78.95 6406 New Hope Frontyard Obscured $194,000 8/10/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $138,713 1980 $70.06 6410 New Hope Frontyard Obscured $199,000 8/21/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $143,541 1592 $90.16 6414 New Hope Frontyard Obscured $176,000 3/30/2012 2011 260 105 120 2 1 1 28,209 $117,327 1455 $80.64 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 106 - 20 - $79.95 6516 Fawn Settle No $209,000 12/3/2012 2012 462 102 120 2 1 1 34,027 $152,587 2004 $76.14 6520 Fawn Settle No $196,000 12/31/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $138,251 1592 $86.84 6524 Fawn Settle No $246,000 2/5/2013 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $197,661 2130 $92.80 6528 Fawn Settle No $228,000 12/20/2012 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $176,764 2130 $82.99 6532 Fawn Settle No $274,000 12/31/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 0 35,702 $246,231 3072 $80.15 6536 Fawn Settle No $234,000 7/9/2013 2013 440 100 2 1 0 28,859 $185,964 2120 $87.72 6409 New Hope No $251,000 3/18/2011 2011 484 96 160 3 0 1 36,145 $229,878 3240 $70.95 6405 New Hope No $207,500 4/26/2012 2012 420 168 120 2 1 0 31,331 $148,992 1592 $93.59 6401 New Hope No $221,000 9/11/2012 2012 440 100 160 2 1 0 29,927 $174,543 2120 $82.33 1325 Deer Hill No $204,000 1/14/2013 2010 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $152,014 1980 $76.77 1321 Deer Hill No $224,000 6/28/2013 2013 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $169,756 2120 $80.07 1317 Deer Hill No $190,000 12/1/2010 2010 441 277 675 2 1 0 39,266 $133,194 1973 $67.51 1309 Deer Hill No $195,000 3/11/2011 2010 420 388 2 1 0 37,830 $140,659 1980 $71.04 1305 Deer Hill No $174,000 1/25/2011 2010 274 299 2 1 1 34,256 $111,105 1399 $79.42 1301 Deer Hill No $195,000 6/23/2011 2010 463 108 120 2 1 0 30,599 $146,183 2003 $72.98 1229 Deer Hill No $200,000 4/26/2011 2010 420 85 2 1 1 31,431 $151,222 1994 $75.84 1225 Deer Hill No $241,000 3/12/2012 2011 462 108 120 3 1 0 35,257 $203,700 3024 $67.36 1304 Deer Hill No $202,000 1/27/2011 2010 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $158,165 1980 $79.88 1308 Deer Hill No $239,200 1/3/2011 2010 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $214,724 3240 $66.27 1312 Deer Hill No $232,000 5/16/2011 2010 483 99 120 3 1 1 39,229 $197,410 3063 $64.45 1320 Deer Hill No $195,000 6/22/2011 2010 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $143,954 1980 $72.70 1324 Deer Hill No $253,000 6/26/2013 2013 462 99 120 3 1 1 38,613 $212,196 3024 $70.17 1221 Deer Hill No $206,000 5/20/2011 2011 462 102 120 2 1 1 34,027 $155,600 2004 $77.64 1217 Deer Hill No $200,000 10/12/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $151,596 1980 $76.56 1213 Deer Hill No $195,000 7/7/2014 2013 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $131,301 1592 $82.48 1205 Deer Hill No $248,000 5/25/2011 2011 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $217,902 3072 $70.93 1201 Deer Hill No $204,000 12/30/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $156,282 1980 $78.93 1009 Deer Hill No $250,000 5/20/2011 2011 462 108 120 3 1 1 38,912 $219,487 3024 $72.58 1005 Deer Hill No $264,000 12/16/2011 2011 462 108 506 108 3 1 0 45,705 $226,727 3036 $74.68 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 107 - 21 - 1004 Deer Hill No $233,500 3/30/2011 2011 484 102 204 3 1 1 39,918 $201,221 3072 $65.50 1008 Deer Hill No $203,000 10/31/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $155,107 1980 $78.34 1001 Deer Hill No $179,500 10/28/2011 2011 260 105 120 2 1 1 28,209 $120,418 1455 $82.76 1209 Deer Hill No $191,000 5/28/2013 2013 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $131,011 1455 $90.04 1621 Soaring Spirit No $202,000 4/4/2012 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $151,826 1980 $76.68 1604 Soaring Spirit No $191,000 7/2/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $134,661 1592 $84.59 1608 Soaring Spirit No $230,000 9/27/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 0 32,222 $198,940 3233 $61.53 1616 Soaring Spirit No $199,000 5/30/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $148,343 1990 $74.54 1609 Soaring Spirit No $268,000 2/16/2012 2012 484 222 120 3 1 1 43,339 $236,097 3072 $76.85 1605 Soaring Spirit No $223,000 2/21/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $170,052 1980 $85.89 1601 Soaring Spirit No $284,000 10/25/2012 2012 484 120 120 3 1 1 39,955 $253,933 3072 $82.66 1009 Whispering Doe No $220,000 6/21/2012 2012 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $172,603 1973 $87.48 1005 Whispering Doe No $213,000 7/30/2012 2012 462 205 120 2 0 1 34,164 $159,275 2004 $79.48 1001 Whispering Doe No $226,000 3/27/2014 2013 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $172,477 1973 $87.42 1004 Whispering Doe No $263,000 8/20/2012 2012 484 102 204 3 1 1 39,918 $230,607 3072 $75.07 1008 Whispering Doe No $226,000 5/13/2013 2012 420 100 266 2 1 1 33,704 $170,120 1987 $85.62 1202 Whispering Doe No $194,000 3/1/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $144,564 1980 $73.01 1206 Whirpering Doe No $253,500 11/21/2012 2012 484 96 140 3 0 1 36,011 $221,650 3233 $68.56 1210 Whispering Doe No $190,000 9/6/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $132,663 1980 $67.00 1209 Whispering Doe No $227,000 9/19/2014 2014 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $171,355 1980 $86.54 1205 Whispering Doe No $244,000 6/25/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $212,600 3233 $65.76 1201 Whispering Doe No $238,000 1/4/2013 2012 484 102 120 2 1 0 31,015 $202,220 2786 $72.58 1000 Whispering Doe No $199,000 5/13/2014 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $131,925 1592 $82.87 6502 Settles Dream No $242,000 11/13/2013 2013 440 100 280 2 1 1 34,384 $186,783 2130 $87.69 6506 Settlers Dream No $201,000 9/18/2013 2013 440 40 120 2 0 1 28,044 $144,514 1832 $78.88 6510 Settlers Dream No $225,000 9/17/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $173,824 1980 $87.79 6514 Settlers Dream No $212,000 11/15/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $152,960 1980 $77.25 6518 Settlers Dream No $262,000 5/14/2013 2013 462 108 108 3 1 0 35,177 $227,215 3024 $75.14 6521 Settlers Dream No $231,000 8/21/2014 2014 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $170,602 1980 $86.16 $77.85 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 108 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 22 - CONCLUSION To consider the effect of a proposed 150 foot monopole tower, I researched the New Hanover area and located a subdivision with a 147 foot tower. I located qualified sales in a subdivision that adjoins or abuts this tower and compared those closer to the tower with those further from the tower. I also compared those with various view of the tower with those that did not have a view. After adjusting, all of the dwellings gave very similar per square foot indications showing that the properties are not adversely affected by a cell tower. Based on this it is my opinion that the proposed tower would not have an adverse effect on the property values of adjoining or abutting properties. Cellular telephones have become a necessary and desired item in today’s world. Many potential buyers of real estate expect cellular communications just as they expect electric service and lack of this service or poor service could adversely affect value. In order to meet this need, telecommunications towers have become a common part of the landscape in much the same way that overhead power and telephone lines and other utilities have. Like these utilities, telecommunications towers are needed in locations throughout the country. As such they are in harmony with the area in the same way that other utilities are. There have been surveys that show that visibility of cell towers are undesirable. However, they do not ask the right question. The real question is: “Does the presence of a cell tower adversely affect property values?” I have not found that to be the case. View of a cell tower is only one of many factors that a prospective buyer would consider. Factors such as proximity to work, schools, floor plan, condition, size, etc. are much more important and tend to completely negate the impact of a cell tower. Many residents did not realize there was a tower for several months and others forget they are there in a short period. . Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 109 - 23 - DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA DAVID A SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2007 FRONT STREET DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27705 PHONE (919) 493-1534 smithappraiser@frontier.com QUALIFICATIONS OF DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA The appraiser, David A. Smith, has been involved in the appraisal of real estate for over thirty years. He worked with his father, Charles W. Smith, from 1976 to 2003. After the retirement of Charles W. Smith in 2003 he formed Smith & Whitfield, Inc. and later David A. Smith & Associates. In 1988 he was awarded the RM designation. With the merger of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers in January of 1991, the RM designation was changed to the SRA designation. In 1991 he was awarded the MAI designation of the Appraisal Institute. He became a state-certified real estate appraiser in 1991 the year the state first began licensing real estate appraisers and his certification number is A281. He has also trained and supervised several appraisers and has prepared all types of appraisal reports. His primary focus is Durham County and the adjoining counties of Orange, Person, Granville and Chatham. EDUCATION: Graduate Episcopal High School, Alexandria, VA, 1976 A.B., Duke University, Durham, NC, 1981 APPRAISAL INSTITUTE COURSES: Real Estate Appraisal Principles (Exam 1A-1/8-1), University of North Carolina, 1981 Residential Valuation (Exam 8-2), University of North Carolina, 1981 Basic Valuation Procedures (Exam 1A-2), University of North Carolina, 1983 Standards of Professional Practice (Exam SPP), University of North Carolina, 1983 Capitalization Theory & Techniques, A (Exam 1B-A), University of Colorado, 1984 Capitalization Theory & Techniques, B (Exam 1B-B), University of Colorado, 1984 Valuation Analysis and Report Writing (Exam 2-2), University of North Carolina, 1987 Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation (Exam 2-1), University of North Carolina, 1987 Advanced Sales Comparison & Cost Approaches, Atlanta, Georgia, 2002 General Appraiser Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use, Atlanta, Georgia, 2007 Online Business Practices and Ethics, Chicago, Illinois, 2007 Appraisal Curriculum Overview, 2009 Condemnation Appraising: Principles & Applications, Greensboro, NC, 2011 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 110 24 APPRAISAL INSTITUTE SEMINARS: Highest and Best Use, 1988 Industrial Valuation, 1988 Rates, Ratios and Reasonableness, 1988 Valuation of Leased Fee Interests, 1989 Current Problems in Industrial Valuation, 1989 Methods of Subdivision Analysis, 1989 Expert Witness in Litigation, 1989 Discounted Cash Flow, 1990 RTC Appraisal Standards, 1990 Preparation and Use of the UCIAR Form, 1990 Standards of Professional Practice Update, 1990 Commercial Construction Overview, 1991 Appraising Troubled Properties, 1991 Appraisal Regulations of the Federal Banking Agency, 1992 Real Estate Law for Appraisals, 1992 Appraising Apartments, 1993 Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, 1994 Appraiser's Legal Liabilities, 1994 Understanding Limited Appraisals, 1994 Analysis Operating Expenses, 1995 Future of Appraisals, 1996 Highest and Best Use Applications, 1996 Standards of Professional Practice, Parts A & B, 1997 Litigation Skills for the Appraiser, 1997 Eminent Domain & Condemnation Appraising, 1998 Matched Pairs/Highest & Best Use/Revisiting Report Options, 1998 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions, 1998 Appraisal of Nonconforming Uses, 2000 How GIS Can Help Appraisers Keep Pace with Changes in R E Industry, 2001 Feasibility Analysis, Market Value and Investment Timing, 2002 Analyzing Commercial Lease Clauses, 2002 Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2002 Effective Appraisal Writing, 2003 Supporting Capitalization Rates, 2004 National USPAP Update, 2004 Rates and Ratios: Making Sense of GIMs, OARs, and DCFs, 2005 The Road Less Traveled: Special Purpose Properties, 2005 National USPAP Update, 2006 Appraisal Consulting: A Solutions Approach for Professionals, 2006 What Clients Would Like Their Appraisers to Know, 2007 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions, 2007 Business Practice and Ethics, 2007 Office Building Valuation: A Contemporary Perspective, 2008 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 111 25 Subdivision Valuation, 2008 National USPAP Update, 2009 Effective Appraisal Writing, 2009 Appraisal Curriculum Overview, 2009 Discounted Cash Flow Model: Concepts, Issues and Apps, 2010 National USPAP Update, 2010 Rates and Ratios: Making sense of GIMs, OARs and DCFs, 2011 National USPAP Update, 2012 Business Practices and Ethics, 2012 Marketability Studies: Advanced Considerations & Applications, 2013 Real Estate Valuation Conference, 2013 2014 Real Estate Valuation Conference, 2014 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course, 2014 2014 Real Estate Valuation Conference, 2014 Analyzing the Effects of Environmental, 2015 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course, 2016 Online Business Practices and Ethics, 2017 Commercial Real Estate Finance, 2017 Spring 2017 Real Estate Valuation, 2017 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course, 2018 The End of Experts: Mission Battleground and the Intelligent Layperson, 2018 Ignorance Isn’t Bliss: Understanding and Investigation by a State Appraiser Regulatory Board or Agency, 2018 Advanced Land Valuation: Sound Solutions to Perplexing Problems, 2019 Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, 2019 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course, 2020 2020 Real Estate Valuation Conference, 2020 Business Practices and Ethics, 2020 OTHER SEMINARS AND COURSES: Commercial Segregated Cost Seminar, Marshall & Swift, 1988 Appraisal Guide and Legal Principles, Department of Transportation, 1993 The Grammar Game, Career Track, 1994 Property Tax Listing and Assessing in NC, 2014 MEMBERSHIPS: Appraisal Institute, MAI #09090 Appraisal Institute, SRA/RM #2248 Durham Board of Realtors North Carolina Association of Realtors National Association of Realtors CERTIFICATION: State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser for North Carolina, #A281 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 112 26 OTHER: Durham Sheriff’s Community Advisory Board 2019 - Present Durham County Board of Equalization and Review, 2013 – Present, Current Chair Durham Citizens Police Review Board 2010- Present, Past Chair. Durham Public Schools Budget Advisory Committee, 2013 - 2018 NC Property Tax Commission, 2013 – 2017 City of Durham Audit Oversight Committee, 2002 – 2006 Durham Board of Adjustment, 1994 - 2002 Durham Planning Commission, 1990 – 1995 John Avery Boys and Girls Club, 1994-2002 Historical Preservation Society, 1992 - 1995 Vice President of the Candidates, 1989, NC Chapter 40 President of the Candidates, 1990, NC Chapter 40 Candidate of the Year, 1990, NC Chapter 40 RECENT CLIENTS: LENDING INSTITUTIONS American National Bank & Trust Company AMEX Financial BB&T Citizens National Bank CommunityOne Bank NA Fidelity Bank Live Oak Banking Company Mechanics & Farmers Bank PNC Bank RBC Bank Self-Help State Farm Bank SunTrust Bank Wells Fargo Bank MUNICIPALITIES AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES City of Durham Town of Chapel Hill Town of Hillsborough NC Department of Administration Durham County Orange County Durham Public Schools Durham Technical Community College Housing Authority of the City of Durham NCDOT Orange Water and Sewer Authority Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 113 27 Person County OTHER Allenton Management Builders of Hope BCG Properties Blanchard, Miller, Lewis & Styers Attorneys at Law Blue Cross & Blue Shield of NC Boulevard Proeprties Carolina Land Acquisitions CRC Health Corporation Development Ventures Inc. Duke Energy Durham Academy Durham Rescue Mission Durham Technical Community College Edward Jones Trust Company Farrington Road Baptist Church Forest History Society GBS Properties of Durham, LLC Hayden Stanziale Georgia Towers, LLC Hawthorne Retail Partners Integral Investors Title Insurance IUKA Development Joelepa Associates LP LCFCU Financial Partners McDonald's USA Mt. Gilead Baptist Church Northgate Realty, LLC Property Advisory Services, Inc. Research Triangle Foundation Sehed Development Corporation Simba Management Stirling Bridge Group, LLC Styers, Kemerait & Mitchell, PLLC Talbert & Bright Attorneys at Law Teer Associates Thalle Construction The Bogey Group TKTK Accountants Treyburn Corporate Park, LLC Trinity Properties UNC Hospitals Voyager Academy Wilhekan Associates Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 114 28 In addition, Mr. Smith has made appraisals for other lending institutions, municipalities, individuals, corporations, estates and attorneys. Appraisal assignments have been made throughout the Triangle, and North Carolina. Properties appraised include all types of multi-family residential, office, retail, commercial, industrial, churches, schools and other specialty type uses, vacant and improved, existing and proposed. Appraisal assignments were for a variety of purposes including: mortgage loans, estate planning, condemnation, bankruptcy, equitable distribution and impact analyzes. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 115 ADDENDA Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 116 DeLorme Street Atlas USA® 2013 Data use subject to license. © DeLorme. DeLorme Street Atlas USA® 2013. www.delorme.com TN MN (9.6°W) 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 mikm Scale 1 : 200,000 1" = 3.16 miData Zoom 10-0Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 117 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 3 - 8 - 1 1 8 Aerial New Hanover County, NC Addresses Major Roads Municipal Boundaries Real Property Owners Parcel Boundaries Dimensions ROW Dimensions Property 1/18/2021, 1:52:12 PM 0 0.03 0.060.01 mi 0 0.06 0.110.03 km 1:2,000 New Hanover County, NC NHC GIS ServicesPlanning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 119 ! "! #$% & " ’ () "* % % $ ! " " ’+ , - ’+ , - ! " # $ # % &’ ( ’) ’ # $ # % *! ( # $ # % ’# $ +’ ! ( ’, ! ( ’ )’ ! ’ , -- ( , . /) ’ *( ! - #, ! 0 ’ ’) ’ . ’+ , - ) ’! , ( 1 +- , / !2 ! ! ) ’ 3 ( ! ) ) ,, % !’ / ! !!/45 ! 2- - 4 46 ’76 ’ 56 +0 5 ! -5 ! 28 ! + ( 8 ! 0 5 6 ! !(!( + 0 / ! 6 !! ( , / ’ !9 " 2 8 ! 5* ’ ’ / ( 6 *- ( ,’ ’ 6 +( " 5 6 ! 5+ ! , 3 5 6 ! . *3! : ,! 6 ) ! ;+ , ! ’ ; , ( ) 0 & +0 , ! ) 7 +0 , ! , 2, ’ ) 7 2, ’ , 9) . ’ ! $ % 0< = 45 0 ( ! 2- - 4 5 0 ( ! * 7’ ’ 7’6) . ’ 45 ! 46 2- - 4 8 *( ! ’’ ! 9! +0 , ! 76 ) 7 7 +0 , ) 2,’):+,! 2 $$5 ;4 $ !" # $ % ! & ’ $ !1 " 2 34 $ 5 ! %6 7/ " 5 8 5 ! 9 ": ; 4 <4 8 "4 * )+ , ( ) ! ( ’ ’+ , - ) (( + . ! , , )! +, ! 29 ! ’ ’, ! (( 28 , 9 ! + 8 ’ >% > > ? > > $ ? > > $ ? > > $ > $ > ;= * 47 7 :6 :6 6 ’+ , - -! , 3 +, ! ’ / )* & ! Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 3 - 8 - 1 2 0 6! . 0) ’ 6’ 0 ! !! 6! ! ’+ , - )* & . ) 9% < > , 9 > " ? ( 9 ? $ + / / !" " % < ( % . , 9 9 @ . , 9 9 < + . > & ’ ( ) * > ) !" " % < ( % . , 9 9 @ . , 9 9 < . ) ? ) !" ( % . , 9 9 9 % , , )- ! - ! " - ’ ) - * & - A + > - "& , ’ % * ’ :0 ! 5 06 ( 5 6 ! !( !! ( , 0! ’ ! * + , ! ’ # 7 * 6 ’ 0 ! ( 5 (! ( ’ ’!+, ! ’ (0 ’’ 0 ’’ : 0 !- ! 0 7, ’ 6 ) ! ’/ 9+ , ! ’ +, ! ’ !’ / ( ! + , ! ’ ’ ! 0 , ! + , ! ’ :0 ! ! (, # (" ’ >)..>>)+.)) +> + ) , +’ ) ) +. > ’ > +. > ’ +. . ++. ’ . ,. ) >’ + > BC 4 BC 4 BC 4 BC 4 BC 4 BC 4 BC 4 ( ! ’ / ! 8! %%%.%."" 9% D 9 >9 ? 9 ) 9( < 9 ) +9 ? B 9 99 ) ’9 ! 9 + ’’! :( , / ) 9/ ) // +, ! ’ 7’ ’ / />/> / ??? ’ EE E E EE E E EE E E EE E E ()()()() +, ! ’ / (+ , ! ’ / , ’0 6 +, ! ’ Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 3 - 8 - 1 2 1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 122 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 123 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 124 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 125 COVER SHEET T1 NE W H A N O V E R C O U N T Y P L A N N I N G A N D L A N D U S E PE R M I T I N F O R M A T I O N PH O N E : AT T N . : 23 0 G O V E R N M E N T C E N T E R D R I V E WIL M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 0 3 (9 1 0 ) 7 9 8 - 7 1 6 5 KE N V A F I E R DR I V I N G D I R E C T I O N S VI C I N I T Y M A P CO N S U L T A N T NU M B E R O F C A R R I E R S : US E : TO W E R T Y P E : TO W E R H E I G H T : MU N I C I P A L I T Y : ST A T E : PR O J E C T S U M M A R Y NE W H A N O V E R C O U N T Y NO R T H C A R O L I N A MO N O P O L E T O W E R 15 0 ' ( 1 5 5 ' T O H I G H E S T A P P U R T E N A N C E ) 3 P R O P O S E D , 1 F U T U R E PR O P O S E D T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N S T O W E R AN D U N M A N N E D E Q U I P M E N T SITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 PR O P E R T Y O W N E R CO N T A C T S PH O N E : AT T N . : CO R N E L I A N I X O N D A V I S I N C 10 1 1 P O R T E R S N E C K R D WIL M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 1 1 (9 1 0 ) 6 8 6 - 7 1 9 5 CH A R L E S L O N G PO W E R C O M P A N Y PH O N E : AT T N . : C U S T O M E R S E R V I C E DU K E E N E R G Y (8 0 0 ) 4 5 2 - 2 7 7 7 DE V E L O P E R TO W E R C O 50 0 0 V A L L E Y S T O N E D R # 2 0 0 CA R Y , N C 2 7 5 1 9 AT T N : D W A Y N E L Y E R L Y FL O O D I N F O SIT E I S L O C A T E D W I T H I N F E M A F L O O D M A P AR E A 3 7 2 0 3 1 7 9 0 0 K D A T E D 0 8 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 8 W I T H I N FL O O D Z O N E X . SH E E T N O . S H E E T T I T L E T1 CO V E R S H E E T -- SIT E S U R V E Y ( S H E E T 1 O F 2 ) -- SIT E S U R V E Y ( S H E E T 2 O F 2 ) T2 AP P E N D I X N1 GE N E R A L N O T E S C1 O V E R A L L P A R C E L P L A N C1 . 1 O V E R A L L S I T E P L A N C2 S I T E P L A N C3 FE N C E , G A T E , A N D C O M P O U N D D E T A I L S C4 S I T E S I G N A G E D E T A I L S C5 A N T E N N A A N D T O W E R E L E V A T I O N D E T A I L S L1 L A N D S C A P I N G P L A N SH E E T I N D E X NE W H A N O V E R C O U N T Y S H E R I F F PH O N E : AT T N . : 31 6 P R I N C E S S S T WIL M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 1 1 (9 1 0 ) 7 9 8 - 4 2 0 0 CU S T O M E R S E R V I C E NE W H A N O V E R C O U N T Y F I R E R E S C U E S T A T I O N 1 4 PH O N E : AT T N . : 83 1 0 S H I R A Z W A Y WIL M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 1 1 (9 1 0 ) 7 9 8 - 7 4 2 0 CU S T O M E R S E R V I C E FR O M N O R T H C A R O L I N A O F F I C E : H E A D S O U T H T O W A R D NC - 1 6 1 3 / D A V I S D R 1 4 4 F T ; T U R N L E F T O N T O B O U L D E R S T O N E W A Y 2 3 6 FT ; T U R N R I G H T O N T O N C - 1 6 1 3 / D A V I S D R 0 . 7 M I ; T U R N L E F T O N T O WA L D O R O O D B L V D 0 . 7 M I ; T U R N R I G H T O N T O S W C A R Y P K W Y 5 . 2 M I ; US E T H E R I G H T L A N E T O M E R G E O N T O U S - 1 N / U S - 6 4 E V I A T H E R A M P TO R A L E I G H 0 . 2 M I ; M E R G E O N T O U S - 1 N / U S - 6 4 E 2 . 1 M I ; U S E T H E R I G H T 2 L A N E S T O T A K E E X I T 1 A T O M E R G E O N T O I - 4 0 E T O W A R D U S - 6 4 E/B E N S O N / R O C K Y M T 8 . 4 M I ; K E E P R I G H T A T T H E F O R K T O S T A Y O N I-4 0 E , F O L L O W S I G N S F O R B E N S O N / W I L M I N G T O N 1 1 5 M I ; T A K E E X I T 41 6 A - 4 1 6 B T O W A R D T O P S A I L I S L A N D / N E W B E R N 0 . 9 M I ; M E R G E O N T O I-1 4 0 E 0 4 M I ; C O N T I N U E O N T O N C - 1 4 0 4 . 9 M I ; C O N T I N U E O N T O U S - 1 7 N/M A R K E T S T 0 . 4 M I ; T U R N R I G H T O N T O F U T C H C R E E K R D / M A R K E T S T 1.3 M I ; C O N T I N U E O N T O C H A M P D A V I S R D , D E S T I N A T I O N W I L L B E O N TH E L E F T 0 . 4 M I . WI L M I N G T O N W T R E L O SI T E A D D R E S S ( E - 9 1 1 T B D ) 71 9 C H A M P D A V I S R D WI L M I N G T O N , N C 2 8 4 1 1 NE W H A N O V E R C O U N T Y L A T I T U D E : 3 4 ° 1 7 ' 3 0 . 9 7 " N LO N G I T U D E : 7 7 ° 4 6 ' 0 8 . 7 3 " W TA X / P I N # : R 0 3 7 0 0 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 1 ZO N I N G : R - 2 0 TO W E R C O S I T E I D : N C 0 2 8 1 SI T E KI M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 42 1 F A Y E T T E V I L L E S T , S U I T E 6 0 0 RA L E I G H , N C 2 7 6 0 1 PH O N E : ( 9 1 9 ) 6 5 3 - 2 9 4 2 AT T N . : A V E R Y F A N N PA R E N T P A R C E L : R0 3 7 0 0 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 1 ZO N I N G : R- 2 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 3 - 8 - 1 2 6 SU R V E Y N O T E : NO R T H SC A L E : 1 " = 4 5 0 ' OV E R A L L P A R C E L P L A N 1 C1 OVERALL PARCEL PLAN C1SITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 3 - 8 - 1 2 7 NO R T H SC A L E : 1 " = 8 0 ' OV E R A L L S I T E P L A N 1 C1 . 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN C1.1 SU R V E Y N O T E : SITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 3 - 8 - 1 2 8 SC A L E : 1 " = 2 0 ' SI T E P L A N 1 C2 SITE PLAN C2 SIT E N O T E S : SITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 3 - 8 - 1 2 9 FE N C E N O T E S : FENCE, GATE, AND COMPOUND DETAILS C3 NO T T O S C A L E CH A I N L I N K F E N C E A N D G A T E E L E V A T I O N 1 C3 NO T T O S C A L E MU S H R O O M S T O P 2 C3 NO T T O S C A L E SI T E C O M P O U N D S U R F A C E D E T A I L 3 C3 NO T T O S C A L E SE C T I O N A T F E N C E 4 C3 SITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 3 - 8 - 1 3 0 FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY-NO SIGNATURE REQUIRED ANTENNA AND TOWER ELEVATION DETAILS C5 NO T T O S C A L E MO N O P O L E T O W E R E L E V A T I O N 1 C5 NO T T O S C A L E AN T E N N A A N D E Q U I P M E N T S C H E D U L E 2 C5 NO T T O S C A L E AN T E N N A O R I E N T A T I O N P L A N 3 C5 SITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 NO T E S : Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 2 1 IT E M : 3 - 8 - 1 3 1 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Street Scene along Porter’s Neck Road (Property on Left) Street Scene along Champ Davis Road (Property on Right) Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 132 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Approximate View of Tower Site from Porter’s Neck Road Street Scene along Jeanelle Moore Road (Property on Right) Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 133 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Street Scene along Champ Davis Road (Property on Left) Clearing and Grading Underway on the North Side of Property Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 134 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Entrance into Senior Facility Across Champ Davis Road Entrance to Subdivision Across Porter’s Neck Road Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 135 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Wooded Property to the east of Subject Entrance into Community to the East from Jeanette Moore Road Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 136 PHOTOGRAPHS OF ADJOINING AND NEARBY PROPERTY Entrance into Senior Facility Across Champ Davis Road Entrance to Subdivision Across Porter’s Neck Road Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 137 PHOTOGRAPHS OF ADJOINING AND NEARBY PROPERTY Wooded Property to the east of Subject Entrance into Community to the East from Jeanette Moore Road Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 138 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 139 Tower Detail (Not Registered) - Tower (8) •Ownership Info Owner Company: AMERICAN TOWERS, INC. Contact: Not Recorded Phone: Not Recorded Email: Not Recorded Address:Not Recorded •Structure Characteristics Filing #: 2012-ASO-7284-OE Latitude: 34.117Longitude: -77.889 Structure Type: Tall Structure Status: Unknown Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Ground Elev: 19.0 feet Height Of Structure: 147.0 feetOverall Height: 166.0 feet Structure Address:Not Recorded © 2004-2009 by General Data Resources, Inc. For development purposes onlyFor development purposes only For development purposes only For development purposes only For development purposes only For development purposes only Map data ©2018 Google  Imagery ©2018 , DigitalGlobe, New Hanover County, NC, U.S. Geological SurveyReport a map error Page 1 of 1AntennaSearch -Search for Cell Towers, Cell Reception, Hidden Antennas and more. 11/6/2018http://www.antennasearch.com/sitestart.asp?sourcepagename=antennachecktowerreview&... Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 140 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Deer Crossing Dwellings with Tower Through Woods Deer Crossing Dwellings with Tower Through Woods Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 141 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Deer Crossing Dwellings with Tower Through Woods Deer Crossing Properties Adjacent to Cell Tower Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 142 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Cell Tower as seen from Fawn Settle Drive View of Tower Across Backyard Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 143 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Tower Across Backyard Cell Tower as seen from Fawn Settle Drive Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 144 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Cell Tower as seen from Fawn Settle Drive View of Tower Across Backyard Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 145 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Tower Across Backyard View of Tower Across Backyard Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 146 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Tower Across Backyard Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 3 - 8 - 147 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/1/2021 Regular DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Marty Lile, Long Range Planner CONTACT(S): Marty Lile; Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing Text Amendment Request (TA21-01) - Request by New Hanover County to amend Ar6cles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Unified Development Ordinance for compliance with recent state law and to perform ongoing maintenance to refine and clarify assorted ordinance provisions BRIEF SUMMARY: This amendment brings the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) into compliance with a recent change in state law and performs maintenance to various exis'ng provisions. A new state law, Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes, was finalized a2er the scoping for the UDO Project was completed and will be effec've on July 1, 2021. Since the UDO will need to reflect the new law by that 'me, the amendment provides an opportunity for Staff to incorporate a few technical fixes into the amendment to clarify various code provisions that have been iden'fied over the past several months. This request consists of two primary categories: a state law update and technical maintenance to exis'ng regula'ons. State Law Update 1. Removal of Condi'onal Use District (CUD) zoning and automa'c conversion of exis'ng CUD districts to Condi'onal Zoning (CZD) districts 2. Establishment of a preliminary forum for the Planning Board’s review of special use permits as the law clarifies the Planning Board’s role does not include a quasi-judicial hearing 3. Update to require the applicant’s wrien consent of all condi'ons of approval 4. Clarifica'on of who has authority to apply for straight rezonings or text amendments that reduce the allowable uses or density of property 5. Clarifica'on of exis'ng policy regarding permit choice and vested rights, and align Tree Removal Permit with minimum ves'ng period established by law 6. Assignment of subdivision variances to the Board of Adjustment and clarifica'on of vo'ng requirements for Reasonable Accommoda'ons 7. Minor amendments which include: a. Addi'ons or modifica'ons to defini'ons and terms to align with state law b. Updated references to exis'ng statutes that have been relocated c. Incorpora'on of state and federal maps by reference to the most recent officially adopted versions d. Clarifica'on that Staff cannot change the use or density of approved condi'onal rezonings, master planned developments, or special use permits e. Update to require the revoca'on of approvals to follow the same review and decision process that is required for the original approvals Ongoing Maintenance 1. Modifica'on to allow architectural metal paneling on self-storage facili'es in high-visibility areas 2. Moderniza'on of acceptable green building cer'fica'on programs in the Excep'onal Design (EDZD) Planned Development District and the designa'on of the EDZD district as a legacy district 3. Clarifica'on that mul'-family site design standards apply in mul'-family districts Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 4. Refinement of sizes for required landscape plan'ngs to improve viability, allow for a greater range of species, and coordinate with tree mi'ga'on standards 5. Update to defini'ons to align them with recent state law and text amendments or for clarifica'on based on Staff’s past interpreta'ons 6. Modifica'on of flood ordinance provisions to beer align with Na'onal Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements for nonstructural fill 7. Correc'on of a transfer error regarding the minimum lot area for duplexes in the R-20 district 8. Alignment of the uses iden'fied in the separa'on requirements for Adult Entertainment Establishments with the use terms listed in the Principal Use Table STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Intelligent Growth & Economic DevelopmentEncourage development of complete communi'es in the unincorporated countyCi'zens have daily needs met by NHC businesses and support them RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: I move to APPROVE the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance that updates the ordinance for compliance with North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 160D and performs technical fixes to various iden'fied provisions throughout the code. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it aligns the County’s land use and development standards and procedures with recent changes in state law and advances the County’s efforts to ensure the tools in the code con'nue to work as they are intended. I also find APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it brings the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance into compliance with state law and allows for clear and consistent administra'on of the code. ATTACHMENTS: Descrip'on TA21-01 Script TA21-01 Staff Report Public Comments and Staff Responses State Law Update Summary State Law Update Draft Amendment Ongoing Maintenance Summary Ongoing Maintenance Draft Amendment COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 SCRIPT for Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment (TA21-01) Request by New Hanover County to amend Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Unified Development Ordinance for compliance with recent state law and to perform ongoing maintenance to refine and clarify assorted ordinance provisions This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then any supporters and any opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentations and an additional 5 minutes for rebuttal. 1. Conduct Hearing, as follows: a. Staff/Applicant presentation b. Supporters’ presentation(s) (up to 15 minutes) c. Opponents’ presentation(s) (up to 15 minutes) d. Applicant’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) e. Opponents’ rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) 2. Close the public hearing 3. Board discussion 4. Vote on amendment. 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 amendment request is reasonable and in the public interest. Example Motion of Approval: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment and suggests the following motion: I move to APPROVE the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance that updates the ordinance for compliance with North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 160D and performs technical fixes to various identified provisions throughout the code. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it aligns the County’s land use and development standards and procedures with recent changes in state law and advances the County’s efforts to ensure the tools in the code continue to work as they are intended. I also find APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it brings the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance into compliance with state law and allows for clear and consistent administration of the code. Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial: I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance that updates the ordinance for compliance with North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 160D and performs technical fixes to various identified provisions throughout the code. I find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because [insert reasons] __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ I also find [Approval/Denial] of the proposed amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because [insert reasons] __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 1 - 1 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 1 of 12 STAFF REPORT FOR TA21-01 TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: TA21-01 Request: To amend Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Unified Development Ordinance for compliance with recent state law and to perform ongoing maintenance to refine and clarify assorted ordinance provisions. Applicant: Subject Ordinances: New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance Purpose & Intent: This amendment brings the Unified Development Ordinance into compliance with a recent change in state law and performs maintenance to various existing provisions. It consists of two components: State Law Update 1. Removal of Conditional Use District (CUD) zoning and automatic conversion of existing CUD districts to Conditional Zoning (CZD) districts 2. Establishment of a preliminary forum for the Planning Board’s review of special use permits as the law clarifies the Planning Board’s role does not include a quasi-judicial hearing 3. Update to require the applicant’s written consent of all conditions of approval 4. Clarification of who has authority to apply for straight rezonings or text amendments that reduce the allowable uses or density of property 5. Clarification of existing policy regarding permit choice and vested rights, and align Tree Removal Permit with minimum vesting period established by law 6. Assignment of subdivision variances to the Board of Adjustment and clarification of voting requirements for Reasonable Accommodations 7. Minor amendments which include: a. Additions or modifications to definitions and terms to align with state law b. Updated references to existing statutes that have been relocated c. Incorporation of state and federal maps by reference to the most recent officially adopted versions d. Clarification that Staff cannot change the use or density of approved conditional rezonings, master planned developments, or special use permits e. Update to require the revocation of approvals to follow the same review and decision process that is required for the original approvals Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 1 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 2 of 12 Ongoing Maintenance 1. Modification to allow architectural metal paneling on self-storage facilities in high-visibility areas 2. Modernization of acceptable green building certification programs in the Exceptional Design (EDZD) Planned Development District and the designation of the EDZD district as a legacy district 3. Clarification that multi-family site design standards apply in multi-family districts 4. Refinement of sizes for required landscape plantings to improve viability, allow for a greater range of species, and coordinate with tree mitigation standards 5. Update to definitions to align them with recent state law and text amendments or for clarification based on Staff’s past interpretations 6. Modification of flood ordinance provisions to better align with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements for nonstructural fill 7. Correction of a transfer error regarding the minimum lot area for duplexes in the R-20 district 8. Alignment of the uses identified in the separation requirements for Adult Entertainment Establishments with the use terms listed in the Principal Use Table BACKGROUND In 2019, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation that created Chapter 160D of the General Statutes, the state’s new law regulating local planning and land use. While Staff was involved in the scoping of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Project, a revision to the statute was being considered that would affect the timeline and some of the contents of the law. Due to the uncertainty of the contents of the revision at that time, the law was not incorporated into the UDO Project. The revision was passed by the General Assembly last year and, along with other minor changes, extended the law’s effective date to July 1, 2021. The ordinance will need to be updated to reflect the new statute by that time. Chapter 160D primarily serves to consolidate and organize all of the state’s statutes related to local planning and development. It places municipal and county land use regulation authority into a single chapter. The law also dedicates a section for particular uses and areas that were previously scattered throughout various parts of the statutes, including specified legislation regarding topics like adult businesses, solar collectors, and wireless telecommunication facilities. Chapter 160D also organizes rules for development regulation into a logical and coherent framework, dividing its contents into articles similar to a unified development ordinance. For the most part, Chapter 160D does not involve any major changes to the way cities and counties currently regulate development. New Hanover County in particular is already in line with most of the consensus reforms that were introduced. There are, however, a few amendments that are required in order for our current ordinance to be in full compliance. Bringing our code into compliance with the law also provides Staff an opportunity to incorporate a few technical fixes into the amendment to clarify various code provisions that have been identified over the past several months. As mentioned during the UDO Project process, this type of maintenance amendment will be part of Staff’s ongoing efforts to ensure that the tools in the ordinance continue to work the way they are intended. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 2 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 3 of 12 This request consists of two primary categories: a state law update and technical maintenance to existing regulations. 1. STATE LAW UPDATE (N.C.G.S. CHAPTER 160D) 1. Removal of Conditional Use District (CUD) Zoning The Unified Development Ordinance, as allowed under current state law, provides for Conditional Use District (CUD) zoning, a two-part rezoning process where a unique district is created based on a site-specific plan and uses are only allowed if approved as special use permits. Chapter 160D removes this two-part process from the statutes and replaces it with the one-step conditional zoning, which is already incorporated in the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance as the Conditional Zoning (CZ) District. While the Conditional Zoning District still allows for the creation of a unique district based on a site- specific plan, it does not require a special use permit for uses normally permitted by right. However, uses that require a special use permit in the base zoning district would still be required to obtain a special use permit in conditional districts. Once this amendment is adopted, all current conditional use (CUD) districts will become conditional zoning (CZ) districts automatically. 2. Planning Board to Serve as Preliminary Forum for Special Use Permits Over the past several years, North Carolina courts have issued numerous rulings on quasi- judicial decisions, leading to more emphasis being placed on the judicial aspects of the process. As a result, public involvement in special use permits has been reduced to only those with standing in a case or witnesses who may only provide relevant evidence. This amendment incorporates a change in state law that clarifies how planning boards can be involved in the quasi-judicial special use permit process. The change in law addresses what was previously an area of ambiguity by clarifying that planning boards may meet prior to the decision-making body’s quasi-judicial hearing but that the meeting should not be quasi-judicial in nature. Chapter 160D states that a planning board may hold a preliminary forum, a public meeting where the planning board would review an application for a special use permit, provide an opportunity for public comment, and offer advisory feedback to the applicant, Staff, and public. The law adds that because quasi-judicial decisions must still be based on findings of fact and sworn testimony provided during the hearing, no part of the preliminary forum or recommendation may be used as the basis for the decision-making body’s decision. In order to come into compliance with the change in law, this amendment incorporates the preliminary forum into the County’s existing special use permit process. The New Hanover County Planning Board would function much the same way it does now, just not in a quasi- judicial capacity. Special use permit cases would continue to be placed on the Board’s regular agenda and current requirements for review periods and advertising would all be the same. The key difference is that at the end of the discussion on a special use permit agenda item, the Board would not vote or provide a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Having the Planning Board transition to a preliminary forum is a policy-neutral approach to addressing the change in law. It provides an opportunity for the public to remain included in special use permits and gives applicants an opportunity to ensure the best possible project is put forward to the Commissioners. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 3 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 4 of 12 3. Applicant Written Consent to Conditions The new law expands upon the County’s current practice of having applicants agree to conditions of approval in conditional rezoning cases by requiring the applicant’s written consent to all conditions. Staff has applied this requirement to all Board approvals, including special use permits and master planned developments, based on guidance from the University of North Carolina’s School of Government that conditions not agreed to in writing may be difficult to enforce. Conditions of approval that have been included in the Staff Report are generally coordinated between Staff, the Planning Board, and the applicant team. These conditions would have the applicant’s consent in writing prior to the Board of Commissioners hearing, and if the conditions are adopted without changes, the approval would be effective immediately. There are cases, however, where conditions of approval are added or modified during the Board of Commissioners hearing. To address these situations, this amendment introduces language that would delay the effective date of an approval until Staff is in receipt of written consent to all conditions that were mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the decision-making body at the hearing. 4. Authority to Submit Applications The amendment modifies the ordinance to clarify that third-party down-zoning is prohibited. State law defines a third-party down-zoning as any map or text amendment submitted by anyone other than the County or owner of a property that would either (1) reduce the number of allowable uses on the property or (2) reduce the allowable density of a property. 5. Permit Choice & Vested Rights Rules for permit choice and vested rights are included in the amendment, which guarantee an applicant certain rights that projects meeting specified criteria are allowed to continue to move forward if development regulations change during permitting or construction. Permit Choice: Chapter 160D clarifies that if a code provision changes between the time an application is submitted (and deemed complete) and the time the application is approved, then the applicant may choose to apply the old regulation or the new regulation. The law also states that the regulation chosen for the initial permit may apply to all subsequent permits associated with the project for a period of 18 months. Figure 1: Permit Choice Application Review Period Applicant submits complete application UDO text amendment approved that changes development regulations Prior to application approval, applicant may apply new or old regulation The regulation applied to the original permit may be applied to all permits within 18 months of original permit approval Permit Approval Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 4 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 5 of 12 Vested Rights: Similar to permit choice, vested rights law states that after a project is approved it is vested, or grandfathered, for a specified period of time. The County’s current provisions vest almost every type of approval for two years, which is in compliance with Chapter 160D. The amendment extends the vesting period for Tree Removal Permits from six months to one year, which is the minimum vesting period established by the new law. While a two-year vesting period for Tree Removal Permits would be consistent with all other approvals, the minimum one-year period is proposed since tree protections are based on the size of trees at permitting. The law also clarifies that once a project has substantially commenced, it may continue past its initial vesting period. The statutes provide flexibility on what constitutes a substantially commenced project. This amendment attempts to provide Staff with a clear way to determine that a project is moving forward and that a developer is proceeding in good faith, while recognizing that each project is unique and that external factors can affect construction timelines. This amendment proposes four criteria based on a combination of guidance from the School of Government and research into other development ordinances across the state. These criteria include: 1. A developer has received and maintained an erosion control permit and has begun grading; or, 2. A developer has installed on-site infrastructure; or, 3. A developer has received a building permit for a building foundation; or 4. A developer has completed 10% or more of the total cost of design and construction related activities. If a project meets any one of these four criteria, it would be considered to have substantially commenced, and the project would be allowed to continue past its initial vesting period. 6. Board of Adjustment Two amendments to the Board of Adjustment are included in order to provide for a clear and consistent process for variances and reasonable accommodations. First, it makes the County’s process for variances more consistent by designating the Board of Adjustment as the decision-making body for subdivision variances. Currently, the Planning Board hears and decides variances to subdivision regulations and the Board of Adjustment hears and decides variances to zoning regulations. Having the Board of Adjustment hear all requests for variances would provide a more logical structure for applicants seeking relief from ordinance requirements. The amendment also clarifies the County’s current practice of requiring a 4/5 majority vote for reasonable accommodation approvals. 7. Minor Amendments The items mentioned above constitute the six significant changes included in the amendment, however, the majority of the amendment involves minor fixes. These include: a. Updates to definitions to align the ordinance with state law, and ensuring terminology is used consistently throughout the ordinance b. Replacement of references to old statutes that have been consolidated into Chapter 160D Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 5 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 6 of 12 c. Incorporation of state and federal maps by reference to the most recent officially adopted versions, alleviating the need for subsequent board approvals when those maps are amended d. Clarification of current processes that comply with the law but are not integrated into the code. For instance, the amendment clarifies that administrative approvals cannot be made for changes in the use or density of a Board-approved project. e. Updates to enforcement procedures to require the same review and decision process for the revocation of permits or approvals that is required for the original issuance of the permit or approval. Additional State Law Changes Not Requiring a Text Amendment While the driving component of the amendment is an update to the text of the Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 160D also includes changes that are not required to be included in the code but will affect County policies and procedures moving forward. Conflict of interest standards have been broadened and are now applicable to County Staff as well as Board members. Chapter 160D states that if any Board or Staff member has (1) a direct, readily-identifiable financial interest in a project or (2) a close family, business, or associational relationship with anyone associated with a project, that Board or Staff member would be considered to have a conflict of interest with an application and their ability to consider the project would be limited or not allowed. The law clarifies provisions for Board meetings and members by requiring each board perform oaths of office for its members and keep minutes of its proceedings. Updates to rules of procedure documents will be required to reflect the new conflict of interest criteria mentioned above, and all adopted rules of procedure must be posted to the County website. Other administrative documents will need to reflect the new statute, including administrative and technical manuals, application forms, and mailouts. Chapter 160D also states that a court shall award attorneys’ fees if the court finds that a city or county violated a statute or case law setting forth unambiguous limits on its authority, or that it violated or took action inconsistent with the permit choice law described above. It also mentions that attorneys’ fees may be awarded in other matters of local government litigation but fails to give specific examples of such matters. 2. ONGOING MAINTENANCE 1. Self-Storage Facility Design Standards Last Fall, new design standards for self-storage facilities in high-visibility areas were implemented as part of the UDO Project targeted amendments, including a limitation on bright colors and metal buildings where visible in the General Business (B-2) district, along major roadway corridors, and adjacent to residential developments. After these changes went into effect, Staff received feedback from stakeholders that architectural metal paneling is commonly used as a primary material on the types of self-storage facilities the amendment was intended to encourage. Over the past few weeks, Staff has worked with stakeholders to identify the types of metal panels that the County finds acceptable, and has narrowed the applicability of allowing metal on facades in this request to architectural Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 6 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 7 of 12 concealed fastener metal panels or a mix of paneling types with non-concealed fastener panels making up no more than 50% of the metal paneling used. 2. Exceptional Design (EDZD) Planned Development District Green Building Standards & Legacy District Designation The intent of this amendment is to update an outdated provision for green building certifications in the Exceptional Design (EDZD) Planned Development District. It also designates the EDZD as a legacy district, where no property can be rezoned to an EDZD district, but any property currently zoned EDZD remains as part of the Official Zoning Map and is still regulated by the standards of the ordinance. Established in 2009, the EDZD district was created at a time when the County had few to no options for mixed-use, high-density residential projects. Now that the County has adopted additional districts to better serve the needs of these types of development, Staff does not anticipate developers pursuing a new EDZD rezoning. The amendment intends to avoid creating any nonconforming situations and would retain existing district requirements, which may be useful to incorporate into future provisions. As a legacy district, the EDZD would still apply in the areas it currently exists, but no one could apply for new EDZD zoning. Current provisions require EDZD projects to comply with two sets of standards: Core Requirements and Additional Requirements. To meet Core Requirements, a development is required to implement at least one standard from a list of options for each of the five core categories. Additional Requirements are based on a points system, where a project needs to obtain at least 12 out of 28 possible points in order for a rezoning to be considered. One of the Additional Requirement categories requires at least one building to be constructed or retrofitted and certified through Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Green Building Standards, North Carolina Healthy Built Homes, or Green Globes. Since the EDZD district was first established in 2009, these certification programs have experienced change. LEED and NAHB Green Building Standards have remained, but based on stakeholder feedback, North Carolina Healthy Built Homes no longer exists and Green Globes does not provide service to the Cape Fear region. The proposed amendment updates these certification programs to include Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET), WELL, and any other third-party verified Home Energy Rating Program. The amendment would retain existing programs such as LEED and allow other similar certification programs to fulfill this requirement. 3. Clarification of Multi-Family Dwelling Site Design Standards in Multi-Family Districts The newly-adopted RMF districts are intended the be the County’s primary multi-family residential districts, allowing residential uses like apartments at higher and more appropriate densities than the low- to moderate-density districts, which are tailored more for single-family subdivisions. This amendment clarifies Staff’s interpretations that multi- family dwellings in the new RMF districts are subject to the same site design standards as multi-family dwellings in the older districts and that the open space set-aside standards, adopted as part of the UDO Project targeted amendments, apply to multi-family developments at the same 20% rate as Performance Residential Developments. The amendment also applies sidewalk standards to the RMF districts, requiring sidewalks on Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 7 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 8 of 12 both sides of local streets and on at least one side of all drive aisles adjacent to parking areas. 4. Minimum Sizes & Types of Measurement of Required Landscape Plantings Planning Staff has been working with County Parks and Gardens Staff over the past several weeks to revise the County’s Tree and Plant Materials for Landscaping Manual. During this collaboration, Parks Staff provided feedback on the ordinance’s size requirements for plant materials. According to Parks Staff, the code’s current minimum size of 2.5” caliper at the time of planting may inadvertently limit the available species of trees and impose a burdensome cost on developers. Reducing the size of plantings to 2” caliper would not only address these two concerns but also improve viability of the trees. The proposed 2” caliper planting size is also in line with the approved changes for tree mitigation that were included in the UDO Project targeted amendments last year, and is consistent with the City of Wilmington’s minimum size. Parks Staff also noted that the ordinance’s method of measuring the size of understory trees, like Redbuds and Sourwoods, is inconsistent with the industry standard. Currently, the ordinance measures all trees in caliper inches, however understory trees are typically measured in feet in height. Parks Staff has suggested between 6 and 8 feet for the minimum size at time of planting, and Planning Staff is proposing 8’ to align with the City of Wilmington’s standards. 5. Updates and Clarifications to Various Definitions The amendment includes changes to clarify definitions based on past interpretations or align definitions with state law and recent ordinance changes.  The following definitions have been modified based on past interpretations: Adult Entertainment Establishment, Hospital, Motor Vehicle, Understory Tree, and Vehicle Sales.  The following definitions have been added or modified to align with recent state law or ordinance amendments: Canopy Tree, Specimen Tree, and Temporary Family Healthcare Structure. 6. Flood Ordinance Flood ordinance limitations on nonstructural fill in Zone A flood zones have been modified to better align with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. 7. Duplex Lot Size in R-20 The current ordinance includes a transfer error from the old Zoning Ordinance involving the minimum lot area for duplexes in the R-20 district, which was mistakenly decreased from 35,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. The amendment fixes this error and requires the original 35,000 square foot minimum lot size. 8. Adult Entertainment Establishment Uses The uses identified in the separation requirements for Adult Entertainment Establishments have been updated to align with the use terms listed in the Principal Use Table. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 8 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 9 of 12 PROPOSED AMENDMENT The proposed text amendment and supplemental summary sheets are attached, with red italics indicating new language and strikethrough indicating provisions that are removed. Any changes to the summary sheets and drafts made in response to public review comments are shown in either blue strikethrough or blue italics. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggests the following motion: I move to APPROVE the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance that updates the ordinance for compliance with North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 160D and performs technical fixes to various identified provisions throughout the code. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it aligns the County’s land use and development standards and procedures with recent changes in state law and advances the County’s efforts to ensure the tools in the code continue to work as they are intended. I also find APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it brings the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance into compliance with state law and allows for clear and consistent administration of the code. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 9 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 10 of 12 Subject Articles and Sections Article 1: General Provisions  Section 1.2: Authority o Section 1.2.1, General Authority  Section 1.4: Applicability and Jurisdiction o Section 1.4.2, Exemptions  Section 1.7: Transitional Provisions o Section 1.7.2, Construction in Progress o Section 1.7.3, Approvals Granted Before Effective Date o Section 1.7.4, Applications in Progress Before Effective Date o Section 1.7.7, Permit Choice Article 2: Measurements and Definitions  Section 2.3: Definitions and Terms Article 3: Zoning Districts  Section 3: General o Section 3.1.3, Superseding Dimensional Standards  Section 3.2: Residential Zoning Districts o Section 3.2.1, Intent o Section 3.2.7, Residential 20 (R-20) District  Section 3.3: Mixed Use Zoning Districts o Section 3.3.6, Exceptional Design (EDZD) Planned Development District o Section 3.3.7, Planned Development (PD) District  Section 3.4: Commercial and Industrial Districts o Section 3.4.5, Regional Business (B-2) District o Section 3.4.6, Office and Institutional (O&I) District o Section 3.4.10, Light Industrial (I-1) District  Section 3.5: Overlay and Special Purpose Districts o Section 3.5.2, Established Overlay and Special Purpose Zoning Districts o Section 3.5.4, Water Supply Watershed Overlay (WSW) District o Section 3.5.5, Conditional Zoning (CZ) District o Section 3.5.6, Conditional Use Zoning (CUD) District Article 4: Uses and Use-Specific Standards  Section 4.3: Standards for Specified Principal Uses o Section 4.3.2, Residential Uses o Section 4.3.3, Civic & Institutional Uses o Section 4.3.4, Commercial Uses  Section 4.4: Accessory Use and Structure Standards o Section 4.4.4, Standards for Specified Accessory Uses and Structures  Section 4.5: Temporary Use Standards o Section 4.5.2, General Standards for Temporary Uses o Section 4.5.4, Standards for Specified Temporary Uses Article 5: General Development Standards  Section 5.1: Parking and Loading o Section 5.1.3, Alternative Parking Plans Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 10 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 11 of 12  Section 5.7: Conservation Resources o Section 5.7.2, Applicability  Section 5.8: Open Space Requirements o Section 5.8.5, Design Standards o Section 5.8.6, Ownership, Management, And Maintenance o Section 5.8.7, Payments In-Lieu of Dedication  Section 5.10: Airport Height Restriction o Section 5.10.3, Jurisdiction o Section 5.10.6, Airport Zones Article 6: Subdivision Design and Improvements  Section 6.3: Improvements o Section 6.3.3, Required Improvements Article 8: Erosion and Sedimentation Control  Section 8.5: General Requirements Article 9: Flood Damage Prevention  Section 9.1: Statutory Authorization  Section 9.6: General Provisions o Section 9.6.1, Applicability and Basis for Special Flood Hazard Areas  Section 9.8: Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction o Section 9.8.2, Specific Standards Article 10: Administrative Procedures  Section 10.1: Advisory and Decision-Making Bodies o Section 10.1.1, General o Section 10.1.2, Board of Commissioners o Section 10.1.3, Planning Board o Section 10.1.4, Board of Adjustment  Section 10.2: Standard Review Procedures o Section 10.2.4, Application Submittal and Acceptance o Section 10.2.6, Public Hearing Scheduling and Public Notification o Section 10.2.7, Public Hearing Procedures o Section 10.2.8, Advisory Body Review and Action o Section 10.2.9, Decision-Making Body Review and Action o Section 10.2.10, Post-Decision Limitations and Actions  Section 10.3: Application-Specific Procedures o Section 10.3.2, Zoning Map Amendment o Section 10.3.3, Conditional Zoning o Section 10.3.4, Master Planned Development o Section 10.3.5, Special Use Permit o Section 10.3.7, Subdivision o Section 10.3.8, Zoning Compliance Approval o Section 10.3.9, Tree Removal Permit o Section 10.3.11, Variance – Zoning and Subdivision o Section 10.3.13, Reasonable Accommodation o Section 10.3.14, Appeal of Administrative Decision Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 11 TA21-01 Staff Report PB 4.1.2021 Page 12 of 12 Article 11: Nonconforming Situations  Section 11.5: Change in Kind of Nonconforming Use o Section 11.5.3 Article 12: Violations and Enforcement  Section 12.2: Violations and Responsible Persons o Section 12.2.1, Violations Generally o Section 12.2.2, Specific Violations o Section 12.2.3, Responsible Persons  Section 12.4: Remedies and Penalties o Section 12.4.1 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 2 - 12 Topic Source Comment Response Ongoing Maintenance (Self-Storage Design Standards) Robert High, Self-Storage Facility Developer [Series of phone calls so not verbatim] Consider removing the word ‘insulated’ from the text, as not all architectural metal panels that achieve the amendment’s desired results are insulated. Consider exploring panel products from the metal roofing and wall panel supplier MBCI for examples. From subsequent discussions: consider allowing both concealed and exposed fastener panels, as there is very little difference in the higher quality panels of both types, and they are commonly used together to create architectural striation or to show dimension on a facade The commenter’s suggestion allows for high quality metal panel types that were unintentionally excluded in the previous draft. Section 4.3.4.C.2.d. has been revised to read: “The use of metal as a primary material is prohibited on perimeter or exterior walls that are visible from an arterial street or from a residential district or existing residential development, unless in the form of: (1) architectural concealed fastener metal panels, or (2) a mix of paneling types with non-concealed fastener panels making up no more than 50% of the metal paneling used” Ongoing Maintenance (Landscaping) Allison Engebretson, Landscape Architect [Regarding Section 5.4.2] “Good and reasonable sizes and distinctions. Have you considered adding the tree and plant materials as an appendix to the UDO?” Because the tree and plant materials list provides suggestions on the types of materials that may be used rather than standards on materials that must be used, tree and plant materials are placed in a technical manual that is kept separate from the ordinance. As the materials suggested in the list are updated over time, having them in a technical manual would allow for ongoing maintenance or updates without public hearings. No change has been made to the amendment in response to this comment. “Native shrub, tree comments: I strongly discourage you from using this sentence. ‘Common examples of native shrub species are identified in the New Hanover County Tree and Plant Materials for Landscaping technical manual’. Not all shrubs or trees in the manual are native, so at very least take the word ‘native’ out. I don’t know that your sentence is even necessary. You may just reference that examples of acceptable plants are found in the… technical manual. I would tell you, you could change ‘native’ to ‘native and adaptive’, but the truth is that some of the plants on the list do not belong there or the list is just incredibly limited and needs expansion (Chinafir and Goldenraintree are good examples of trees that should really be removed from the list because they don’t do well or are not regularly found or available in our area). – comment applies to all definitions” Staff concurs that the sentences directing the code user to the Tree and Plant Materials for Landscaping technical manual are not necessary and because the list included in the manual provide examples and not required species, could potentially limit the types of species incorporated into site design. Sentences directing the code users to the Common Examples section of the Tree and Plant Materials for Landscaping technical manual have been removed from the draft definitions. “Shrub Definition comments: I think it is very difficult to define shrubs, canopy trees, and understory trees without being too limiting or too broad. For instance, the definition here is so broad that an understory tree could be a shrub. (ex. Crape myrtle). I don’t know that you need to define a shrub. I ask you what you want to limit. For example, is it ornamental grasses being called shrubs? If so, it may just be easier to list a few exclusions and not fall into the trap of defining a shrub. OR you could use the ‘A woody evergreen or deciduous plant that produces multiple stems from its base and is listed in our Tree and Plan Materials for Landscaping technical manual or on NC State cooperative plant extension’s ____ list.’” Staff concurs with the commenter’s explanation of the difficulties of trying to define a shrub and recognizes that attempting to narrow down such a broad term could have potential negative impacts, such as creating a definition that would be either too broad and allow unintended materials or too limiting and remove diversity of species. The proposed definition for Shrub has been removed. [Regarding the definition of Canopy Tree] “I would like to suggest not using size in the tree canopy. I really like law insider’s definition as follows: “Canopy tree means any tree or other woody plant that when fully grown will provide shade and/or shelter for the land beneath while allowing passage of people, animals and/or vehicles upon the land beneath.” This definition gets at what you are trying to establish – shade. However, I understand you need a metric, so if you have to use a number, 25’ spread may better capture canopy trees in our area. The salt and wind and soil here often stunt the growth of trees that are otherwise canopy trees with larger canopies. Another option is to reword the definition. Any tree with an average spread of 30 feet or greater at maturity. This is more in line with industry standard language to describe a tree’s canopy size.” Staff agrees that the intent of canopy trees, correctly identified in the comment as shade, should be reflected in the definition as opposed to focusing on height of the tree. Due to the environmental impacts our coastal habitat has on trees, the suggestion of a 25’ average spread has been incorporated into the proposed definition in lieu of the 30’ spread, which was originally proposed solely for consistency with the City of Wilmington. The definition for Canopy Tree has been modified to read “Any tree or other woody plant with an average spread of 25 feet or greater at maturity that when fully grown will provide shade and/or shelter for the land beneath while allowing passage of people, animals and/or vehicles upon the land beneath.” [Regarding the definition of Understory Tree] “Generally ok with the first sentence. I don’t know that ‘lower light intensities’ is really accurate (for example: pine canopies don’t really lower light intensities in the way this definition seems to imply). Understory is more typically understood like this Merriam Webster definition: ‘the vegetative layer and especially the trees and shrubs between the forest canopy and the ground cover.’ However, that definition does not seem helpful for your purposes. So, if you have to provide a height as a metric, consider no more than 35’ height at maturity. Most understory trees in our area cap out at 25’ ht., so adding 10’ probably is unnecessary, but makes it less limiting.” The comment’s suggestion provides a more objective standard for defining understory trees by removing the phrase “lower light intensities”, which as the comment states, are not always applicable based on the type of associated tree canopy. Staff also concurs with the suggestion to lower the maximum height from 40 feet to 35 feet to better reflect trees in our coastal environment. The definition for Understory Tree has been modified to read “Any tree no more than 35 feet in height at maturity located between the forest canopy and the ground cover” Comments Relayed by Parks & Gardens Staff A commenter expressed a concern regarding the definition of understory tree, specifically that the existing 40’ height threshold seemed too tall. The commenter gave several examples of native understory trees that are below 40’ tall, such as red buds, sweetbays, some holly’s. Staff concurs that the existing 40’ provision is too large for this area. The definition for Understory Tree has been modified to read “Any tree no more than 35 feet in height at maturity located between the forest canopy and the ground cover” A commenter expressed a concern regarding the emphasis on caliper size as a metric for landscape plantings. The commenter noted over the past several years, events have impacted supply and growing, which has had a strain on the health and supply of material. As a result, this has led to improper grafting, forced growth in containers, stress to achieve caliper, or the implementation of trees grown far from this area in order to meet caliper size standards. The commenter suggested they would prefer a healthy 1.5” caliper tree grown in the southeast than a damaged 2” caliper tree grown in the Midwest and shipped here to meet the extra 1/2 inch. Staff will continue to explore options for measuring landscape plantings to ensure viability of trees and that the ordinance’s opacity requirements are able to be met. Because landscape plantings are often used to meet tree mitigation requirements, the proposed amendment is intended to align the landscape planting sizes with the caliper size required for mitigation, which is currently 2” at time of planting. No change has been made to the amendment in response to this comment. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 3 - 1 State Law Update (NCGS Chapter 160D) Code Sections Affected Article 1, General Provisions Article 2, Measurements and Definitions Article 3, Zoning Districts Article 4, Uses and Use-Specific Standards Article 5, General Development Standards Article 8, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Article 9, Flood Damage Prevention Article 10, Administrative Procedures Article 11, Nonconforming Situations Article 12, Violations and Enforcement Key Intent Align UDO with North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) Chapter 160D, new state law that consolidates and organizes local planning and development regulations and enacts various consensus reforms Changes • Conditional use zoning is no longer allowed under the new state law, so the Conditional Use District (CUD) zoning district has been removed from the ordinance. All current CUDs will be converted to Conditional Zoning Districts (CZDs) automatically. (See Article 3, Zoning Districts) • The new statute clarifies the Planning Board’s review of special use permit items is not a quasi-judicial hearing. The proposed amendment outlines the process and procedures for its role in conducting a preliminary forum, a public meeting where the Planning Board would receive public comment and conduct an advisory review for the applicant and public in order to identify potential relevant and material evidence and issues or areas that the Board of Commissioners may need more information on in order to reach a required conclusion. (See Article 10, Administrative Procedures) • The procedures for Conditional Zoning District (CZD) rezonings have been updated to reflect the state law requirement that the applicant or owner must provide written consent to any mutually agreed-upon conditions of approval. Requirements for written consent to conditions have been applied to all other Board approvals to ensure enforceability of conditions. (See Section Article 10, Administrative Procedures) • State law requires written property owner approval of any amendment that constitutes a down-zoning, any amendment that reduces the number of allowable uses or density on the property. The proposed amendment reflects that change and prohibits third parties (i.e. not the property owner or County) from submitting applications that would down-zone property. (See Article 10, Administrative Procedures) • The General Provisions of the ordinance have been amended to address new rules for permit choice, which state that if a text amendment is approved after a developer has submitted an application, the developer has the choice as to which version of the ordinance would apply. The provision also clarifies that the most recently adopted version of the code applies by default, and the responsibility of applying permit choice law falls upon the applicant. (See Article 1, General Provisions) • The vesting period for Tree Removal Permits has been increased from six months to one year, the minimum required by state law. (See Article 10, Administrative Procedures) • The proposed amendment clarifies the County’s current practice that allows projects to continue as long as work has substantially commenced, and it establishes criteria for what constitutes a substantially commenced project. (See Section 2.3, Definitions and Terms & Article 10, Administrative Procedures) • Provisions for subdivision variances have been updated to send subdivision variances to the Board of Adjustment, consistent with zoning variances and the quasi-judicial nature of the Board of Adjustment. (See Article 10, Administrative Procedures) • The amendment clarifies the County’s current practice that Reasonable Accommodations require a four-fifths majority vote, which is in line with state law. (See Article 10, Administrative Procedures) • The amendment makes the following minor changes: o The following definitions have been added or modified in order to align with state law: Administrative decision, Administrative determination, General Agricultural and Forestry Uses, Applicant, Application, Bedroom, Bona fide farm purposes, Building, Conditional zoning, Decision-making body or decision-making board, Developer, Development, Development approval, Development regulation, Down-zoning, Dwelling, Dwelling Unit, General use zoning, Landowner or owner, Manufactured home or mobile home, Official Map or Plans, Person, Planning board, Preliminary Forum, Property, Site plan, Site-specific Development Plan, Sleeping Unit, Special use permit, Structure, Subdivision, Substantially commenced, Vested right, and Zoning map amendment or rezoning. (See Section 2.3, Definitions and Terms) o The amendment updates where new or modified terms are used throughout the ordinance. o References to former state law governing planning and development regulations, predominantly NCGS Chapter 153A, have been replaced with corresponding references to new state law, NCGS Chapter 160D. o References to maps and adopted plans have been simplified to reference the most recently adopted version, preventing the need for future amendments to reference new maps or plans. o The amendment clarifies the County’s existing practice that Staff cannot change the use or the density of an approved conditional rezoning, planned development, or special use permit. (See Article 10, Administrative Procedures) o Rules for revocation of permits, rezonings, and all other approvals have been clarified to require the same review and decision process as was required for the original issuance of the permit, rezoning, or other approval. (See Article 10, Administrative Procedures & Article 12, Violations and Enforcement) The amendment also affects the following, which are addressed separately alongside the amendment: • Application documents • Administrative and technical manuals • Rules of Procedure for all boards (requires a separate vote to adopt) • Planning & Land Use Department webpage • Other administrative materials, such as mailouts Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 4 - 1 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 1 1.2.1. General Authority B. The North Carolina General Statutes, including: 1. Chapter 153A, Article 6 (General Police Powers); 2. Chapter 160D 153A, Article 18 (Local Planning and Regulation of Development Regulation); 3. Chapter 113A, Article 4 (Sedimentation and Pollution Control); 4. Chapter 143, Article 21, Part 6 (Floodway Regulations); and C. All other relevant laws of the State of North Carolina. 1.4.2. Exemptions The following are exempted from this Ordinance: A. Property used for bona fide farm purposes lands as defined by the North Carolina General Statutes, except that the standards in Article 9: Flood Damage Prevention, shall apply to property used for bona fide farm purposes lands. 1.7.2. Construction in Progress The adoption of this Ordinance does not require a change in the plans, construction, or designated use of any building or structure for which actual construction was lawfully begun before February 3, 2020 and on which actual construction has been diligently pursued. For the purpose of this provision, “actual construction” includes the erection of construction materials in permanent position and fastened in a permanent manner, or demolition, elimination, and removal of an existing structure in connection with such construction, provided that actual construction work must be diligently pursued until completion of the building or structure. 1.7.3 Any re-application for an expired development approval or permit shall comply with the standards in effect at the time of re-application. 1.7.4. Applications in Progress Before Effective Date A. Applications in Progress Before Effective Date Applications for development approvals and permits that were submitted in complete form and are pending on February 3, 2020 shall be reviewed and decided in accordance with the regulations in effect when the application was accepted, unless the applicant chooses an updated development regulation in accordance with Section 1.7.7, Permit Choice. 1.7.7 Permit Choice In accordance with N.C.C.S. 160D-108 and 143-755, the following rules for permit choice shall apply to all application types and development regulations included in this ordinance: A. If an applicant submits an application for approval and a development regulation changes between the time the application was determined to be complete and a decision for approval was rendered, the applicant may choose which adopted version of the development regulation will apply to the approval. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 1 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 2 B. Where multiple approvals are required to complete a development project, the applicant may choose the version of each of the development regulations applicable to the project upon submittal of the application for the initial approval. This provision is applicable only for those subsequent applications filed within 18 months of the date following the approval of the initial application. C. By default, the adopted version of the development regulation in place at the time of each application submittal shall apply to each application, unless the applicant submits to the Planning Director a written request to apply a different adopted version of a development regulation pursuant to this section. The Planning Director shall make a determination on the validity of the request in accordance with this section. D. If the applicant chooses the version of the rule in place at the time of the application, the applicant shall not be required to await the outcome of the amendment to the development regulation(s) prior to acting on the approval or permit. E. If an application is placed on hold at the request of the applicant for a period of six (6) consecutive months or more, or the applicant fails to respond to comments or provide additional information reasonably requested by the County or State government for a period of six (6) consecutive months or more, the application review shall be discontinued and the development regulations in effect at the time permit processing is resumed apply to the application. F. For the purposes of the vesting protections of this ordinance, an erosion and sedimentation control permit or a sign permit shall not be considered an initial application by this section. 2.3 Definitions Administrative Decision Decisions made in the implementation, administration, or enforcement of development regulations that involve the application of objective standards set forth in this Ordinance. Administrative Determination A written, final, and binding order, requirement, or determination regarding an administrative decision. Agricultural and Forestry Uses, General Uses characterized by general active and ongoing agricultural activities, including agronomy, animal husbandry, aquaculture, biotechnical agriculture (including education parks for biotechnical agriculture or a demonstration farm), forestry, fisheries, apiculture, and similar uses. For the purposes of this UDO, this definition shall include any property used for bona fide farm purposes as defined in N.C.G.S. 160D- 903. Applicant A person who submits an application for a text amendment, zoning map amendment, conditional zoning map amendment, planned development, subdivision, or other development approval or permit under this UDO. Application A formal application form submitted by an applicant for a text amendment, zoning map amendment, conditional zoning map amendment, planned development, subdivision, or other development approval or permit under this UDO. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 2 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 3 Bedroom A room designated as sleeping or bedroom on the plans and permit application. Bona Fide Farm Purposes Agricultural activities as set forth in N.C.G.S. 160D-903. Building Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. Conditional Zoning A legislative zoning map amendment with site-specific conditions incorporated into the zoning map amendment. Decision-Making Body or Decision-Making Board The authorized body or person assigned to make decisions under this ordinance. Developer A person, including a governmental agency or redevelopment authority, who undertakes any development and who is the landowner of the property to be developed or who has been authorized by the landowner to undertake development on that property. Any person, firm, or corporation who develops any land. Development Any of the following: a. The construction, erection, alteration, enlargement, renovation, substantial repair, movement to another site, or demolition of any structure. b. The excavation, grading, filling, clearing, or alteration of land. c. The subdivision of land as defined in G.S. 160D-802. d. The initiation or substantial change in the use of land or the intensity of use of land. This definition does not alter the scope of regulatory authority granted by this Ordinance. Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials. Development Approval An administrative or quasi-judicial approval made pursuant to this Ordinance that is written and that is required prior to commencing development or undertaking a specific activity, project, or development proposal. Development approvals include, but are not limited to, zoning compliance, site plan approvals, special use permits, and variances. The term also includes all other regulatory approvals required by regulations adopted pursuant to N.C.G.S. Chapter 160D, including plat approvals, permits issued, development agreements entered into, and building permits issued. Development Regulation A unified development ordinance, zoning regulation, subdivision regulation, erosion and sedimentation control regulation, floodplain or flood damage prevention regulation, stormwater control regulation, wireless telecommunication facility regulation, housing code, State Building Code enforcement, or any Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 3 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 4 other regulation adopted pursuant to this ordinance and/or N.C.G.S. Chapter 160D, or a local act or charter that regulates land use or development. Down-Zoning A text or map amendment that affects an area of land in one of the following ways: (1) By decreasing the development density of the land to be less dense than was allowed under its previous usage. (2) By reducing the permitted uses of the land that are specified in this ordinance to fewer uses than were allowed under its previous usage. Dwelling Any building, structure, manufactured home, or mobile home, or part thereof, used and occupied for human habitation or intended to be so used, and includes any outhouses and appurtenances belonging thereto or usually enjoyed therewith. Dwelling Unit A single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. One or more rooms together, constituting a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for owner occupancy, or rental or lease on a weekly, monthly or longer basis, and physically separated from any other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure, and containing independent cooking and sleeping facilities General Use Zoning A legislative zoning map amendment to a conventional zoning district, as defined in NCGS 160D-703, without site-specific conditions incorporated into the zoning map amendment. A general use zoning map amendment may be referred to as a “straight rezoning”. Landowner or Owner The holder of the title in fee simple. Absent evidence to the contrary, the County may rely on the county tax records to determine who is a landowner. The landowner may authorize a person holding a valid option, lease, or contract to purchase to act as his or her agent or representative for the purpose of making applications for development approvals. The person or entity that owns land. Manufactured Home or Mobile Home A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode is eight body feet or more in width, or 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet; and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling, with or without permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, including the plumbing, heating, air conditioning and electrical systems contained therein. "Manufactured home" includes any structure that meets all of the requirements of this subsection except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the Secretary of HUD and complies with the standards established under the Act. For manufactured homes built before June 15, 1976, "manufactured home" means a portable manufactured housing unit designed for transportation on its own chassis and placement on a temporary or semipermanent foundation having a measurement of over 32 feet in length and over eight feet in width. "Manufactured home" also means a double-wide manufactured home, which is two or more portable Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 4 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 5 manufactured housing units designed for transportation on their own chassis that connect on site for placement on a temporary or semipermanent foundation having a measurement of over 32 feet in length and over eight feet in width. A moveable or portable dwelling not compliant with the North Carolina State Uniform Residential Building Code and that is over 32 feet in length and over 8 feet wide, constructed to be towed on its own chassis and designed without a permanent foundation for year-round occupancy. The dwelling may include one or more components that can be retracted for towing purposes and subsequently expanded for additional capacity or two or more units separately towable but designed to be joined in one integral unit. This definition does not apply to the provisions of Article 9: Flood Damage Prevention for “manufactured home”; for that meaning, see Section 9.5: Definitions. Official Map or Plans Any maps, plans, charts, or texts officially adopted by the County Board of Commissioners for the development of New Hanover County. This definition shall include the most recent version of all maps officially adopted or promulgated by State and federal agencies. Person An individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, interstate body, the State of North Carolina and its agencies and political subdivisions, or other legal entity. Any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust, company, agency, unincorporated association, organization, municipal corporation, county, state or federal agency, or any combination thereof. Planning Board The New Hanover County Planning Board. Preliminary Forum A public meeting conducted by the New Hanover County Planning Board in association with a special use permit application in which the Planning Board, prior to the quasi-judicial public hearing conducted by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, receives public comment and conducts an advisory review for the applicant and public in order to identify potential relevant and material evidence, findings of fact, and issues or areas that the Board of Commissioners may need more information on in order to reach a required conclusion. Property All real property subject to land-use regulation by New Hanover County. The term includes any improvements or structures customarily regarded as a part of real property. Site Plan A scaled drawing and supporting text that is submitted as part of a Major or Minor Site Plan application showing the relationship between lot lines and the existing or proposed uses, buildings, or structures on the lot, as well as details such as building areas, building height and floor area, setbacks from lot lines and street rights-of-way, intensities, densities, utility lines and locations, parking, access points, roads, and stormwater control facilities that are depicted to show compliance with all legally required development regulations that are applicable to the project and the site plan review. For the purposes of this ordinance, Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 5 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 6 this definition does not include subdivision construction plans or plats. For definitions related to subdivision plans or plats, see “Preliminary Plan”, “Subdivision Construction Plans”, and “Plat, Final”. Site-Specific Development Plan A conceptual plan that describes with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of land use for a specific parcel or parcels that is submitted as part of a conditional zoning map amendment, special use permit, or master planned development. This definition shall include “conceptual development plan” as used in this ordinance and “site-specific vesting plan” as defined and used in N.C.G.S. 160D-108.1. A land development plan approved by the County Commissioners following notice and public hearing which describes with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of land use for a specific parcel or parcels. Site specific development plans include performance residential developments, special use permits, site plans (major and minor), and master plan developments. Sleeping Unit A room or space in which people sleep, which can also include permanent provisions for living, eating, and either sanitation or kitchen facilities but not both. Such rooms and spaces that are also part of a dwelling unit are not sleeping units. Special Use Permit A permit issued to authorize development or land uses in a particular zoning district upon presentation of competent, material, and substantial evidence establishing compliance with one or more general standards requiring that judgment and discretion be exercised as well as compliance with specific standards. Structure and/or Building Anything constructed or erected within a fixed location on the ground, or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground. The terms building and/or structure shall be construed to include buildings, porches, decks, carports, garages, sheds, roof extensions, overhangs extending more than two inches, and any other projections directly attached to the structure and/or building. For purposes of Section 5.10, Airport Height Restriction, a structure is any object, including a mobile object, constructed or installed by man, including, but without limitation, buildings, towers, cranes, smokestacks, earth formation, and overhead transmission lines. This definition does not apply to the provisions of Article 9: Flood Damage Prevention; for that meaning, see Section 9.5: Definitions. Subdivision A "subdivision" shall include all divisions of a tract or parcel of land into two or more lots, building sites, or other divisions when any one or more of those divisions are created for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale or building development, and shall include all divisions of land involving the dedication of a new street or a change in existing streets; provided, however, that the following shall not be included within this definition nor be subject to the regulations authorized by this UDO: (1) the combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and recorded lots where the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County as shown in Article 6: Subdivision Design and Improvements; (2) the division of land into parcels greater than ten acres where no street right-of-way dedication is involved; Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 6 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 7 (3) the public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for the widening or opening of streets or for public transportation system corridors; or (4) the division of a tract in single ownership whose entire area is no greater than two (2) acres into not more than three (3) lots, where no street right-of-way dedication is involved and where the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County as shown in Article 6: Subdivision Design and Improvements. (5) the division of a tract into parcels in accordance with the terms of a probated will or in accordance with intestate succession under Chapter 29 of the General Statutes. Substantially Commenced For the purposes of this ordinance a development is determined by the Planning Director to have substantially commenced if evidence is provided that one or more of the following applies: a. The development has received and maintained a valid erosion and sedimentation control permit and conducted grading activity on a continuous basis and not discontinued it for more than thirty (30) days; or b. The development has installed substantial on-site infrastructure; or c. The development has received and maintained a valid building permit for the construction and approval of a building foundation; or d. Ten percent (10%) or more of the total cost of design- and construction-related activities authorized by such approvals or permits has been completed on the site. Vested Rights (Zoning) The right pursuant to Sections 153A-344.1, N.C.G.S, to undertake and complete the development of property pursuant to N.C.G.S. 160D-108 and 160D-108.1 under the terms and conditions of an approved site specific development plan. The duration of vesting shall not exceed two years unless expressly provided for by the County. Zoning Map Amendment or Rezoning An amendment to the Official Zoning Map for the purpose of changing the zoning district that is applied to a specified property or properties. The term also includes the application of an overlay zoning district or a conditional zoning district. The term does not include updating the zoning map to incorporate amendments to the names of zoning districts made by zoning text amendments where there are no changes in the boundaries of the zoning district or land uses permitted in the district. 3.1.3 Superseding Dimensional Standards D. Performance Residential Development 8. Performance Residential Development Approval b. An application for a Performance Residential Development shall be submitted and reviewed as a major subdivision application in accordance with Section 10.3.7, Subdivision, provided, an applicant may submit a major site plan application in accordance with Section 10.3.6, Site Plan, prior to submittal of a preliminary plan application in accordance with subsection 2 below 1. The applicant shall include a statement in the application that the applicant seeks a vested right in accordance with N.C.G.S. §§ 160D-108 153A-344.1. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 7 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 8 3. The Planning Board shall provide notice for and conduct a public hearing on the requested vested right in accordance with the requirements in N.C.G.S. §§ 160D-108.1 153A-344.1, and shall make a decision on the application in accordance with 10.3.6.F, Site Plan Review Standards. E. Additional Dwelling Allowance 2. Location and Access b. The development shall have direct access to and from an existing major or minor arterial as indicated on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington MPO Functional Classification Map. This direct access requirement will be satisfied if: Table 3.2.1: Zoning Districts Category District Abbreviation Overlay and Special Purpose Special Highway Overlay SHOD Water Supply Watershed Overlay WSW Conditional Zoning Districts CZ Conditional Use Zoning Districts CUD Table 3.3.6.E.1: Exceptional Design Core Requirements Significant Species and Ecological Communities Option 1: After consultation with the most recent officially adopted NC Natural Heritage Program map as found on the New Hanover County online mapping services, no species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, NC endangered species list, or NC Natural Heritage Program as nationally, state, or regionally significant is present or likely to be present. Option 2: If initial consultation with the most recent officially adopted NC Natural Heritage Program map is inconclusive, then a qualified biological scientist performs biological surveys to determine the presence of endangered or significant species or the applicant consults with the NC Natural Heritage Program in Raleigh to receive a state determination, and none of the above species is present or likely to be present. 3.3.7 Planned Development (PD) District D. District Dimensional and Density Standards Standard Residential Uses Commercial Uses Industrial Uses Minimum district size, under common ownership or joint petition: 10 acres Building setback from PD District boundary (feet) 20 CB Setback Requirements I-1 Setback Requirements Building setback from pedestrian and bicycle paths (feet) 10 Front setback (feet) Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with Section 3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan Side setback, street (feet) Side setback, interior (feet) Rear setback (feet) Density, maximum (du/acre) * Intensity, maximum Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with Section 3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 8 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 9 Building height, maximum (feet) 40** * Maximum density in Urban Mixed Use areas identified on the New Hanover County Future Land Use Map shall be established in the MPD Master Plan. Maximum Density in areas outside of the Urban Mixed Use areas shall also be established in the MPD Master Plan but shall not exceed 17 dwelling units per acre. ** There is no maximum building height for Agricultural or Industrial uses. The maximum building height is 80 feet for buildings located within the Urban Mixed Use, Community Mixed Use, or Employment Center areas identified on the New Hanover County Future Land Use Map and fronting along a collector, minor arterial, or principal arterial as indicated on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington Urban Area MPO functional classification map. 3.4.5. Regional Business (B-2) District D. District Dimensional Standards Standard All Uses Lot area, minimum (square feet) None Lot width, minimum (feet) None 1 Front setback (feet) 50 along highways and major thoroughfares; 35 along all other public highways or streets 2 Side setback, street (feet) 50 along highways and major thoroughfares; 35 along all other public highways or streets Side setback, interior * Rear setback * Building height, maximum (feet) 40** * Determined in accordance with Section 3.1.3.C, Setback Requirements in Certain Commercial and Industrial Districts ** Buildings located within the Employment Center, Community Mixed Use, Urban Mixed Use, or Commerce Zone place types and fronting along a collector, Minor Arterial, or Principal Arterial as indicated on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington MPO Functional Classification Map, may exceed 40 feet in height provided their FAR does not exceed 1.0. The FAR may exceed 1.0, but shall not exceed 1.4 if (1) the ratio of the total building footprint to the total buildable site area does not exceed 40% and (2) the required parking (exclusive of off-loading and service parking) is included within the building footprint. If all surface parking (excluding visitor drop-off and pick-up) is within the building footprint, additional floor area can be added at the rate of one foot of floor per one foot of parking area. The total height of the parking structure shall be excluded from the height limit. 3.4.6. Office and Institutional (O&I) District E. Other District Standards 1. Signs. i. Properties located adjacent to minor or major arterials as identified on the most recent officially adopted WMPO Functional Classification Map shall be limited to total signage of 75 square feet in surface area. 3.4.10. Light Industrial (I-1) District D. District Dimensional Standards Standard All Uses Lot area, minimum (square feet) None 1 Lot width, minimum (feet) None 2 Front setback (feet) 50 3 Side setback, street (feet) 50 Side setback, interior * Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 9 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 10 Rear setback * Building height, maximum (feet) 45** * Determined in accordance with Section3.1.3.C Setback Requirements in Certain Commercial and Industrial Districts ** Buildings located within the Employment Center or Commerce Zone place types and fronting along a Collector, Minor Arterial, or Principal Arterial as indicated on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington MPO Functional Classification Map, may exceed 45 feet in height provided their FAR does not exceed 1.0. 3.5.4. Water Supply Watershed Overlay (WSW) District B Applicability 1. Unless exempted by subsection 3 below, the development and improvement of property, including the subdivision of land, that is located within the water supply watershed shall be subject to the standards in this section (3.5.4). The most recent officially adopted Official maps of, and information pertaining to, the water supply watershed shall be maintained by, and shall be available for review at, the County Planning and Land Use Department. These maps shall serve as the official source by which to identify the boundaries of the water supply watershed. 4. Official maps of an information pertaining to the water supply watershed shall be maintained by and shall be available for review at the New Hanover County Planning and Land Use Department. These maps shall serve as the official source by which to identify the boundaries of the watershed. 3.5.5. Conditional Zoning (CZ) District D. District Requirements 1. Eligible Uses Only uses allowed by right in the corresponding general use district are eligible for CZ district consideration and any such use within a CZ district shall, as a minimum requirement, satisfy all the regulations of the corresponding general use district. Uses allowed by special use permit in the corresponding general use district shall require a special use permit in the conditional district. 3.5.6. Conditional Use Zoning (CUD) Districts A. Purpose The Conditional Use (CUD) Zoning District option is established to address situations where a particular land use or uses would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the objectives of this Ordinance but none of the general zoning district classifications that would allow that use are acceptable. It is primarily intended for use with transitions between zoning districts of dissimilar character where a particular use or uses, with restrictive conditions to safeguard adjacent uses can create a more orderly transition benefiting all affected parties and the community at-large. It is not intended as a routine substitute for the general rezoning process or for frequent use because creating a large number of such specialized districts can lead to excessive administrative complexity and great difficulty in maintaining consistent and predictable land use policies. It is intended only for firm development proposals and should not be used for tentative projects without definitive plans. B. Applicability CUD districts are intended only for voluntary proposals submitted in the names of the owners of all property included in the petition/application. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 10 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 11 C. Districts Established The following conditional use zoning districts, each bearing the designation "CUD", are hereby established: 1. The residential conditional use zoning districts include: CUD-RA, CUDAR, CUD-R20S, CUD-R-20, CUD- R15, CUD-R-10, CUD-R-7, CUD-R-5, CUD- RMF-L, CUD- RMF-M, CUD- RMF-MH, CUD-RMF-H. 2. The commercial and industrial conditional use zoning districts include: CUD- B-1, CUD- CB, CUD-B- 2, CUD- O&I, CUD-SC, CUD- CS, CUD-I-1, and CUD-I-2. D. Other District Standards 1. Eligible Uses Only uses allowed by right of by special use permit in the corresponding general use district are eligible for consideration of approval of a CUD district. Any such use within a CUD district shall, as a minimum requirement, satisfy all the regulations of the corresponding general use district. 2. Conditions and Requirements a. Within a CUD district, no use is allowed except by special use permit. This permit may specify additional conditions and requirements that represent greater restrictions on development and use of the tract than the corresponding general use district regulations or other limitations on land that may be regulated by state law or local ordinance. Such conditions and requirements shall not specify ownership status, race, religion, character or other exclusionary characteristics of occupants; shall be objective, specific, and detailed to the extent necessary to accomplish their purpose; and shall relate rationally to making the permit compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, the requirements for a special use permit, other pertinent requirements of this Ordinance, and to secure the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. b. The special use permit application shall include a development plan if appropriate to illustrate conditions and requirements that are difficult to describe with text. The development plan shall be of sufficient detail to depict the conditions and requirements proposed by the applicant. 3. Relationship to Overlay District Standards Regulations governing development in an overlay zoning district shall apply in addition to the regulations governing development in the CUD district. If the standards governing a CUD district expressly conflict with those governing an overlay district, the more restrictive standards shall control. Table 3.5.2: Established Overlay and Special Purpose Zoning Districts Category District Abbreviation Special Purpose Districts Conditional Zoning Districts CZ Conditional Use Zoning Districts CUD Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 11 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 12 4.3.3. Civic & Institutional Uses A. Child & Adult Care 2. Family Child Care Home c. No outside sign in excess of two square feet shall be permitted, except when such facility is located on an existing roadway identified as a collector or arterial facility on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington MPO Functional Classification Map, in which case the maximum sign area shall be 12 square feet. B. Civic 4. Religious Assembly a. Religious Assemblies in the R-7, R-5 and RMF districts shall comply with the following standards: 2. The following uses are prohibited without a special use permit: iv. Religious institutions with more than 1,000 seats, provided that such facilities shall only be allowed if direct access is provided from a Minor Collector road or greater as identified on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington MPO Functional Classification Map. b. Religious Assemblies in the B-1, CB and CS districts shall comply with the following standards: 1. Religious institutions are permitted with no seat limitations if located on a Minor Collector road or greater as identified on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington MPO Functional Classification Map 4.3.4. Commercial Uses A. Amusement & Entertainment Uses 4. Indoor Recreation Establishment c. Access to the site shall be provided by a Minor Collector road or greater, as designated on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington MPO Functional Classification Map. 5. Outdoor Recreation Establishment c. Access to the site shall be provided by a Minor Collector road or greater, as designated on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington MPO Functional Classification Map. 4.3.5. Industrial Uses B. Industry & Manufacturing 1. Artisan Manufacturing c. Off-site distribution via tractor trailer is only permitted if the truck traffic is limited to streets classified as arterials on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington MPO Functional Classification Map. 4.4.4. Standards for Specified Accessory Uses and Structures B. Accessory Structure Accessory structures shall comply with the following standards: 1. No accessory structure shall be erected in any required yard nor within five feet of any other structure building, except that accessory structures buildings not exceeding 600 square feet may be permitted in the required side and rear yards provided such accessory structures buildings are at least five feet from the property line and do not encroach into any required easements. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 12 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 13 2. Accessory structures not exceeding 50 square feet and used exclusively to house well and pump equipment may be permitted in the required front, side, and rear yards, provided such accessory structures buildings are at least five feet from any property line and do not encroach into any required easements or sight angles. 4. An accessory structure building or use may be located on another contiguous or noncontiguous lot from the principal use it is associated with to the extent that the principal use itself would also be permitted on such lot. F. Home Occupation 4. No home occupation shall be conducted in any accessory structure building. 4.5.2. General Standards for Temporary Uses A. No temporary structures buildings or trailers shall at any time be located closer than 25 feet to a property line of any adjacent property, notwithstanding the required setbacks of the zoning district in which such temporary structure building or trailer is located. 5.1.3. Alternative Parking Plans D. Deferred Parking 4. Use of Reserve Areas Areas reserved for future parking shall be brought to the finished grade and landscaped with an appropriate ground cover. These areas shall not be used for structures buildings, storage, loading, or other purposes except for temporary overflow parking, provided such use is sufficiently infrequent to ensure maintenance of its ground cover in a healthy condition. 5.7.2. Applicability B. The most recent officially adopted maps of and information concerning resources identified in subsection A above are available for review at the County Planning and Land Use Department. These maps serve as an initial resource to determine if a parcel is associated with conservation resources identified in subsection A above, but all conservation resources outlined above shall be identified on all required site plans, regardless of whether they are identified on County maps. 5.8.5. Design Standards E. Flexibility in Administration Authorized 1. The decision-making approval body is authorized to permit minor deviations from amount, size, location, and nature of open space set-aside standards whenever it is determined that: (i) the objectives underlying these standards can be met without strict adherence to them; and (ii) because of peculiarities in the developer’s tract of land or the facilities proposed, it would be unreasonable to require strict adherence to these standards. 2. Whenever the decision-making approval body authorizes some deviation from the standards set forth in this section, the official record of action taken on the development application shall contain a statement of the reasons for allowing the deviation. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 13 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 14 5.8.6. Ownership, Management, And Maintenance B. Responsibility Responsibility for managing and maintaining open space set-asides rests with the owner of the land of the open space set-asides. Failure to maintain open space set-asides in accordance with this section and the development approval or permit shall be a violation of this Ordinance. 5.8.7. Payments In-Lieu of Dedication A. As part of a conditional rezoning, master development plan, special use permit, or major residential subdivision consideration, the decision-making approval body may authorize a payment in-lieu of dedication for all or a portion of the required open space when such is determined to be in the best interest of the citizens of the areas to be served. Criteria to be used in this determination shall include: B. If the decision-making approval body authorizes the payment in-lieu of dedication, the amount of such payment shall be the product of the number of acres to be dedicated and the average fair market value of the land being subdivided at the time of the submission of the application. The fair market value of the land shall be determined based on the value of the land for property tax purposes and other relevant information. 5.10.3. Jurisdiction Pursuant to G.S. 63-31(d), New Hanover County exercises its statutory authority as owner of the Wilmington International Airport, and in order to protect the approaches of said airport, the jurisdiction of this section is extended to all areas depicted on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington International Airport Height Restriction Map, including areas within the City of Wilmington, Pender County, and Brunswick County. 5.10.6. Airport Zones In order to insure compliance with the provisions of this section, there are hereby created and established certain zones which include all of the land lying beneath the approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, and conical surfaces as they apply to the Wilmington International Airport. Such zones are shown on the most recent officially adopted Wilmington International Airport Height Restriction Map consisting of one sheet, prepared by Talbert & Bright, Inc, and dated July 7, 2003. The map referred to in this section is on file in the office of the county clerk. An area located in more than one of the following zones is considered to be only in the zone with the more restrictive height limitation. The various zones are hereby established and defined as follows: 8.5 General Requirements E. Building Permits: No building permit, unless excluded by Section 8.17, Permits, shall be issued without an erosion control sign-off pursuant to G.S. § 160D-1110 153A-357 and G.S. 160A417 as amended. 9.1. Statutory Authorization The Legislature of the State of North Carolina has in Part 6, Article 21 of Chapter 143; Parts 3 and 4 of Article 18 of Chapter 153A; and Part 121, Article 6 of Chapter 153A; Article 8 of Chapter 160A; and Article 7, 9, and 11 of Chapter 160D, N.C.G.S., delegated to local governmental units the authority responsibility to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Therefore, the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, does ordain as follows: Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 14 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 15 9.6.1 Applicability and Basis for Special Flood Hazard Areas A. This article applies to all land and development in the Special Flood Hazard Areas within unincorporated New Hanover County, as identified under the Cooperating Technical State (CTS) agreement between the State of North Carolina and FEMA in its FIS dated December 6, 2019 for New Hanover County and associated DFIRM panels, including any digital data developed as part of the FIS, which are adopted by reference and declared a part of this Ordinance, and all revisions hereto. B. Future revisions to the FIS and DFIRM panels that do not change flood hazard data within the unincorporated County are also adopted by reference and declared a part of this Ordinance. Any subsequent Letter of Map Revisions (LOMRs) and/or Physical Map Revisions (PMRs) shall be adopted within three months. 10.1.1. General B. Table 10.1.1: Summary Table of Development Review Responsibilities, summarizes the specific review responsibilities of advisory and decision-making bodies and County staff for each type of application development approval or permit. Table 10.1.1: Summary Table of Development Review Responsibilities R = review and recommendation or report; D = decision; A = appeal; F = preliminary forum; <> = hearing Type of Application Bo a r d o f Co m m i s s i o n e r s Pl a n n i n g B o a r d Bo a r d o f Ad j u s t m e n t Te c h n i c a l R e v i e w Co m m i t t e e ( T R C ) Co u n t y E n g i n e e r Pl a n n i n g D i r e c t o r Discretionary Review Special Use Permit <D> <FR> R [2] R Relief Variance – Zoning and Subdivision <D> R Variance – Zoning and Subdivision <D> Variance – Floodplain See Article 9: Flood Damage Prevention Reasonable Accommodation <D> R NOTES: [3] The decision may be appealed directly to the Superior Court of New Hanover County (see N.C.G.S. 160D-1403 153A-336). 10.1.2. Board of Commissioners B. To adopt a schedule of fees governing applications for development approvals and permits reviewed under this Ordinance, and civil penalties for violations of this Ordinance; and D. To enter into private development agreements as provided in Article 10 of N.C.G.S. Chapter 160D NCGS 153A-Part 3A after conducting a public hearing. These development agreements may require a commitment of public and private resources for large scale projects containing at least 25 acres or more exclusive of wetlands, mandatory buffers, and other portions of the property precluded from Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 15 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 16 development. In entering into such agreements, the County may not exercise any authority or make any commitment not authorized by general or local act and may not impose any tax or fee not authorized by otherwise applicable law. 10.1.3. Planning Board A. Powers and Duties 1. To review and make a recommendation on the following applications: c. Conditional zonings (Section 10.3.3); and d. Planned Developments (Section 10.3.4); e. Special use permits (Section 10.3.5); and f. Subdivision variances (Section 10.3.14) 2. To provide a preliminary forum for review of special use permits (Section 10.3.5), provided that no part of the preliminary forum or recommendation may be used as a basis for the deciding board. 10.1.4. Board of Adjustment A. Powers and Duties 1. To review and make a decision on the following: a. Zoning and subdivision variances (Section 10.3.11); 10.2.4. Application Submittal and Acceptance A. Authority to File Applications 2. Applications for text amendments and general use zoning map amendments may be submitted by any person, organization, or interested party, including the Board of Commissioners, the Planning Board, or County staff except that no text amendment or general use zoning map amendment that down-zones property, as defined by this ordinance, shall be initiated or considered without the written consent of all property owners whose property is the subject of the down-zoning amendment, unless the amendment is initiated by the County. 10.2.6. Public Hearing & Preliminary Forum Scheduling and Public Notification If a public hearing is required for the application (see Table 10.1.1: Summary Table of Development Review Responsibilities), the scheduling and public notification of the public hearing shall comply with the requirements in this section. The scheduling and public notification requirements of this section shall apply to Special Use Permit Preliminary Forums. 10.2.7. Public Hearing & Preliminary Forum Procedures If a public hearing or preliminary forum is required for the application (see Table 10.1.1: Summary Table of Development Review Responsibilities), the public hearing or preliminary forum shall comply with the requirements in this section. A. General 2. Any person may appear at a public hearing or preliminary forum and submit testimony, documents, and materials, either individually or as a representative of a person or an organization. Each person who speaks at a public hearing or preliminary forum shall identify themselves, state their home or Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 16 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 17 business address, and if appearing on behalf of a person or organization, state the name and mailing address of the person or organization they represent. 3. The body conducting the public hearing or preliminary forum may place reasonable time restrictions on the presentation of testimony and the submission of documents and other materials. The body conducting the hearing or preliminary forum may exclude testimony that it finds to be irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious. 4. The body conducting the public hearing or preliminary forum may, on its own motion or at the request of any person, continue the public hearing or preliminary forum to a fixed date, time, and place. 5. The body conducting the public hearing or preliminary forum shall record the proceedings by any appropriate means. The written or taped record of oral proceedings, the hearing minutes, all applications, exhibits, and papers submitted in any proceeding before the body conducting the public hearing or preliminary forum, the staff report, and the recommendation or decision shall constitute the record. All records of public hearings or preliminary forums conducted by an advisory or decision-making body shall be a public record, and open for inspection at the County offices during normal business hours upon reasonable notice. D. Order of Proceeding for Preliminary Forums The order of proceedings at a preliminary forum shall be as follows: 1. Staff Introduction The Planning Director shall briefly introduce the application. 2. Applicant Presentation The applicant shall present any information the applicant deems appropriate. 3. Public Comment Public comments shall be heard. Any person other than the applicant or applicant’s representatives may be permitted to speak in accordance with the Planning Board’s rules of procedure, or at the Board’s discretion, as appropriate, in support of or in opposition to the application. 4. Response to Comments and Presentation The applicant, public, and Planning Director may respond to any comments, documents, or materials presented as deemed appropriate by the Planning Board. 10.2.8. Advisory Body Review and Action If review by an advisory body (the Planning Board) is required for the application (see Table 10.1.1: Summary Table of Development Review Responsibilities), the body shall review and act on the application in accordance with the following procedures. A. Review and Recommendation 1. The advisory body shall conduct a public hearing or preliminary forum on the application in accordance with 10.2.7, Public Hearing Procedures, and shall consider the application, relevant support materials, the staff report, and any public comments made during the public hearing or preliminary forum. Following the public hearing, the body shall recommend one of the decisions authorized for the particular type of application, based on the applicable review standards. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 17 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 18 2. The advisory body’s recommendation shall be in writing and shall clearly state the factors considered in making the recommendation and the basis or rationale for the recommended decision. 3. If permitted for the particular type of application in accordance with Section 10.3, Application- Specific Procedures, the advisory body may recommend conditions of approval. Conditions of approval must relate in both type and extent to the anticipated impacts of the proposed development. 4. Unless the hearing is deferred or subject to a continuance, the advisory body shall take action as promptly as reasonably possible in consideration of the applicant, affected parties, and citizens of the County. 5. In the case of a special use permit preliminary forum, no recommendation shall be made to the Board of Commissioners. B. Revision of Application Prior to the advisory body’s action on an application, the advisory body may continue the public hearing to allow the applicant to make minor modifications to the application that directly respond to specific requests or suggestions made by the staff or the advisory body. In the case of a special use permit preliminary forum, such minor modifications shall not require a continuance nor an additional preliminary forum. 10.2.9. Decision-Making Body Review and Action A. Review and Decision 5. Any conditions of approval shall be expressly set forth in the approval, and shall relate in both type and scope to the anticipated impacts of the proposed development, and shall be mutually agreed to in writing by both the applicant and decision making body. 6. Any approval subject to conditions shall not take effective until the Planning Director has received the applicant’s written consent to all conditions of approval. 10.2.10. Post-Decision Limitations and Actions D. Expiration of Approval 1. Approval of an application shall be valid as authorized for the approved development activity until the end of the expiration time period provided in Section 10.3, Application-Specific Procedures, for the particular type of application unless work authorized by the approval or permit has substantially commenced, subject to subsection 4 below. 2. If no expiration period is provided in Section 10.3, Application-Specific Procedures, for a specific type of development approval or permit, the development approval or permit shall expire if a building permit or zoning compliance approval authorizing the approved development is not obtained within two years unless work authorized by the approval or permit has substantially commenced. 4. Failure to comply with the terms of an development approval or permit, including any conditions of approval, shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance (see Article 12: Violations and Enforcement) and shall render the development approval or permit void and of no effect. No building permits for further construction or certificates of occupancy under the development Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 18 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 19 approval or permit shall be permitted, and all completed structures shall be regarded as nonconforming uses subject to Article 11: Nonconforming Situations. E. Termination of Site Specific Development Plans 1. Any site specific development plan approved by the County pursuant to this Ordinance shall terminate at the end of the applicable vesting period with respect to buildings and uses for which no valid building permit applications have been filed, unless work authorized by the approval or permit has substantially commenced. 10.3.2. Zoning Map Amendment A. Applicability 1. The procedure in this section is required for any amendment of the Official Zoning Map, unless the amendment is part of a conditional zoning (see Section 10.3.3), or a planned development (see Section 10.3.4). 2. If the proposed Zoning Map amendment involves a rezoning to a Conditional Use Zoning District (see Section 3.5.6, Conditional Use Zoning (CUD) Districts), the provisions in subsections a and b below, apply: a. The Zoning Map amendment application must be submitted and reviewed concurrently with a special use permit application (see Section 10.3.5, Special Use Permit). The Zoning Map amendment for the proposed Conditional Use Zoning District rezoning is considered first, then the companion special use permit application, except, if the Zoning Map amendment is denied, the special use permit is not considered. b. If the Zoning Map amendment to the Conditional Use Zoning District is approved but the special use permit is denied, then the Board of Commissioners shall immediately rescind its approval of the Zoning Map amendment. 10.3.3. Conditional Zoning C. Conditional Zoning Procedure 6. Board of Commissioners Review and Action d. Conditions of approval shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Only conditions of approval mutually agreed to in writing by both the applicant and the Board of Commissioners are allowed. 7. Post-Decision Limitations and Actions b. Minor Deviations Subsequent applications for development within a conditional zoning district may include minor modifications from the approved conceptual site plan, provided such modifications do not result in a change in permitted uses or density, and otherwise have no material effect on the character of the approved development. Changes in the following constitute minor modifications that may be approved by the Planning Director: 1. Modifications in building or structure placement, provided the placement complies with the setbacks of the corresponding base zoning, and does not decrease the setbacks agreed to and approved during the conditional rezoning process by more than 10 percent; Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 19 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 20 2. Increases to building or structure size and height not to exceed 10 percent provided all other applicable standards of this Ordinance are met; c. Expiration 1. If no building permit has been issued for the subject tract within two years after the date of approval of the conditional zoning, or if work authorized by the approvals or permits associated with the conditional zoning has not substantially commenced, the Planning Director may, at the Planning Director’s discretion, schedule a hearing for the Planning Board to consider whether active efforts are proceeding in accordance with the approved conditional zoning. If the Planning Board determines that such efforts are not proceeding, the Board may, at the Board’s discretion, initiate a Zoning Map amendment in accordance with Section 10.3.2, Zoning Map Amendment, to rezone the land within the CZ district to its classification prior to approval, or to another zoning district the Board determines is appropriate. 10.3.4 Master Planned Development C. Master Planned Development Procedure 7. Board of Commissioners Review and Action c. Only conditions of approval mutually agreed to in writing by both the applicant and the Board of Commissioners are allowed. 8. Post-Decision Limitations and Actions a. Effect of Approval 2. Approval of an MPD Master Plan shall establish a vested right in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 160D-108.1 153A-344.1(c) and (d). b. Minor Deviations Subsequent applications for development within a master planned development district may include minor modifications from the approved MPD Master Plan and MPD Terms and Conditions document, provided such modifications do not result in a change in permitted uses or density, and otherwise have no material effect on the character of the approved development. Changes in the following constitute minor modifications that may be approved by the Planning Director: 1. Modifications in building or structure placement, provided the placement does not decrease approved setbacks by more than 10 percent; 2. Increases to building or structure size and height not to exceed 10 percent provided all other applicable standards of this Ordinance are met; c. Expiration 1. If no building permit has been issued for the land approved as a master planned development district within two years of the date of approval, or if work authorized by the approvals or permits associated with the master planned development has not substantially commenced, the Planning Director may, at the Planning Director’s discretion, schedule a hearing for the Planning Board to consider whether active efforts are proceeding in accordance with the approved master planned development. If the Planning Board determines that such efforts are not proceeding, the Board may, at the Board’s discretion, initiate a Zoning Map amendment in accordance with Section Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 20 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 21 10.3.2, Zoning Map Amendment, to rezone the master planned development district to its classification prior to approval, or to another zoning district the Board determines is appropriate. 10.3.5. Special Use Permit C. Special Use Permit Procedure Figure 10.3.5.C: Summary of Special Use Permit Procedure Public Hearing Procedures (Optional) Pre-Application Conference 1* Community Information Meeting 2 Application Submittal & Acceptance 3 Planning Director Review & Staff Report (TRC Optional) 4 Public Hearing Scheduling & Notification 5 Planning Board Preliminary Forum Hearing & Recom- mendation* 6 Board of Commissioners Hearing & Decision 7 Post-Decision Limitations and Actions *Special use permits for single-family dwellings, including mobile homes, shall not require a Planning Board preliminary forum review prior to the Board of Commissioners Hearing & Decision. 3. Staff Review and Action b. In preparation for the Planning Board’s preliminary forum public hearing on the application, the Planning Director shall review the application and prepare a brief introduction to the application. staff report in accordance with Section 10.2.5, Staff Review and Action, which the Clerk to the Planning Board shall publish in the agenda package for the Planning Board meeting for which the public hearing on the application is scheduled. The staff report shall: 1. Summarize the proposed development and preliminary findings of fact; and 2. Address the review standards in Section 10.3.5.D, Special Use Permit Review Standards, stating whether each standard is met or identifying, in staff’s view, any additional information necessary for the Planning Board to provide a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners whether each standard is met. c. In preparation for the Board of Commissioners’ public hearing on the application, the Planning Director shall prepare a staff report in accordance with Section 10.2.5, Staff Review and Action, which the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners shall publish in the agenda package for the Board of Commissioners meeting for which the public hearing on the application is scheduled. The staff report shall: 1. Summarize the special use permit request, the information and materials provided in the application package and presented at the Planning Board public hearing(s), the Planning Board’s recommendations, and preliminary findings of fact; and 4. Public Hearing & Preliminary Forum Scheduling and Public Notification The Planning Director shall schedule the preliminary forum and public hearings and provide public notification for both meetings in accordance with Section 10.2.6. 5. Planning Board Review and Action a. The Planning Board shall conduct a preliminary forum public hearing on the application as a way to provide advisory review and recommendations to the applicant and public on potential relevant Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 21 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 22 and material evidence, findings of fact, and issues or areas that the Board of Commissioners may need more information on in order to reach a required conclusion make a recommendation on the application in accordance with Section 10.2.8, Advisory Body Review and Action, and Section 10.3.5.D, Special Use Permit Review Standards. b. Following the hearing and the Planning Board’s recommendation, the Planning Director shall prepare a report to inform the Board of Commissioners of whether the standards in Section 10.3.5.D, Special Use Permit Review Standards, have been met or to identify, from staff’s perspective, issues or areas that the Board of Commissioners may need more information on in order to reach a required conclusion. The report shall summarize the special use permit request, the information and materials provided in the application package and presented at the Planning Board public hearing(s), the Planning Board’s recommendations, and preliminary findings of fact. 6. Board of Commissioners Review and Action c. Subject to subsection d below, the Board of Commissioners may attach conditions of approval, including time limits for completion of development or for the start or end of certain uses or activities. Conditions of approval shall meet or exceed the minimum requirements of this Ordinance. d. Only conditions of approval mutually agreed to in writing by both the applicant and the Board of Commissioners are allowed. 7. Post-Decision Limitations and Actions b. Minor Deviations Subsequent applications for development pursuant to an approved special use permit may include minor modifications from the approved special use permit, provided such modifications do not result in a change in permitted uses or density, and otherwise have no material effect on the character of the approved development. Changes in the following constitute minor modifications that may be approved by the Planning Director: 1. Modifications in building or structure placement, provided the placement does not decrease approved setbacks by more than 10 percent; 2. Increases to building or structure size and height not to exceed 10 percent provided all other applicable standards of this Ordinance are met; c. Expiration 1. A special use permit shall automatically expire and become null and void if construction or occupancy of the proposed use as specified on the special use permit is or work authorized by the approvals or permits associated with the special use permit has not substantially commenced within two years after the date of issuance, unless the applicant submits a written request for an extension to the Planning Director prior to the expiration, and the request is granted in accordance with subsection 2 or 3 below. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 22 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 23 10.3.7 Subdivision B. Applicability 3. The provisions of this section shall not prohibit any landowner or landowner’s agent from entering into contracts to sell or lease by reference to an approved preliminary plan in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 160D-807 153A-334. D. Major Subdivision Procedures and Standards 1. Preliminary Plan Procedure c. Post-Decision Limitations and Action 4. Preliminary plan approval shall automatically expire and become void if the subdivider does not submit a final plat for all or part of the lands subject to the approved preliminary plan or if work authorized by approvals or permits associated with the subdivision has not substantially commenced within two years of the preliminary plan approval date, unless an extension of time is granted in accordance with subsection 5 below. 10.3.8. Zoning Compliance Approval B. Applicability A zoning compliance approval is required for the following activities: 1. Establishment of a new use other than bona fide farms; 2. Erection, alteration, moving, or repair of any building or structure; and 10.3.9. Tree Removal Permit C. Tree Removal Permit Procedure 3. Post-Decision Limitations and Actions The post-decision limitations and actions in Section 10.2.10, Post-decision Limitations and Actions, apply, except that a tree removal permit shall automatically expire one year six months after the date it is issued. 10.3.11. Variance – Zoning and Subdivision C. Zoning and Subdivision Variance Procedure Figure 10.3.11.C: Summary of Zoning and Subdivision Variance Procedure Public Hearing Procedures (Optional) Pre-Application Conference (Optional) Community Information Meeting 1 Application Submittal & Acceptance 2 Planning Director Review & Staff Report 3 Public Hearing Scheduling & Notification  Advisory Body Review & Action 4 Board of Adjustment/ Planning Board Hearing & Decision 5 Post-Decision Limitations and Actions 4. Decision-Making Body Review and Action a. The Board of Adjustment shall conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application and make a decision in accordance with Section 10.2.9, Decision-making Body Review and Action, and Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 23 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 24 Section 10.3.11.D, Zoning and Subdivision Variance Review Standards, for a zoning variance and the Planning Board for a subdivision variance. The Board’s decision shall be one of the following: c. Only conditions of approval mutually agreed to in writing by both the applicant and the Board of Adjustment are allowed. 5. Post-Decision Limitations and Actions b. Any appeal of the Board of Adjustment’s or Planning Board’s decision shall be to the Superior Court of New Hanover County, in accordance with state law. D. Zoning and Subdivision Variance Review Standards 1. Except as otherwise provided by subsection 2 below, the Board of Adjustment or Planning Board shall grant a variance only if it reaches each of the following conclusions based on findings of fact supported by competent, substantial, and material evidence presented at the hearing: 10.3.13. Reasonable Accommodation B. Reasonable Accommodation Procedure 4. Decision-Making Body Review and Action B. The concurring vote of four-fifths of the Board shall be necessary to grant a reasonable accommodation. 10.3.14. Appeal of Administrative Decision A. Applicability Any person who has standing under N.C.G.S. 160D-1402 160A-393(d), or the County, may appeal a decision, interpretation, or determination made by the Planning Director or the TRC under this Ordinance to the Board of Appeals in accordance with the procedures and standards in this section and state law. 11.5. Change in Kind of Nonconforming Use 11.5.3. A nonconforming accessory use or structure building may only be changed to another nonconforming accessory use or building in accordance with subsection 11.5.2 above. Changes in a principal use are also considered as changes to any accessory use or building for the principal use. 12.2.1. Violations Generally A. Any failure to comply with a standard, requirement, prohibition, or limitation imposed by this Ordinance, or the terms or conditions of any permit or other development approval or authorization granted in accordance with this Ordinance shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance punishable as provided in this article. B. Permits or permit approvals issued by a decision-making body authorize only the use, arrangement, location, design, density or intensity, and development set forth in such permits or development approvals. 12.2.2. Specific Violations A. Develop property or a structure without first obtaining all appropriate permits or development approvals, and complying with their terms and conditions. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 24 2021-04 Planning Board Draft – State Law Update 25 B. Occupy or use land or a structure without first obtaining all appropriate permits or development approvals, and complying with their terms and conditions. C. Subdivide land without first obtaining all appropriate permits or development approvals required to engage in subdivision, and complying with their terms and conditions. D. Excavate, grade, cut, clear, mine, extract earth resources, or undertake any land disturbing activity without first obtaining all appropriate permits and development approvals, and complying with their terms and conditions. H. Install, create, erect, alter, or maintain any sign without first obtaining the appropriate permits or development approvals, and complying with their terms and conditions. 12.2.3. Responsible Persons B. An owner of the property on which a violation occurs, and any tenant or occupant of that property who has control over, or responsibility for its use or development, except tenants shall subject the owner only to civil penalties and/or civil action as set forth in this Ordinance, N.C.G.S. 160D-404, and N.C.G.S. §§ 153A-123(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), and an owner shall not incur criminal penalties for violations by any tenants. The owner's responsibilities in relation to a tenant in no way relieves any tenant from liability for any violations. 12.4 Remedies and Penalties 12.4.1. This Ordinance may be enforced by any one or more of the remedies authorized by Section 153A-123, N.C.G.S., and in in accordance with the provisions of Section 160D-404 153A-324, N.C.G.S., including but not limited to the following: B. Revocation of Permit or Approval The County Planning Director may revoke any development permit or approval granted under this Ordinance, by written notice to the permit or approval holder stating the reason(s) for the revocation, when false statements or misrepresentations were made in securing the permit or approval, work is being or has been done in substantial departure from the approved application or plan, there has been a failure to comply with the requirements of this Ordinance, or a permit or approval has been mistakenly granted in violation of this Ordinance. The County shall follow the same development review and approval process required for issuance of a development approval, including any required notice or hearing, in the review and approval of any revocation of that approval. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 5 - 25 Ongoing Maintenance Code Sections Affected Section 2.3, Definitions and Terms Section 3.1.3, Superseding Dimensional Standards Section 3.2.7, Residential 20 (R-20) District Table 3.3.6, Exceptional Design (EDZD) Planned Development District Section 4.3.2, Residential Uses Section 4.3.4, Commercial Uses Section 4.5.4, Standards for Specified Temporary Uses Section 5.4.2, General Standards Section 6.3.3, Required Improvements Section 9.8.2, Specific Standards Key Intent Perform technical fixes that have been identified in recent months in order to clean up and clarify assorted ordinance provisions Changes • Use-specific standards for Mini-Warehouse/Self-Storage have been modified to allow architectural metal paneling as a primary material on facades visible from major roadways or residential properties. Architectural metal paneling is commonly seen on the types of facilities the County’s design standards are intended to encourage. (See Section 4.3.4.C.2, Mini-Warehouse/Self-Storage) • The amendment updates an outdated provision for green building certifications in the EDZD district. The code currently references programs that either do not provide service to this region or are no longer active. This amendment retains existing programs such as LEED and allows other similar certification programs to meet the intent of the ordinance. Also, the EDZD district has been designated as a legacy zoning district. Staff does not anticipate any new EDZD rezonings now that the ordinance has been updated to include more options for the mixed-use, higher-density residential developments the EDZD was designed to accommodate. As a legacy district, no new EDZD district can be created but any property currently zoned EDZD remains as part of the Official Zoning Map and shall conform to the standards of the ordinance. (See Table 3.3.6.E.2, Exceptional Design Additional Requirements & Section 3.3.6.B.1, Applicability) • The amendment clarifies that multi-family dwellings are subject to site design standards in all districts, including standards for sidewalks, connectivity, and open space. Sidewalk standards have also been applied to the RMF districts. (See Section 4.3.2.A.2, Multi-Family Dwelling & Section 6.3.3.J, Sidewalks, Trails and Bikeways) • The size of canopy trees required to meet landscaping and buffering requirements has been reduced from 2.5 caliper inches to 2 caliper inches at time of planting to improve viability, allow for a greater range of species, and align with updated standards for tree mitigation. The type of measurement for understory trees has been changed from caliper inches to height in feet to reflect the landscaping industry standard, and has been established at a minimum of 8-feet at time of planting to align with the City of Wilmington’s standard. (See Section 5.4.2, General Standards) • The amendment includes changes to various definitions in order to align with state law and recent ordinance changes or to clarify definitions based on past interpretations. Definitions for Adult Entertainment Establishment, Hospital, Motor Vehicle, Understory Tree, and Vehicle Sales have been modified based on past interpretations. Definitions for Canopy Tree, Shrub, Specimen Tree, and Temporary Family Healthcare Structure have been added or modified to align with recent state law or ordinance amendments (See Section 2.3, Definitions and Terms) • Flood ordinance limitations on nonstructural fill in Zone A flood zones have been modified to better align with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. (See Section 9.8.2.E, Fill/Grading) • A transfer error regarding the minimum lot area for duplexes in the R-20 zoning district has been corrected to 35,000 square feet, the minimum lot area established in the former Zoning Ordinance. (See Section 3.2.7.D, District Dimensional Standards) • The uses identified in the separation requirements for Adult Entertainment Establishments have been updated to align with the use terms listed in the Principal Use Table. (See Section 4.3.4.A.1, Adult Entertainment Establishment) Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 6 - 1 2021-04 Planning Board Draft - Ongoing Maintenance 1 2.3 Definitions and Terms Adult Entertainment Establishment Retail or service establishments which are characterized by an emphasis on specified sexual activity and/or specified anatomical areas as defined in N.C.G.S. 14-202.10, including, but not limited to: A. Any bookstore, video store, or other establishment in which a substantial portion of its stock in trade is devoted to printed matter or visual representation of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas; B. Any movie theater offering movies or other displays, or any establishments offering coin-operated devices, which emphasize specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas; C. Any cabaret, club, tavern, theater, or other establishment which offers any entertainment emphasizing specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas; D. Any establishment offering massage or similar manipulation of the human body, unless such manipulation is administered by a medical practitioner, chiropractor, acupuncturist, physical therapist, or similar professional licensed by the State. This definition does not include massages or similar manipulation offered at an athletic club, health club, school, gymnasium, spa, or similar establishments. E. Any establishment, agency, entity, or private club other than a hotel, motel, or similar lodging establishment offering public accommodations, that provides for any form of consideration, gratuity, or membership fee a place and/or equipment where two or more persons may congregate, associate, or consort for the purposes of specified sexual activities or the exposure of specified anatomical areas. Hospital An institution receiving inpatients and rendering medical care on a 24-hours-per-day basis. The term includes general hospitals, sanitariums, sanatoriums, and institutions in which service is limited to special fields, such as cardiac; eye, ear, nose, and throat; pediatric; orthopedic; skin; cancer; mental; tuberculosis; chronic disease; and obstetrics. The facilities may also include outpatient care, ambulatory care, offices of medical practitioners, adult day care, respite care, medical day care and day care for sick children, gift shops, restaurants, heliports, and other customary accessory uses. The term shall not include “adult day care center,” “assisted living facility,” or “nursing home facility.” Motor Vehicle A road vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor that is clearly intended for operation on a paved, level surface with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour or greater. This does not include vehicles such as mopeds, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), dirt bikes, or electric assisted bicycles, skateboards, or scooters. Shrub A woody evergreen or deciduous plant that produces multiple stems from its base. Common examples of native shrub species are identified in the New Hanover County “Tree and Plant Materials for Landscaping” technical manual. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 7 - 1 2021-04 Planning Board Draft - Ongoing Maintenance 2 Temporary Family Healthcare Structure A transportable residential structure accessory to a principal dwelling providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired person that (i) is primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation, (ii) is limited to one occupant who shall be the mentally or physically impaired person, (iii) has no more than 300 gross square feet, and (iv) complies with applicable provisions of the State Building Code and G.S. 143-139.1(b). A transportable residential structure accessory to a principal dwelling, not on a permanent foundation, for occupancy by a caregiver providing care for a mentally or physically impaired person, that is primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation and complies with applicable provisions of the State Building Code and GS 143-139.1(b). Tree, Canopy Any tree or other woody plant with an average spread of 25 feet or greater at maturity that when fully grown will provide shade and/or shelter for the land beneath while allowing passage of people, animals and/or vehicles upon the land beneath. Any tree with a minimum spread of 30 feet or greater at maturity. Also referred to in this ordinance as “shade trees”. Common examples of native canopy tree species are identified in the New Hanover County “Tree and Plant Materials for Landscaping” technical manual. Tree, Specimen Any Live Oak, Bald Cypress, or Pond Cypress tree that is 36” diameter at breast height (DBH) or larger. Tree, Understory Any tree no more than 35 feet in height at maturity located between the forest canopy and the ground cover. Any tree no more than 40 feet in height at maturity capable of thriving in the lower light intensities found under the canopy of shade/canopy trees. Common examples of native understory tree species are identified in the New Hanover County “Tree and Plant Materials for Landscaping” technical manual. Vehicle Sales A facility used primarily for the sale of consumer-oriented motor vehicles, as defined herein such as automobiles, pickup trucks, and motorcycles. 3.2.7. Residential 20 (R-20) District D. District Dimensional Standards Standard Single Family Detached Duplex Lot area, minimum (square feet)* 20,000 20,000 35,000 1 Lot width, minimum (feet)* 90 90 2 Front setback (feet)* 30 30 3 Side setback, street (feet)* 22.5 22.5 4 Side setback, interior (feet)* 15 15 5 Rear setback (feet)* 25 25 Density, maximum (dwelling units/acre)** 1.9 Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 7 - 2 2021-04 Planning Board Draft - Ongoing Maintenance 3 Building height, maximum (feet)*** 40 * Does not apply to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D). ** Applies only to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D). *** Structures elevated on open foundations consisting of piers, posts, columns or piles shall have a maximum height of 44 feet. 3.3.6. Exceptional Design (EDZD) Planned Development District B. Applicability 1. As of [EFFECTIVE DATE], no new EDZD district shall be added to the Official Zoning Map, nor may any boundary of an existing EDZD district be modified. Any property zoned EDZD prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE] exists as part of the Official Zoning Map and shall conform to the standards of this ordinance. Table 3.3.6.E.2: Exceptional Design Additional Requirements Certified Green Building (2 points) A minimum of one whole residential or non-residential building is designed, constructed, or retrofitted and certified through LEED, NAHB Green Building Standards, RESNET, WELL, or any other third party verified Home Energy Rating Program North Carolina Healthy Built Homes, or Green Globes. Minimum Building Energy Efficiency (2 points) • New multi-family residential (4+ stories), non-residential, and mixed use buildings meet at least three of the additional requirements listed in the N.C. Energy Conservation Code for Commercial buildings; and • Ninety percent of new multifamily residential (3 stories or less) and single-family residential buildings meet the HERO option listed within the Energy Conservation Code of the N.C. State Building Code. 4.2.1 Principal Use Permissions Table 4.2.1: Principal Use Table Key: P = Permitted by Right S = Special Use Permit Required * = Specific Use Standards Apply in District blank cell = not allowed Use RA AR R-20 S R-20 R-15 R-10 R-7 R-5 RM F -L RM F -M RM F -MH RM F -H PD UM X Z B-1 CB B-2 O& I SC CS AC I-1 I-2 Us e St a n d a r d s Dwelling, Multi-Family P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* S* S* P* 4.3.2 4.3.2. Residential Uses A. Household Living 2. Dwelling, Multi-Family c. Multi-family dwellings in all districts shall be reviewed in accordance with the same standards as established in this ordinance for subdivisions even if the project does not involve the subdivision of land. A Site Plan shall be submitted in accordance with Section 10.3.6, Site Plan. 4.3.4. Commercial Uses A. Amusement & Entertainment Uses 1. Adult Entertainment Establishment Adult entertainment establishments in the I-1 District shall comply with the following standards: Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 7 - 3 2021-04 Planning Board Draft - Ongoing Maintenance 4 b. Each adult entertainment establishment shall be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from any residentially zoned area, Child Care Center, Family Child Care Home, Religious Assembly, Elementary and Secondary Schools, and Park and Recreation Area church, school, or park. Such measurement shall be the horizontal distance between the property line of the proposed adult entertainment establishment and the nearest residential zoning line or property line of any church, school, or park. C. Commercial Services 2. Mini-Warehouse/Self-Storage When located in the B-2 District or UMXZ District or when established on a lot having frontage on Market Street, Carolina Beach Road, College Road, or Castle Hayne Road, mini-warehouse/self- storage facilities shall comply with the following standards: d. The use of metal, other than architectural insulated metal panels (IMPs), as a primary material is prohibited on perimeter or exterior walls that are visible from an arterial street or from a residential district or existing residential development, unless in the form of: 1. Architectural concealed fastener metal panels, or 2. A mix of paneling types with non-concealed fastener panels making up no more than 50% of the metal paneling used 4.5.4. Standards for Specified Temporary Uses G. Temporary Family Healthcare Structure A temporary family healthcare structures shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5.4.2. General Standards A. All plant materials and their spacing requirements, which are to be planted to meet the opacity and height requirements of this section, shall be either selected from the manual “Tree and Plant Materials for Landscaping” manual prepared by the County Planning and Land Use Department and incorporated herein by reference (it is available in the County Planning and Land Use Department), or approved by the New Hanover County Agricultural Extension Service. Unless otherwise specified, any canopy tree planted to meet the requirements of this section shall be a minimum of 22.5- inch caliper in size at the time of planting and any understory tree planted to meet the requirements of this section shall be a minimum of 8 feet in height at time of planting. 5.8.2 Open Space Set-Aside Standards C. Multi-family Developments: 20 percent 6.3.3. Required Improvements J. Sidewalks, Trails and Bikeways 1. Sidewalks shall be required to be constructed in the following circumstances: a. On both sides of the right-of-way of all local streets and on at least one side of all driveways or private drive aisles adjacent to parking areas or buildings in the RMF-L, RMF-M, RMF-MH, and RMF-H districts. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 7 - 4 2021-04 Planning Board Draft - Ongoing Maintenance 5 9.8.2. Specific Standards E. Fill/Grading In zones A, AE, AH, AO, and A99 the following provisions shall apply: 1. Minor grading and the placement of minor quantities of nonstructural fill may be permitted for landscaping and for drainage purposes under and around buildings and for support of parking slabs, pool decks, patios, and walkways. 2. The fill material must be similar and consistent with the natural soils in the area. 3. The placement of site-compatible, nonstructural, fill under or around an elevated building is limited to two feet. Fill greater than two feet must include an analysis prepared by a qualified registered design professional demonstrating no harmful diversion of floodwaters or wave run- up, and wave reflection that would increase damage to adjacent elevated buildings and structures. 4. Nonstructural fill with finished slopes that are steeper than five-units horizontal to one-unit vertical shall be permitted only if an analysis prepared by a qualified registered design professional demonstrates no harmful diversion of floodwaters or wave runup and wave reflection that would increase damage to adjacent elevated buildings and structures. Planning Board - April 1, 2021 ITEM: 4 - 7 - 5