2021-03-04 PB MINUTES
1 | Page
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
March 4, 2021
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on March 4, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. in the New
Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members Present Staff Present
Paul Boney, Chair Rebekah Roth, Interim Director of Planning
Jeffrey B. Petroff, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Colin J. Tarrant Brad Schuler, Senior Planner
Donna Girardot Gideon Smith, Current Planner
H. Allen Pope Ron Meredith, Current Planner
Ernest Olds Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
Rachel LaCoe, Workforce Housing Planner
Marty Little, Long Range Planner
Members Absent
Thomas “Jordy” Rawl
Chair Paul Boney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the Pledge of
Allegiance. Chair Boney read the procedures for the meeting and welcomed the audience.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the February 4, 2021 Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or
amendments were identified. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Ernest Olds
to APPROVE the minutes as drafted.
Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0
NEW BUSINESS
Board Member Colin Tarrant requested recusal from rezoning request Z21-03 due to a conflict of interest. Board
member Allen Pope made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Ernest Olds, to recuse Mr. Tarrant.
Motion to recuse Mr. Tarrant carried 6-0.
Rezoning Request (Z21-03) – Request by Terroir Development, LLC on behalf of the property owners, Charles
R. Clay, Sr., and the Essie W. Clay Revocable Living Trust, to rezone approximately 5.12 acres of land located at
4615 Gordon Road from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) RMF-M, Conditional Residential Multi-Family
Moderate Density District, in order to develop an 84-unit multi-family project.
Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation and
zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of
the proposed application as referred to in the staff report.
Mr. Schuler explained the estimated trip generation for this proposal was less than the recreation center
that was approved for this site in 2018. As currently zoned, it is estimated the site would generate about 14
trips during the peak hours if developed at the permitted density. He stated that due to the location and
surrounding development patterns, the property was less likely to be developed with low density housing.
2 | Page
He stated the site would share access with the Buy Quick Gas station and adjacent storage lot. He stated this
proposal included conditions that would require striping be added to the access way to delineate two lanes
of travel. Mr. Schuler stated in accordance with North Carolina fire code, parking would be prohibited within
the access way, and No Parking signs would be installed.
Mr. Schuler stated the Comprehensive Plan classified the site as General Residential, which was intended to
provide for lower density housing of 8 units per acre or less. He stated the proposed development was
inconsistent with the recommendations for this classification; however, staff was supportive of the proposed
development as it was in line with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for providing affordable housing and
creating complete communities. He stated it was also in line with the Comprehensive Plan intent of
providing an orderly transition from higher intensity areas to lower intensity area and a range of housing
types in the area. He stated the proposed multifamily housing was consistent with existing development
surrounding the subject site. He stated the Board of Commissioners could still approve a rezoning
application that was found to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the Future Land Use
Map would be concurrently amended to reflect the place type that most closely aligned with the new
zoning.
Mr. Schuler stated if the rezoning was approved, it was staff’s recommendation to amend the place type
classification of the subject site from General Residential to Community Mixed Use because the proposal
was more in line with the classification’s recommended density. He stated it was also more appropriate for
the area because single-family homes were less likely to be built adjacent to major thoroughfares, and it
would encourage the development of projects that would provide a better buffer and serve as a transition
to the existing single-family residences along Gordon Road.
He stated the proposal included two conditions that had been agreed upon with the applicant. The first
would require the development to be awarded the Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and the second would
require improvements be made to the access easement, including the installation of striping and No Parking
signs.
In response to the Board’s questions, Mr. Schuler stated that if the Tax Credits were not awarded the county
could not issue any permits for a multifamily project on the site. He clarified that any other market rate
development proposed for the site would have to go through the rezoning process to amend the condition
or to seek another type of zoning. He stated that the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Landing at Lewis Creek
Estates estimated that the intersection of College Road and Gordon Road would operate at a level of service
of D when the improvements for that project were completed, which was an improvement over the delay
estimated for the intersection if the development and its associated traffic improvements were never
constructed.
In response to the Board’s question, Mr. Schuler explained that density was based on the overall area of the
project. He stated Hawthorne at Smith Creek was technically 7.72 acres; however, the density reflected a
much larger area than what was actually developed. He stated if you look at the area that was developed, it
was about 21 acres and equated to a density of 15 dwelling units per acre. He stated the project did not look
like an 8 dwelling unit per acre site, but more like what would be appropriate for the RMF-M zoning district
that the applicant was requesting.
Chair Boney opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Ms. Stephanie Norris, managing member of Terrior Development gave a summary of the project and stated Tim
Clinkscales and Jim Cirello were available for technical questions that the Board may have had about the site.
3 | Page
In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. Norris stated that she was open to widening the existing concrete of
the access drive being mindful of an existing drainage ditch. She stated no surveys had yet been completed;
however, whatever distance would be allowed, they would be open to that extension and shifting any ingress or
egress. She stated if it made sense to put a double yellow line to separate the egress and ingress they would do
so, but she was not sure if they needed to have a white edge line or some type of median striping. She stated that
they were open to delineate the gas station parking spaces and drive area from the actual ingress and egress in
addition to No Parking signs. She stated the No Parking signs would be limited to the east side, which would
possibly be striped-off similar to a fire lane.
In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. Norris stated that regarding the access easement across the Hawthorne
property, that she had touched base with the owner of the adjacent property to the west and intended to meet
with them the next week. She stated she had not spoken to the owner of the Buy Quick property but was hopeful
he would return her call. She stated that according to her attorney there was nothing that would prohibit the
right for the requested improvements which would not deprive or deter the use by the other two owners or take
away any of their rights. Ms. Norris stated they would work out an easement agreement to move forward with
that and had no problem with what was proposed.
Ms. Norris stated preliminary evaluations indicated there were about 0.7 acres of wetlands on the site. She stated
the front corner of one building and some parking would impact about 0.2-0.25 acres of the wetlands and that if
they did not shift or change anything they would be well within the threshold of what was allowed.
Mr. Tim Clinkscales of Paramounte Engineering stated that based on the county contours, the elevation of the
building would exceed the 16-foot base flood elevation. He stated regarding stormwater, they had a very defined
outfall to Smith Creek, and the elevations were above the designated floodplain in this area.
With no further questions and no further information from the applicant, Chair Boney closed the public hearing
and opened to Board discussion
In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. Norris stated she would contact Wave Transit to inquire about public
transit options. Ms. Norris stated that should the rezoning be approved the buildout would take about two years.
In response to the Board’s questions, Mr. Clinkscales stated that the design capacity for the stormwater would
follow the 25-year county requirement and would have a major drainage outfall to Smith Creek.
After further discussion from the Board, member Ernest Olds made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member,
Vice Chair Jeff Petroff to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-M district. While
the Board found it to be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
project exceeded the density recommended for the General Residential place type, the Board found approval of
the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would provide an
appropriate transition from a major thoroughfare to existing single-family housing, was consistent with the
development pattern of the surrounding properties, and supports the County’s goals of providing for a range of
housing types and opportunities for households of different sizes and income levels. In accordance with the North
Carolina General Statutes, the Board moved to reclassify the property from the General Residential place type to
the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board found the proposal was consistent with the recommended
building types and densities of the Community Mixed Use classification. In addition, the Community Mixed Use
classification would encourage the development of projects that would better serve as a transition between a
major thoroughfare and single-family housing.
The Board included the following conditions:
1. The development must be awarded Low-Income Housing Tax Credits through the North Carolina
Housing Finance Agency.
4 | Page
2. Appropriate pavement markings shall be installed along the 60-foot access easement from Gordon Road
to the subject site to identify two lanes of travel. In addition, no parking shall be permitted within the
easement and “no parking” signs shall be installed in accordance with the North Carolina Fire Code.
The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Workforce Housing Initiatives Update - Workforce Housing Planner Rachel LaCoe
Ms. Rachel LaCoe, Workforce Housing Planner, provided an update to the Planning Board on the initiatives of the
joint City of Wilmington-New Hanover County Workforce Housing Advisory Committee. The Committee was in
the process of finalizing their comprehensive housing study, which would be presented to the City and County
elected boards. The Committee was also tasked with preparing a work plan to address the needs identified in the
study.
Ms. LaCoe stated one of the strategy themes of the work plan was how the City and County could use land use
planning to support the production and preservation of affordable housing. If any recommendations included
proposed code revisions, they would go through the normal process with staff presenting concepts to the
Planning Board and then releasing a draft for public comments. She indicated that the community was in a better
position than other communities developing housing work plans as both the City and County had included best
practices as new tools in recent code updates.
She informed the Board that the Workforce Housing Committee would be hosting a strategy team breakout
session on March 16 in which committee members and other stakeholders could participate. She stated a public
release of the consultant’s report would be presented to both the Board of Commissioners and City Council on
April 5 and April 6.
In response to questions from the board, Ms. LaCoe clarified that builders were delivering products at price points
above what would be considered affordable for the workforce. To meet those price points, there would have to
be an intervention either on the front end, with changes in density, or on the back end, with down payment
assistance to the home buyer.
She stated that the price range assumptions included in her presentation were based on a five percent down
payment. Adding another fifteen percent to their down payment may allow them to qualify for another $25,000
to $50,000 in home price to help bridge that gap. She stated infrastructure was one of the front end costs that
affected the price points and would probably be a strategy discussed in the work plan. She indicated that one of
the recommendations that had been discussed focused on increasing the density of infill development to make
housing products more affordable in both the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County.
In response to questions from the board, Ms. LaCoe stated that products or investors that would offer a product
with zero to two percent interest rates, it would make a big difference.
Board Member Jeff Petroff stated that what was being seen was the impact that the land use changes have had
on the final product. He stated tract builders were interested and working hard to build their product but our
ordinances and regulations that were tailored to be more environmentally friendly have a huge impact on these
costs. He stated the Board should be cognizant when requirements are initiated that they would impact the final
cost of the entry level housing substantially.
5 | Page
Unified Development Ordinance Update (State Law and Ongoing Maintenance Amendments) - Long Range Planner
Marty Little
Mr. Marty Little, Long Range Planner, provided a brief presentation to update the Planning Board on the concepts
associated with the upcoming text amendment.
Mr. Little stated that in 2019 the North Carolina General Assembly created 160D of the General Statutes. Staff
was involved in the scoping of the UDO project while revisions to the statute were being considered, so because
there were so many unknowns, they had held off on incorporating 160D into the UDO Project. He stated the
revision was passed last year and extended the law’s effective date to July 1, 2021. He stated the county’s code
would need to be updated to reflect the relevant changes by that time.
Mr. Little stated coming into compliance with the law also provided the county with an opportunity to
incorporate technical fixes into the amendment in order to clarify code provisions that had been identified over
the past several months. This type of maintenance amendment would be part of ongoing efforts to ensure the
tools of the code continue to work as was intended. The amendment that would be considered by the Planning
Board at their meeting in April would consist of the state law update component and the maintenance
component.
Mr. Little stated per the state law update, that while county was required to come into compliance by July 1, any
changes would be effective once they were incorporated into the ordinance. He provided an overview of General
Statutes 160D, which consolidated the authority for counties and cities to enact development regulations into a
single chapter and gathered miscellaneous laws throughout the statutes into one place. However, Chapter 160D
did not involve any major changes to the way cities and counties currently regulate development and that New
Hanover County was mostly in compliance with the consensus reforms that were introduced.
He stated the amendment would include some minor changes, such as updating definitions to conform to the
law, ensuring that those definitions were consistent throughout the ordinance, incorporating state and federal
maps by reference to most recent adopted versions, and clarifying the limits of administrative approval of project
modifications.
He stated one major change that would impact zoning in New Hanover County was the removal of the Conditional
Use District (CUD). He stated the new law replaced the two-part CUD district process with one-step Conditional
Zoning District (CZD) process. Current Conditional Use Districts would assume CZD zoning once the amendment
was adopted with no further action from the Board or staff. The draft amendment specified that if the code
required a Special Use Permit in the base district it would still require a Special Use Permit in the CZD District.
Mr. Little stated the law clarified that the Planning Board’s role in the quasi-judicial process. Under the proposed
amendment, the Planning Board would be involved in the special use permit process as a preliminary forum but
not in a Quasi-Judicial capacity. He stated the key difference with the preliminary forum would be that the
Planning Board would not vote or provide a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Little stated the that Planning Board would give the applicant
suggestions but they would not vote. He explained that keeping the board involved as part of the preliminary
forum is a policy neutral approach to the change in law that provided the same opportunity for the public to
remain involved in the special use permit process.
Mr. Little stated the 160D law expanded on the current practice of having applicants agree to conditions. He
stated that under the proposed amendment, applicants would be required to agree to conditions in writing,
which usually would have been worked out by staff and the applicant prior to reaching the Planning Board.
6 | Page
Mr. Little stated that 160D prohibited anyone from applying to rezone another person’s property in a way that
would reduce the number of allowable uses or density on the property.
Mr. Little described the changes to permit choice and vested rights. He stated staff was proposing criteria that a
developer would have had received or maintained an erosion control permit and had begun grading, had installed
on-site infrastructure, received a building permit for a structure, or had completed ten percent or more of the
total cost of design and construction related activities, for a development to be considered to have substantially
commenced.
He described other changes associated with the 160D law and proposed amendment, stating that the Board of
Adjustment would handle variances for subdivision regulations to be consistent with how variances for zoning
regulations were handled and that the County’s current practice for Reasonable Accommodations would be
codified to require a 4/5 majority vote.
He explained that the 160D law also included changes that did not require a text amendment but would affect
policies and procedures moving forward. He stated that the law broadened conflict of interest standards to
include a close family, business, or associational relationship, and extended conflict of interest requirements to
Staff. He stated that other changes included a requirement for an oath of office for all board and committee
members, that rules of procedure are made available on the County website, and administrative documents like
application forms would need to be updated. He also mentioned that the law introduced new rules for attorneys’
fees.
Mr. Little then provided an overview of the concepts for the maintenance portion of the amendment.
Mr. Little stated that the amendment proposed allowing architectural metal paneling to self-storage facilities that
were in high-visibility areas. Board Member Girardot indicated that she was initially opposed to the use of metal
on self-storage facilities, but after seeing examples of how architectural metal paneling was implemented, could
be in support of the change to allow specific types of paneling.
Mr. Little mentioned that the amendment updated an outdated provision for green building certifications in the
EDZD district, and that Staff was proposing designating the EDZD as a legacy district. Board Member Olds advised
Mr. Little to consider including WELL certifications in the amendment, and Board Member Girardot said she
agreed with making the EDZD a legacy district.
Mr. Little added that the amendment clarified that multi-family dwellings in multi-family districts were subject to
the same standards as multi-family dwellings in all other districts, and that site-design standards like sidewalks
and open space requirements had been clarified to apply to multi-family districts.
Mr. Little stated that Staff from the County’s Parks and Gardens Department had provided feedback on the sizes
and types of measurements for landscape plantings. He said Parks Staff recommended lowering the minimum size
of canopy trees from 2.5” caliper to 2” caliper and to measure understory trees in feet in height rather than in
caliper inches. Mr. Little said that based on this feedback, the amendment was proposing a 2” caliper minimum
size for canopy trees at time of planting, 8’ for understory trees, both of which were consistent with recent
changes to tree mitigation standards as well as the City of Wilmington’s standards. The amendment also
proposed new or modified definitions for canopy tree, shrub, and understory tree.
Mr. Little stated the amendment updated various definitions to align with state law and recent UDO changes or to
clarify definitions based on past interpretations.
Mr. Little said the amendment also cleaned up technical corrections, including an amendment to the flood
ordinance to better align with Nation Flood Insurance Program requirements and a correction of a transfer error
from the old Zoning Ordinance regarding the minimum lot size for duplexes in the R-20 district.
7 | Page
He informed the Board that based on the feedback they had provided, he would finalize the proposed
amendments and release them for public comment the next week. As with previous amendments, he would
collect any comments received, staff responses, and draft updates as part of the information provided to them in
their meeting packets prior to the April public hearing.
Unified Development Ordinance Update (Stormwater Ordinance) – County Engineer Jim Iannucci
Mr. Iannucci stated the Commissioners passed a resolution in December 2019 creating the county’s stormwater
services program. He described the program and stated that due to COVID, there was a delay in implementation
of fees and some of the maintenance. He stated that the county was looking to fully implement the resolution by
July, which included the development of a new stormwater ordinance. The current ordinance had been in effect
since September 2000. Mr. Iannucci stated that New Hanover County Engineering wanted to update the
stormwater ordinance and put it in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). He stated there would also be a
policy that would dictate the type of work performed by county crews and when they would conduct
maintenance because there would be conveyances as part of the development in New Hanover County. Mr.
Iannucci stated Session Law 2018-145 changed redevelopment in North Carolina in that increased stormwater
controls could only be required if a development were adding additional impervious surface and was required to
be in the local ordinances. He stated the consulting firm Raftelis assisted with the implementation study of the
Stormwater Services division and WK Dickson had originally written their Stormwater Ordinance in 2000. He
stated that the current re-write of the Stormwater Ordinance was being done by WK Dickson with some
assistance from Raftelis to make sure the policy of Stormwater Services was addressed in the ordinance.
Mr. Iannucci stated that there would be a part of the ordinance for appeals regarding an ordinance interpretation
or a review decision.
He completed the presentation by stating that the ordinance update was an opportunity to ensure the county’s
regulations would help achieve its goals and would provide a link to lasting design requirements. He explained
that Engineering Staff would also use this project as an opportunity to develop a policy that will control and
dictate the type of work that was done. He stated staff was working with their consultants in anticipation of
having the ordinance completed by spring and implemented in July when the new program comes into effect.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Iannucci stated if there was an appeal the abatement process would
be to abate and put a lien on the property. The appeal would then be reviewed by himself, the County Manager,
the Commissioners and the court systems.
In response to questions from the Board regarding formed relationships with NCDOT, Mr. Iannucci stated county
engineering had been in discussion with the District Engineer about an opportunity for a partnership with NCDOT
and city owned properties that adjoin city limits.
Mr. Iannucci stated there was consideration of aligning the ordinance with the NOAA Atlas 14 data adopted by
other municipalities in NC. He stated the county already had the requirement that if there was not an adequate
outlet, then the developer was required to design to the 100-year event. As part of the ordinance update, Staff
was considering looking at the higher standard of the NOAA Atlas 14 data.
Mr. Petroff explained to the Board that the NOAA data that Mr. Iannucci was referencing was based on rainfall
data. He stated that in a previous presentation it was decided the county would design to the 100-year event but
that the county’s 100-year rainfall data equated to the NOAA 25 year. He stated that the new standard to be
adopted would be more conservative and provide a better end product going forward.
Chair Paul Boney adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board
Meeting.