2021-05-06 PB MINUTES
1 | Page
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
May 6, 2021
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on May 6, 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, Director of Planning
Jeffrey B. Petroff, Vice Chair Brad Schuler, Senior Planner
Colin J. Tarrant Nicole Smith, Senior Planner
Donna Girardot Marty Little, Long Range Planner
Ernest Olds Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
Thomas “Jordy” Rawl
Members Absent
Allen Pope
Chair Paul Boney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Long Range Planner, Marty Little led the Pledge of
Allegiance. Chair Boney read the procedures for the meeting and welcomed the audience.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the April 1, 2021 Planning Board meeting was presented to the members. No changes or
amendments were identified. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Jordy Rawl
to APPROVE the minutes as drafted.
Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0
NEW BUSINESS
Rezoning Request (Z21-06) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, TF Holdings,
Limited Partnership, to rezone approximately 7.59 acres of land located at 3001 Blue Clay Road from R-20,
Residential-20 District, to (CZD) R-5, Conditional Residential Moderate-High Density District, in order to
construct a 50-unit townhome development.
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 that the R-5 district was created in 2019 and was intended to provide for attached
housing such as townhomes and duplexes. He stated while this did allow for more density than the
traditional residential districts, it did not permit multifamily housing like the typical 3-story apartment
buildings. He stated the proposed conditional R-5 district would allow for a 50-unit townhome development
with the maximum height of the buildings limited to 40 feet, which was the same height standard applied to
the adjoining R-10 and R-20 districts. He stated that in addition to accessing Blue Clay Road, the proposed
development would connect to the Rachel’s Place subdivision and to Holland Drive and Long Leaf Drive west
of the site. Mr. Schuler stated proposed interconnectivity would allow the site to also be accessed from
Castle Hayne Road. He stated the proposal was estimated to generate about 25-30 trips during the peak
hours which would be an increase of about 10-20 trips if the site was developed as a typical single-family
subdivision under the existing zoning. He stated that there was one NCDOT project planned for the area that
would make improvements to Castle Hayne Road that was scheduled for after 2029.
2 | Page
Mr. Schuler stated the property was located on a minor arterial street with available capacity and abutted
industrial zoning to the south and the east and that there had been recent rezonings in the area that had
increased density for nearby properties along Blue Clay Road. He stated the Comprehensive Plan classified
the property as Community Mixed Use, and the proposal was generally consistent with the recommended
density in the area and would help provide a transition between the existing single-family housing to the
west and the industrial zoning to the east. He stated the proposal supported the county’s goal of providing
for a range of housing types. He indicated that Galen Jamison, Chief Project Engineer with the county
engineering department, was available for questions from the board regarding the county’s stormwater
standards.
Chair Boney opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Ms. Cindee Wolf representing TF Holdings, Limited Partnership, the property owners, provided a summary
description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Mr. Schuler had presented.
Ms. Wolf stated a conditional rezoning submitted in 2019 was denied because the owners declined to submit for
a conditional district and no specific plan of development was provided to give the neighbors any type of surety to
what might be developed. She stated the current proposal provided a specific layout, a housing type, a capped
density, and improvements. She stated that under the R-20 zoning it could be developed with up to 14 units
which by the performance standards in the code, could be 14 single family homes or a 3 story 14-unit apartment
building and emphasized the proposed site plan provided more units but did provide certainty as to the attached
single family housing type and number of units.
Ms. Wolf stated there were two existing right-of-way stubs to the property that code regulations for
interconnectivity stipulated. She stated there was an off-site connection that was never completed near Long Leaf
Drive and Holland Drive where the interconnection was required. She stated buffering would be required along
the western and northern boundaries that abut single family lots and would consist of a combination of solid
fencing and plantings to provide the separation of uses and visually screen the two developments.
Ms. Wolf stated the site naturally drained towards Blue Clay Road and stormwater management would consist of
a pond along the Blue Clay Road frontage. She stated all runoff from this project was mandated to be captured in
this project’s pond. Existing draining of Holland Drive properties via a ditch would need to be addressed as a
normal pass-by drainage facility. She stated the plan was to relocate the ditch so that it would run down the
property line, and a public easement would be dedicated to it.
She stated the road stub from Blue Bonnet was a requirement of that development for interconnectivity and was
intended for extension. She stated drainage issues within Rachel’s Place were of concern; however, the proposed
development would not have any effect on them. Ms. Wolf indicated that the developer of Rachel’s Place was
working to complete a punch list of needed improvements outlined by County Engineering; however, the
subdivision was not complete, and the county still had a bond to guarantee the improvements would be
completed and certified.
She completed her presentation by stating that the proposed project was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, the increased density would improve form and function of an underutilized site, and the proposal would
provide an orderly transition between lower density residential areas and industrial development.
In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. Wolf stated that the developer held both the state and county
stormwater permits for Rachel’s Place. She stated once the punchlist of needed improvements was completed
and certified, the permits would transfer to the HOA.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated that on the industrial land south of the proposed
development was a trucking center and pest control operation and below that possibly was a kennel. She stated
across the road was green space that would not be developed and beyond that was an industrial center.
3 | Page
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated the existing drainage ditch was completely on the
subject property and the applicant would be responsible for the full easement.
With no further questions and no further information from the applicant, Chair Boney closed the public
hearing and opened to opposition.
Ms. Elizabeth Carpenter, 630 Fern Drive, spoke in opposition and expressed her concern with the traffic near
Wrightsboro Elementary School during drop off and pickup times down Sheridan Road, Fern Road and around
Long Leaf Road. She stated there were concerns about the impact once Rachel’s Place is complete and the
proposed project is developed. Ms. Carpenter stated there was also currently an issue with a large amount of
standing water in ditches near Holland, Laurel, Fern and Long Leaf roads.
Ms. Heather Matuse, 2252 Blue Bonnet Circle, spoke in opposition and stated she agreed with Ms. Carpenter’s
comments. She stated that her home backed up to the subject site and her concern was there were issues with
the development that the same builder proposing the project had not corrected. She stated many of the items
approved for Rachel’s Place still had not been completed. She stated there were issues with drainage and
standing water. She expressed her concerns with connectivity of the roads and traffic and the public utilizing the
neighborhood as a cut-through.
Mr. Robert Smith, 202 Laurel Drive, spoke in opposition and stated he had concern with Laurel Drive being used
as a cut-through. He stated he had no issues with the development but did have concerns about the proposed
connectivity between the new development and Holland Drive as it created a thoroughfare between Blue Clay
Road and Castle Hayne Road. He stated that the new development would produce a significant increase in traffic.
In rebuttal, Ms. Wolf stated she agreed with Mr. Smith’s statement regarding the proposed connection and that it
was intended to allow travel between Blue Clay Road and Castle Hayne Road. She explained that the reason for
the connection was because when Castle Hayne Road eventually had a median, the logical thing would be for
drivers to go Long Leave Drive and be able to make the right turns on to Blue Clay Road and on to Kerr and the
light at Castle Hayne Road. She stated the interconnectivity with Rachel’s Place would likely only consist of
emergency vehicle type situations or resident access. She stated that she understood the public concerns, but
they were not relevant to the proposal being presented.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf said she had been told the punchlist improvements would be made in
30-60 days and emphasized the county would not release the bond before they were complete.
During the opposition’s rebuttal, Ms. Matuse returned and expressed her concern with the stub exiting Rachel’s
Place off Blue Bonnet Circle and the previous statement that Rachel’s Place would also connect Big Field Drive to
Holland Drive. She stated that was where the concern was regarding traffic coming through the neighborhood.
Chair Boney explained to Ms. Matuse that Rachel’s Place was not what was being debated tonight, and that the
opening she was referring to had already been completed and had no bearing on this project. He stated he
understood her concern but explained that Rachel’s Place and the current development were separate, and the
connections being considered were Long Leaf Drive and Holland Drive. He stated the board could not go back and
relitigate what has already been approved.
Ms. Matuse asked if the Blue Bonnet Circle connection was going to happen based on when Rachel’s Place was
approved.
In response to Ms. Matuse question, Ms. Wolf stated yes and indicated on the map where the connection was
located and stated it was part of the preliminary plan and had always been intended for interconnectivity.
In response to a question from Ms. Michelle Lilly about trip generation Ms. Wolf explained that according to
statistics and studies of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) organization peak hour trips varied
depending on the housing product. Mr. Schuler agreed with Ms. Wolf and stated the numbers were based on
actual studies and gave information on the number of daily trips and the peak hours. He stated that ITE has found
that single family housing will generate more trips during the peak hours than attached housing units. He stated
4 | Page
this data source is the industry standard used to estimate the number of trips that would be generated by a
proposed development.
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 questions from the Board, the county Chief Project Engineer Mr. Galen Jamison, stated there was
no time limit for the punchlist improvements to be made. He stated the county would wait for the design
certification that the identified deficiencies were corrected, and the applicant would submit for a change in
ownership for the county permit which would be transferred into the HOA.
After further discussion from the Board, member Jordy Rawl made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Vice
Chair Jeff Petroff to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a conditional R-5 district. The Board
found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density
is in line with those recommended for the Community Mixed Use Place type, and the project will provide an
appropriate transition between a major road corridor with industrial development and existing low-density
housing. The Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest
because the proposal supported the county’s goals of providing for a range of housing types and opportunities for
households of different sizes and income levels.
The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0
OTHER BUSINESS
Consideration of Planning Board Rules of Procedure
Long Range Planner, Marty Little gave an update to the 160D text amendment approved by the Board of
Commissioners on May 3, 2021. He stated the changes necessitated by 160D would go beyond the amendment to
the code and included changes to the board’s rules of procedure, applications, and the county website. He stated
the draft Rules of Procedure they were considering addressed inconsistencies created by the amendment and
incorporated by reference the statutes’ broadened conflict of interest standards that state board members need
to recuse themselves for items for which they have a clear financial impact, and would need to recuse themselves
on items involving a family member or a close business or associational relationship. He stated planning staff
worked with the clerk’s office and legal staff to ensure the provisions in the Rules of Procedure were consistent
with the general structure of the Board of Commissioners Rule of Procedure and that they were in line with the
Board of Commissioners’ adopted Committee Policy. Mr. Little also wanted to note that the Chairperson and
Vice-Chairperson vote for this board occurs in August and not September and asked that if there was a vote for
approval of the revised Rules of Procedure that they would incorporate that amendment.
Board Member Donna Girardot made a recommendation to read the board’s Code of Ethics at each monthly
meeting which asked that any member that had a conflict or a perceived conflict, recuse themselves.
Board Member Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Ernest Olds to approve the Rules
of Procedure with the amendment regarding the August vote for Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.
Presentation of Height Standards Considerations
Chair Paul Boney requested recusal due to a conflict of interest. Board member Jordy Rawl made a MOTION,
SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, to recuse Mr. Boney.
Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth provided information on some considerations regarding
changes to height standards. She indicated that while incremental height increases were included in the UDO
Project amendments in 2020, staff had seen new information where current standards provided barriers to the
types of development envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. She outlined COVID-related increased demand for
5 | Page
height, the results of senior and comprehensive housing studies, and new height allowances included in City of
Wilmington draft Land Development Code (LDC).
She stated there were three options staff had identified that may help address some of the issues that the county
has seen regarding height and was seeking board feedback and direction. The options she outlined included, 1.
Increase height in RMF-L and RMF-M districts from 3 to 4 stories. 2. PD District – Remove height cap since
projects were governed by the approved master development plan. 3. Replace current roadway-based height
allowance, in B-2, I-1, O&I, UMXZ districts with the same type of optional height allowance outlined in the city
draft LDC that would require a structure with the higher height be set back further from a residential district.
Board Member Ernest Olds expressed his approval of increasing the height limits to 4-stories in the two RMF
districts but that a height cap should not be necessary. He also supported removing the height cap in the PD
district. Board Member Donna Girardot agreed and added that the only issue she would have would be if it were
immediately adjacent to single family residential. Board Member Jordy Rawl agreed and added the four-story
limitation alleviates the problem of project designs that did not make sense. He asked staff if there were a
building code limitation. Mrs. Roth stated she would get verification. Mrs. Roth stated a draft of the actual
language will be given to the board before it is presented to the public.
Chair Paul Boney adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board
Meeting.