2021-07-08 PB MINUTES
1 | Page
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
July 8, 2021
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on July 8, 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 & Land Use
Allen Pope Ken Vafier, Planning & Zoning Manager
Colin J. Tarrant Rachel LaCoe, Senior Long Range Planner
Donna Girardot Marty Little, Long Range Planner
Ernest Olds Nicole Smith, Senior Planner
Thomas “Jordy” Rawl Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney
Members Absent
Jeffrey Petroff
Chair Paul Boney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and Planning Manager, Ken Vafier led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Chair Boney recognized Planning Board members, Ernest Olds and Jordy Rawl, as their terms were expiring and this
would be their last meeting.
He then read the New Hanover County Code of Ethics, and he and Mr. Olds indicated that they both had a
professional conflict of interest for rezoning request Z21-07 and would need to recuse themselves for that item.
Mr. Boney also indicated that he would need to recuse himself from the discussion item regarding height
modification amendment concepts.
Chair Boney welcomed the audience and provided an overview of the procedures of the meeting.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the May 6, 2021, Planning Board meeting was presented to the members. No changes or
amendments were identified. Board Member Ernest Olds made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Donna
Girardot to APPROVE the minutes as drafted.
Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0
NEW BUSINESS
Rezoning Request (Z21-08) – Request by TDR-HL, LLC, applicant and property owner, to rezone approximately
62.77 acres of land located at 1308 Crooked Pine Road from R-15, Residential District, to PD, Planned
Development District, in order to develop a mixed-use project.
Planning & Zoning Manager, Ken Vafier 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. Vafier explained that the subject site was a continuation of the Hanover Reserve residential subdivision,
which consisted of 172 homes and 41 townhomes. He stated that Planned Development districts were
generally used for larger, integrated projects with long anticipated buildouts, and the district was intended to
balance flexibility so that a project could adapt to changing market conditions while providing a clear
expectation of future development for stakeholders and adjacent property owners.
2 | Page
Mr. Vafier stated that while the area was zoned for low density housing in the early 1970s, the 2016
Comprehensive Plan recommended a mixture of uses and residential densities ranging from 8 to 15 dwelling
units per acre. He reported that the extension of Murrayville Road incorporated into the project was included
in the MPO 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and was anticipated to be a significant east-west
connector between the Castle Hayne and Murrayville areas. He stated it was anticipated that the completion
of the roadway would aid in alleviating traffic along Market Street, Gordon Road, and other local roadways.
He stated a new mixed-use node centered around the intersection of Murrayville Road and Military Cutoff
would make commercial services available to nearby residents. The proposed project would also provide a
range of housing options in the area which was predominantly single family detached residential.
He stated the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the property as a community mixed-use place type and the
proposed Planned Development was consistent with the plan as it provided for the types and mixture of uses
recommended in this place type. He stated that by allowing for a mix of uses in this area, the proposal would
provide commercial services closer to the surrounding residential housing which could reduce travel time and
alleviate congestion along the internal local street network in this area.
Chair Boney opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Ms. Allison Engebretson of Paramounte Engineering, representing TDR-HL, LLC, the property owners, provided a
summary description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Mr. Vafier had presented.
Ms. Engebretson stated that the subject property was originally one parcel before the Military Cutoff Extension
roadway project, which bisected the property. She stated that the proposed extensions of Murrayville Road made
the project possible and described how Military Cutoff would ultimately connect I-140 to Market Street and the
Murrayville Road Extension would connect College Road to Military Cutoff, creating the possibility for a commercial
node at the intersection.
She stated the intent of the Planned Development master plan design was to have a strong commercial core along
Murrayville Road Extension and then transition down to the surrounding residential properties. She indicated the
portion of the property north of Murrayville Road was allocated as multifamily with strong potential for senior
housing or continuing care. She stated that the portion of the property south of Murrayville Road was designated
for townhomes as it made sense to put the same type of use next to the already existing Hanover Reserve
development and the currently planned townhouse community. The parcels east of Military Cutoff Extension were
proposed for either commercial or residential development, and additional residential units designed in conjunction
with the greater project were possible in other locations.
Ms. Engebretson stated the subject site was one of the only locations along Military Cutoff between I-40 and Market
Street that would have a commercial corridor located to serve the existing residential communities. She stated
Murrayville Road would be the pathway for bringing water and sewer to the site and allow for the creation of the
community mixed use commercial node. She stated that the extension of Murrayville Road would provide a public
benefit as it would divert traffic from the surrounding roads such as Gordon Road and Torchwood Road and allow
residents to not have to travel out to Market Street. She stated the MPO 2045 Plan also provided for an eventual
extension of Murrayville Road across Military Cutoff to Market Street, and the proposal would also allow for
multimodal recreation as it included a proposal to partner with NCDOT on extending the multiuse path being
constructed along Military Cutoff to the commercial node. She stated the project had a ten-year buildout but could
begin construction 2023 at the earliest when the Military Cutoff Extension would be operational.
Chair Boney opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition.
Mr. Vick Kroft, 1361 Golden Grove Lane, asked a question regarding the connection with the existing Hanover
Reserve project, spoke in opposition and expressed his concern with the traffic near Golden Grove Road if a gate
limiting access to Emergency Vehicles were not required.
3 | Page
During the applicant rebuttal period, Ms. Engebretson stated the intention of the road was for emergency access
only. While she could not give specifics due on the type of technology that would be required, the gate requirement
was included in the terms and conditions document included as part of the project’s application.
Mr. Kroft stated that if an emergency pathway and gate were installed on the proposed road, he would not be in
opposition.
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, Ms. Engebretson stated the applicant would work with CFPUA and
surrounding landowners to extend water lines to the development. She stated the earliest the proposed project
would begin 2023 and build out over ten years.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Engebretson stated that there were no proposed vehicular
connections off the Military Cutoff extension other than the large intersections noted off a service road and that
required connections to other properties would be determined during the site plan review process if the Planned
Development rezoning were to be approved, as the property would be developed in phases.
In response to questions from the Board, Alison stated the applicant had an approved TIA however were still in
negotiations with the MPO and NCDOT to finalize the required improvements.
After further discussion from the Board, member Jordy Rawl made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member,
Donna Girardot to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a PD, Planned Development district. The
Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project
provides for the types and mixture of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type, the residential
densities are in line with those recommended with the place type, and the project will develop a new commercial
node in close proximity to nearby residents. The Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request was
reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would benefit the community by providing the diverse
housing options and commercial services to nearby residents and promote principles of walkability and urbanism.
The proposal also provides a transition from a mixed-use use node to adjacent single family residential
neighborhoods, additional access points to properties east of Military Cutoff Extension, and extension of water and
sewer services which will allow for integrated planning for future community services
The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0
Rezoning Request (Z21-09) - Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owners, WPE Holdings, LLC
and Senca Properties, LLC, to rezone approximately 12.99 acres of land located in the 9000 block of Market
Street from B-1, Neighborhood Business District, (CZD) B-1, Conditional Neighborhood Business District, and R-
15, Residential District to (CZD) RMF-MH, Conditional Residential Multi-Family Moderate-High Density District,
in order to construct a 256-unit apartment development.
Planner Nicole Smith provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and
zoning. She 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.
Ms. Smith explained that the site had been zoned B-1 Neighborhood Business since 2019 and the intent of
the district was to provide lands that accommodate a range of small scale, low density and neighborhood
serving commercial development that provided goods and services to residents of adjacent neighborhoods.
Ms. Smith stated the applicant was proposing to rezone 12.99 acres to conditional RMF-MH to construct a
256-unit multifamily development. She stated the remaining acres of both tracts would retain the current B-
1 and R-15 zoning.
4 | Page
Ms. Smith stated the subject property was part of the Scotts Hill Medial development, was located between
residential and nonresidential zoning districts, and would have direct access to US 17. The site was currently
vacant; however, its current zoning and TIA approval allowed general office medical office, retail and a
pharmacy with a drive through and adding a residential use to the subject site provided for a range of housing
type in the unincorporated area and would support the Scotts Hill node.
She stated the site was located in an area that the Comprehensive Plan designated as community mixed-use,
and the proposed zoning was intended to provide alternative housing type to single family detached
development and would locate community services in close proximity to residents. She stated if the project
were approved it would remain subject to technical review committee and zoning compliance review in order
to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements.
Chair Boney opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Ms. Cindee Wolf representing WPE Holdings, LLC and Senca Properties, LLC, the property owners, provided a
summary description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Ms. Smith had presented.
Ms. Wolf stated the rezoning petition was for 12.99 acres of the entire project boundary, but 6.05 acres located to
the rear of the parcel would remain R-15 and would remain undeveloped in the future. She stated that the
proposed multifamily development would have less impact that possible with the existing B-1 zoning and described
how taller buildings were located away from the adjacent residential development. She stated that the
development would include amenities, a pool, clubhouse, pickle ball, courts, and sidewalks, that were typically
expected in market-rate suburban multi-family communities.
She described the plans for the project’s infrastructure. CFPUA would provide water and sewer utilities, buildings
would have sprinklers, and stormwater runoff would be captured by the existing pond. She stated that the pond
was designed by an engineer to capture drainage for the entire Scotts Hill development and described how the
subject parcel would drain to the pond.
She stated that access to the site would be from the southern access of three along Market Street that were
approved as part of the traffic impact analysis approval. She stated the access was already constructed but was
currently blocked because there was nothing for drivers to turn in to. She stated part of the applicant’s responsibility
before certificate of occupancy would be to remove the barriers and install a traffic signal at the intersection with
Scotts Hill Medical Drive along with the left over and two lanes available for right turns once the signal was active.
She completed her presentation by stating that the proposed project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and provided a different type of housing style. She stated it was transitional between the busy highway and that
the permanent open space, the wetlands area, and the school provided more than 1,600 feet of buffer between
the highway and the existing residential community.
Chair Boney opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition.
Ms. Roberta Corpus, 529 Creekwood Road, spoke in opposition and expressed her concern with the traffic near the
school and Scotts Hill Village. She stated there were concerns about homes that were still in process of being built
and the traffic problems. Ms. Corpus stated there was also an issue with the stormwater draining into the pond.
She stated the elevation was much higher than Creekwood Road and the pond runoff ran to the road which washed
out when they started the hospital and school. Ms. Corpus also expressed her concerns about pollution that would
be created from the development.
Mr. Thomas Stevens, 8972 Cobble Ridge Drive, spoke in opposition and stated he agreed with Ms. Corpus’
comments. He expressed his concerns with stormwater and the runoff being within the watershed of the proposed
site development and drainage into Futch Creek through Creekwood Road.
5 | Page
In rebuttal, Ms. Wolf stated while the subject property was located in the Futch Creek watershed, a distinct ridgeline
would prevent stormwater from the site from impacting Creekwood Road or Scotts Hill Village. She stated that the
pond had been sized for the subject site, along with the rest of the Scotts Hill Medical development.
In response, Ms. Corpus described how past storms had resulted in the flooding of Creekwood Road and stated
that other apartment developments were already located in the Scotts Hill area. Mr. Stevens provided additional
information on side roads that would be impacted by the project.
Mr. Michael Nadeau, Creative Commercial Properties, spoke in support of the project and provided background
information on the stormwater engineering for the Scotts Hill Medical development.
In response to questions from the Board, Seth Coker, a partner in Comet Development, provided information on
the design of the property and indicated that the R-15 portion of the property was not included in the rezoning
request because it was largely undevelopable. He stated that while a condition could not be placed on the rezoning
to require it, they were willing to dedicate it as permanent open space
After extensive discussion regarding the capacity and design of the stormwater pond, Chair Boney closed the public
hearing and opened to Board discussion.
After further discussion from the Board, member Ernest Olds made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Colin
Tarrant to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) RMF-MH, Conditional RMF-MH, district. The
Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project
provides for the types and mixture of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type, and the project,
upon full build, will provide community services in close proximity to nearby residents. Further the proposed design
supports the Scotts Hill node and retains wetlands and low-density residential zoning as an additional buffer against
the school property. The Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public
interest because the proposal would benefit the community by providing a diverse housing option near a retail,
service and employment node.
The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0
Chair Paul Boney and Board Member Ernest Olds requested recusal due to a conflict of interest and to appoint
Board Member Donna Girardot as temporary Chair. Board member Jordy Rawl made a MOTION, SECONDED by
Board Member Colin Tarrant to recuse Mr. Boney and Mr. Olds and assign Ms. Girardot as temporary Chair.
Rezoning Request (Z21-07) - Request by Novant Health-New Hanover Regional Medical Center to rezone
approximately 40.9 acres of land located in the 100 block of Scotts Hill Medical Drive from (CZD) O&I,
Conditional Office and Institutional District, and B-1, Neighborhood Business District, to O&I, Office and
Institutional District.
Long Range Planner Marty Little 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. Little explained that this was a request for a straight rezoning from a condition O&I district and would
allow for a similar development pattern as currently approved for the subject property. He stated that as
currently approved the project was expected to generate around 100 trips generated during the morning and
evening peak hours. He stated that based on the size of the rezoning area, and the estimated trip generation
of the original approval, a similar development pattern would likely trigger a new traffic impact analysis to be
submitted. He stated that the straight rezoning, if approved, would remove the 90-foot tree preservation
buffer along Pandion Drive required by the current conditional district, but any future development would be
required to meet the county’s tree retention, mitigation, and landscaping standards if the straight rezoning
were approved.
6 | Page
Mr. Little stated the property was in an area that the comprehensive Plan designated as a Community Mixed
Use area that would provide goods and services for nearby resident in the community, and the O&I district
was a typical zoning category in the community mixed use place type and allowed the types of commercial
office and civic uses recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Boney opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Ms. Amy Schaeffer, Attorney representing the applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project.
She concurred with the information Mr. Little had presented.
Ms. Schaeffer stated that the proposal was to rezone the property from CZD O&I to straight O&I. She stated traffic
access would be from US 17 onto Scotts Hill Medial Drive, and any further development would require a full
Technical Review Committee review and approval, including any roadway improvements.
Ms. Schaeffer completed her presentation by stating that the proposed rezoning would allow the county planning
staff to more efficiently review any proposed development of the site and eliminate the current split zoning and
layer of conditional zoning. She stated there was a high potential for wetlands in the area where the current tree
preservation buffer was required and if they were to develop on the property, as it went through the technical
review process, there would have to be a wetlands delineation.
With no further questions and no further information from the applicant, Ms. Girardot closed the public
hearing and opened to opposition.
In response to questions of the board, Ms. Schaeffer stated there was a 90-foot vegetated buffer required under
the conditional rezoning but if there was development, the 90-foot buffer may not exist but there would be a street
yard setback and landscaping requirements.
In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Schaeffer stated the stormwater was served by a pond that served the
overall development.
With no speakers in opposition and no further questions or information from the applicant, Ms. Girardot closed the
public hearing and opened to Board discussion.
After further discussion from the Board, member Colin Tarrant made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member,
Jordy Rawl to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to an O&I, Office and Institutional district. The Board
found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district allows the
types of commercial, office, and civic uses that would be encouraged int eh Community Mixed Use place type and
would serve as an appropriate transition between existing commercial development and adjacent residential
neighborhoods. The Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest
because the site is located along the Market Street corridor and is near the I-140 interchange and existing
commercial services.
The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 4-0
Preliminary Forum for Special Use Permit Request (S21-03) - Request by Thomas H. Johnson, Jr, Attorney, on
behalf of the property owner, Southeastern Enterprises, Inc., to obtain a special use permit for a wireless
communication tower and related support facilities in an R-15, Residential zoning district, located north of
Valley Brook Road and west of Fern Valley Drive.
Long Range Planner Marty Little provided an overview of the application information pertaining to location, land
classification, access, transportation, and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and
surrounding area as referred to in the staff report.
Mr. Little stated the property was currently undeveloped and while support structures were allowed in the R-
15 district with the special use permit, applicants were required to demonstrate compliance with specific
standards to include setbacks equal to the tower, landscape and fencing requirements around the tower’s
7 | Page
equipment compound, limitations on signage, and verification that the tower meets all Federal requirements
of the SCC and the FAA. He stated that a condition of approval that the antennae would utilize concealment
shades to reduce the visual impact on surrounding properties had been proposed.
Following his introduction, Ms. Roth provided an overview of the preliminary forum, as this was the first time
the Planning Board had held one since the Unified Development Ordinance had been amended in May. She
stated that the purpose of the forum was to facilitate an open and transparent discussion of the special use
permit application and to provide an opportunity for public comments and questions. She noted that pursuant
to state law, the Planning Board would not make a decision or recommendation. Instead, the decision on the
application would be made during the Board of Commissioners’ quasi-judicial hearing, where public
participation would be limited to parties with standing and witnesses providing evidence through sworn
testimony. She stated that anyone interested in speaking in support or opposition to the project should sign
in and speak during the preliminary forum regardless of standing in the matter. She described that the
applicant would be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation, then 20 minutes would be provided for public
questions and comments. The applicant would be provided time to address them before the Planning Board
members provided their comments and questions. Finally, staff would provide an overview of the next steps
in the special use permit process before the close of the preliminary forum.
Chair Boney recognized the applicant.
Mr. Thomas H. Johnson Jr., attorney representing the applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed
project. He stated they were looking to put a tower on the vacant undeveloped wooded area. He stated there were
no towers in the area to provide coverage for those who needed wireless service in the area. He indicated that
wireless coverage was important not only for access to emergency services but because so many individuals rely
on the services especially during the pandemic, as wireless service was used for remote work.
Mr. Johnson stated the property was in the wetlands and they would need to obtain a Corps of Engineers wetlands
permit to build. He stated the applicant would provide the land buffer as required by the ordinance and have a
parking and/or turn around area for emergency services. He stated the proposed tower would have concealment
shades, encouraged by the ordinance, to cover the antennae. Mr. Johnson stated all of the necessary documents
had been provided to meet the ordinance requirements.
Mr. Michael Berkowitz, Appraiser, stated he conducted an analysis and concluded that the proposed tower would
not damage or have an adverse impact on adjacent or abutting properties.
After the applicant presentation, Chair Boney recognized those signed up for public comments or questions.
Mr. John Grotgen, President, Telfair Forest HOA, spoke in opposition to the proposed telecommunications facility
and expressed his concern with the construction traffic that would result in increased maintenance of the private
road, Valley Brook Road, for the residents of Telfair Forest and Telfair Summit. He stated there was no
communication of the cost of the increased use. He expressed his concern with the application indicating there
would be little or no environmental impact though the application proposed to grade and fill the site to build, add
a landscaped buffer and security fence, and build the support structure for the tower. He expressed his concern
with the visual impact and the property values of the adjacent residences.
Ms. Dawn Gual, 306 S. 3rd Avenue, Telfair Community Manager, spoke in opposition and expressed the concerns of
the homeowners of the cost of wear and tear of Valley Brook Road that the construction of the tower would cause.
She expressed concerns regarding whether a cell tower could be built on the parcel as it was shown as future
development and served as natural barriers from adjacent communities and helps with drainage. She also stated
the property owners were concerned with diminishing property values.
Ms. Robert Trout, 7510 Pomentory Ct, spoke in opposition due to the impact of the facility on property values and
the use of the private road.
8 | Page
Mr. Louis Cress, 7407 Fernvalley Drive, spoke in opposition and asked what could be done to stop the development
from taking place.
In response to Mr. Cress’ question, Ms. Roth explained that there would be discussions at the end of the forum to
go over the criteria that the applicant must prove at the Board of Commissioner’s meeting. She stated the county
would encourage the citizens to contact staff and discuss next steps that could be taken. She indicated other citizens
in the past had coordinated and worked with an attorney or sought the assistance of someone who was familiar
with the type of case. She stated there were strict legal requirements that would have to be met in terms of types
of evidence that would need to be presented to the Commissioners to support any arguments as to whether the is
application met the required criteria.
Ms. Wanda Montrino, Telfair Summit resident, spoke in opposition regarding the impact on the bridge between
the two subdivisions and on wildlife.
Mr. James Toplin, Telfair Summit resident, spoke in opposition regarding the impact of construction equipment
on the private roadway and potential damage to the old trees along it.
In response, Mr. Johnson stated the development of the tower on the undeveloped property would have a very
small footprint of a 100 by 100 foot compound with a small access road going to the site. He stated there would be
minimal traffic during construction and afterwards only a vehicle or two every 30 days or so for maintenance to the
equipment on the site. He stated the site would be open to emergency vehicles that need to access the area. He
stated if there were any damage that occurred, the applicant would make repairs. He stated because all tower sites
were federally licensed, the facility had to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act and be approved. He stated
the Army Corps of Engineers permit would have to be issued to be able to encroach into the wetlands. He stated
the project was a very low impact use with the benefit of access to emergency services and wireless data that was
important to the community.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Johnson stated there was not a separate maintenance agreement for the
private road but there were covenants. He stated they had had some discussion with Telfair Summit about sharing
equitably in any maintenance issues that may occur and use of the property in which he would have the right to
use the private road under the existing covenants. There was an existing easement for access to the property using
the private road that comes along with the obligation to share the maintenance.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Johnson stated he believed the wetlands would be subject to the Corps
of Engineers and the Corps’ permit and not the Department of Natural Resources.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Johnson stated it the area was not in the flood zone but would make
sure to have a clear exhibit at the next meeting with the Commissioners.
With no further questions, Mr. Little provided an overview of the decision-making procedures of the Board of
Commissioners for quasi-judicial cases and the next steps in the process.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Paul Boney requested recusal due to a conflict of interest and to appoint Board Member Donna Girardot as
temporary Chair. Board member Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Allen Pope to
recuse Mr. Boney.
Presentation - Draft Multi-family & Commercial Height Modification Amendment Concepts
Long Range Planner, Marty Little provided an update to the concepts of an amendment to the Unified Development
Ordinance to update the county’s height standards in multifamily and nonresidential districts.
He stated the amendment looked to address two main goals: first to provide opportunities for a greater range of
housing options and second to reflect the county’s needs for more flexible building design for commercial and
mixed-use developments while offsetting impacts of tall structures next to residential property.
9 | Page
Mr. Little stated staff had presented initial concepts of potential height modifications to the Board at the meeting
on May 6 and had received three main point of feedback from the conversation that had been incorporated into a
draft text amendment. He stated the Board discussed increasing the height standards for multifamily structures in
the RMF-L and RMF-M from three stories to allow four stories and removing the height caps, removing the 40-foot
height requirement from the planned development districts as all projects in the district would require a Master
Development Plan for approval, and replacing roadway-based height standards in nonresidential and Urban Mixed
Use Zoning districts with an alternative of allowing increased height with certain design standards. He stated staff
looked at the City of Wilmington’s draft Land Development Code as an example of potential height modifications,
and with the city’s proposal serving as the basis of this concept, staff has initially drafted an option that would allow
buildings in the B-2, O&I, I-1 an UMXZ districts to observe a by-right height but also allow for greater height with
either additional setbacks for residential lots or a stepped back or graduated building height.
Ms. Roth provided more detailed information about the feedback received regarding the draft amendments and
get more direction from the Board as to what direction they wanted to take. The Board indicated that they would
find it more important to ensure the height standards were appropriate in the county’s jurisdiction than seek to
align with the City of Wilmington’s standards. After confirming that all portions of the height standards changes
should be included in one text amendment, Ms. Roth indicated that staff would prepare to present additional
options at the August meeting.
Housing Initiatives Update
Senior Long Range Planner, Rachel LaCoe provided an update to the department’s workforce housing initiatives,
stating the Joint City-County Workforce Housing Advisory Committee was tasked to oversee the development of a
comprehensive housing study, a public awareness campaign, and a long-term work plan to further workforce
housing within the county. She stated that following her updated in March, the Comprehensive Housing Study and
Survey were finalized and presented to the Board of County Commissioners and Wilmington City Council, and the
Workforce Housing Committee also presented their Housing Work Plan recommendations.
Ms. LaCoe stated that the study found there were housing gaps that were significant across the spectrum of
affordability. She stated there was an estimated housing gap of 11,000 rental units and 13,000 for-sale units within
the county over the next ten years, based on current policies and initiatives, demographic and economic trends,
and any available or planned residential units. She stated pertaining to rentals, the market would probably address
households earning maybe 60% or more of area median income; the lower end of the market, particularly under
30% AMI, would be where you would see the need for assistance which was typically delivered in low-income
housing tax credit projects like the Estrella Landing project recently approved and other subsidized products. She
stated the greatest housing gap would be in the $200,000 plus market and would be delivered through what the
market was able to produce but that some diversity of housing types would be required to get to the lower price
points. She stated once below the $200,000 price-point specialized programs such as Habitat for Humanity, Land
Trusts, or Cape Fear Collective would have to use their methods to fill in the gaps.
Ms. LaCoe stated the Workforce Housing Advisory Committee developed recommendations for tools and strategies
to guide New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington in efforts in addressing housing affordability and were
designed to retain existing affordable stock and increase residents’ access to those homes. She stated these were
organized into four types of strategies: land use programs, advocacy, education, and funding. She stated staff was
looking at land use policies to facilitate overall housing production, through prioritization and funding of
infrastructure investments where affordable housing products or development with density and height would allow
for affordability and would be looking to partner with CFPUA to assist with utility related fees that also impact
housing affordability.
Ms. LaCoe stated there were recommendations for county and city text amendments including zoning standards
to facilitate development of senior living facilities in response to the expected growth in senior population, density
and height incentives and bonuses to provide housing across the affordability spectrum. Finally encouraging
diversity in housing stock by allowing and incentivizing the middle-class duplexes and townhomes and minimize
10 | Page
barriers for infill development. She stated the county was currently in the first phase of the action plan, and as
conversations continue, they would shape the goals, public awareness campaign of future programs and text
amendments.
FY 2021-2022 Planning Department Projects & Initiatives
Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth provided an overview of the department’s anticipated work plan
for the next twelve months. She described the changes in the department’s work that had taken place since the
adoption of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the new vision it outlined for development in the unincorporated
county. She stated the plan had sought to consider anticipated growth in the area and balancing that with the high
quality of life that residents valued and changes in the market. She stated that previously the county’s land use
plans focused primarily on Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) requirements and information was identified on
the where existing infrastructure was already in place, where there might be sensitive natural systems, but it did
not take a closer look at what kind of development pattern the county wanted to see moving forward. She stated
community focused small area plans were largely efforts to protect existing communities from changes that were
happening, but they were ultimately ineffective in many situations or pushed development out and only
contributed to the sprawl that was being seen in other areas. She stated the goals of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
called for a greater mix of uses was more diversity of housing and more efficient uses of land.
She indicated that over the past year the county had completed the Unified Development Ordinance, or UDO,
Project, which was the major implementation initiative outlined in the 2016 plan. The county had also been working
with planning partners to plan for the infrastructure necessary for the future development that was anticipated
and had coordinated with the city and the Workforce Housing Advisory Committee to determine the housing
affordability needs for the community.
She stated over the coming months the stormwater ordinance would be added to the UDO, and the department
would be working to prepare information as the city and county considered ballot initiatives for a housing bond and
a sales tax for public transportation and trails.
She stated that while the Comprehensive Plan called for a greater mix of uses and more residential zoning options
to support density and a diversity of housing type, most of the undeveloped land that remains in the county’s
jurisdiction was zoned for low density residential development in the early 1970s, resulting in a large number of
rezoning requests over the last several years as property owners sought to use their properties in ways that were
more in line with current market demands.
Ms. Roth stated that since the adoption of the new districts in 2019 that were intended to implement the new
development patterns outlined in the 2016 plan almost half of residential rezoning requests were unsuccessful,
especially for projects that were located near existing communities. Requests for mixed use developments and
senior living were more successful as were commercial rezoning requests. She stated these patterns have shown
that even though residential development is very important to providing the housing stock needed in order to
preserve and maintain affordability for residents, there was still a lack of common agreement on what types of
housing and what densities were appropriate and where. She stated secondly that although requests for
commercial rezoning took several months to review and process, these projects along the major roadway corridors
were less of an area of disagreement.
Ms. Roth stated that in addition to the ongoing work items that were identified for this upcoming year, the county
was working on some concurrent initiatives to study and better align zoning with the development pattens that
were envisioned for the county’s future. These studies would focus on two major areas, 1) along the roadway
corridors that were visible to people throughout the county, and 2) the allowances for residential areas based on
the housing committee’s recommendations. These efforts could help the county to look at the cumulative impacts
of potential changes to multiple properties instead of looking at projects on a case-by-case basis. These studies
would inform conversations that the county would have with property owners and nearby community members
on zoning options that may be more appropriate in those locations.
11 | Page
Board Member Donna Girardot commented that there would be two new members at the next month’s meeting
and suggested that the presentation be included as part of their orientation.
Chair Paul Boney adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board
Meeting.