Loading...
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.