2021-08-05 PB MINUTES
1 | Page
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
August 5, 2021
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on August 5, 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
Jeffrey Petroff, Chair Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning
Donna Girardot, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Paul Boney Nicole Smith, Senior Planner
Jeffrey Stokley Jr. Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
Hansen Matthews
Members Absent
Allen Pope
Colin J. Tarrant
Chair Paul Boney excused the board members’ absences and called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and Planning
Manager, Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Election of Officers
Board Member Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney to ELECT Jeffrey Petroff
as Planning Board Chair.
Motion to approve elected Chair carried 5-0
Board Member Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Chair Jeffrey Petroff to ELECT Donna Girardot as
Planning Board Vice Chair.
Motion to approve elected Vice Chair carried 5-0
Chair Jeffrey Petroff read the New Hanover County Code of Ethics, welcomed the audience, and provided an
overview of the procedures of the meeting.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the July 8, 2021, Planning Board meeting was presented to the members. No changes or
amendments were identified. Board Member Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Paul
Boney to APPROVE the minutes as drafted.
Motion to approve minutes carried 5-0
NEW BUSINESS
Rezoning Request (Z21-10) -Request by Design Solutions, applicant on behalf of the property owners, Sanjeev
B. & Hita S. Badhiwala to rezone approximately 1.50 acres of land located at 7578 Carolina Beach Road from R-
15, Residential District to (CZD) RMF-M, Conditional Residential Multi-Family Moderate Density District, in
order to develop a 16-unit townhome 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.
2 | Page
Ms. Smith explained that the subject site was vacant and had been zoned R-15 since 1971. She stated R-15
was to accommodate low density residential development that could serve as a transition from very low to
low density residential development patterns as well as smaller lot, more dense residential areas of the
county. The purpose of the proposed RMF-M district was to accommodate lands for moderate density, single
family and multifamily development and was intended to function as a transitional district between intensive
non-residential development and higher density residential areas.
Ms. Smith stated that the applicant was proposing to rezone to conditional RMF-M to construct a 16-unit
townhome development, which equated to 10.7 units per acre. She stated the units would be in four buildings
containing 4 units each and that the proposal also included .34 acres of open space. She stated primary access
to the development would be provided on Carolina Beach Road, a principal arterial roadway. Ms. Smith stated
as currently zoned, the subject site would be permitted four dwelling units at 2.5 dwelling units per acre under
the performance residential standard, and a development of this scale was estimated to generate less than
10 trips during both the AM and PM peak hours. She stated the proposed development was estimated to
generate about 10 trips during the peak hours for a net increase of 7 trips in the PM peak hour.
Ms. Smith stated the subject property was one of several undeveloped tracts along a major road corridor and
located between low density residential development and vacant property, prime for moderate to high
residential density and mixed-use projects. She stated the proposed project would allow for an increase in
housing diversity in the immediate vicinity.
She stated the proposal was generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, was
intended to provide alternative housing types to single family detached development and provided for the
types and mixtures of uses recommended in the Community Mixed-Use place type. She stated if the rezoning
was approved, the proposal would be subject to technical review and zoning compliance review processes to
ensure full compliance with all zoning requirements.
Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Ms. Cindee Wolf, representing Sanjeev B. & Hita S. Badhiwala, the property owners, provided a summary
description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Ms. Smith had presented.
Ms. Wolf stated that the proposed project had the type of transitional residential density that translated well
between a busy corridor and more single-family residential types of uses. She stated basic preliminary items that
the TRC would review were provided such as a turnaround for fire and emergency vehicles. She stated the applicant
had soil testing done to verify the sandy soils, which in this case had excellent infiltration rates of 8 to 10 inches per
hour. She stated due diligence was done for stormwater management, and they had talked with Aqua utilities who
had water and sewer along the frontage of Carolina Beach Road. She stated they had worked to make sure the
sewer system that the applicant would be providing would be available to parcels north and south of the subject
property that had the potential for future development. She stated the site drained from Carolina Beach Road to
the northwest corner, and there was an existing ditch in an easement in the Capeside Village community that was
20 feet wide. She stated studies were done to assure infiltration was possible on the subject site and that the sandy
soils were consistently available, and that the property was not in the floodplain.
Ms. Wolf completed her presentation by stating the rezoning was consistent, reasonable and in the public interest.
She stated the property was designated as a Community Mixed Use place type and so was more appropriate for
higher density development. She stated it served as a transition between the highway and established
neighborhood and growth should be accommodated by a variety of housing types. She stated this would be an
orderly transition that would make a good project for the economic development within the county.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated the houses in Capeside Village would have been designed
as a performance residential project and that there was a 20-foot perimeter setback around the neighborhood. She
3 | Page
stated the applicant oriented all buildings closer to the highway so that the greenspace would be at the rear of the
site and that there would be a fenced buffer along the property line on the three sides shared with adjacent
properties. She stated there would be a 10-foot area that would be planted along with the open space. She stated
direct access would be from Carolina Beach Road.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated the price points would be in the $250,000 to $300,00
range which was typical for townhomes with garages, and there would be not Section 8 Housing. She stated the
County/City housing study that had been completed provided information about the lack of affordable workforce
housing and over $400,000 housing, and they were in the medium range with this type of housing product. She
stated this type of housing product does not translate into rentals but retired, empty nesters and families.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated the proposal included fencing, which to meet the buffer
standard had to be opaque and up to six feet in height.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated at the time Capeside Village was created, there was no
stormwater management requirement. She stated that for the proposed development, they were required to have
their own stormwater management based upon the pre and post development standards. She stated currently
stormwater was designed to flow to the ditch and could not go any faster or in greater amounts with impervious
surfaces as it was in its natural state, which was calculated based on stormwater events and reviewed and approved
by the state and county.
She described the plans for the project’s infrastructure. She stated rather than a wet pond, an infiltration pond,
called a dry pond, was recommended because it would retain water during high rain events but would eventually
drain. She stated the ponds were designed to spill over into the natural drainageway and described the appearance
of the infiltration basins and that they would not accumulate mosquitos.
Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition.
Mr. Bernie Vaudrim, 640 Capeside Drive, expressed his concerns regarding drainage problems with flooding and
the overflow of storm water runoff, wind impact, and traffic noise. He stated the community would also like for the
applicant to retain existing mature trees and install a landscape berm on the east entrance and the west edge of
the proposed development to minimize noise impact.
Vice Chair Girardot addressed the average pricing of a home in New Hanover County being almost $400,000, which
many people could not afford as entry-level homes or people looking to retire, made it obvious that multifamily
was the only way to address this problem for the larger percentage of the population. She stated traffic would not
necessarily be a problem as there would be a count of only seven additional cars. She also addressed the standing
water issue and called on the County Engineer for clarification.
In response to questions from the Board, Chief Project Engineer, Galen Jameson stated the Capeside Village area
was a slow-draining area, wetlands and groundwater were high, and stagnant water prevented the ditch from
draining effectively. He stated with the new stormwater services started July 1, the existing ditch would qualify for
a county-maintained system. He stated there were requirements in the ordinance for the 100-year storm event.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated there was a tree survey conducted and the applicant
would be removing 15, 16-foot pine trees but the property along the buffer yard would be replanted with trees.
She stated there would be enhanced landscaping along Carolina Beach Road to mitigate the road noise more than
what the street requirement was for the benefit of the residents.
With no further questions and no further information from the applicant, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing
and opened to Board discussion.
After further discussion from the Board, member Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board
Member, Paul Boney to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) RMF-M, Conditional Residential
Multi-Family Moderate Density 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
4 | Page
Community Mixed Use place type, the townhomes will provide a transition between a major corridor and existing
low-density housing, and because the proposal will increase the range of housing in the area. The Board also found
APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal supports 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 5-0
Rezoning Request (Z21-11) – Request by Craig Johnson, applicant on behalf of the property owner, SOCOL, LLC,
to rezone approximately 5.1 acres of land located at 4606, 4618, & 4626 South College Road from R-15,
Residential District to (CZD) R-5, Conditional Residential Moderate-High Density District, in order to develop a
40-unit single-family 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 R-15 since 1969 and the intent of the district was to
accommodate lands for low residential development that can serve as a transition between low density
residential development patterns and smaller lot, more dense residential areas. Ms. Smith stated the purpose
of the residential moderate high-density district was to provide lands that accommodate moderate to high
density residential development on smaller lots with compact and walkable development patterns. She stated
the applicant was proposing to rezone 5.1 acres to conditional Residential Moderate High-Density District in
order to construct a 40-lot single-family residential development. She stated the proposal also included 1.1
acres of open space.
Ms. Smith stated while connectivity was difficult in the location due to existing development patterns and
roadway configuration in the area the proposed development would connect to Jasmine Cove Way and was
estimated to generate about 32 to 42 trips during the peak hours for a net increase of 19-28 trips during peak
hours. She stated future residents would also have access to an existing transit stop at South College Road
between Jasmine Cove Way and Pine Hollow Drive to access goods and services in close proximity.
She stated the proposal was generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan
because it provided for the types and uses, and density recommended in the General Residential place type
and the proposal would provide a transition between a place of worship and the established low and moderate
density residential neighborhoods. She stated if the rezoning was approved, the proposal would be subject to
technical review and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance to all zoning
requirements.
Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Ms. Amy Schaeffer representing Craig Johnson, applicant on behalf of the property owner, SOCOL, LLC, provided a
summary description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Ms. Smith had presented.
Ms. Schaeffer stated the petition was to rezone to R-5 to develop 40 single family detached homes. She stated
there was 1.11 acres of open space as part of the proposed development. She stated access to the proposed
development was directly off College Road via Jasmine Cove Way and site development would require a full
Technical Review Committee review and approval as well as the road improvements. She stated the project did not
require a full Traffic Impact Analysis, however Davenport Engineering did review the traffic and found no major
concerns. Ms. Schaeffer stated there would be onsite stormwater management as the property was surrounded
three-fourths by drainage ditches and would possibly be part of the New Hanover County stormwater management
program.
5 | Page
She stated the single-family residential use permitted in R-5, smaller footprint single family homes within the
needed price point would support multiple goals of the Comprehensive Plan such as workforce development and
prosperity for all and the use of public infrastructure to leverage private investment. She stated the R-5 zoning
district would allow a range of housing types to accommodate a compact, walkable developable pattern. She stated
there was a property to the north with a density of 8.7 units per acre and to the south with a density of 2.6 acres,
and the proposed project at 7.8 units per acre of single family residential creates a buffer and transition between
the two. She stated the R-5 zoning would add to the mix of housing types available and meet a community need
for housing within a price range that was lacking according to the housing study completed by New Hanover County
and the City of Wilmington.
She completed her presentation by stating the request to rezone to R-5 was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and with the Future Land Use Map classification and would serve the public interest to allow for housing types
in a needed price range.
In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Schaeffer stated the road was about 1200 feet and there was
sufficient accommodation for emergency vehicles to turnaround. She stated the exact size would be determined
through the TRC review. She stated that traffic calming had not been addressed because of emergency vehicles
accessing the back of the property.
Ms. Schaeffer stated there would not be subsidized housing or housing that would receive government assistance.
She stated houses in Jasmine Cove were one story and Fortune Place were two stories so were placed on the
property so neighbors could see what they would be looking at, as well as the tree buffer on their properties. She
stated initially there was a submittal for a dog park as an amenity but there was concern from the residents, so it
was removed from the plan that was submitted to the county.
Ms. Schaeffer stated one major impediment to a fence was the draining ditches that surrounded the subject
property did not allow for fencing, however Mr. Johnson had proposed the possibility of a fence behind lots 40-26
which would be a fixed fence between the properties. He has also offered to put cypress trees along the buffer for
enhancement. She stated the Jasmine Cove stormwater pond was currently fenced by a chain link fence on three
sides and Mr. Johnson offered to provide an 8-foot fence on the fourth side as part of the draining ditch permitting.
Ms. Schaeffer stated access through Jasmine Cove Way was because it was a public road and there was not direct
access other than though an easement onto College Road.
In response to questions from the Board, Charlie Cazier, Intracoastal Engineering, stated the access was something
that had been looked at on a previous plan, and they had just emulated what someone else had done and
presented. He stated there was a short area where the subject property met up with Jasmine Cove and there was
not a lot of frontage. He stated in regard to the drainage along the back portion of the property line there was a
corridor for drainage easements utilizing the existing drainage feature. He stated he had not heard anything that
would cause concern to start doing a downstream analysis of the project.
Royal Hinshaw, Davenport Traffic Engineer, stated he was asked to look at traffic movements off College Road. He
indicated that they had the analysis tools to model vehicle turning movements and could find out from the TRC
staff which vehicle needed to be accommodated and assist via the site engineer.
After extensive discussion regarding the capacity and design of the stormwater pond, Chair Petroff opened the
hearing to those with questions or in opposition.
Ms. Michele Erich, 4605 Turtle Dove Court, spoke in opposition and expressed her concerns with the increase of
traffic and the draining in the northern ditch.
Mr. Scott Board, 5309 Trumpet Vine Way, spoke in opposition and expressed his concerns with the increased
density of the project and traffic.
Ms. Robin Perron 5175 Cloverland Way, spoke in opposition and expressed her concerns with the density of the
project, and the noise, light, and air pollution
6 | Page
Ms. Lauren Beja, 5175 Cloverland Way, spoke in opposition and expressed her concerns with the density of the
project, and the noise, light, and air pollution.
Ms. Katherine Bartos, 4308 Jasmine Cove Way, Turtle Dove Court, spoke in opposition and expressed her concerns
with destroying the ecosystem, wildlife, and high traffic volume.
Ms. Kate Griffin, 4416 Jasmine Cove Way, spoke in opposition and expressed her concerns and agreed with the
issue of the density of the project, and the noise, light, and air pollution.
In rebuttal, Ms. Schaeffer stated after a community meeting, one of the concerns that had come up was the
potential for endangered species, wildlife habitats and Native American or Civil War or other historical features on
the property. She stated Mr. Johnson had hired companies to investigate the area and reports were provided to
the county that showed there were no endangered species on the site and no historic sites. She stated there were
not many trees on the site, and they would be adding vegetation required in the landscape buffers along with the
cypress trees that Mr. Johnson had agreed to plant along the Fortune Place property line. She stated in regard to
noise impact and the green space, the subject property was vacant and the current residences on either side had
their own amenity space that would be undisturbed. She stated Mr. Johnson wanted to have a homeowner’s
association that would take care of the ongoing maintenance.
Mr. Royal Hinshaw stated a traffic engineer had observed eastbound and northbound exiting and U-turning into
Jasmine Cove Way and had not seen any queuing problems nor did their models show queuing to be a problem
under the future build conditions. He stated their analysis had shown that there was sufficient capacity at the
turning movement to accommodate the volume. He stated he did not observe the signage but would meet with
Mr. Don Bennett who had made the visits.
In rebuttal to opposition regarding ownership of the northside ditch, Ms. Schaeffer stated the ditch split the
property in half and once the project was complete it would be eligible for the county program. Mr. Hinshaw gave
clarification stating, the conveyance channel past the storm water pond outfall pipe would be part of the Storm
Water Services Program for maintenance of that conveyance channel. He stated there were actually two channels
that were parallel, one on the north side and one on the south of Jasmine Cove, and he had spoken to the engineer
to make sure there would be no impact to the southern Jasmine Cove ditch, and they would ask for a drainage
easement. He stated the existing channel was down the center line of the city and the county and they would have
some opportunities with the city to get into a maintenance agreement for that channel.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Hinshaw stated once they request the public drainage easement for the
subject development and would then engage with the southern property owner with a goal to get a drainage
easement for their property.
Mr. Justin Williams-Pope, 4609 Turtle Dove Cove, President of HOA spoke in opposition and expressed his concerns
with the increase of traffic and commented on the responsibility of maintenance of the ditches.
Mr. Scott Cicilo, 5304 Trumpet Vine Way, spoke in opposition and expressed his concern of the development
directly impacting his backyard view.
With no further questions and no further information from the applicant, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing
and opened to Board discussion.
After extensive Board discussion regarding the pond and stormwater, traffic, and the density of the project, Ms.
Schaefer stated that based on the questions and conversations, including the U-turn, the applicant would request
a continuance to the September 7 Planning Board meeting to address those concerns.
After further discussion from the Board, member Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member,
Jeffrey Stokley to GRANT A CONTINUANCE of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district to the September 2
Planning Board meeting.
The motion for continuance of the rezoning request carried 5-0
7 | Page
OTHER BUSINESS
Board Member Paul Boney requested recusal due to a conflict of interest. Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a
MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Matthews to recuse Mr. Boney.
Presentation – Height Standards Amendment Concepts
Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth provided an overview of the height standards in multifamily and
mixed-use districts and stated staff had been working on potential modifications to the county’s heigh standards
in certain multi-family, nonresidential and mixed-use districts as part of the UDO Project amendments. She stated
the current height standards limited projects that provided the type of structures that the Comprehensive Plan
indicated were appropriate. She stated the draft amendment concepts that were presented were the result of
feedback received on the ideas staff presented at the July 2021 Planning Board meeting and were informed by
the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. She indicated that if the Planning Board was comfortable, staff was
prepared to release summaries of the information, along with draft text, for public comment and stakeholder
review ahead of a public hearing at the September Planning Board meeting.
Ms. Roth stated staff was considering height standard amendments for RMF or Residential Multifamily districts,
UMXZ and Planned Development districts, and certain commercial and industrial districts.
Ms. Roth explained when first designed, the RMF-L and RMF-M districts, because of their lower densities, were
anticipated to be a lower scale, so building heights were limited to three stories. At the time, it was thought that
the higher densities allowed in the RMF-MH and RMF-H districts would be the trigger for needing a four-story
structure, which as these structures require elevators which open up additional units to seniors and people with
mobility issues, would be supported by staff. Since 2019, staff found the rising residential demand in the area
meant that four-story buildings were not off the table for lower density RMF districts.
She stated at the last meeting, feedback from the Planning Board was to use stories instead of feet to measure
maximum height for these multi-family districts to avoid needing to make adjustments in response to changing
construction standards. She stated the amendment was currently drafted to allow a maximum of three-story
structures, with an additional height allowance for four story structures if additional setbacks from general
residential districts were met.
Ms. Roth stated staff had also considered changes to the Urban Mixed Use (UMXZ) and the Planned Development
(PD) district. She stated the two districts could only be applied to a piece of property with an approved master
plan. She stated UMXZ district was designed to require high quality design and encouraged a mix of uses and
allowed residential densities that ranged from 15 to 36 units per acre depending on the type of residential
structure, which made it potentially appropriate in Community Mixed-Use, Employment Center, and Mixed-Use
places as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, all of which have different height standards. She stated because
height and any setbacks or other design features to mitigate the height, would be outlined in the Master
Development Plan (MDP) subject to the rezoning review and approval process, the draft concept would be to
remove the current height restrictions and allow height to be established in the MPD.
She stated the final type of districts where height changes are being considered include several business districts,
along with Office & Institutional and Light Industrial. She stated staff originally discussed the B-2, O&I, and I-1
districts but after going back and looking at current standards, staff included some adjustments to the
Neighborhood Business or B-1 district and Community Business or CB district in order to maintain consistency.
She stated height recommendations for these districts was based on the story recommendations that were
included in the Comprehensive Plan and height assumptions for nonresidential and mixed-use buildings that were
prepared by a consultant in 2018. She stated the primary concept was that a maximum height that would allow
the number of stories that were intended for the scale of the district would be allowed, along with an additional
allowance. She stated if construction standards changed or a particular building had to be designed in a way that
the height maximum would not accommodate the intended number of stories, there was built-in flexibility and if
8 | Page
there were certain uses that required structures of a certain number of stories, the additional height allowance
could allow for them. She stated this additional allowance would be allowed administratively but the height would
have to be mitigated when next to exiting residential neighborhoods with a larger setback, architectural design
features, or larger vegetative buffers.
She stated in the Neighborhood Business or B-1 district, the proposed amendment would increase the height to
40 feet to allow for two stories given current floor to floor height assumptions, and an additional height allowance
of 50 feet would be allowed to ensure that two story structures were allowed. She stated modifications for
setbacks have also been proposed to make all business districts consistent and to remove current standards that
apply differently to different roadway types.
She stated in the Community Business or CB district the proposed amendment would increase the height
maximum to 50 feet to allow for three stories given current floor to floor height assumptions, and an additional
height allowance of up to 65 feet to ensure three stories were allowed.
She stated in the Regional Business, or B-2 district, the draft amendment would allow for the three-story
structures and taller hotels or motels if additional standards were met. In addition, front and side setbacks for the
district had been adjusted to make sure they are considered with the other commercial districts possible along
the county’s roadways.
She stated in the Office and Institutional or O&I district, revised height limits were intended to support three story
residential structures and five story nonresidential structures to allow for the types of office building that might
make sense in this district. She stated the only uses that potentially would need more stories would be hospitals
and colleges, and the height allowance would make that possible and that additional standards had been put in
place to mitigate the impact on adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Ms. Roth stated in Light Industrial, or I-1 district, the proposed height changes, which would allow for taller office
structures, were intended to make the district more accommodating for the types of employment center uses
that supported the industries the county wanted to see, along with hotels and motels, which were also likely to
need taller buildings and were allowed by right in this district. She stated because the district’s existing setbacks
from adjacent residential were so large, no additional standard for these taller buildings were outlined.
Ms. Roth stated that members of the public who would like to review these documents could go to
planning.nhcgov.com.
Chair Jeffrey Petroff adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board
Meeting.