2021-09-02 PB MINUTES
1 | Page
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
September 2, 2021
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on September 2, 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
Colin J. Tarrant
Members Absent
Allen Pope
Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and excused board member Allen Pope’s absence.
Planning Manager, Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the August 5, 2021, Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or
amendments were identified. Board member Paul Boney made a motion to approve the minutes as drafted. Upon
vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0
NEW BUSINESS
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 stated that the proposal was continued from the August 5 meeting to allow the applicant
to address some of the concerns mentioned during the public hearing from the adjacent residents and the
Planning Board. Ms. 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 density residential development that could serve as a transition between low
density residential development patterns and smaller lot, more dense residential areas. Ms. Smith stated the
purpose of the R-5 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’s
original proposal included a 40-lot single-family detached residential development, and in response to some
of the concerns expressed at the previous Planning Board meeting the applicant had revised the conceptual
plan. She stated the revised proposal included dual-unit attached structures, a reduction in the number of lots
from 40 to 20, an increase of the minimum lot width, and the replacement of concrete parking pads with
garages.
2 | Page
Ms. Smith stated that primary access to the development would remain on Jasmine Cove Way. She stated the
revised conceptual proposal would not impact the trip generation numbers previously provided, and the
proposal was estimated to generate a net increase of 19-28 trips during peak hours.
She stated the proposal was generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan
because it provided for the types of 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 staff was recommending approval of the proposal with a
suggested condition that each residential structure include an attached garage consistent with the elevations
submitted with the revised petition. She stated if the rezoning were 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 Schaefer representing Craig Johnson, applicant on behalf of the property owner, SOCOL, LLC, provided a
summary description of the revisions to the proposed project. She concurred with the information Ms. Smith had
presented.
Ms. Schaefer stated the revised petition to rezone to R-5 was to decrease the development from 40 single family
to 20 dual-unit attached homes. She stated changes to access for the proposed development via Jasmine Cove Way
now provided more space since the lots had been moved and the layout would be further reviewed by the Technical
Review Committee. She stated the revised proposal now included homes with 2-car garages and side entry to keep
the building footprint smaller, but the homes had the same height and general design features as previously
submitted. She stated there was 30% open space which was subject to change as the project went through
Technical Review Committee review. She stated the project did not require a full Traffic Impact Analysis; however,
Davenport Engineering did conduct a traffic study. Ms. Schaeffer stated there would be on-site stormwater
management and the property was surrounded three-fourths by drainage ditches. She stated if the county were to
take them over, the county and city would enter into agreement of management of the ditches.
She stated the R-5 zoning would provide a transition between the two adjacent residential developments, 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 by allowing for housing
types in a needed price range.
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 density and
increase in traffic.
Ms. Robin Perron 5175 Cloverland Way, spoke in opposition and expressed her concerns with the increased density
of the project and traffic saturation in the corridor given the approved Whiskey Branch project.
Ms. Lauren Beja, 5175 Cloverland Way, spoke in opposition and expressed her concerns with the lack of buffering
around the property and the noise, light, and air pollution.
Mr. Andrew Chitasek, 5171 Cloverland Way, spoke in opposition and expressed his concerns with the lack of fenced
buffering around the property and the decrease in home values.
Mr. Sal Nigrelli, 4825 Goodwood Way, spoke in opposition and expressed his concerns with the traffic volume, citing
traffic projections included in the 2007 River Road Small Area Plan study.
In rebuttal, Ms. Schaefer stated the proposed units were 16 feet to the eave and 40 by 50 feet and the setbacks
were 26 feet to the back of the applicant’s property line. She stated Mr. Johnson agreed to plant Cypress trees
3 | Page
along the Fortune Place property line. She stated Mr. Johnson suggested that he build the fence on the
homeowner’s association property at his expense, and he would meet with the city and county to verify the space
that would be needed to accommodate the drainage easement
Mr. Don Bennett, Traffic Engineer, in response to the traffic volumes on College Road referenced by Mr. Nigrelli,
stated that the 2007 study was performed for River Lights and that he was the city traffic engineer at that time. He
stated that when the study was conducted, the county was experiencing extremely high growth at the time, but
there was a dip in traffic due to the 2008 recession. The traffic projections included were not reflective of existing
traffic levels, which had never fully recovered from the 2008 downturn. He stated regarding safety and overall
capacity, NCDOT had instituted ‘Super Street’ roadway improvements on College Road since the 2007 study that
had added capacity and decreased traffic conflicts.
He stated his analysis for the proposed project had shown that there was sufficient capacity at the turning
movement to accommodate the anticipated traffic volume.
Ms. Lauren Beja, 5175 Cloverland Way, returned and spoke in opposition expressing her concerns with the density
of the project, traffic, noise, light, and air pollution.
Mr. Sal Nigrelli, 4825 Goodwood Way, spoke in opposition and expressed his concerns with the price point of the
housing stating it was not affordable housing.
Ms. Kate Griffin, 4416 Jasmine Cove Way, spoke in opposition and expressed her concerns with the increase of
traffic and asked what would be done to keep the Jasmine Cove park private.
With no further questions and no further information from the applicant, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing
and opened to Board discussion.
After discussion from the Board regarding the proposed revised plan, Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a MOTION,
SECONDED by Board Member, Paul Boney to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district with the
CONDITION that each residential structure shall include an attached garage consistent with elevations submitted
with the revised petition. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive
Plan because the project provided for the types of uses and density recommended in the General Residential place
type, the proposal would provide a transition between a place of worship and the existing low and moderate density
housing. The Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because
proposal supports the County’s goal of providing for a range of housing types and opportunities for households of
different sizes and income levels.
The motion for continuance of the rezoning request carried 6-0
Text Amendment Request (TA21-03) – Request by New Hanover County to amend Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the
Unified Development Ordinance to update height standards and setback requirements for multi-family and
non-residential structures and provide for additional height allowances to accommodate changing construction
standards and structure types envisioned for multi-family, mixed use, and nonresidential zoning districts.
Board Member Paul Boney requested recusal due to a conflict of interest. Board Member Hansen Matthews
made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Donna Girardot to recuse Mr. Boney.
Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth provided an overview of the potential modifications to the
county’s height standards in certain multi-family, nonresidential and mixed-use districts. She stated while
adjustments had been made to height as part of the UDO Project amendments in 2020, staff had found that height
standards still served as barriers for potential projects that that were generally in line with the types of uses that
were intended in a district and the needs that had been identified in the recent Comprehensive Housing Study and
Master Aging Plans. Ms. Roth indicated the modifications had been discussed for several months leading up to this
meeting, which had been advertised as a public hearing. She stated if the Planning Board was comfortable with
4 | Page
making a recommendation on the amendment, it could move forward to the October Board of Commissioners’
meeting for a final public hearing and decision.
Ms. Roth stated that last month staff had presented amendment concepts and language that were put out for
public comment after the Board’s review, and staff had received a number of comments. She stated that in
response to the comments, staff made modifications to the amendment, keeping the Comprehensive Plan as the
primary guide.
Ms. Roth stated that staff generally kept to the building scales outlined as typical in the different types of places
that the plan outlined. She stated that for most of the county a building scale of up to three stories was typical
although taller office structures up to ten stories were outlined for Employment Center places, and up to seven
stores for most Urban Mixed-Use places. The only Urban Mixed-Use areas where taller heights had been envisioned
were on the west side of the Cape Fear River, which was intended to mirror the scale of downtown Wilmington as
reflected in the Riverfront Mixed-Use zoning district provisions in the ordinance.
Ms. Roth explained the four-story multi-family structures were not specifically identified as typical in the
Comprehensive Plan, but the plan did guide that zoning regulations may need to be modified if needed to
accommodate aging residents or those with disabilities and that four-story multi-family structures were more
commonly used to provide accessible homes as an alternative to one story patio homes that were generally less
affordable. She stated staff had balanced increases in height in multi-family and non-residential structures with
greater mitigation than what was originally presented when tall buildings would be adjacent to residential
neighborhoods. She stated that there was also flexibility provided through the county’s conditional zoning process
as site specific conditions could mitigate height but weren’t necessarily able to be anticipated through code
standards. She stated mitigation requirement were scaled to provide a two-foot setback or architectural stepback
for every one foot in height.
Ms. Roth stated in the residential districts the greater mitigation requirements were intended to incentivize site
designs that placed taller buildings further from residential properties to gradually transition building scale from
more intensive areas, including major roadways, down to smaller scale single-family homes.
She stated the county’s two lowest density multi-family districts RMF-L, which allowed up to 10 units per acre, and
RMF-M, which allowed up to 17 units per acre, had a proposed height maximum of three stories but an additional
height allowance of four stories if additional mitigation was provided. The four-story structures were anticipated to
be around 50 feet in height, so a proposed 100-foot setback or stepback was outlined unless a conditional zoning
district outlined an alternate technique to mitigate the impacts of the height. This was also the basic mitigation
requirement for four-story structures in the RMF-MH district, which allowed up to 25 units per acre in density and
currently allowed for four-story structures with a height in feet cap of 50 feet. Ms. Roth stated staff had received
comments that there may be a demand for five-story structures, which were outlined for Urban Mixed-Use places
in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated in the in the RMF-H district staff had proposed five-stories in the revised
amendment language but that it was only possible in a conditional zoning district.
Ms. Roth stated the B-1 Neighborhood Business district was intended for small-scale low-density commercial
development potentially appropriate in some General Residential and Community Mixed-Use areas. She stated
because previous height maximums and additional height allowances raised questions for some code users, the
provisions in the amendment had been modified to allow for a maximum of two stories or 40 feet and that current
setback requirements from adjacent residentially used and zoned properties were retained.
Ms. Roth stated the Community Business or CB district was intended for businesses that served surrounding
neighborhoods and, because it was created in 2019, it was currently only applied to three properties, all of which
were subject to conditional zoning approvals. She stated the uses allowed in the district had been designed to have
less of an impact on adjacent properties so CB could be applied close to where people lived to allow for more
convenient access to goods and services. She stated height standards for this district had changed slightly since the
original proposal to ensure the impact on current setback requirements was neutral for shorter structures. She
5 | Page
stated mitigating setbacks were not as large for this district because there was a much narrower range of potential
uses than allowed in other nonresidential districts, and mixed-use structures were not stipulated.
Ms. Roth stated the B-2 Regional Business district was the most common commercial district in the county’s
jurisdiction. It was currently intended to provide for large format commercial but had been historically used for
most commercial uses that would be located along a highway and projects surrounded by residential development.
She stated the district allowed a wide range of uses but the only permitted uses likely to need more than three
stories were areas with hotels. She indicated that B-2 was currently the main commercial district where the
commercial component of the Comprehensive Plan’s Urban Mixed-Use placed could be developed without going
to a mixed-use master planned development.
Ms. Roth stated that, in the O&I Office and Institutional district, the types of uses allowed were relatively limited
but could encompass large institutional uses like colleges and hospitals, as well as smaller office structures. This
zoning designation was applied to large properties and very small properties. She stated for the draft amendment,
staff concentrated primarily on the institutional-scale uses, limiting potential taller heights on smaller properties
that couldn’t meet the same mitigation requirements. She stated because of the focus on larger scale projects as
part of the amendment, an additional office district appropriate for smaller properties that could serve as a
transition between higher intensity and lower intensity places could be designed to specifically allow for smaller-
scale office uses and adaptive reuse of existing single-family structures.
Ms. Roth stated the I-1 or Light Industrial district was applied primarily to properties in the northern part of the
county and allowed a wide variety of uses. She stated along with O&I, I-1 was one of the primary zoning tools the
county had to create the Employment Center places envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated the
proposed amendment would allow for the taller office structures to make the district more accommodating for
these types of employment center uses.
She stated that for the UMXZ and PD districts, staff had drafted that the Master Development Plan approved as
part of the rezoning would provide for the height limits allowed in the districts rather than including a maximum
cap in the ordinance. She stated this would mean that an applicant would be able to request heights, and the review
process would have to control for what would be appropriate in the different areas of the county where these
districts were possible.
Ms. Roth stated the county’s current additional setbacks for residential properties had been historically interpreted
to include any property with a residential use or residential zoning designation. The proposed amendment included
a change to take out the RMF districts from these properties as they are intended to be located next to higher
intensity uses.
Ms. Roth stated the additional mitigation standards for taller structures were also currently proposed to apply to
all residentially used or residentially zoned land and, with this requirement, about 40% of properties in the
nonresidential districts subject to this amendment would have to include additional mitigation to have taller
structures. She stated that if it were to only include residential uses and residentially zoned land with existing
single-family, duplex, or townhome development, only about 25% of properties in those districts would have to
include the additional mitigation to have taller structures.
She outlined the impacts of the proposed change in height standards on current projects, stating that it would
depend to some extent where the project was in the process and how an existing project was originally approved.
She stated that existing Master Development Plans, conditional zoning districts, or special use permit generally had
heights established as part of the original site plan approval. She stated that the county’s ordinance could allow for
a 10% administrative adjustment for height if not subject to a specific condition; however, additional mitigation
might be required, and additional approvals could be necessary for those types of projects to take full advantage
of the amendment.
6 | Page
She stated properties with a zoning designation affected by the amendment that weren’t subject to specific
conditions, or special use permits could immediately develop under the new height standards if the amendment
were approved, and properties could also redevelop under the new rules.
She stated properties with approved site plans that weren’t subject to Master Development Plans, conditional
zoning or special use permits that had not developed yet were subject to the rules in place when they were originally
applied for and that a new application would have to be submitted in order to fall under the new standards. She
stated projects that did not have applications already filed were subject to the new requirements once the
amendment was adopted. She stated an applicant who had already submitted an application before the
amendment was adopted but had not received a permit decision by the adoption date, could choose to be reviewed
under the current standards or proposed standards.
Chair Petroff opened to Board discussion.
After extensive discussion from the Board regarding clarification of amendment changes and information to be
provided to the public, Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Colin Tarrant for
a CONTINUANCE of the proposed amendment to a future Planning Board meeting, date uncertain.
The motion for continuance of the rezoning request carried 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth provided an overview of updates to the County’s Stormwater
Ordinance, stating that as discussed in the past, the county was anticipating adding the ordinance to the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO). She stated the county was waiting on updates to the stormwater regulations that
were being made in conjunction with the stormwater utility that was effective on July 1, 2021. She stated Article 7
was provided for this ordinance when the UDO format was adopted in 2019. She stated the stormwater ordinance
had been updated to provide for the stormwater utility and only two components remained in the original plan –
adding the standards to the UDO and updating the companion Administrative Design Manual; however, an
additional component had also been identified. She stated that unlike most of the provisions in the county’s
development regulation, the stormwater provisions followed the state’s stormwater program model and did not
transfer with the land. She stated a separate permit transfer process was required, which in the past, due to a
variety of factors, hadn’t always been completed, creating situations where maintenance responsibility was unclear.
She stated the General Assembly was considering language that could clarify this for state stormwater permits, and
the county had been alerted to a need to also address these types of situations in the county’s local stormwater
ordinance.
Ms. Roth stated Jim Iannucci, the County Engineer, had been meeting with Homebuilders Association
representatives and stakeholders over the past month or so to determine the best way to move forward with
potential changes to the county’s provisions, and staffing currently in the process of vetting some options with
county legal to provide the Board with amendment concepts that would ultimately be included in the UDO. She
stated that as staff moved through the process, they would update the Board on the timeline and wanted to make
sure they were aware of the project and the conversations that had taken place.
Ms. Roth presented that staff was also directed by the Board of Commissioners to look into some amendments to
the county’s current telecommunications facilities standards to include standards that encourage new towers to
be placed on non-residential properties, that required co-location when possible, and that reduced the potential
impact of the towers on residential properties. She stated that as in the past, staff would prepare a presentation to
provide an overview of potential amendment concepts for the Board before preparing and releasing draft language
for public comment prior to any public hearing.
Chair Jeffrey Petroff adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.