Agenda 2021 11-01NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA
Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse
24 North Third Street, Room 301, Wilmington, NC 28401
Julia Olson-Boseman, Chair I Deb Mays, Vice -Chair
Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Commissioner I Bill Rivenbark, Commissioner I Rob Zapple, Commissioner
Chris Coudriet, County Manager I Wanda Copley, County Attorney I Kym Crowell, Clerk to the Board
NOVEMBER 1, 2021 4:00 PM
PLEASE NOTE:
According to New Hanover County's Administrative Policy for Face Coverings on County Property,
individuals from the public who participate in indoor meetings of the Board of Commissioners, Planning
Board, Health and Human Services Board, Board of Elections, or any other county board or committee
are required to wear face coverings, and exemptions will not be recognized. I ndividuals who attend
without a face covering will be offered a face covering. If they refuse to wear a face covering, they will
not be allowed to attend the meeting in person but will be able to view/listen to the meeting remotely.
The live meeting will be available on NHCTV.com and NHCTV's cable stations: Spectrum channel 13 and
Charter channel 5. Meeting videos are also available after the meeting on demand on NHCTV.com.
For public hearing or non -agenda public comments:
For the upcoming New Hanover County Board of Commissioners meeting, individuals can submit public
comments in advance to comments@nhcgov.com (noting the board name in the subject line) by
October 31, 2021 at 12 pm. Written comments will be provided to the board and the board chair will
acknowledge receipt during the public hearing and submit comments into the record during the public
hearing and/or public comment period.
MEETI NG CALLED TO ORDER (Chair Julia Olson-Boseman)
I NVOCATI ON (Pastor Mike Ashcraft, Port City Community Church)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Chair Julia Olson-Boseman)
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
1. Approval of Minutes
2. Adoption of a Proclamation Remembering the 1898 Massacre and Coup
3. Adoption of Adoption Awareness Month Proclamation
4. Adoption of Diabetes Awareness Month Proclamation
5. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Repair, Restoration and Rebinding of
Register of Deeds Record Books
6. Adoption of a Resolution to Support N.C. Senator Michael Lee's Request for
State Funding to Repair Five Roads in New Hanover County
7. Approval of September 2021 Tax Collection Reports
8. Adoption of Budget Amendment
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ESTI MATED
MINUTES
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
10 9. Fiscal Year 2022 First Quarter Financial Results
15 10. Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z21-12)- Request by James Yopp on Behalf of Jack Carlisle
and Rockhill Road I nvestments LLC to Rezone Approximately 117.58 Acres from
R-20 to R-15
20 11. Public Hearing
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
Nonresidential 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
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS (limit three minutes)
ESTIMATED
MINUTES ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
12. Additional Items
County Manager
County Commissioners
Clerk to the Board
County Attorney
13. ADJOURN
Note: Minutes listed for each item are estimated, and if a preceding item takes less time, the Board will move
forward until the agenda is completed.
Mission
New Hanover County is committed to providing equitable opportunities and exceptional public services through
good governance to ensure a safe, healthy, secure and thriving community for all.
Vision
A vibrant, prosperous, diverse coastal community
committed to building a sustainable future for future generations.
Core Values
Professionalism - Equity - Integrity - Innovation - Stewardship - Accountability
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2021
Consent
DEPARTMENT: Governing Body PRESENTER(S): Kym Crowell, Clerk to the Board
CONTACT(S): Kym Crowell
SUBJECT:
Approval of Minutes
BRIEF SUMMARY.
Approve minutes from the following meetings:
Agenda Review held on October 14, 2021
Regular Meeting held on October 18, 2021
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approve minutes.
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5-0.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2021
Consent
DEPARTMENT: Diversity & Equity PRESENTER(S): Linda Thompson, Chief Diversity & Equity Officer
CONTACT(S): Linda Thompson
SUBJECT:
Adoption of a Proclamation Remembering the 1898 Massacre and Coup
BRIEF SUMMARY.
The proclamation is to recognize the month of November as a period of mourning, commemoration and reflection for
all members of our community.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt the proclamation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Remembering the 1898 Massacre and Coup
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend adoption.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5-0.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 2
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROCLAMATION REMEMBERING THE 1898 MASSACRE AND COUP
WHEREAS, one hundred twenty-three years ago, on November 8, 1898, after a lengthy state-wide white
supremacy campaign, New Hanover County experienced a contested election, followed by a massacre
and a coup d'etat on November 10, 1898; and
WHEREAS, the massacre left an unknowable number of residents dead, with death toll estimates ranging
from less than ten people to hundreds of people; and
WHEREAS, the coup replaced the local multiracial governmental bodies with white -only legislators; and
WHEREAS, this change in leadership led to the firing of African American city and county employees such
as firefighters and police officers; and
WHEREAS, local white supremacist leaders' actions forced African Americans and whites out of the
county in the wake of the massacre and coup; and
WHEREAS, these events left deep scars in the community, disenfranchised African American men, and
helped spread legally sanctioned race -based segregation in New Hanover County, and the state of North
Carolina; and
WHEREAS, these events shaped the county's race relations in deleterious ways for generations; and
WHEREAS, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners declares that providing accurate historical
information about the massacre and coup is critical to the community's healing and moving forward.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that the
month of November will be recognized as a period of mourning, commemoration, and reflection for all
members of this community. Residents are urged to learn the history of the 1898 massacre and coup, to
mourn those whose lives were lost, to remember the resiliency of the African American community in
the wake of the violence and to reflect on ways they can make this community a better place for all.
ADOPTED this the 1st day of November, 2021.
1►IILTAM:1e\►[N]911111altelIL11C
Julia Olson-Boseman, Chair
ATTEST:
Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2021
Consent
DEPARTMENT:
Health and Human PRESENTER(S): Tonya Jackson, Social Services Director and Mary Beth
Services Rubright, Assistant Social Services Director
CONTACT(S): Mary Beth Rubright, Tonya Jackson
SUBJECT:
Adoption of Adoption Awareness Month Proclamation
BRIEF SUMMARY:
There are over 11,000 children in North Carolina that are in foster care. Adoption is the goal for many teens and
special needs children in foster care. In North Carolina, an estimated 1,500 children were adopted from foster care in
2020. New Hanover County would like to thank all adoptive mothers and adoptive fathers for their commitment to
children.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt the proclamation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Adoption Awareness Month Proclamation
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend adoption.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5-0.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 3
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, every child deserves the chance to grow up in a loving, stable family and adoption is a
beautiful way to build a family. There are currently over 11,000 children in North Carolina that are in
foster care and an estimated 1,500 children were adopted from foster care in 2020 in North Carolina;
and
WHEREAS, adoption is the goal for many special needs children in foster care and there are an estimated
107,918 children nation-wide and an estimated 2,500 foster children in North Carolina waiting to be
adopted annually; and
WHEREAS, some special needs children are teenagers, and some have physical, emotional and
behavioral challenges. They are children of all races. Many have been neglected, abandoned, abused
and/or exposed to drugs and alcohol. Others are brothers and sisters who want to grow up together.
They need our care and they need security; and
WHEREAS, many children find permanent homes through adoption by their foster families or relatives,
thereby creating an ongoing need for new foster and adoptive families. Thirty-eight children in New
Hanover County found permanence through adoption this past fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that
November 2021 will be recognized as "Adoption Awareness Month" in New Hanover County. The Board
thanks all adoptive mothers and adoptive fathers for their commitment to children. The Board also
encourages this community to honor the special needs of New Hanover County's children in hopes of
securing a permanent, loving family for each and every child regardless of race, age, gender, health,
emotional or behavioral condition or past distress.
ADOPTED this the 1st day of November, 2021.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Julia Olson-Boseman, Chair
ATTEST:
Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 3 - 1 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2021
Consent
DEPARTMENT: Health and Human PRESENTER(S): David Howard, Health Director and Carla Turner, Assistant
Services Health Director
CONTACT(S): David Howard; Carla Turner
SUBJECT:
Adoption of Diabetes Awareness Month Proclamation
BRIEF SUMMARY:
In North Carolina, 1 in every 10 adults has diabetes. Increasing community awareness of diabetes risks and symptoms
can improve the likelihood that people with diabetes will get the education they need to prevent/reduce complications
of the disease. The community is encouraged to take action on measures to reduce and prevent potential
complications from diabetes.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt the proclamation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Diabetes Awareness Month Proclamation
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend adoption.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5-0.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 4
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, 1 in 10 adults in North Carolina report having been diagnosed with diabetes, and
approximately 1 in 4 people with diabetes are unaware they have the disease; and
WHEREAS, over 50,000 North Carolinians are newly diagnosed with diabetes annually; and
WHEREAS, complications from diabetes include heart disease, stroke, blindness, kidney disease, pain,
erectile dysfunction, amputation, and death; and
WHEREAS, Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which a person's pancreas stops producing
insulin, causing lifelong dependence on an insulin pump or injections. The causes of Type 1 diabetes are
not entirely understood and there is no prevention for the disease; and
WHEREAS, more than 9 in 10 adults with a diabetes diagnosis in the United States have Type 2 diabetes,
and more than 1 in 3 adults have prediabetes, a condition that puts them at greater risk for developing
Type 2 diabetes. Racial and ethnic minority populations also have a greater risk of developing Type 2
diabetes; and
WHEREAS, unlike Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes can be prevented or delayed through participation
in a diabetes prevention lifestyle change program; and
WHEREAS, increasing community awareness of diabetes risks and symptoms can improve the likelihood
that people with diabetes or prediabetes will get the education they need to prevent or reduce
complications of the disease.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that
November 2021 will be recognized as "Diabetes Awareness Month" in New Hanover County.
Furthermore, the Board encourages the community to learn and take action on measures to prevent
potential complications from diabetes such as healthy eating, regular exercise, managing cholesterol and
blood sugar levels, reducing stress, and avoiding smoking.
ADOPTED this the 1st day of November, 2021.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Julia Olson-Boseman, Chair
ATTEST:
Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 4 - 1 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2021
Consent
DEPARTMENT: Register of Deeds PRESENTER(S): Tammy T. Piver, Registrar
CONTACT(S): Tammy T. Piver
SUBJECT:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Repair, Restoration and Rebinding of Register of Deeds Record Books
BRIEF SUMMARY.
Register of Deeds Tammy T. Piver requests adoption of a resolution authorizing the removal of record books from the
registry for repair, restoration and rebinding.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Good Governance
o Effective County Management
■ Continuous focus on the customer experience
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt the resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend adoption.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5-0.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 5
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REPAIR, RESTORATION
AND ENCAPSULATION OF REGISTER OF DEEDS RECORD BOOKS
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 132-7 provides that the Board of County
Commissioners of any county may authorize that any county records in need of repair,
restoration or rebinding be removed from the building or office in which such records are
ordinarily kept, for the length of time required to repair, restore, or rebind them; and
WHEREAS, New Hanover County birth record books 124, 154, 158 (1,2,3,4), 159, 160-183, 184
(1,2), 185, 186, 187 (1,2), 188 (1,2), 189 (1,2), 190 (1,2), 191, 198 (1,2,3,4,5), 199 (1,2), 210 (1,2),
211 (1,2), 214 (1,2,3), 215 (1,2,3) and land record books AAA, 53, 54, 67, 87, 211, 232, 280, 353,
403, 606 are in desperate and dire need of repair, restoration and encapsulation due to years of
constant handling and use; and
WHEREAS, it is the County's obligation to maintain and preserve the historical documents
contained in the New Hanover County Registry to ensure that future generations will have access
to historical documents in their original condition; and
WHEREAS, New Hanover County has entered into a contract with Kofile Preservation to deacidify,
mend, and encapsulate New Hanover County Register of Deeds Record Books.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners does
hereby authorize and sanction Tammy T. Piver, New Hanover County Register of Deeds to remove
New Hanover County birth record books 124, 154, 158 (1,2,3,4), 159, 160-183, 184 (1,2), 185,
186, 187 (1,2), 188 (1,2), 189 (1,2), 190 (1,2), 191, 198 (1,2,3,4,5), 199 (1,2), 210 (1,2), 211 (1,2),
214 (1,2,3), 215 (1,2,3) and land record books AAA, 53, 54, 67, 87, 211, 232, 280, 353, 403, 606
from the New Hanover County Registry for the purposes of repair, restoration and encapsulation
by Kofile Preservation.
ADOPTED this the 1st day of November, 2021.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Julia Olson-Boseman, Chair
ATTEST:
Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 5 - 1 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2021
Consent
DEPARTMENT: County Manager PRESENTER(S): Tim Buckland, Intergovernmental Affairs Manager
CONTACT(S): Tim Buckland
SUBJECT:
Adoption of a Resolution to Support N.C. Senator Michael Lee's Request for State Funding to Repair Five Roads in
New Hanover County
BRIEF SUMMARY-
N.C. Senator Michael Lee has requested $101,690 in state funds to be used to repair five roads in the Weaver Acres
Subdivision. The roads were constructed by a private developer in 1977 and have deteriorated. The repairs would bring
the roads to state standards and allow them to be added to the North Carolina Department of Transportation road
system.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
• Good Governance
o Effective County Management
■ Deliver quality service at the right time
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt the resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend adoption.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5-0.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 6
[iIVY%anr_ 0191TIa:11KI1111 03 CA1.107_1:lffela ]AlI► I[.$.jWLI:11 V�141
ROAD REPAIR SUPPORT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, five roads in the Weaver Acres Subdivision in New Hanover County — Blount Drive,
Rogers Drive, Hargrove Drive, Avant Drive and Shaw Drive — were built in 1977 by a private
developer; and
WHEREAS, the developer did not request that the roads be added to the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NC DOT) road system; and
WHEREAS, the roads have deteriorated and are in need of repair; and
WHEREAS, N.C. Senator Michael Lee has requested $101,690 in state funds to repair the roads
to bring them to NC DOT standards; and
WHEREAS, the repairs would allow the roads to be added to the state road system, ensuring their
future maintenance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
supports Senator Lee's request for state funds to repair the roads and supports their inclusion in
the state road system to ensure their maintenance in the future.
ADOPTED, this the 15t day of November, 2021.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Julia Olson-Boseman, Chair
ATTEST:
Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 6 - 1 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2021
Consent
DEPARTMENT: Tax PRESENTER(S): Trina Lewis, Collections Supervisor
CONTACT(S): Trina Lewis
SUBJECT:
Approval of September 2021 Tax Collection Reports
BRIEF SUMMARY:
NCGS 105-350 requires the Tax Collector to submit a report showing the amount of taxes collected.
Overall Collection Percentages for September 2021 are ahead of overall collections for September 2020.
The report for September 2020 in comparison to September 2021 is as follows:
New Hanover County
September 2021
September 2020
Real Property
17.24%
15.58%
Personal Property
18.73%
6.21%
Motor Vehicle
100.00%
100.00%
Overall Collection Rate
18.76%
16.75%
Total Collected YTD
$37,458,855.57
$27,290,330.17
New Hanover County
Debt Service
September 2021
September 2020
Real Property
17.23%
15.57%
Personal Property
18.72%
6.20%
Motor Vehicle
100.00%
100.00%
Overall Collection Rate
19.03%
16.74%
Total Collected YTD
$3,947,692.94
$3,598,970.14
Grand Total Collected YTD
$41,406,548.51
$30,889,300.31
New Hanover County Fire
District
September 2021
September 2020
Real Property
17.89%
15.99%
Personal Property
19.84%
5.12%
Motor Vehicle
100.00%
100.00%
Overall Collection Rate
19.74%
17.27%
Total Collected YTD
$2,505,294.37
$1,730,946.08
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 7
• Good Governance
o Strong Financial Performance
■ Proactively manage the county budget
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Approve the reports.
ATTACHMENTS:
New Hanover County Monthly Collection Report for September 2021
New Hanover County Debt Service Monthly Collection Report for September 2021
New Hanover County Fire Dstrict Monthly Collection Report for September 2021
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5-0.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 7
New Hanover County Monthly Collection Report for September 2021
Current Year 2021-2022
Scroll/Billed
Abatements
Adjustments
Real Estate
Personal Property
Motor Vehicles
Combined
$ 185,019,298.21
$ (871,029.71)
$ 46,774.42
$ 11,971,876.74
$ (55,334.95)
$ 2,633.41
$ 3,428,793.03
$
$
$
200,419,967.98
(926,364.66)
49,407.83
Total Taxes Charged
Collections to Date
*Refunds
Write-off
$
$
$
$
184,195,042.92
31,836,393.57
72,161.64
(7.49)
$
$
$
$
11,919,175.20
2,236,383.35
3,355.67
(12.85)
$
$
3,428,793.03
3,428,793.03
$
$
$
$
199,543,011.15
37,501,569.95
75,517.31
(20.34)
Outstanding Balance
$
152,430,818.48
$
9,686,160.37
$
-
$
162,116,938.17
Collection Percentage
17.24
18.73
100.00
18.76
YTD Interest Collected
$
4,104.76
$
-
$
28,698.17
$
32,802.93
Total 2021-2022 Collections YTD
37,458,855.57
Prior Years 2011-2020
Real Estate
Personal Property
Motor Vehicles
Combined
Scroll
$
1,547,707.81
$
4,930,703.69
$
324,971.15
$
6,803,382.65
Abatements
$
-
$
(83,158.77)
$
-
$
(83,158.77)
Adjustments
$
-
$
6.71
$
-
$
6.71
Total Levy
$
1,547,707.81
$
4,847,551.63
$
324,971.15
$
6,720,230.59
Collections to Date
$
213,903.18
$
68,892.79
$
325.14
$
283,121.11
*Refunds
$
8,107.57
$
6,174.69
$
-
$
14,282.26
Write-off
$
13.97
$
8.62
$
-
$
22.59
Outstanding Balance
1 $
1,341,898.23
$
4,784,824.91
$
324,646.01
$
6,451,414.33
YTD Interest Collected
1 $
32,532.34
$
11,239.72
$
608.82
$
44,380.88
Total Prior Year Collections YTD
313,219.73
Grand Total All Collections YTD $ 37,772,075.30
*Detailed information for Refunds can be found in the Tax Office
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Chair
Clerk to the Board
Date
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 1
New Hanover County Debt Service Monthly Collection Report for September 2021
Current Year 2021-2022
Real Estate
Personal
Property
Motor Vehicles
Combined
Scroll/Billed
$
19,173,525.76
$
1,240,338.40
$
427,618.09
$
20,841,482.25
Abatements
$
(90,260.02)
$
(5,734.10)
$
-
$
(95,994.12)
Adjustments
$
4,846.96
$
272.90
$
-
$
5,119.86
Total Taxes Charged
$
19,088,112.70
$
1,234,877.20
$
427,618.09
$
20,750,607.99
Collections to Date
$
3,289,114.71
$
231,215.84
$
427,618.09
$
3,947,948.64
*Refunds
$
201.77
$
53.93
$
255.70
Write-off
$
1.14
$
0.78
$
1.92
Outstanding Balance
$
15,799,198.62
$
1,003,714.51
$
-
$
16,802,661.27
Collection Percentage
17.23
18.72
100.00
19.03
YTD Interest Collected
$
541.67
$
-
$
3,725.53
Total 2021-2022 Collections YTD $ 3,947,692.94
Prior Years 2011-2020
Real Estate
Personal Property
Motor Vehicles
Combined
Scroll
$
163,392.17
$
366,992.88
$
$
530,385.05
Abatements
$
-
$
(8,125.04)
$
(8,125.04)
Adjustments
$
0.88
$
0.88
Total Levy
$
163,392.17
$
358,868.72
$
$
522,260.89
Collections to Date
$
25,306.94
$
7,898.25
$
$
33,205.19
*Refunds
$
-
$
454.04
$
$
454.04
Write-off
$
2.58
$
1.45
$
$
4.03
Outstanding Balance
$
138,082.65
$
351,423.06
$
$
489,513.77
YTD Interest Collected
$
2,954.54
$
827.12
$
$
3,781.66
Total Prior Year Collections YTD
*Detailed information for Refunds can be found in the Tax Office
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Chair
Clerk to the Board
Date
$ 36,532.81
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 7 - 2 - 1
New Hanover County Fire District Monthly Collection Report for September 2021
Current Year 2021-2022
Scroll/Billed
Abatements
Adjustments
Real Estate
Personal Property
Motor Vehicles
Combined
$ 11,530,062.32
$ (23,973.88)
$ 6,822.43
$ 906,937.03
$ (8,533.32)
$ 57.50
$ 264,917.47
$
$
$
12,701,916.82
(32,507.20)
6,879.93
Total Taxes Charged
Collections to Date
*Refunds
Write-off
$
$
$
$
11,512,910.87
2,059,333.58
18.27
0.59
$
$
$
$
898,461.21
178,367.86
70.70
0.50
$
$
264,917.47
264,917.47
$
$
$
$
12,676,289.55
2,502,618.91
88.97
1.09
Outstanding Balance
$
9,453,594.97
$
720,163.55
$
-
$
10,173,760.70
Collection Percentage
17.89
19.84
100.00
19.74
YTD Interest Collected
$
648.84
$
-
$
2,115.59
$
2,764.43
Total 2021-2022 Collections YTD
2,505,294.37
Prior Years 2011-2020
Real Estate
Personal Property
Motor Vehicles
Combined
Scroll
$
95,281.63
$
259,708.63
$
19,675.71
$
374,665.97
Abatements
$
-
$
3,676.84
$
-
$
3,676.84
Adjustments
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Total Levy
$
95,281.63
$
263,385.47
$
19,675.71
$
378,342.81
Collections to Date
$
11,686.64
$
11,671.46
$
33.37
$
23,391.47
*Refunds
$
-
$
461.58
$
-
$
461.58
Write-off
$
1.30
$
1.10
$
-
$
2.40
Outstanding Balance
$
83,593.69
$
252,174.49
$
19,642.34
$
355,415.32
YTD Interest Collected
$
2,491.22
$
671.34
$
33.22
$
3,195.78
Total Prior Year Collections YTD
26,587.25
Grand Total All Collections YTD $ 2,531,881.62
*Detailed information for Refunds can be found in the Tax Office
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Chair
Clerk to the Board
Date
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 7 - 3 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2021
Consent
DEPARTMENT: Budget PRESENTER(S): Lisa Wurtzbacher, Chief Financial Officer
CONTACT(S): Lisa Wurtzbacher
SUBJECT:
Adoption of Budget Amendment
BRIEF SUMMARY.
The following budget amendment amends the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022:
Health Department 22-018
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
• Good Governance
o Strong Financial Performance
■ Proactively manage the county budget
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Adopt the ordinance for the budget amendment listed.
ATTACHMENTS:
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend adoption.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5-0.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 8
AGENDA: November 1, 2021
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, that the
following Budget Amendment(s) be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022.
Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment
Strategic Focus Area: Superior Public Health & Safety
Strategic Objective(s): Sustain the community capacity to prepare for and respond to public safety demands
Fund: General
Department: Health
Expenditure:
Decrease
Increase
Total
BA 22-018 Advancing Equity
$ 39,900
$ 39,900
Total
$ -
$ 39,900
$ 39,900
Revenue:
Decrease
Increase
Total
BA 22-018 Advancing Equity
$ 39,900
$ 39,900
Total
$ -
$ 39,900
$ 39,900
Prior to
Actions Toda
Departmental Budget L$ 17,601,884
Total if Actions
Taken
$ 17,641784
Section 2: Explanation
BA 22-018 budgets funds provided by the North Carolina Department of Public Health's (NCDPH) "National
Initiative to Address COVID-19 Health Disparities Among Populations at High -Risk and Underserviced, Including
Racial and Ethnic Minority Populations and Rural Communities" grant. This grant, hereafter known as the Advancing
Equity grant, was provided to the NCDPH by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for purposes of
addressing COVID-19 health disparities and advancing health equity by improving state, local, US territorial and
freely associated state health department capacity and services to prevent and control COV D-19 infection (or
transmission) among populations at higher risk and that are underserved, including racial and ethnic minority groups
and people living in rural communities. Specifically, these funds will be used for a contracted temporary staff member
that will be working through the end of the grant cycle (May 31, 2022), as well as needed funding for an advertising
campaign. This temporary staff member will be working to build and advance internal equity within public health and
health and human services, while also partnering and communicating with the community to facilitate equitable
access and delivery of the COVID-19 vaccine. They will also be working to implement a communications and
messaging campaign addressing COVID-19 prevention and vaccination for higher risk, underserved, and
disproportionately affected population groups. No county match is required.
Section 3: Documentation of Adoption
This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North
Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment(s) 22-018 amending the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2022, is adopted.
Adopted, this 1 st day of November, 2021.
(SEAL)
Julia Olson-Boseman, Chair
ATTEST:
Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk to the Board
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 8 - 1 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2021
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Finance PRESENTER(S): Lisa Wurtzbacher, Chief Financial Officer
CONTACT(S): Lisa Wurtzbacher and Martha Wayne, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Year 2022 First Quarter Financial Results
BRIEF SUMMARY:
On a quarterly basis, county staff updates the Board of County Commissioners on the financial status of the
county. The first quarter of 2022 will be presented, which includes financial activity from July 1, 2021 through
September 30, 2021.
As an overview, the county's General Fund has received $48.7 million, or 14.2%, of budgeted revenues and has
expended $73.6 million, or 22.4% of budgeted expenditures. The Debt Service Fund has received $5.5 million (12.6%)
of budgeted revenues and has expended $23.6 million (39.8%) of budgeted expenditures. The Fire Services and
Environmental Management Funds have received $2.5 million (13.4%) and $3.3 million (14.0%) of budgeted revenues
and spent $5.8 million (31.2%) and $2.3 million (9.9%) of budgeted expenditures, respectively. Further details can be
found in the attached executive summary.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
• Good Governance
o Strong Financial Performance
■ Proactively manage the county budget
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Hear the presentation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Executi\e Summary
Financial Summary
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Hear presentation.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 9
Heard presentation.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 9
NEW HANOVER COUNTY FINANCIAL SUMMARY
QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a brief fiscal summary for select New Hanover County funds for the quarter ended September 30, 2021. Included is a
summary of revenues and expenditures as recorded by the County for the General, Debt Service, Environmental Management, and
Fire Services Funds.
This information is provided to help keep you abreast of the financial status of the County on a regular basis throughout the fiscal
year. Data provided by fund includes:
• Actual revenues and expenditures for the previous fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 and June 30, 2020;
• Budget revenues and expenditures for the current fiscal year ending June 30, 2022;
• Actual revenues and expenditures as of the end of the quarter for select fiscal years;
• Percentage of actual revenues/expenditures received/spent for the same period the previous fiscal years;
• Percentage of budget revenues/expenditures received/spent for the current fiscal year; and
• Graphical comparison of actual amounts as a percent of budget for all fiscal years presented.
GENERAL FUND HIGHLIGHTS:
As the chart highlights, many revenues are not received, nor expenses paid, evenly throughout the year.
• A large majority of ad valorem taxes are received in December and January, as property taxes are not considered late and
subject to interest until after January 5, 2022. Ad valorem tax collections through quarter one are approximately 17.8% of
budgeted amounts which exceeds prior year.
• Sales taxes are received from the State two and one half months following the month in which they are collected by the
vendors across North Carolina. Thus, no sales tax has been received through the first quarter.
• Other Taxes exceed prior year collections in both the dollar and in the percentage of collection through the first quarter at
39.6% of budget collected. This is primarily due to real property transfer taxes and vehicle rental taxes being higher than
anticipated.
• Operating expenditures in County functions are in line with expectations through the first quarter running from 19.5% to 25%
of annual budgeted amount with the exception of expenditures for Hurricanes and Economic & Physical Development which
are not distributed evenly by month. Rather, expenditures are paid when due.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FUND HIGHLIGHTS:
As with the General Fund, many revenues and expenses do not fall evenly throughout the year for Environmental Management.
• Charges for Services is slightly lower than prior year at $3.2 million collected through the first quarter. This equates to 17.6%
of the budgeted charges for services compared to prior year at 18.6% of total annual charges for services.
• Salaries are higher than prior year at 21.2% of budget spent while operating expenditures are also lower than prior year at
19.8%, while debt service and capital expenses occur when related capital assets are needed and payments are due.
FIRE SERVICES FUND HIGHLIGHTS:
Again, as with the General Fund, many revenues and expenses do not fall evenly throughout the year for Fire Services:
• The bulk of ad valorem taxes are received in December and January, as property taxes are not considered late and subject
to interest until after January 5, 2022. Collections are higher than prior year at $2.4 million through quarter one which
represents 18.5% of budgeted ad valorem revenue.
• Sales taxes are received from the State two and one half months following the month in which they are collected by the
vendors across North Carolina. Thus, no sales tax has been received through the first quarter.
• Salaries are higher than prior year at $2.4 million, or 23% of budgeted expenses while operating expenses are consistent
with previous year's expenditures as a percent of budget.
• Debt service and capital expenses occur when related capital assets are needed and payments are due.
DEBT SERVICE FUND HIGHLIGHTS:
• As with the general and fire services fund, the bulk of ad valorem taxes are received in December and January, as property
taxes are not considered late and subject to interest until after January 5, 2021. Collections through the first quarter
generated by the 4.46 cent dedicated tax rate was approximately $3.9 million, which is higher than prior year collections.
• Debt service for the first quarter was $23.6 million is paid from this fund when those payments come due.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 9 - 1 - 1
3 M M
Lu r- =
Z LL f7
aaaM
o
o
oq o
e
m y vl O
o
v
p v
oo o�
.�
Y
N m .-I M I, m l!1
N N V1 N
Vl
N
N
N
W ate+
c
m Ol
M M
Ln
N
a?
O
a-1 a-1
m o
U
m U
to m N O O I, r
m
O
Vl VI
IA
'-I
w r1 V m w M
O H lllc N c-I rl
M
n
O
ill Vl
r
V1
m
m or,
m o o m
lD
v
f0 O
ID
m I�
N
lD
v00i
N
Q m
N N
m
M
M
N lD Vl lO N m lD
lD
N
m m
ill
m Vl w lD ID N V
O lD I!1 I!1 lD d' m
IA
cl
m
of
Ill lfl
V
O
N
N
O V1 V1 I� Oi M O
lD
Oi
N
N
N N
N
M I.t> lD a' M N Vl
O lD Ill M' m to
lD
oc
n
M
bo e-1
N N
to
N
1p' o .-Vd' O
N
w
N
m m
I�
m LL
m r oo e-I .-i
m
M
lb LL
V1 to
oo
M
a a a
o 0
0
0 0
0
Y
Y
tT m lD .-I I!1 Ill O
N
N O
a
O m
oo W
M
o0
N
0 3
N
N oo
O!
Q O
Q j
U
N m I� N to ti ti
M
O
m m
M
O
O
M H lD m m O e-I
lD V N lD Il> vl oo
V
I�
N
ID
O
m IA
c O
I�
lD
tOvf
m O
I, o M of I, oo n
V
M
'p o
l0 l[i
M
Y N
ID n N ati O .-i o
m M
c lc lc rl
o
n
+O' N
m m
o c
lD
n
Q M
ei e^i ti N N
N
to
o
Q M
.m-I .m-I
oo
m
m
O
`m
N o
N
}
W -
w
o
m m m m O m V
lD N N lD .ti m -Itn
ttl r
m
O
w
N N
I� n
N
111
N N
m Vl m lllD ci N
m rl
m
rl r
r
_
■
—
m N
w It> n N 111 w M
V .�
I�
—
m N
m m
I�
O
O C O N W to N
m N O m Il> ti oo
I� to
M M
W
r�
O
m m
O O
a0
cl
��..
N
Q T
V1 M C11 c-I N O
m a, d o
m
M c-1
I�
N
��.
N
Q T
N N
lD tD
M
M
A
2°
o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o
OR o
o
N
o— -p
vl V V lD m m O
m O O
I�
O—
V
m Y
ao U v
o0 O e-I lD lD O Vl
N N N It N N
V O O
N
c-I
N
N a0+
c u
N M
M m
N
Q
Q
o
o
y
o
■
M m Vl O N
o O
It M
m m 0 I� m .-I
In oc ul M c .L oc
w 00
m
o
a
m m
to to
M m
c
cy
_
—
m o
N
0 Ni M v ld
r�N N oo o oo V1
M
I,
r�
M
m o
N
O O
0
Y
lD O of m an n
M
lD
Y
of of
Q fOYf
oo c-1 V) N N
o
N
Q M
o o
M
a
N
lD
N N
00
V N Ol e-I O O oo
N O Vl
N N
M
.y
`
lD .--I It O �
r� to m lD I, M N
I� O
m O I!1
c
w lD
I�
— o
V m M I� M V I�
V 0 O
Vl
— O
O N
lD lD
r-I
N
O M
U
N I, N O Ioo N
m m O .--I Ill M O
I!1 N to
OC .-i Vl
m
V
3 M
U
V V
'Y cl
V
oo
LL
'
.--�
Q
lD M N N N H
H M
oo
.--�
Q LL
of of
to to
Il
M
______
_______ N
'O
m
O
O
�
e
O
o6
N
N
oo n v
3
M
N
■
LL o on
w m w
y O
o
O
w
c
M u
u p
u
w
o
�i 2
Ii
l7
c u c
w x� m=
u C
25 v
Ii
cpl
>
N
>
a
`u
c �' a E
z u
c m
c
a
o.
E
o O
o c
w
a
o
V
N c
N U
LD
N O
—
w
N
u
Eo
o
F
H
Gc
O p 3 pu � mw
w l7 x o_ w U w H
G p
w
W
oe
Lo
p Y
W O to O cl R O O
N
p "O
N O VI O
lD
O
O1 y
n O m m m wO O
V
a0.'
oc O m ' ' O
N
c{
_
m
m O
V
CD U
oo n In m o
m
oo
H
m m It It m
m lzul m oc�
m
m a N
v v
o
m
m
m
N
ON
.--I lD O .--M
lD
N
00 N
O
I�
yp,,
t O oc c a
lc
N
cl lOD
vl
.m-I
Q f16
V
M N N oo
Q M
M I
m
N
m
m
O lD O V M m 0 0
N
M .--I M lD
M
IA
O m O m 0 I� lD N
tlf
m .-i N N
M
m
O
V
O
y. N
lD W I� '-I W cp V1
c}'
a+ N
oo to to to
r�
N
�y
m 0o w lD N .--I
O m N .--I V m I!1 V
n
I�
N N
'6 .-I
1� w N O
.-1 N lD oo
m
oc
I�
lD
O lD
N
V
cc T
ci V
M
co T
.--I
M
o2T
o
O O
Vl
W Hq
O N c-I O
m
O �O
o0 c m d'
M
N
fo ate+
Uo
V Cl Vl c-I lD Cl 0
Ill
fo a0.'
7 CJ c1 l6
O
lD
_ O
Y a
w
m
Q
Q
uo
u°
v H to oo m
m
n v
m
O
oo I� oo V V1
V' m I� N m
7
N
O
o m m
n ' n, '
lD
m
O
O
m N 0
W
N
N o
N
oo
N
`
3 N
.-1 m e-I O N
lD oc M .--I
m
N
Y N
oo N
V M
W
m
O
'"""
------ CJ
W
Q fl0'f
N rl N m
oo
Q M
M rl
C
V
N
O
m
m
o
■
m oo N M
lD
.-I N oo Ill
tD
N
lD m N V1 .-i m m
O o lD M cl 7 cl
w
rl
m w .-i m
N Ill V
tD
Vl
—
ry
tT c lD 400 N It> M
O
m N — `""�
Ill o
W
Q
3 p
Vl l!t Vl Vl 1� M
m 0 e{ m N c lD
N
oc
y p
IA m oo
O M lD
N
M
d'
m
O
U N
r M lD M lD N .--I
O
N
M l0 l0
tD
I�
N
O
7
o'.R '.R�
o
0 0 0
p
c
O N N m N 0
D)
j
.rv-•I (�vf '
m
O
O
LL
________
■
Q O
Q O
U
F-
T U
to to v to to
m
m m .-I
M
m
V1 I� oo N M
Ill Ill I� Ill m
n
h
m
W tD H
N Vl N
w
c
V
Oli
O
N O
00 m C M O
o m M V O
M
O O
1� n
e-1 M
V1
e-1
r-I
o
'�
o
Q m
O rl N V1
o
Q M
N .-1
M
M
________ ________________________
________ OO
ri
M
M
Q
N
LL
lD N M lD o0 lD
Ill
m Ill o
z
M
N
M 1p It> Ill
W N m
ll
N N
M ry ry IttLr
to
to
Z
ID
1p
.-I V M N .--I .-I o0
1
o M
M
O
Ill m lD m Ill
a
M o N
Vl
M
=
m
N
N N
w w wM
m m M wI� V I�
m
N N
l0 M
Ill m y .-I N
m
L6
M
y
Y M
w O N O w m
00
y M
O N oo N
O
W
m
o
bo
V .ti
e-I r-I ari N N
N a ryj
.--I
u
N
___ ___.
________ p
vt
D
Q LL
n lD ti Vl
N
M
Q LL
N e-1
d'
5
Vl
M
m0
W
ems°
H
co
W
O
O
N
E
z
o
Z
v
■
E
a
c
>
'v
c
w v
s
Z
L u
N
C C
U'
C
3 m
Iy
> f0
D
LL
v R
o
s m
I=
v
J
a
w
v m
Z
tl0
OC
:n
ar
u
li
— -o
c
Wo
Y
_
Lu
E w° -o
W
v
c c m
v
E E
v
w
LL
v x w E m
0
_V
>
v x
Q
J
v v>
2 H~ N o d O.
co
O� p E ,w O.
(0
W
N
�
3> p L 16 N L C a
~
N
3>
W N j a
F
m
H
z
v a o = o �®drd
of Commi
goners
- Nov917f�e`r
i,'L(�1
cc
V
IT
I�9
- 2 -
uu
aaaaoo
o
0� ��
e
p "O
Vl O O m m o
V
p "O
O
a0.'
co 00 7 M O
ey M
M N ' 00 o0
M
M
❑ J�
m U
m U
oo
m
'-I
ti V O
N N to ' ' '
Ill
M
.--I
N m V
V O ' C Vl
M
' ' O
V m
l0
— N
V M m .y
w
r N
d'
V
.fJ,
Q 6
N
N
Q M
N N
N
Ot
Ol
M N w O O
.�
Ill I� m m
.ti n
N N Il O O
.--� o0 Il> c c ' '
N
' Vl
m to m m
M N ' V al
m V
' ' 00 m
N
N
O Oi c-I V M
oo
N
N
.--I m to
O IA
m O V N 00
e-` I Ol e-I
Q
m
bo
r-1
mm
m 00 O N
N N N r
lD 1p
m V
mN
M
omo
m
N
O V .--I '-I
w
LL
em-I
OJ
I}L
a a o 0 o
a
o 0 0 o
o O
V O V lD M O O
N
p— -O
w V O w N
O m
o Y
� O O N O O ' O
O
Y
oo0 ,i O l�D
' O ' N
N
o G/
fm+l
rQ
> U
Q U
a
m My oO1
o I ' '
. oo
o
c v Lri Ilim
vNi
m o
o
m o
a
a
aJ+ N
to
l0
+J-' N
oNo ID m
o0 to
Ill
CT
tT
N m W m O m ' t0
n
o0 V1 m V 1�
O m
.y N n M .ti w V
m I� N m M to N
m
c
.1N .--I" m
to c M Il V
O N
' O N
N
m M I� Vl w o m
O'
N
V1 n '-I l0 M
O V
« O
m .-i N N IA m
m
W e .-� lD w
VI
O
N I� V to
.ti N m lD
O c-I
M m
�J,
0 0 0 o e g o 0
0
o
o
p
N O O M N O O O
m
O— '13
.-� n O M l0
n
N aw
ci O O ci o O O O
Il
m w
m 00 O I� N.
' ' ci
Q
Q
> U
} U
+ a N v r� m N 1Z
aJ+ ON c al N c
a)
m N lD m m
Vl Vl M Vl N
O 0 00 M M
m M V M
T
QU } Ot M .--1
LL
zt
m
M
Ct
*\ o o `o°
9*
9 o*° 0 9
`o° o `o°
0
m U
lD 88 m O
O O O
O O
' O
-1
O a
o m u
N o0 00 00
0i 16 V
O O m
O O m
.^-I N
.4
N
m U
Co U
rl
O
N m '
a
'
c-1
c-I
.-1 m ' M O
'
N
V
I�
N O
H NO
N O
aJ, N
N -7 .m-I m
lD lD
V
ly
I�
m
Q M
m
M
Q M
I
N
Ol
0)
N O O O O
w
O
V V O Ill
N V1
O
ID O O 00
lD Olzl C O
O
m
n
m
m m O m
lD N lD 1-1
++ N
O 11 N m 0
.'-I
N
a+ N
O N 10 c-I
O N
N
m N
�y
V w n w V
N Vl Vl V m
w
c0
w
lD
N N
V .--I m
al M .-i
O V
n V
lD
lD
m Y
N
N
m
s0+
lD O O m
a0 O O V)
N
I�
O a
N a0+
rl�Ww 00 N m Ol
10 N 00 Il
O 00
O 1�:
N
a
Q U
� Q U
m
W
n
O
N
`
aJ+ N
M
00
of
I11 m I� N
1 vl m .-
N m m M ' ' '
ID N
N N O m
Y 6O V m V
U LL 00
W M
001
c o
O Ill .Ni
m o a n oo
OOi
" n
N
O O
m
m
V y N
1 n N 1
N 00 lD N
00
N
of
m m N
O
.--�
a
a L m ooc lND
O
a
fN+f t0
O y p
rl m lD I V'
.-1
c
o a m o o '\n o o Iq
YY 00 O O 0 CD'
❑ Q
O
V
p '6 V�1 l�D W O N O ill
u0o0 N n O m O .~-1
❑ Q O
V
M N l'D
V
m
NZ N
' m '
1l1
T N
O r m
A Ill
O
N
Q M
!T
ml r M O V
.t M .-i N oo O '
a1 ON V ON lOD M I❑il
u1 1 d N O
QLL 0 N 00
n
Vl
Vl
N
N
ONl
m
m
O
ti
V
al
m
U
J
p
>
N y v a) v
C
O.
=o
N W =p
a W c
C W W Q N x
x p- F, wlw
C C N W
U l-
AN m O
J
F
>
AstbRe4tY, fioveAnber 1,
2wE)21
EM:9 -2-2
Y
I
O
N
M
o
N
M
m
o
o
N
m
Y
O
�
�
o
O
e
O
■
N
ui
N
e
O
u1
N
_
Q
O
O
O
N
CJ
i
■
�
O
H
ti
Y!
ry
O
a0+
0
o
°
m
n
7
0
O
v
m
a
o
O
�
O
J
�
U
9
>
>
N
a
al
z
}
li
x
w
■
w
Z
>
w
.n
to
al
�
LL
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2021
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Nicole Smith, Senior Planner
CONTACT(S): Nicole Smith and Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z21-12)- Request by James Yopp on Behalf of Jack Carlisle and Rockhill Road Investments LLC
to Rezone Approximately 117.58 Acres from R-20 to R-15
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The applicant is seeking to rezone approximately 117.58 acres from R-20 to R-15. The subject site is bisected by the
NC 1-140 right-of-way, which is constructed above grade. Access will be provided to the subject site, east of the NC I-
140, by Rockhill Road, a local street. Access to the subject site, west of NC 1-140, will be provided via Alvernia Drive, a
local street.
The subject site consists of three parcels bordering the Walnut Hills subdivision to the east. Adjacent zoning includes
Planned Development (PD), R-15, R-10, and R-20. There is also 1-2 west of the site, across the Northeast Cape Fear
River.
The subject site is partially located within the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD). Any building constructed within
the SHOD limits would be required to be set back 25' from any property line and subject to a maximum lot coverage of
50%.
Because this is a straight rezoning, a conceptual plan is not included as part of the application and site specific
conditions cannot be placed as part of a rezoning approval. The subject site would be required to meet all of the
Unified Development Ordinance's (U DO) requirements for development within the R-15 district.
The majority of uses are consistent between the two districts with the exceptions of duplexes and mobile homes,
which require a special use permit in the R-20 district and are permitted by right in the R-15 district. Also, the rezoning
to R-15 would allow for a mobile home park, convenience store, and fuel sales to be developed with a special use
permit, though residential uses are typical in both districts.
The intent of the R-15 district is to serve as a transition between very low -density residential development patterns
and smaller lot, more dense residential areas of the county.
Due to environmental constraints on the subject property, current zoning would permit up to 79 dwelling units at 1.9
du/ac under the performance residential standards. A development of this scale is estimated to generate between 61
and 81 trips during the peak hours. The proposed rezoning would increase density to a maximum of 104 dwelling units
at 2.5 du/ac under the performance residential standards. A development of this scale is estimated to generate
between 79 and 105 trips during the peak hours. The need for a Traffic Impact Analysis will be evaluated when a
development plan is submitted for review.
Based on the current general student generation rate, the increase in homes would result in approximately 6 additional
students than would be generated under current zoning. The general student generation rate provides only an estimate
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10
of anticipated student yield as different forms of housing at different price points yield different numbers of students.
Please refer to the schools section included in this report for additional information on school enrollment and
capacity.
The subject site is located in an area the Comprehensive Plan generally envisions as General Residential, though places
close to the Cape Fear River where environmental constraints are likely are designated as Conservation. The intent is
to reflect the existing residential development pattern while protecting natural resources.
While increased density is not encouraged in Conservation place types, the Comprehensive Plan is a bubble plan, so
the boundaries between place types are flexible. More technical information, such as resource type and official
delineations, is important to establish the actual line between Conservation and adjacent General Residential areas. In
addition, there are code provisions that allow for a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre in areas paired with
a Conservation place type and R-15 zoning. The exhibit included in the applicant's materials indicates a significant
amount of wetlands are located on the property that would reduce the buildable envelope.
The Planning Board considered this application at their October 7, 2021 meeting. At their meeting, no one spoke in
support of or in opposition to the request.
The Planning Board recommended approval of the application (6-0), finding it to be:
CONSISTENT with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan because it allows the types of uses
recommended in the General Residential and Conservation place types and is identified as a typical zoning category in
both place types.
The Planning Board also found APPROVAL of the request is reasonable and in the public interest because the site is
located in an area with a variety of zoning districts and densities and will be restricted due to the environmental
constraints.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
• Intelligent Growth & Economic Development
o Encourage development of complete communities in the unincorporated county
■ Ensure NHC has appropriate housing to support business growth
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Therefore, staff recommends approval of this application and suggests the following motion:
Example Motion for Approval
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to an R-15 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district allows the types of uses that would be encouraged in the
General Residential and Conservation place types and would serve as an appropriate transition between the river,
interstate, and adjacent residential neighborhoods. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in
the public interest because the site is located in an area with a variety of zoning districts and densities and will be
restricted due to the environmental constraints.
Example Motion for Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to an R-15, Residential district. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10
purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district allows the types of uses that would be encouraged
in the General Residential and Conservation place types and would serve as an appropriate transition between the
river, interstate, and adjacent residential neighborhoods, I find DEN IAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the
public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community and the
intensity of the uses allowed within the proposed district will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
Z21-12 BOC Script
Z21-12 BOC Staff Report
Z21-12 Zoning Map
Z21-12 Future Land Use Map
Z21-12 Neighbodng Properties
Z21-12Applicant Materials CS
Z21-12Applicant Package
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval as presented by staff.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5-0.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10
SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z21-12)
Request by James Yopp, applicant, on behalf of the property owner, Jack Carlisle and Rockhill Road
Investments, LLC, to rezone approximately 117.58 acres of land located at 1320, 1330, and 1340
Rockhill Road from R-20, Residential District to R-15, Residential District.
1 . This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes
for rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Applicant's presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent's presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant's rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent's rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
3. Close the public hearing
4. Board discussion
5. Vote on the application. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or
is not, consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Example Motion for Approval
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to an R-15 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district allows the types
of uses that would be encouraged in the General Residential and Conservation place types
and would serve as an appropriate transition between the river, interstate, and adjacent
residential neighborhoods. I also find APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and
in the public interest because the site is located in an area with a variety of zoning districts
and densities and will be restricted due to the environmental constraints.
Example Motion for Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to an R-15, Residential district. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district
allows the types of uses that would be encouraged in the General Residential and Conservation
place types and would serve as an appropriate transition between the river, interstate, and
adjacent residential neighborhoods, I find DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and
in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the desired character of the
surrounding community and the intensity of the uses allowed within the proposed district will
adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 1 - 1
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-M district. I find it to
be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because
[insert reasons]
I also find [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because [insert reasons]
STAFF REPORT FOR Z21-12
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z21-1 2
Request:
Rezone 1 17.58 acres from R-20, Residential to R-15, Residential
Applicant:
Property Owner(s):
James Yopp
Jack Carlisle and Rockhill Road Investments,
LLC
Location:
Acreage:
1320, 1330, and 1340 Rockhill Road
1 17.58 acres
PID(s):
Comp Plan Place Type:
R02400-002-017-000
General Residential &Conservation
R02400-002-01 3-000
Existing Land Use:
Proposed Land Use:
Undeveloped
The site would be allowed to be developed in
accordance with the R-15 district
Current Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
R-20, Residential
R-15, Residential
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
I�.
Page 1 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 1
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE
ZONING
North
Undeveloped
R-15, 1-2
East
Undeveloped, Single -Family Residential
R-20, R-10
South
Undeveloped
R-20
West
Northeast Cape Fear River, Undeveloped
R-20, 1-2
ZONING HISTORY
July 1, 1985 Initially zoned R-20 (Castle Hayne)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer
water and sewer services are available through CFPUA. May require a
mainline extension.
Fire Protection
New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire
District
Schools
Castle Hayne Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and Laney High schools
Recreation
Northern Regional Park at Castle Hayne
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 2 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 2
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The County's Conservation Resources Map indicates that swamp forest may
be present on the site. Conservation space is required for swamp forest
Conservation
when at least five acres of the resource exists on the property. Verification
of regulated swamp forests and pocosin wetlands will be required during
the site plan review process.
Historic
No known historic resources
Archaeological
No known archaeological resources
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 1 17.58 acres from R-20 to R-15.
• The subject site is bisected by the 1-140 right-of-way, which is constructed above grade.
• The subject site consists of three parcels bordering the Walnut Hills subdivision to the east.
Adjacent zoning includes Planned Development (PD), R-15, R-10, and R-20. There is also I-
2 west of the site, across the Northeast Cape Fear River.
• Because this is a straight rezoning, a conceptual plan is not included as part of the
application and site specific conditions cannot be placed as part of a rezoning approval.
The subject site would be required to meet all of the Unified Development Ordinance's
(UDO) requirements for development within the R-15 district.
• Dimensional differences for the current R-20 and proposed R-15 districts are outlined in the
chart below.
Dimensional Standards
R-20 (Existing)
R-15 (Proposed)
Conventional
Subdivision
Minimum lot size
20,000 sq.ft. (single
family)
15,000 sq.ft (single
family)
35,000 sq.ft. (duplex)
25,000 sq. Ft
(duplex)
Minimum Lot Width
90 ft.
80 ft.
Front setback (feet)
30 ft
25 ft
Side Setback (street)
22.5 ft
15 ft
Side setback (Interior)
15 ft
10 ft
Rear setback
25 ft
20 ft
Performance
Subdivision
Density
1.9 du/ac
2.5 du/ac
• The majority of uses are consistent between the two districts with the exceptions of duplexes
and mobile homes require a special use permit in the R-20 district and are permitted by
right in the R-15 district. Also, the rezoning to R-15 would allow for a mobile home park,
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 3 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 3
convenience store, and fuel sales to be developed with a special use permit, though
residential uses are typical in both districts.
• The subject site is partially located within the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD).
Any building constructed within the SHOD limits would be required to be set back 25' from
any property line and subject to a maximum lot coverage of 50%.
• Any proposed development would be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee (TRC)
to ensure compliance with applicable County and State regulations, including applicable
site design and approval provisions within the UDO.
AREA SUBDIVISIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
MJLmmn ST71u + i : -Dui • i u.- River BIBI ffs
Bountiful' Village 35 0 35
Legacy Landing 8 U 8
Sunset Reach 68 0 fib
River Bluffs 754 258 496
Total 865 258 607
Based on Building Permits and Aerial Photography
Sunset Reach-
s hpo r: Legacy
e Landing T�ti:`
Site
A\ %---_
p
Area Subdivisions Under Development
Villas At
`. Ness Creek'
Riverside �
Riverside - Apart ntnts
Windy Woods
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021 Page 4 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 4
TRANSPORTATION
u Cnttagg perk All
G
ram.' 4
Jce -a
a i
Qi
.ro
-bi n� Access,
4a1�a RBckhilf Road —
Brier R.,,,
r a �.Farovn Slrprt.
` rc ApI)le Road a
ve
J
XCI
ti
J y
1 J
. Cardiff Road U d a
1-140
44h
G° +ritifui Line
Primary Access /
Secondary Access
Access
• Access will be provided to the subject site, east of the NC 1-140, by Rockhill Road, a local
street. Access to the subject site, west of NC 1-140, will be provided access off Alvernia
Drive, a local street.
• Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs) are not required for a straight rezoning, as a specific
development proposal is required to thoroughly analyze access, potential trip generation,
and roadway improvements.
• Before any development can occur on this site, the Technical Review Committee will review
all plans for compliance with applicable land use regulations, including any recommended
roadway improvements from traffic impact analyses to ensure adequate traffic safety and
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 5 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 5
distribution. Recommended roadway improvements will be completed as required by a TIA
or through the NCDOT Driveway permitting process.
• Due to environmental constraints on the subject property, current zoning would permit up to
79 dwelling units at 1.9 du/ac under the performance residential standards. A development
of this scale is estimated to generate between 61 and 81 trips during the peak hours. The
proposed rezoning would increase density to a maximum of 104 dwelling units at 2.5 du/ac
under the performance residential standards. A development of this scale is estimated to
generate between 79 and 105 trips during the peak hours.
Development
Intensity
Approx. Peak Hour Trips
Existing Zoning (R-20):
79 dwelling units
61 AM/81 PM
Proposed Zoning (R-15):
104 dwelling units
79 AM / 105 PM
25 dwelling units
+ 18 AM / + 24 PM
• Because a traffic impact analysis (TIA) is not required to analyze transportation impacts at
this time, staff has provided the volume to capacity ratio for the adjacent roadway near
the subject site. While volume to capacity ratio, based on average daily trips, can provide
a general idea of the function of adjacent roadways, the delay vehicles take in seconds to
pass through intersections is generally considered a more effective measure when
determining the Level of Service of a roadway.
NCDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) - 2019
Road
Location
Volume
Capacity
V/C
Rockhill Road
1300 Block
2,312
8,000
.28(B)
Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses
Nearby NC STIP Roadway Projects:
• STIP Project U58-63: A multi -lane widening project is scheduled along NC -7 33 (Castle Hayne
Road), from 1- 7 40 to SR 73 7 0 (Division Drive). The Right-of-way acquisition is expected to
occur in 2025.
Nearby Traffic Impact Analyses:
Traffic Impact Analyses are completed in accordance with the WMPO and NCDOT standards. Approved
analyses will expire if the proposed development is not completed by the build out date established within the
TIA.
There are no traffic impact analyses located within the typical one mile buffer.
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 6 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 6
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The site does contain AE Special Flood Hazard Areas.
• The subject property is located within the Dock Creek watershed.
• Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class I (Suitable/slight limitation) soils, Class II (moderate limitations),
and Class III (Severe limitations) soils.
• The southern corner of the subject site appears to Staff to contain wetlands, and the County's
Conservation Resources Map indicates that swamp forest areas may be present on the site.
Conservation space is required for swamp forest when at least five acres of the resource
exists on the property. Verification of regulated swamp forest area will be required during
the site plan review process. If the site is deemed to contain a regulated resource,
regulations can impact building envelope, limit density, and require additional setbacks.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SCHOOLS
• Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Castle Hayne
Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and Laney High School. Students may apply to attend
public magnet, year-round elementary, or specialized high schools.
• Under the current zoning, density would be limited to a maximum of 79 dwelling units. A
maximum of 104 units could be developed under the proposed rezoning.
• Based on the current general student generation rate*, the increase in homes would result
in approximately 6 additional students than would be generated under current zoning.
• The general student generation rate provides only an estimate of anticipated student
yield as different forms of housing at different price points yield different numbers of
students. Over the past four years, staff has also seen a decline in the number of students
generated by new development. Student numbers remained relatively stable between
2015 and 2020 (excepting the impacts of COVID-19pandemic), while 14,500 new
residential units were permitted across the county. In addition, the student population is
anticipated to only grow by approximately 1,300 students over the next 10 years based
on the recent New Hanover County Schools Facility Needs Study.
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 7 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 7
Development Type
Intensity
Estimated Student Yield
(current general student generation
rate)
Existing Development
Undeveloped
Approximate**Total: 0
(0 elementary, 0 middle, 0 high)
Typical Development under
79 residential units
Approximate**Total: 19
Current R-20 Zoning
(8 elementary, 4 middle, 6 high)
Typical Development under
104 residential units
Approximate**Total: 25
Proposed R-15 Zoning
(1 1 elementary, 6 middle, 8 high)
*The current general student generation rate was calculated by dividing the projected New Hanover County public school student
enrollment for the 2021-2022 school year by the number of dwelling units in the county. Currently, there are an average of
0.22 public school students (0.09 for elementary, 0.05 for middle, and 0.08 for high) generated per dwelling unit across New
Hanover County. These numbers are updated annually and include students attending out -of -district specialty schools, such as
year-round elementary schools, Isaac Bear, and SeaTech.
**Because the student generation rate often results in fractional numbers, all approximate student generation yields with a
fraction of 0.5 or higher are rounded up to a whole number and yields with a fraction of less than 0.5 are rounded down. This
may result in student numbers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels not equaling the approximate total.
• Given the size of the proposed development, it may have a build -out date within 5 years,
so staff has outlined existing school capacity to provide a general impact of the potential
impact on public schools. These numbers do not reflect any future capacity upgrades that
may occur over the next five years or trends in student population changes.
School Enrollment* and Capacity** (2021-2022 School Year)
Total
Capacity
Enrollment
Capacity
Funded or
NHC
of
of
of
Planned
Level
Capacity
School
Assigned
Assigned
Assigned
Capacity
School w/
School
School
Upgrades
Portables
Castle
Elementary
97%
483
529
91 %
None
Hayne
Holly
Middle
107%
917
934
98%
None
Shelter
High
105%
Laney
2,063
1,903
108%
None
* Enrollment is based on the New Hanover County Schools enrollment that was projected for the 2021 -2022 school
year.
**Capacity calculations were determined based on the projected capacities for the 2021 -2022 school year, and
funded or planned capacity upgrades were those included in the Facility Needs Study presented by New Hanover
County Schools to the Board of Education in January 2021. This information does not take into account flexible
scheduling that may be available in high school settings, which can reduce the portion of the student body on campus
at any one time.
• The recent facility needs survey that has been prepared by Schools staff indicates that,
based on NC Department of Public Instruction (DPI) student growth projections and school
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 8 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 8
capacity data, planned facility upgrades, combined with changes to student enrollment
patterns, will result in adequate capacity district wide over the next five years if facility
upgrades are funded.
REPRESENATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Representative Developments of R-20:
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 9 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 9
Representative Developments of R-15
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 10 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 10
CONTEXT AND COMPATIBILITY
• The property is bisected by NC 1-140, which is built above grade.
• Higher density residential projects are anticipated for vacant properties along major
roadways where they can can serve as a transition between the roadway and existing
single-family neighborhoods.
• There is a variety of zoning in the area, including R-15 and R-20 to the north. There is also
1-2 to the west, across the Northeast Cape Fear River, and R-10 to the east. The development
pattern in this area has continued to evolve over the last few years; at one time this area
was all zoned R-20.
• The intent of the R-15 district is to serve as a transition between very low -density residential
development patterns and smaller lot, more dense residential areas of the County.
• As part of the application materials, the applicant provided a conceptual plan illustrating
the envelopes of the site that are developable given the environmental constraints. While
this is a general rezoning and approval cannot be tied to a site -specific plan of
development, the conservation resources will limit density and impact product design.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for
New Hanover County's future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and
function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are
intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be
interpreted as being parcel specific.
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 11 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 11
Future Land Use
General Residential and Conservation
Map Place Type
General Residential
Focuses on lower density housing ranging up to approximately 8 du/ac,
typically consisting of single-family or duplexes. Types of appropriate uses
include single-family residential, low -density multi -family residential, light
commercial, civic and recreational.
Place Type
Conservation
Descriptions
Covers areas of natural open space and are intended to protect the natural
environment, water quality, and wildlife habitats. They serve the public
through environmental education, low -impact recreation and in their natural
beauty. Protection may also extend to important cultural or archaeological
resources and to areas where hazards are known to exist.
The subject site is located in an area the Comprehensive Plan generally
envisions as General Residential, though places close to the Cape Fear River
where environmental constraints are likely are designated as Conservation.
The intent is to reflect the existing residential development pattern while
protecting natural resources.
While increased density is not encouraged in Conservation place types, the
Comprehensive Plan is a bubble plan, so the boundaries between place
types are flexible. More technical information, such as resource type and
official delineations, is important to establish the actual line between
Conservation and adjacent General Residential areas. In addition, there are
code provisions that allow for a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per
Analysis
acre in areas paired with a Conservation place type and R-15 zoning. The
exhibit included in the applicant's materials indicates a significant amount
of wetlands are located on the property that would reduce the buildable
envelope.
The site is bisected by the NC 1-140 interchange and is immediately
adjacent to a variety of residential zoning. The northern properties contain
R-15 and R-20 zoning. There is an R-10 subdivision to the east and the
Northeast Cape Fear River to the west.
The requested R-15 rezoning could allow for the types of uses that could be
appropriate in this area, and R-15 is one of the typical zoning categories
identified for the General Residential and Conservation place types.
The proposed R-15 rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the
Consistency
Comprehensive Plan because it allows the types of uses recommended in the
Recommendation
General Residential and Conservation place types and is identified as a
typical zoning category in both place types.
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 12 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 12
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
The Planning Board considered this application at their October 7, 2021 meeting. No one spoke
in support of or in opposition to the request. The Planning Board recommended approval of the
petition (6-0).
The Planning Board found the application to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan because the district allows the types of uses that would be encouraged in the
General Residential and Conservation place types and would serve as an appropriate transition
between the river, interstate, and adjacent residential neighborhoods.
The Planning Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the
public interest because the site is located in an area with a variety of zoning districts and
densities and will be restricted due to the environmental constraints.
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 13 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 13
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff concurs with the Planning Board's recommendation and suggests the following motion:
I move to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to an R-15 district. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
district allows the types of uses that would be encouraged in the General Residential
and Conservation place type and would serve as an appropriate transition between
the river, interstate, and adjacent residential neighborhoods. I also find APPROVAL of
the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the site is located
in an area with a variety of zoning districts and densities and will be restricted due to
the environmental constraints.
Alternative Motion for Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to an R-15, Residential district. While I find it
to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because
the district allows the types of uses that would be encouraged in the General
Residential and Conservation place types and would serve as an appropriate transition
between the river, interstate, and adjacent residential neighborhoods, I find DENIAL
of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal
is not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community and the
intensity of the uses allowed within the proposed district will adversely impact the
adjacent neighborhoods.
Z21-1 2 Staff Report PB 10.7.2021
Page 14 of 14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 2 - 14
Subject Site
122
Case: Site Address: Existing Zoning/Use: Proposed Zoning/Use:
Z21-12 1320, 1330, 1340 R-20/ Undeveloped R-15
Rockhill Road N
KeCr Landing Dr
110 1009 1031 i
1020 Cottage Park A/ o cPD
�Zp3� 604 628 , Jf
608_ Chair Rd644 Site 656
Oi 616-632�640 G /�
144
1337
IT132� 1� 5 • :351 1401
12 14
Subject Site 2713 104�%•�� 0 • Rockhill_Rd
27�09� • / 6 1350
2705 /270 • 8rier1Rd
2701 11
1330
.320 • ��
❑ Neighboring Parcels \
1,000
Feet
1111 • 1.15 24
3 40• 109 08� •,•+�
06 30�28 7
101 •I/328
17 1 21=1Q� D
13 • 105�
�6 8 •i109
5 2 1.1 j,4 �t t
1001 3"1 3026
1000 3022
I
1008 3013
107�3005�03004
'• �1,�� 3000
p 089 112
100 104
j Subject Site
Board of Com 'ssioners - November 1, 2021
IT M:10-5-1
APPLICANT
MATERIALS
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 6 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 1 10
Wilmington, North Carolina 28A03
Telephone (910) 798-7165
FAX (9 7 0) 798-7053
plan ningdevelopment.nhcgov.com
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION
This application form must be completed as part of a zoning map amendment application submitted through the county's
online COAST portal. The main procedural steps in the submittal and review of applications are outlined in the flowchart
Public Hearing Procedures
(Optional) •• • •
Post-DecisionApplication Planning Public Hearing Board of Conference Information Submittal &•
mendation Decision
----- el
-
below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the
application, are set out in Section 10.3.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
1. Applicant and Property Owner Information
Applicant/Agent Name
Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent)
James Yopp
Jack Carlisle
Company
Company/Owner Name 2
River Road Construction Company, LLC
Rock Hill Road Investments, LLC
Address
Address
7150 River Road
8620 River Road
City, State, Zip
City, State, Zip
Wilmington, NC 28412
Wilmington, NC 28412
Phone
Phone
Wilmington, NC 28412
910-624-0564
Email
Email
james@rockfordpartners.net
e85michelle@gmail.com
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021 Page 1 of 5
ITEM: 10- 7 - 1Zoning Map Amendment Application — Updated 1 2-2020
2. Subject Property Information
Address/Location
Parcel Identification Number(s)
1320, 1330 & 1340 Rockhill Road,
R02400-002-013-000,R02400-002-017-000
Total Parcel(s) Acreage
Existing Zoning and Use(s)
Proposed Zoning
Future Land Use
117.58
R-20/ vacant
District(s) R-15
Classificatioteneral Residen
3. Zoning Map Amendment Considerations
Requests for general rezonings do not consider a particular land use but rather all of the uses permitted in the
requested zoning district for the subject property. Rezoning requests must be consistent with the New Hanover
County 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance. Zoning Map amendments reclassify
the land that is subject of the application to the requested zoning district classification(s) and subjects it to the
development regulations applicable to the district(s).
The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed Zoning Map
amendment meets the following criteria. (attach additional pages if necessary)
1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's policies for growth and development, as
described in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, applicable small area plans, etc.?
The policies for growth and development encourage safe and affordable housing to be available to every citizen.
This residential district allows increased density which improves diversity of product types and increases New Hanover
County's Tax Base.
2. How would the requested zoning change be consistent with the property's classification on the 2016
Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map?
These two tracts are defined as general residential with up to 2.5 units per acres, which is what is being requested.
An increase in density from 1.9 to 2.5 units per acre will allow more residents to enjoy this area with enhanced amenities
and diversified products and pricing.
ial
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021 Page 2 of 5
ITEM: 10- 7 - 2Zoning Map Amendment Application — Updated 12-2020
3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is
the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning?
The surrounding tracts are currently R-10,11-15 and PD. The construction of 1-140 not only divided the tract, but
limits the highest and best use product type. The rezoning to R-15 is consistent with the surrounding zoning areas.
Accessibility to water, sewer and other utilities has made the zoning change appropriate.
4. How will this zoning change serve the public interest?
The Comprehensive Plan and UDO promotes fostering sustainable growth where adequate services are available.
Allowing increased density will improve the form and function of an underutilized site, maximize land use efficiency,
and is a good economic development opportunity.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021 Page 3 of 5
ITEM: 10- 7 - 3Zoning Map Amendment Application — Updated 12-2020
Staff will use the following checklist to determine the completeness of your application. Please verify all of the
listed items are included and confirm by initialing under "Applicant Initial'. Applications determined to be
incomplete must be corrected in order to be processed for further review.
Application Checklist Applicant Initial
❑ This application form, completed and signed
❑ Application fee:
$500 for 5 acres or less
• $600 for more than 5 acres
❑ Legal description (by metes and bounds) or recorded survey Map Book
and Page Reference of the property requested for rezoning 141
❑ One (1) hard copy of ALL documents
tl
❑ Acknowledgment and Signatures Form (if applicable)
❑ One (1) digital PDF copy of ALL documents AND plans
Page 4 of 5
Zoning Map Amendment Application — Updated 1 2-2020
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 7 - 4
4. Acknowledgement and Signatures
i hereby certify that I am the applicant or authorized agent of the applicant, and the information included in this
application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I also certify that I have submitted all
of the information and documentation required for this application. Further, I acknowledge that no site work can
commence until all applicable approvals and permits are obtained, and that any modifications to approved or
proposed plans must be reviewed by the County and may require the submittal of a new application.
L
Sig Lure of Applicant
Signature of Applicant
Print Name
Print Name
Note: This form must be signed by the owner(s) of record, contract purchaser(s), or other persons(s) having a
recognized property interest; or by a person authorized to submit the application on their behalf.
If an applicant requests delay of consideration from the Planning Board or Board of County Commissioners before
notice has been sent to the newspaper, the item will be calendared for the next meeting and no fee will be required. If
delay is requested after notice has been sent to the newspaper, the Board will act on the request at the scheduled
meeting and are under no obligation to grant the continuance. If the continuance is granted, a fee in accordance with
the adopted fee schedule as published on the New Hanover County Planning website will be required.
Page 5 of 5
Zoning Map Amendment Application — Updated 1 2-2020
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 7 - 5
LOCATION MAP
s
Site /Site
DAMS LN
NOT TO SCALE
SUBJECT PARCELS
a . .
SI TE
m
��. a F
Ir a _
1
• it •
m m
7tiL1�.i1'
mQ
m
r+ » w
IN
way
r'
X4; IV
11. n ■t ! ■ wa
v r
NIL. r AM
• FYI �
'Yg a ` a.
1 J _1 Al R I A 1 IN r
n
a lINN
I bill CKHILL R In D
L 1, 0 Nil Ill
r �: - 41�. ■ ■gym ��
• , ,
,I
w a rw.
jo
IN
•Ins'^ m 1 ��n' •I m 4 1 6L ■
. m
1
� 1 1
Elm
k&.. - - , i
x • f m
ai or
ir
lu n
Ira n'
.. ,
LM
. _ c
-
1
- - - 1 .. Ii ,� ii'- 1 -
x
1im
d r. • -
u
1' No
A III r ji -IN
,
e _
�1 fl. 1w 5 j •,
mo
� - I-.- _ � � _ m � n � •
:fie
L&A ON F
Fr
16 4jr
. .,
d -
• nl
x
SI TE fp
A x'
IF
w1 _ • - OL
m1 g ��}•
• IIL
A y
L IN
,
m a
� r 1
1 • n ° L.- N
a.
.� r y a m
= e 1 r n a
Tti
M % 40• �_ e a�_r,% IN. �, LANE
_ — �r
,� _ _ , , °
IN! i ! E .: w . •w
,a Ir
°6..
� r
a3 1 a1
1 - .• 1..
is 401 IN
. L
` -: ■, � - 14�' j&I ON ' = .i � :yy �. _ram. _�•_ ,� '� .
-• a:1 . r _ e. - ■ a
■te.
a_ , "' �4 • tip •� n , . L .w 1 _-
•
r ��� ■ w ,iee„ a _ mg 1 1
ALI
-�. ■ ll
IN
.Ar i
y,
9r gal rA
�i m 1 x a� • a gym. _ Nl�w.CL•.
_
1110
■, Lw
Lr Aft
1 d
■ tim . s �A
` i—r' III I- t- ® r
a,
- -
a
. mF
_ -° � gar - ' x � 1: _ �:� _ - -® � '�
w �
VF.
•
LL
IWI
- - 4L�
_
1 Z to ,
L
m
` L
� 1 1■ e � 1 �1� � ��•nr - ■•® � m
F ° a • a 'fim
r 200 150 0 200 400 600
SCALE IN FEET: 1 "= 200'
CSD
ENGINEERING
LICENSE # C-2710
ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL
P.O. BOX 4041
WILMINGTON, NC 28406
(910) 791— 4441
U
J
J
Lil
Z DO
p p N
o�z �
ct p
zzLc)
;moo i
U CN N
�Q)� CN
N
L�l
O
LLI
Q
p
m
co
or
Q
W
or
O
z
w
DA TE 8-24-20
Ii SCALE.- 1 " = 200'
VERT. SCALE. • NIA
DRAWN BY- RL W
CHECKED B Y- HSR
PROJECT NO.: 13-0304
Sheet No. / Of
iswa=. s -
EM- 10- 7 -
LOCA TION MAP
............................
m /
CyAIR R v
D � /
R Cv S 0 A
Q� PN I-2 1-2
Z�
DAMS LN COSD
ROCKHILL RD
PD ENGINEERING
Site Site LICENSE # C-2710
a ENGINEERING
a LAND PLANNING
NOT TO SCALE COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL
P.O. BOX 4041
PD WILMINGTON, NC 28406
/ (910) 791— 4441
`o E
�aa
PD
o _�o
_q
z �oyo
N
U O
co
W w11 .5
zw�
R-20 w�
oaa�
U
o V y
O
U Q U
-
PD
—10 / U
J
J
0
I
� o R-15 , J w
CN
CN
I C� ict o C<cU O
I-20 R z O�
N oQOOKH/L�ROq z zR /) Ilu
R 20 o �wl oJCN N z z � (a CN
PD — zoP
SI TE N
1-2 �' I
v
SI TE
= R-20
R-10 \
R-20
SI TE
R-15
_J
SUBJECT PARCELS
BON TI FUL L A NE
co
R-10
R-15
_ . f
--------- --
R-15
R-20 Or
DA TE 8-24-20
HORZ. SCALE.- 1 " = 500'
VERT. SCALE. • N/A
R-20 DRAWN BY- RLW
CHECKED B Y.• HSR
PROJECT NO.: 13-0304
500 250 0 500 1,000 1,500
Sheet No. Of
SCALE IN FEET. 1 "= 500'
ITEM: 10- 7 - 7
Q
0
m
Q
w
O
z
w
1111 ip
XA to Is a-%-i-
a.,i «--' ' -_ .. f JE, }.y /r �' .yr.-,�' }-; 4 _i" c r�. _ - _ \ L '4y f �' •a[ IJ- ,. � _ _ :•�. ... = r� ': r,�-re ,.0 fir, _'_ _ ,:�•_
cs- - s _ h c j� /..-��'Z�J,r,.� ` ♦ s +S �• _ L i.: f i v' [ _ 4 �� >' t` .. 'q-" " _ - .•} 1, _ r _ _ _ • r-.., . r, J -
`~Lti vim_ �,`'`'= -_-- ic.� � ti�If+_"- l--+:'�,+.....i--^' �i-r' :,..1 ��. �i �fri - � _ ,_._ �+ ,� � �'.ta'." �✓, �'f�.rr - _ _.. _ _._ -_ _,..... -.._ _ ._
`, �F V •'� � � � a �i� r c _ _ > • - r � - - ' i t .-... i : i•% F I t/ �. � r! /�. y ��. �. � r"� r -�J _ .. _ ..._., . _ .- � _ , .. - - .. _ ., _ � _ _ _ . , _ _ _ . - .. .... _ - ' ' - - - - • � w _ _ ...- . _
77
J �r iS ► _ :_ :ice' _.:J i i - • 1 G •i ti ! l w r �..' I �. '1 Y~ °"
iQs`•. __ !r '� �. - S� ## ff ^y ti.F+ I3 `!Ci' • 1 - ii / 7 r-..r - - •t'/ '4 _ R .... _ ,., - .. ._' _ ___ '�- _ . _ _- _ _ _. _ ` _ _ ._
_ t!'� �'yo � • _ �� - . _� i � _ �' + � ... . [� 31 E � i J iJ`r'• . i rG �. - q ti �± � +a- : `_i 'y` -. _ i _ _ _
JUL2 3 AA � 11
3
I- law
1�• / , c � � ?,y ,may wl
"^ s t ti r `- a — ��+~..► r.� .-' ._y r! / 11 f �r ram: try' _ / t i /� / — -
�;-
1 �
I' t! iTE'14
`�� i �FQt �7 .'St )S �FFf �, ire? is 7,' ^`�' �'�1 �.1: L`' � �._ �rC-r'a�,� -. ..fir w�-JY r'i"� .: •._iS�f.�-::
��- f�• rFF� �� LC ti"_ '�E:-�::'TE YG. F�'f�ri _ r _F~-mc- ». ,a and
jG- c,e20 n i.Si2MFTe S S rV2^.
y
Sea -• -G .� o� ►:ter ��
LIP
'f � � ��; - - - � ���.-,{ � ��L�, •� ..�- J�a E��3 _�i -tiv � -`ti �' T i frI ti• �t f %�..��= 4 � a ' f I J�
IMAM le'
4iu/
� i i
I ! r (�
I Ll-
{ i {r �./ �1 L r }~ ` t �� - " �� s -` !" s% '� r o � '� r! i � 4.1� '~`_`_� _ � • t .� _ -. _ _ .. ,- ._
4 i - .•'�' �K f I �. '•r' _ ` F^ / l- -- c' I ; i r' f r ..- � � T:. �,� - r
4' �.. it / - - "'./ - ;_ � -• f t f_, - i �E - �' t- � f �
`} r% i1 ! '` / • `g' 'r:- �' ° :-T-fir W_, -:�� i� _ ---- —
Fri
IL
,`ram
J f r r_ � _ L•' 4
41
r � _ .- +,;'_'-•. "—, __ -~. �' _ y. ,- S•� d f f� .t; _ - -_ � ` �'` � f+ Ev` `� r`f ++� � _. _ - ti. r
-- it - f i� ��'� �\ , ` ",• �� ->_c K.:-3-•-.=a+, f _ __ -,'..... 1-
CR
_
%
J�
_ ' �- ' �^ • � rya � - _ _
E
€,{ DATE PLANNING DI R�
r 3
, N C
i f r E — • I A O �r�! � �i.••E [ � �, 3 �• � Lam'' f--E li ��T[5 �i�-� ' j 1 c- r E _ _ r � y V Y! r - ' - - .
G - � r� 3: r. � f 5.._ii �s' .c•'k .d i� � �� w„� i 'Y,. �;., 6 u "."� v- �„s�x�...v ^.•..-� '� w•- r._a- :r•.�:':K,_��::;� E
iE (
-.We _—
{1XIf lci
_ ILL WCEV
iz� E` - i� Llp VIE V"f
�+•�tl
P
'�(; �!-�.1.15 ��LC � �,�j Off" �� Scl/2t/�Y p�' 4C4Cl,�i �Pty 2�� �A�'7'1E70.�/ �r*f�
• \
c � 5 ins w�Kc gP77o •J�rv�i7c= N �� '{ 10 - c �J
�,4�. � Cn ` �.�---- 1 ��t L � �' �� " �� �.._ trr ' � � `�.— _ - - --_ --__ .�- _�.�r —,�_ _.'4'-� �i G�;'= Li f �'3 `` � � C�.c; `QF�'4�a" � �� - � °� e� �-, '���-,�, T-.-.�-•(_ �5 Z.�� , �L _ � .----- - - .
kip w
pp � F ,. ._.......__ .._ - ���-`— .r r~ : 1 �%�'`� !L �-; I L. C. :%L:'� 1'�l "e.l `�� G �•1 L! 1 �f � - -�•� �,�a ` � f ;..: � ' �Z
'CORal;PD La QO;
63
r 1
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021 - - E � - C� ,� t ,
ITEM: 10- 7 - 8
Resolution of
Rock Hill Road Investments, LLC (A North Carolina limited liability company)
E85 Transport, LLC (A North Carolina limited liability company)
Hoosier Daddy, LLC (A North Carolina limited liability company)
HD, LLC (A South Carolina limited liability company)
I, Jack Carlisle, certify that I am a Member/Manager of Rock Hill Road Investments, LLC; E85 Transport,
LLC; Hoosier Daddy, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company and HD, LLC a South Carolina limited
liability company and that the following is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the
Board of Directors on the 151h day of October, 2013.
Jack Carlisle
Member/Manager
Resolved by the Board of Directors of Rock Hill Road Investments, LLC; E85 Transport, LLC; Hoosier
Daddy, LLC; and HD, LLC that James L. Yopp III is appointed as an Assistant Manager of Rock Hill Road
Investments, LLC; E85 Transport, LLC; Hoosier Daddy, LLC; and HD, LLC; and that as said Assistant
Manager is authorized for and on behalf of the company to execute any and all documents related to
the business of Rock Hill Road Investments, LLC; E85 Transport, LLC; Hoosier Daddy, LLC; and HD, LLC as
it relates to permit applications and negotiations with governmental departments and regulatory
agencies as it relates to development projects. Jack Carlisle is authorized to certify a copy of this
resolution.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 7 - 9
Resolution of
Rock Hill Road Investments, LLC (A North Carolina limited liability company)
E85 Transport, LLC (A North Carolina limited liability company)
Hoosier Daddy, LLC (A North Carolina limited liability company)
HD, LLC (A South Carolina limited liability company)
I, Jack Carlisle, certify that I am a Member/Manager of Rock Hill Road Investments, LLC; E85 Transport,
LLC; Hoosier Daddy, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company and HD, LLC a South Carolina limited
liability company and that the following is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the
Board of Directors on the 22°d day of September, 2021.
Jack Carlisle
Member/Manager
Resolved by the Board of Directors of Rock Hill Road Investments, LLC; E85 Transport, LLC; Hoosier
Daddy, LLC; and HD, LLC that James L. Yopp III is appointed as an Assistant Manager of Rock Hill Road
Investments, LLC; E85 Transport, LLC; Hoosier Daddy, LLC; and HD, LLC; and that as said Assistant
Manager is authorized for and on behalf of the company to execute any and all documents related to
the business of Rock Hill Road Investments, LLC; E85 Transport, LLC; Hoosier Daddy, LLC; and HD, LLC as
it relates to permit applications and negotiations with governmental departments and regulatory
agencies as it relates to development projects. Jack Carlisle is authorized to certify a copy of this
resolution.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 10- 7 - 10
?4
44
0,51
1 26' '?9'40'22" E
.
258. UPLAND AREA
.
6\ > 290.25 Acres
S76141,38" u, �� / 00 N.O.F.
MHUILLC
N 85'58'02" E
0)
o
50.96,
S 782810,3.
UPLAND AREA 73 251,
Cb Ro
1-01 wl Sri
ROAD
sep"
WETLAND AREA
l---1
(0,
wig 000000' 4�- r-" \3b
'0
r
UPLAND AREA
1
UPLAND AREA 50,A 0-" 1.49 Acres
T,
V.
MEAN HIGH WATERLINE
^N\��
N/F
LOCATED 11-14-06
co lb IV N CAMERON COMPANY LTD.
tk
x DB 690, PIS 108
7:,' 0
\4,06� AREA 19.7 AC.
IV� �14
COASTAL WETLAND LINE Vcp 00
CO
'
4�
0)
V 1�
�vo
UPLAND AREA j C) C-n
Vx 9.49 Acres
rb
QII C."
X co X.
ory .0
RIVERLINE SCALED IN FROM
COASTAL WETLANDS
MC 33, PG 111
C.)X/ C,q\s,�2:
MC 33, PG 111 4F
�b 1-b -
AREA 33.4 AC t 'S , (d
0 0Y
A C'V N/F
9> ip I -- ",
����®`?
Iq LWALNUT HILL
CO
MB 18, PG 64
WETLAND FLAGS LOCATED
JUNE 6,2011
X-10
W86
MC 33, PG 111
oar o ommissioners - November
ITEM: 10- 7 - 11
TOTAL
WETLAND AREA
51.75 Acres
COASTAL WETLAND LINE
LOCATED JUNE 6,2011
UPLAND AREA
1.14 Acres
IV
MEAN HIGH WATERLINE
VIF
LOCATED 11-14-06
td' CO
WALNUT HILL
M IVIB 1180 , PG 64
WETLAND FLAGS LOCATED
JUNE 6,2011
COASTAL WETLANDS
MC 33, PG 111
AREA 43.0 AC t
COASTAL WETLAND LINE
LOCATED JUNE 6,2011
MEAN HIGH WATERLINE
LOCATED 11-14-06 \
co
W132
W1261
UPLAND AREA_
0.02 Acres
-V
1 4-11v
Ul
: zo
UPLAND AREA
0.19 Acres
Co.
rns
IX)
p
o
-1i
THIS CERTIFIES THAT THIS COPY OF THIS PLAT ACCURATELY
DEPICTS THE BOUNDARY OF THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION
404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AS DETERMINED BY THE
UNDERSIGNED ON THIS DATE. UNLESS THERE IS A CHANGE
IN THE LAW, OR OUR PUBLISHED REGULATIONS, THIS
DETERMINATION OF SECTION 404 JURISDICTION MAY BE
RELIED UPON FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS
FROM THIS DATE. THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE UTILIZING
THE 1987 CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL.
REGULATORY OFFICIAL:
Ti TLE:
DATE:
LISACE ACTION ID:
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
wi
S 80'18'20" E
53.4'
9
W2
IN 63*20'41 " E
52.87'
W3
N 78'27'58" E
45.23'
W4
N 50`01'38' E
40.90'
W5
S 57* 18'48" E
12.97'
W6
N 86*36'29" E
24.39'
W7
S 77* 19'51 " E
75.40'
W8
N 70'51'04" E
24.27'
W9
N 88'20'24" W
13.27'
W10
S 55* 17*42" W
26.62'
wil
S 49'37'26" W
32.65'
W12
S 46'118'57" W
35.70'
W13
S 84°51'33" W
51.36'
W14
S 16'29'29" W
18.14'-
W15
S 77'54'13" W
43.01'
W16
S 52'118'09" W
11.83'
W17
S 66*04'30" W
31.73'
W18
N 87'00'18" W
34.89'
W19
S 85'04'06" W
24.74'
W20
S 36'00'32" W
40.79'
W21
S 81*28'09" W
38.21'
W22
S 35*06'16" W
34.26'
W23
S 26*06'53" W
55.30'
W24
S 31'28'12" W
24.00'
W25
S 17*09'49" W
53.08'
W26
S 08'46*30" W
44.45'
W27
S 30*30'23" W
36.29'
W28
S 52*5456" W
24.39'
W29
S 25*29'24" W
40.50'
W30
S 29*59'06" W
39.74'
W31
S 16'24'12" W
29.21'
W32
S 16'31'01 " W
70.67'
W33
S 0306'24" E
24.04'
W34
S 19'15'31 " W
54.45'
W35
S 17'31'10" W
42.40'
W36
S 23*01'17" W
25.37'
W37
S 27*36'11 " W
57.11'
W38
S 11'43'15" W
34.17'
W39
S 15*48'40" W
44.28'
W40
S 52* 15'56" W
97.18'
W41
S 47'23'26" W
44.33'
W42
S 80'52'43" W
21.37'
W43
S 63* 16'53" W
43.66'
W44
S 08'40'22" W
29.66'
W45
S 07'113'44" W
33.83'
W46
S 36*52'04" W
37.67'
W47
S 35*44'21 " W
42.46'
W48
S 32*06'54" W
38.79'
W49
S 11*44'02" IN
39.12'
W50
S 01'45'47" E
33.77'
W51
S 04'32'33" IN
33.40'
W52
S 10*56'57" W
37.75'
W53
S 01'21'33" E
40.16'
W54
S 15*31'58" IN
50.98'
W55
S 28'03'58" W
38.59'
W56
S 05'38'07" W
45.62'
W57
S 2225'18" W
42.38'
W58
S 36*41'25" W
4.17'
W59
S 36'41'25" W
31.68 7-
W60
S 39*28'01 " W
30.81'
W61
S 41'57'06" W
34.84'
W62
S 46'51'28" IN
40.29'
W63
S O7'26'30" W
20.89'
W64
S 22*59'39" W
22.52'
W65
S 46*21'50" E
26.49'
W66
S 35*46'18" E
40.12'
W67
S 27*28'43" E
23.76'
W68
S 35'46'03" E
72.41'
W69
S 03*45'21 " E
17.64'
W70
N 69* 13'28" W
33.2 l'
W71
N 40'02'20" W
58.02'
W72
N 27'28'43" W
23.76'
W73
N 4552'35" IN
53.90'
W74
N 35'56'42" W
32.55'
W75
S 46'55'48" W
33.6-T-
W76
S 66*41'30" W
20.72'
W77
S 44'39'20" W
25.36'
W78
S 52*43'26" W
58 -19'
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
W79
S 6926'14" W
25.75'
W80
S 79*09'44" W
23.98'
W81
S 68'18'17" W
30.18'
W82
S 55*38'42" W
37.90'
W83
S 68*58'19" W
14.76'
W84
S 64'02'45" W
37.92'
W85
N 8534'36" W
32.39'
W86
S 88'46'5 1 " W
29.41'
W87
S 42'31'48" W
48.41'
W88
S 48'08'10" W
33.53'
W89
S 73'01'06" W
37.36'
W90
S 78*53'45" W
24.36'
W91
S 80*20'10" W
40.89'
W92
N 12'33'20" W
20.89'
W93
S 62*33'48" W
44.85'
W94
N 39*46'37" W
19.40'
W95
N 81*47'23" W
21.63'
W96
N 17*39'28" E
25.52'
W97
N 6433'16" W
18.72'
W98
S 26'30'22" W
26.54'
W99
N 42* 16'40" W
33.30'
Wl 00
N 11*24'06" W
37.28'
W101
N 45*05'19" W
14.83'
W102
N 00* 17'52" E
27.56'
W103
N 23*34'51" W
8.79'
Wl 04
S 7738'40" W
33.02'_
Wl 05
N 07'08'18" E
22.35'
Wl 06
N 39*53'25" IN
43.26'_
W107
N 27'42'12" W
46.33'
W108
N 29' 16'47" W
79.25'
Wl 09
N 27*30'55" E
23.01'
W110
IN 05*00'37" W
26.59'
Will
N 73'36'54" W
22.08'
Wl 12
N 30"15'41 " W
6.86'
Wl 13
N 54! 16'26" E
2.70
Wl 14
N 35* 18'51 " IN
20.47'
Wl 15
N 58'38'15" W
29.43'
Wl 16
N 22*01'03" W
58.9 l'
Wl 17
N 24!02'52" W
98.55'
Wl 18
N 11*39'02" W
57.65'
Wl 19
N 16*07'40" W
55.62'
W120
N 02*20'08" W
55.58'
W121
N 36*30'36" W
48.70'_
Wl 22
N 39*39'45" W
32.99'
W123
N 42*44'53" W
40.10'
W124
N 27'30'23" W
37.42'
Wl 25
N 25* 14'46" W
71.35'
W126
N 75*38'03" W
46.62
Wl 27
N 36'27'57" W
38.23
Wl 28
N 50*38'00" W
31.45'
W129
S 88*24'19" W
35,75'
W130
S 63*08'32" W
35.37'
Wl 31
S 71"47'38" W
38.66'
W132
N 8038'1 4" W
45.8 l'
W133
N 49'02'41 " W
24.26'
W134
N 40'41'32" W
21.28'
Wl 35
N 06*58'58" W
30.64'_
Wl 36
N 45'06'47" E
28.07'
Wl 37
S 78'09'12" E
19.93'
Wl 38
N 57*25'52" E
38.44'
W139
N 71'45'20" E
44.9 l'
Wl 40
N 66*10'55" E
38.55'
W141
N 44'07'07" E
34.43'
Wl 42
N 42'37'0 1 " E
28.85'
W143
N 56* 18'52" E
201.76'
W144
S 81'32'48" W
47.02'
Wl 45
N 56*50'18" W
18.65'
Wl 46
N 37*54'31" W
17.118'
Wl 47
N 04!5422" E
31.88'
Wl 43
N 07*04'05" E
34.82 r-
W149
N 2655'13" E
33.42'
W150
N 16*31'01" E
23.37'
W151
N 02*54'33" E
32.79'
Wl 52
N 83*14'21" E
22.14'
W153
S 83'14'21" W
18.98'
W154
N 28'05'50" W
25,09'
W155
N 49*27'42" E
28.97']
[W156
F-N39-53'42" E
5.54' 1
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
Ll
S 22*06'08" W
16.27'
L2
S 32' 16'57" W
35.88'
L3
S 2534'15" W
100.30'
L4
S 29*48'49" W
14.93'
L5
S 35*52'37" W
24.62'
L6
S 47'06'30" W
50.09'
L7
S 41'05'25" W
60.65'
L8
S 46*40'00" W
52.87'
L9
S 44°54'40" W
71.12'_
L10
S 40*59'04" W
76.56'
Ll 1
S 47*25'17" W
15.26'
L12
S 5657'31 " W
69.17'
L13
S 48*27'27" W
37.12'
L14
S 55'57'46" W
16.44'
L15
S 62*53'40" W
45.61'
L16
S 57'50'06" W
32.20'
L17
S 54'29'26" W
57.66'
L18
S 51'59'35" W
112.57'
L19
S 43-40'38" W
16.35'
L20
S 37*22'02" W
57.59'
L21
S 45*06'44" W
35.19'
192
S 35*40'03" W
37.27'
L23
S 09'10'34" W
61.83'
L24
S 17'53*42" W
76.92'
L IN-
S 18'04'52" W
102.72'
IMB 33, PG. 111
is
.......... -
SCALE: I" = 300'
w
I e17
GLADIals
SITE
ROCKHiLL RD.
1331
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
MEAN HIGH WATER LINE
WETLANDS SURVEYED JUNE 2011
CAMA LINE SURVEYED JUNE 2011
WETLAND FLAG LOCATED
NUMB.
1. NO BOUNDARY SURVEY PERFORMED.
2. DRAWN FROM LIMITED FIELD WORK, RECORDED INFORMATION AS
INDICATED, AND SUPPLEMENTED USING GIS DATA.
3. SOME LINE LABELS REMOVED FOR CLARITY.
4. WETLAND LINES DELINEATED BY LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC.
0'
:*9-s111*-�
o <
0
SEAL
Engineerh-7g., Inc.
101 'W- HOW, Suite 100
Belviffe, NC 28451
TEL (910) 383-1044
FAX (910) 363-1045
www.capefearen_qineerin_q.com
N.C. UCENSE#C-7621
DRAWN JDCJR PROJECT
224-012
DESIGN
=E JDCJR NUMBER:
CHECK H.E. STOCKS SCALE 1"=200'
APPROVED: P.G. DAMS DATE 17 JUNE 2011
PRO,F-CT NUMBER I SHEET NUMBER
224-012 1 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2021
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director
CONTACT(S): Rebekah Roth
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
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
Nonresidential 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
BRIEF SUMMARY:
This amendment includes proposed height increases in three types of districts: Residential Multi -Family (RMF), Mixed
Use Zoning Districts (specifically Urban Mixed Use Zoning and Planned Development), and several Commercial and
Industrial districts. The key intent is to adjust height standards that serve as barriers to accessible housing and the types
of development envisioned in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
The key concepts included in this amendment include:
• Increasing height standards for Residential Multi -Family (RMF) districts to allow for four-story buildings in all
RMF districts;
• Adjusting height limits in commercial and industrial districts to allow for the building scales recommended in the
2016 Comprehensive Plan;
• Providing additional height allowances for particular types of structures to allow for the types of uses permitted
in these districts;
• Establishing mitigation options to reduce the impacts of taller structures on adjacent residential properties; and
• Allowing height maximums to be established in Master Development Plans for Planned Development and Urban
Mixed Use Zoning districts.
The Planning Board considered this application at their October 7th meeting. At the meeting, no one from the public
spoke in opposition, or in favor of, the proposal. The Planning Board recommended approval of the application (6-
0). They found it to be:
CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it supports accessible housing
and is in line with the height recommendations of the plan. They also found APPROVAL of the proposed amendment
reasonable and in the public interest because it incentivizes the types of commercial development desired in the
unincorporated county and mitigates potential impacts of taller buildings on adjacent residential neighborhoods.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11
• Intelligent Growth & Economic Development
o Encourage development of complete communities in the unincorporated county
■ Citizens have daily needs met by N H C businesses and support them
■ Ensure NHC has appropriate housing to support business growth
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggests the following motion:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance to increase height in multi -family, mixed use, and commercial and industrial districts. I find it to
be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it supports accessible housing
and is in line with the height recommendations of the plan. I also find APPROVAL of the proposed amendment
reasonable and in the public interest because it incentivizes the types of commercial development desired in the
unincorporated county and mitigates potential impacts of taller buildings on adjacent residential neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
TA 21-03 Script
TA 21-03 Staff Report
TA 21-03 Text Amendment Draft
TA 21-03 Text Amendment Summary
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Recommend approval as presented by staff.
COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS:
Approved 5-0.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11
SCRIPT for Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment (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 nonresidential 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.
This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then any supporters and any opponents
will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentations and an additional 5 minutes for rebuttal.
Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff/Applicant presentation
b. Supporters' presentation(s) (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponents' presentation(s) (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant's rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponents' rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
2. Close the public hearing
3. Board discussion
4. Vote on amendment. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or is not,
consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is reasonable
and in the public interest.
Examole Motion of Aaaroval:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance to increase height in multi -family, mixed use, and commercial and industrial
districts. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
because it supports accessible housing and is in line with the height recommendations of the plan. I also
find APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it incentivizes
the types of commercial development desired in the unincorporated county and mitigates potential
impacts of taller buildings on adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance to increase height in multi -family, mixed use, and commercial and industrial districts. I find it
to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because [insert
reasons]
I also find [Approval/Denial] of the proposed amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because
[insert reasons]
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 1 - 1
STAFF REPORT FOR TA21-03
TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: TA21-03
Request:
To amend Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to update height standards
and setback requirements for multi -family and nonresidential 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.
Applicant:
Subject Ordinances:
New Hanover County
Unified Development Ordinance
Purpose & Intent
The key intent of this amendment is to adjust height standards that serve as barriers to
accessible housing and the types of development envisioned in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND
As part of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) code update project intended to implement
the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, height maximums were increased in some districts in summer 2020.
Since that time, staff has received questions about potential projects, and current height limits have
come up as barriers in several nonresidential districts, not allowing for the structures that uses
permitted in the district now require, for instance, hospitals in the Office and Institutional district and
some warehouses in Light Industrial. Even the Planned Development (PD) district, which was intended
to allow for integrated mixed -use projects and requires compensating community benefits and
approval of a Master Development Plan as part of the rezoning process, would not accommodate
the heights needed for some of these structures. In addition, the findings of the City of
Wilmington/New Hanover County Comprehensive Housing Study and Master Aging Plan have
indicated a need for more accessible rental housing, such as elevator -served structures, which are
generally at least four stories in height.
This amendment includes proposed height increases in three types of districts: Residential Multi -
Family (RMF), Mixed Use (specifically Urban Mixed Use Zoning, or UMXZ, and PD), and several
Commercial and Industrial districts.
Residential Multi -Family (RMF) Districts
The county's four RMF districts were created in 2019 to allow for the full range of residential
densities outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and to provide districts where multi -family
development (primarily apartments) could be anticipated. At the time, most of the county's
residential districts allowed for multi -family projects, but only at limited densities without a special
use permit. The possibility of multi -family housing in these districts was contrary to adjacent
residents' expectations, and the densities permitted were not supportive of what was identified as
1
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 2 - 1
needed to support affordability and to transition between higher intensity and lower intensity areas
of the community.
When first designed, the RMF-L and RMF-M districts —because of their lower densities (10 du/acre
and 17 du/acre respectively) —were also anticipated to be built at 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 (25 du/acre) and RMF-H (36 du/acre) would be the trigger for needing four-story
structures, which open up additional units for seniors and people with mobility issues as they require
elevators. Since 2019, staff has found that due to rising residential demand in this region, four-
story buildings are still possible for the lower density RMF districts.
The proposed amendment provides an additional height allowance for four-story structures in the
RMF-L and RMF-M districts. To mitigate impacts on adjacent residential properties (platted lots in
the general R Residential districts —RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, and R-5—and those with
existing single family and duplex homes), three different mitigation options are outlined for those
taller structures.
The first two options consist of 2:1 structure setbacks or architectural stepbacks (where the setback/
stepback is
approximately 2
x the height Of Architectural Ste pbackswheretaIle rportions ofa
the building in structure are located further from a propertyine
feet) when the
taller structure is
adjacent to an
existing home
(even if
separated by
open space). Required structure setbac
This is intended 4 0 ____* I
to both mitigate Figure 1. Structure Setbacks and Architectural Stepbacks
potential impacts
of the height and to incentivize site design that places taller buildings further from adjacent
residential properties. This is also the distance where existing buffer requirements start to visually
block the view of taller buildings from adjacent properties. When taller structures are next to multi-
family projects or undeveloped residentially zoned land, the mitigation ratio is reduced to
1.5:1(where the setback/stepback is approximately 1.5x the height of the building in feet).
Because site specific characteristics or other site or architectural design features could also
effectively mitigate the impact of these taller structures, alternative techniques are also allowed
when the structures are included as part of a conditional zoning district, which requires a full public
review and hearing process. Other setbacks are also modified to balance the impact on adjacent
properties with limiting the changes to current permissions.
Currently, the RMF-MH and RMF-H districts both allow four-story buildings, though the maximum
height of those structures is capped at 50 ft. This maximum in feet has been removed in the current
amendment draft, but mitigation for structures taller than 50 ft. has been proposed in response to
public concerns about the potential impacts of taller buildings. Flexibility in mitigation techniques
as part of conditional zoning approvals is also available for these two districts. In addition, in order
to ensure the full spectrum of building scales outlined in the Comprehensive Plan are possible, five -
story structures are proposed to be allowed in the RMF-H district if part of a conditional zoning
2
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 2 - 2
district. RMF-H is the multifamily district least likely to be located adjacent to existing residential
neighborhoods, and five -story structures would still be subject to mitigation standards.
Mixed Use Districts
The proposed amendment impacts height maximums in two mixed use districts: Urban Mixed Use
Zoning (UMXZ) and Planned Development (PD). These two districts can only be applied to a piece
of property with an approved Master Development Plan and have been designed and/or modified
since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to be the primary tools for new integrated
developments, ultimately replacing the Riverfront Mixed Use (RFMU) and Exceptional Design Zoning
District (EDZD), which have not been applied for several years due to complex requirements not
calibrated for the current market.
The UMXZ district is designed to require high quality design and encourage a mix of uses. It allows
residential densities that range from 15 to 36 units per acre, depending on the type of residential
structure, which would make it potentially appropriate in Community Mixed Use, Employment
Center, and Urban Mixed Use places as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, all of which have
different building height recommendations. Because height —and any setbacks or other design
features to mitigate that height —would be outlined in a Master Development Plan (MDP) as part
of a rezoning review and approval process, the proposed amendment removes the current height
restrictions and allows height to be established in the MDP.
Similarly, the PD district also requires a Master Development Plan and could be appropriate in an
even wider variety of Comprehensive Plan places, making it difficult to determine the most
appropriate height maximum. The proposed amendment also removes the current maximum height
limit for PD and allows the MDP to establish it.
Commercial and Industrial Districts
The final type of districts where height changes are being considered include several
districts, along with Office and Institutional (0&1) and Light Industri,
included in the proposed amendment are based on the story
recommendations included in the Comprehensive Plan and height
assumptions for nonresidential and mixed -use buildings that were
prepared by a consultant in 2018. A maximum height is
established for each district to allow the building scales
recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional height
allowances are also provided for certain uses that are permitted
in the district that could generally require more stories. Like the
RMF districts, three different mitigation options are outlined for
those taller structures. The first two options consist of 2:1 structure
setbacks or architectural stepbacks (where the setback/stepback is
approximately 2x the height of the building in feet) when the taller"
structure is adjacent to an existing home (even if separated by., k 5
open space). This is intended to both mitigate potential impacts of
the height and to incentivize site design that places taller buildings
further from adjacent residential properties. This is also the Figure 2. Scale of Tall Building from 2:1
distance where existing buffer requirements start to visually block Setback with red line indicating
the view of taller buildings from adjacent properties. When taller approximate height of buffer plantings
structures are next to multi -family projects or undeveloped within 1 year of installation (6 ft.)
residentially zoned land, the mitigation ratio is reduced to
1:1(where the setback/stepback is approximately 1 x the height of the building in feet). Because
3
business
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 2 - 3
site specific characteristics or other site or architectural design features could also effectively
mitigate the impact of these taller structures, alternative techniques are also allowed when the
structures are included as part of a conditional zoning district, which requires a full public review
and hearing process.
The Neighborhood Business, or B-1, district, is currently applied to a number of properties along
major and minor roadways in the county. It allows for a wide range of commercial uses and is
intended to allow for smaller scale, low intensity development with no more than two-story buildings.
The proposed amendment would increase its height maximum to 2 stories OR 40 ft. Modifications
to setbacks have also been included in the draft amendment to make all business districts consistent
and to remove current standards that apply differently to different roadway types.
The Community Business, or CB, district, is currently applied to only three properties, all of which
are subject to conditional zoning approvals. The uses allowed in this district are limited and
designed to be less intense so they could be appropriate in close proximity to existing residential
neighborhoods. The proposed amendment establishes its maximum height as 3 stories OR 50 ft.
Additional mitigation is required for structures taller than 40 ft. Because of the lower intensity of
the potential uses in this district and the relatively small scale of potential structures, those mitigation
requirements are much less than those required for other zoning districts, and the proposed
amendment is generally consistent with current district standards.
The most common commercial zoning district in the county's jurisdiction is Regional Business, or B-2.
It is applied along major and minor roadways and to properties surrounded by residential
development. It also allows a wide range of uses including retail, auto -oriented sales, lodging,
heavy commercial, and some manufacturing. The only permitted uses likely to need more than 3
stories are hotels.
This district does currently allow unlimited height for properties meeting certain criteria; however,
this provision has not been used to -date to staff's knowledge and only applies to certain areas,
some of which may not be preferable due to the proximity to existing neighborhoods and no
mitigation requirements.
The general maximum height for this district has been increased slightly to 3 stories OR 50 ft., and
an additional height allowance of up to 100 ft. has been provided for Hotel and Motel structures,
which must meet the mitigation standards outlined above. In addition, front and street side setbacks
for the district have been adjusted to make sure they are consistent with the other commercial
districts possible along the county's roadways.
The Office and Institutional, or O&l, district is currently applied to a number of properties along
major and minor roadways and has served a dual purpose for the county —acting as both a
transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses in some cases and to accommodate
larger institutional uses. Overall, the uses allowed in the district are relatively limited. Typical uses
include offices, medical facilities, and institutional facilities, and it also allows residential
development in order to make mixed -use employment center -type development possible. For the
proposed amendment, staff has focused on the institutional uses allowed in the district, as the
transitional purpose can also be served by other districts, such as Community Business (CB).
Proposed height limits are intended to support three-story structures but also allow for five -story
senior living and office buildings, which would be appropriate for this district. The only uses that
potentially would need more stories are hospitals and colleges, so an additional height allowance
makes that possible.
4
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 2 - 4
The final district where height changes are proposed is the Light Industrial, or 1-1 district. This district
is currently applied to a number of properties, primarily in the northern part of the county. It allows
a wide spectrum of uses, including office, commercial, manufacturing, waste and salvage, and
wholesaling operations. The current district dimensional standards are designed for manufacturing
and wholesale uses but, based on ongoing economic development conversations and the
Comprehensive Plan's guidance, this district is needed to support more tech -related and other light
industrial uses, which generally need taller buildings. As a result, an additional height allowance is
proposed to allow up to 100 ft. for warehouses, offices, research and development, and hotels.
While the existing large setbacks from adjacent residential properties were originally thought to
be sufficient to mitigate the additional height, in response to public concerns, mitigation standards
are also required for additional height in this district when adjacent to residential properties.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposed text amendment and supplemental summary sheets are attached, with red italics
indicating new language and stFikethFeugh indicating provisions that are removed.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
The Planning Board considered this request at their October 7, 2021 meeting. No one spoke in
favor or against the amendment.
The Board recommended approval of the request (6-0), finding it to be:
CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it
supports accessible housing and is in line with the height recommendations of the plan. They
also found APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest
because it incentivizes the types of commercial development desired in the unincorporated
county and mitigates potential impacts of taller buildings on adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggests the following motion:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County
Unified Development Ordinance to increase height in multi -family, mixed use, and
commercial and industrial districts. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent
of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it supports accessible housing and is in line with
the height recommendations of the plan. I also find APPROVAL of the proposed
amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it incentivizes the types of
commercial development desired in the unincorporated county and mitigates potential
impacts of taller buildings on adjacent residential neighborhoods.
5
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 2 - 5
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
Section 2.1 Measurements
Building Height (in feet)
The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the
proposed finished grade at the front of the structure to one of the
following (See Figure 2.1: Building Height Measurement):
Note: While the amendment
clarifies that this is the way
height in feet is measured, no
changes are proposed to this
definition. It is included for
informational purposes and
1. The midpoint between eave and ridgeline on a simple I additional context only.
sloped roof (e.g., gable or hip roof) or curved roof (e.g.,
barrel roof);
2. Where there are multiple roof planes (e.g., gambrel or mansard roof), the highest midpoint on a
sloped or curved roof surface or the highest flat roof plane, whichever is highest; or
3. The highest roof plane on a flat roof (not including any parapet wall).
Appurtenances usually required to be placed above the roof level and not intended for human
occupancy (e.g., antennas, chimneys, solar panels) shall not count toward the building height (see
Section 3.1.3.13, Structural Appurtenances).
Figure 2.1: Building height Measurement
Gable Roof Gambrel Roof Flat Roof
1
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 1
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
Section 2.3 Definitions and Terms
Architectural Stepback
An architectural design element where portions of a building, above a certain height, excluding structural
appurtenances, are located further away from property lines to push height toward the center of a
property and allow for transitions between taller heights and rooflines of smaller neighboring structures.
I
ArcNtectural Stepbacks where taller portions of a
structure are located further from a property line
Required structure setback
Story
That portion of a building between the surface of any floor and the floor or roof above it. The following
are considered stories:
a. Mezzanines exceeding one-third of the total floor area of the story immediately below it;
b. Penthouses; and
c. Basements more than 6 feet above the finished ground level for more than 50 percent of the
total building perimeter.
2
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 2
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
Section 3.1 General
3.1.3 Superseding Dimensional Standards
C. Setbaek Reqy.remeRts Additional Standards in Certain Ge—m ereial -,R,I lRdystrial Districts when
Adjacent to Residential Properties
Zoning
District
B-1
CB
B-2
0&1
AC
I-1
1-2
RGRresideRtial use.
3- 1. Table 3.1.3.C(1): Interior Side and Rear Setbacks from Residential Properties,
establishes the setback requirements for structures in the B-1, CB, B-2, 0&1, AC, 1-1,
and 1-2 districts from lot lines shared with abutting single family or duplex
residential uses and/or platted lots located within a general residential (RA, AR, R-
20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5) zoning district. The setbacks in Table 3.1.3.0 may
be reduced in the AC, 1-1, and 1-2 Districts in accordance with Section 5.4.3,
Transitional Buffer Standards, but may not be reduced below the absolute minimum
setback specified in Table 3.1.3.0 (by use of the language "in no case less than").
Residential Uses and Platted Lots
Side (Interior) Setback Rear Setback
25 ft.
20 ft.
30 ft.
25 ft.
45 ft., in no case less than 35 ft.
50 ft., in no case less than 35 ft.
100 ft., in no case less than 40 ft.
30 ft.
25 ft.
35 ft.
30 ft.
50 ft., in no case less than 40 ft.
50 ft., in no case less than 40 ft.
100 ft., in no case less than 45 ft.
3
Nonresidential
Uses in a
Residential District
20 ft.
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 3
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
2. Table 3.1.3.C(2): Additional Standards for Taller Structures, establishes options for mitigation of
taller structures required for lot lines shared with adjacent general residential (RA, AR, R-20, R-
20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5) districts for structure heights indicated in the district's dimensional
standards. Setbacks or stepbacks shall be measured from the shared property line unless the
two parcels are separated by open space associated with the adjacent residential subdivision. In
such instances, the setback or stepback shall be measured from the residential property line.
Option 7: Structure Setback
Zoning
Adjacent Residential Use or Subdivision in General
Abutting Multi -Family Dwelling or Undeveloped in
District
Residential District*
General Residential District
RMF-L
RMF-M
4 story structures: 100 ft.
4 story structures: 75 ft.
RMF-MH
RMF-H
5 story structures: 725 ft.
5 story structures: 94 ft.
CB
Structures >40 ft. tall. 30 ft.
Structures >40 ft. tall. 25 ft.
2 ft. setback for every 1 ft. in height OR
1 ft. setback for every 1 ft. in height OR
• Structures 57-63 ft. tall. 726 ft.
• Structures 51-63 ft. tall: 63 ft.
B-2
• Structures 64-75 ft. tall. 150 ft.
• Structures 64-75 ft. tall. 75 ft.
0&1
. Structures 76-88 ft. tall. 176 ft.
• Structures 76-88 ft. tall: 88 ft.
1-1
. Structures 89-700 ft. tall: 200 ft.
• Structures 89-100 ft. tall. 100 ft.
• Structures 101-113 ft. tall: 226 ft.
• Structures 101-113 ft. tall: 113 ft.
• Structures 174-725 ft. tall: 250 ft.
• Structures 174-725 ft. tall: 725 ft.
Option 2: Architectural Stepback
Zoning
Abutting Residential Use or Subdivision in
Abutting Multi -Family Dwelling or Undeveloped in
District
General Residential District*
General Residential District
RMF-L
RMF-M
Portions of structures with 4 stories: 700 ft.
Portions of structures with 4 stories: 75 ft.
RMF-MH
Portions of structures with 4 stories: 100 ft.
Portions of structures with 4 stories: 75 ft.
RMF-H
Portions of structures with 5 stories: 125 ft.
Portions of structures with 5 stories: 94 ft.
CB
Portions of structures over 40 ft. tall: 30 ft.
Portions of structures over 40 ft. tall: 25 ft.
Taller portions of building stepped back 2 ft. for
Taller portions of building stepped back 7 ft. for every
every 1 ft. in height OR
1 ft. in height OR
• Portions of structures 57-63 ft. tall: 726 ft.
• Portions of structures 57-63 ft. tall: 63 ft.
B-2
• Portions of structures 64-75 ft. tall: 150 ft.
• Portions of structures 64-75 ft. tall. 75 ft.
O&I
1-1
• Portions of structures 76-88 ft. tall: 776 ft.
• Portions of structures 76-88 ft. tall: 88 ft.
• Portions of structures 89-700 ft. tall: 200 ft.
• Portions of structures 89-700 ft. tall: 100 ft.
• Portions of structures 101-173 ft. tall: 226 ft.
• Portions of structures 101-113 ft. tall. 113 ft.
• Portions of structures 114-125 ft. tall: 250 ft.
• Portions of structures 174-125 ft. tall. 125 ft.
4
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 4
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
Option 3: Mitigation Outlined in Conditional Zoning District Approval
Conditional zoning district outlines technique(s) to mitigate impacts of taller buildings (i.e., site design, architectural
design)
*Excluding lots with multi -family dwellings.
5
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 5
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
D. Performance Residential Development
Performance Residential Developments are not subject to the minimum lot size, minimum lot
width, and front, rear, and side setback requirements in the zoning district where they are
located. Performance Residential Developments shall comply with the standards in this section
and with all other applicable standards in this Ordinance.
1. Setbacks and Spacing
a. Buildings on the periphery of a Performance Residential Development shall setback a
minimum of 20 feet from the adjoining property line.
b. In the Residential Multi family (RMF) districts, the minimum setback from adjoining
property lines shared with abutting single family or duplex residential uses and/or
platted lots located within a general residential (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or
R-5) zoning district will be 30 ft. for any multi family or nonresidential structure over 2
stories in height.
c. Multi -family dwelling units shall be spaced a minimum of 20 feet from any part of
another dwelling unit. All other dwelling units shall be spaced a minimum of 10 feet
from each other.
11
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 6
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
Section 3.2 Residential Zoning Districts
3.2.12 Residential Multi -Family Low Density (RMF-L) District
D. District Dimensional Standards [11-16-20201
Standard
Single Family
Detached
Duplex
Triplex
Quadraple
x
Multi -Family
Lot area, minimum (square
5,000
7,500
12,500
17,500
20,000
feet)*
1 Lot width, minimum (feet)*
50
100
2 Front setback (feet)*
20
35
3 Side setback, street (feet)*
10
30
4 Side setback, interior
5
1 to 2 stories: 20
(feet)*
3 stories: 25
5 Rear setback (feet)*
15
1 to 2 stories: 25
3 stories: 30
Density, maximum
10
(dwelling units/acre)
Building height, maximum
3 3 stories, w0th a ,,,,.,;,, u.m. of ^G
foot**
4 stories
Additional height allowance
See Section 3.1.3. C for standards when adjacent to residential
properties
* Does not apply to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
** Heights GVeF 35 foot of 1hior.t to ;;ddotior.al cothark of A AdditieRal foot
7
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 7
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
3.2.13 Residential Multi -Family Moderate Density (RMF-M) District
D. District Dimensional Standards [11-16-20201
Standard
Single Family
Detached
Duplex
Triplex
Quadraplex
Multi -Family
Lot area, minimum (square
5,000
7,500
12,500
17,500
20,000
feet)*
1 Lot width, minimum (feet)*
50
100
2 Front setback (feet)*
20
35
3 Side setback, street (feet)*
10
30
4 Side setback, interior (feet)*
5
1 to 2 stories: 20
3 stories: 25
5 Rear setback (feet)*
15
1 to 2 stories: 25
3 stories: 30
Density, maximum
17
(dwelling units/acre)
Building height, maximum
3 3 stories,
with a maximurn n-f AG foot**
4 stories
Additional height allowance
See Section 3.1.3. C for standards when adjacent to residential
properties
* Does not apply to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
** Heights ever 35 foot s ih'ont to arLtitoenal sethadk of 4 arldotmonal foot
M
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 8
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
3.2.14 Residential Multi -Family Medium -High Density (RMF-MH) District
D. District Dimensional Standards [11-16-20201
Standard
Single Family
Detached
Duplex
Triplex
Quadraplex
Multi -Family
Lot area, minimum (square
4,000
7,500
12,500
17,500
20,000
feet)*
1 Lot width, minimum (feet)*
40
90
2 Front setback (feet)*
15
30
3 Side setback, street (feet)*
10
30
1 to 2 stories: 20
4 Side setback, interior (feet)*
5
3 stories: 25
4 stories: 30
1 to 2 stories: 25
5 Rear setback (feet)*
15
3 stories: 30
4 stories: 35
Density, maximum
25
(dwelling units/acre)
4 stories, with o
maximum of 50 foot op
no 202
Building height, maximum**
See Section 3.1.3.0 for standards when adjacent to residential
properties
* Does not apply to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
**
0
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 9
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
3.2.15 Residential Multi -Family High Density (RMF-H) District
D. District Dimensional Standards [11-16-20201
Standard
Single Family
Detached
Duplex
Triplex
Quadraplex
Multi -Family
Lot area, minimum (square
3,000
6,000
9,000
12,000
15,000
feet)*
1 Lot width, minimum (feet)*
40
80
2 Front setback (feet)*
15
30
3 Side setback, street (feet)*
10
30
Side setback, interior
4
1 to 2 stories: 20
(feet)*
5
3 stories: 25
4 stories: 30
1 to 2 stories: 25
5 Rear setback (feet)*
15
3 stories: 30
4 stories: 35
Density (maximum
36
dwelling units/acre)
4 stories, "pn„x,
with o n„,n, of 50 foot rnn 09 202
Building height,
maximum**
See Section 3.1.3.0 for standards when adjacent to residential
properties
5 stories when approved as part of a conditional zoning district
Additional height
allowance, maximum
See Section 3.1.3.0 for standards when adjacent to residential
properties
* Does not apply to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
** 6 80ghtc eVeF 35 foot 661bjeGt to �rl rl it'n of oofhanL of A aaddifie.nal foot
10
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 10
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
Section 3.3 Mixed Use Zoning Districts
3.3.4 Urban Mixed Use Zoning (UMXZ)
E. District Dimensional Standards
Standard All Uses
Minimum district size (acres) 5
Setbacks
Minimum distance from single family
residential zoning districts
35 feet for buildings <_ 35 feet in height
45 feet for buildings > 35 feet in height
1 Maximum distance from any street
(feet)
10*
INAwimum height along arterial streets
4 stories nr 45 foot by right
7-5 feet i.gmth �d_d itinnal Height All ^Ee SpeGial
use
Pam. n4+4
Maximum height along residential 8.
'� s+n ries nr 4�. fee+
nnllentnr streets
M;;x4rn-m height along arts rial S2.
r_nIk=r_tnr streets
5 stories OF 55 feet if strl nfiUrei-1 is
parking provided
Maximum single family residential
density (dwelling units/acre)
15
Maximum multi -family residential
density (dwelling units/acre)
25
Maximum vertically integrated mixed -
use building density (dwelling
units/acre)
36
Building height, maximum
Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with
Section 3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
*Front setbacks are not required along alleyways; TRC may waive strict adherence to requirement
where an existing easement or significant natural feature exists.
11
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 11
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
3.3.7 Planned Development (PD) District
F. District Dimensional and Density Standards t09-08-20201
Standard Residential Uses Commercial Uses F Industrial Uses
Minimum district size, under common ownership or joint petition: 10 acres
Building setback from PD District
20
CB Setback
1-1 Setback
boundary (feet)
Requirements
Requirements
Building setback from pedestrian
10
and bicycle paths (feet)
Front setback (feet)
Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with Section
3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
Side setback, street (feet)
Side setback, interior (feet)
Rear setback (feet)
Density, maximum (du/acre)
Intensity, maximum
Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with Section
3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
40**
Building height, maximum {feet)
Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with Section
3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
* Maximum density in Urban Mixed Use areas identified on the New Hanover County Future Land Use Map shall
be established in the MPD Master Plan. Maximum Density in areas outside of the Urban Mixed Use areas
shall also be established in the MPD Master Plan but shall not exceed 17 dwelling units per acre.
** There is nn rn;;xlrn, ern h� �ilrling height for flgrir Jt�-r-ol er Industrial -� to ; The maxim, �m h� gilding height is A-0- footfeF buildings ler.-Ated- vVithin the Mixed Use, Gemmunity Mixed Use, er Employment Genter areas
12
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 12
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
Section 3.4 Commercial and Industrial Districts
3.4.3 Neighborhood Business (B-1) District
G. District Dimensional Standards
Standard
All Uses
Lot area, minimum (square feet)
None
Lot width, minimum (feet)
None
1 Front setback (feet)
50 highways m r there
aIGng and ghfores;
35 along all bliG highways streets
other p a
25
2 Side setback, street (feet)
50 hi..' . r there
aIGRg ghfores;
35 along bliG highways
all other p a streets
25
Side setback, interior (feet)
0 adjacent to districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial
& Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3.0 for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
Rear setback (feet)
0 adjacent to districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial
& Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3. C for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
Building height, maximum
35 2 stories OR 40 ft.
13
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 13
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
3.4.4 Community Business (CB) District
H. District Dimensional Standards
Standard
All Uses
Lot area, minimum (acres)
'/z
1
Lot width, minimum (feet)
80
2
Front setback (feet)
20
3
Side setback, street (feet)
20
None*
0 adjacent to districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or
Side setback, interior (feet)
Commercial & Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3.0 for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
10** adjacent to districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or
Commercial & Industrial categories
4
Rear setback (feet)
See Section 3.1.3. C for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
8 to 45 feet***
stories, net exeeed
3 stories, OR 50 ft.
Building height, maximum ffee#
See Section 3.1.3. C for standards when adjacent
to residential properties
Floor area per development site, maximum
100,000
(square feet)
14
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 14
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
3.4.5 Regional Business (B-2) District
I. District Dimensional Standards
Standard
All Uses
Lot area, minimum (square feet)
None
Lot width, minimum (feet)
None
1 Front setback (feet)
35 r, ether ,,hl;G highways a streets
a1GRg all
25
2 Side setback, street (feet)
50 alone highways and majer there
ghfareo-
35 alone all ether highways or streets
publin
25
0 adjacent to districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or
Side setback, interior
Commercial & Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3. C for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
0 adjacent to districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or
Rear setback
Commercial & Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3. C for setbacks when adjacent to
residential properties
40!-* 3 stories OR 50 ft.
Building height, maximum
See Section 3.1.3.0 for standards when adjacent to
residential properties
100 for Hotel or Motel structures
Additional height allowance, maximum
See Section 3.1.3. C for standards when adjacent to
(feet)
residential properties
15
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 15
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
3.4.6 Office and Institutional (0&1) District
J. District Dimensional Standards
Standard Residential Uses Nonresidential Uses and Mixed
Use Structures
Lot area, minimum (square 15,000
feet)*
1 Lot width, minimum (feet)* 90
2 Front setback (feet)* 25
3 Side setback, street (feet)* 25
**
0 adjacent to districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial &
Side setback, interior* Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3. C for setbacks when adjacent to residential
properties
**
0 adjacent to districts in the RMF, Mixed Use or Commercial &
Rear setback* Industrial categories
See Section 3.1.3. C for setbacks when adjacent to residential
properties
Density, maximum (dwelling 2 5***
units/acre
Building height, maximum
(feet) [09-08-20201
Additional height allowance,
maximum (feet)
48 3 stories OR 45 ft.
See Section 3.1.3. C for
standards when adjacent to
residential properties
75 for Senior Living
See Section 3.1.3.0 for
standards when adjacent to
residential properties
Q 3 stories OR 50 ft.
See Section 3.1.3. C for
standards when adjacent to
residential properties
75 for Government Offices and
Buildings; Bank and/or
Financial Institutions; and
Offices for Private Business
and Professional Activities
125 for Colleges, University, &
Professional School and
Hospital structures
See Section 3.1.3. C for
standards when adjacent to
residential properties
Does not apply to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
*' Applies only to Performance Residential Developments (see Section 3.1.3.D).
16
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 16
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
3.4.10 Light Industrial (1-1) District
K. District Dimensional Standards
Standard
All Uses
Lot area, minimum (square feet)
None
1 Lot width, minimum (feet)
None
2 Front setback (feet)
50
3 Side setback, street (feet)
50
Side setback, interior
Rear setback
45** 3 stories OR 50 ft.
Building height, maximum (feet) [09-08-20201
See Section 3.1.3.0 for standards when
adjacent to residential properties
100 for Government Offices & Buildings, Hotel
or Motel, Offices for Private Business and
Professional Activities, and Research and
Additional height allowance, maximum (feet)
Development Facility structures
See Section 3.1.3. C for standards when
adjacent to residential properties
* Determined in accordance with Section 3.1.3.C.
**
i05-03-20211
17
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 17
2021-11 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft
Section 5.4.3 Transitional Buffer Standards
Type A: Opaque Buffer#
The minimum buffer width shall be 50 percent of the minimum required setback as set forth in Article 3:
Zoning Districts, or 20 feet, or 25 percent of the minimum structure setback for taller structures outlined in
Section 3.1.3.C, whichever is greater.**
Option 1:
Vegetation Only
Planted materials shall be a minimum of six feet in height and provide approximately full opacity within
one year of planting.*
A minimum of three rows of planted material are required.
The minimum buffer width shall be 50 percent of the minimum required setback as set forth in Article 3:
Zoning Districts, , er 20 feet, or 25 percent of the minimum structure setback for taller structures outlined
in Section 3.1.3.C, whichever is greater.**
Option 2:
The berm shall be constructed of compacted earth. The slope of the berm shall be stabilized with
Combination Berm
vegetation and shall be no steeper than 3:1. The height of the berm shall be six feet or less with a level or
& Vegetation
rounded area on top.
The combined height of the berm and planted vegetation shall provide approximately full opacity to a
minimum height of six feet within one year of planting. The height of the berm and vegetation shall be
measured from the ground level at the nearest lot boundary line.*
The minimum buffer width shall be 50 percent of the minimum required setback as set forth in Article 3:
Zoning Districts, , or 10 feet, or 20 percent of the minimum structure setback for taller structures outlined
in Section 3.1.3.C, whichever is greater.**
Fencing shall be between 6 and 10 feet in height. Required planted materials shall be located between
Option 3:
the fence and the common property line unless otherwise specified.
Combination
Fencing &
If solid fencing is used, planted materials a minimum of three feet in height and providing a minimum of
Vegetation
approximately 50 percent visual opacity at initial planting shall be required. Vegetation shall be planted
between the fence and the nonresidential or attached structure if the required buffer is 15 ft. or less in
width to accommodate regular maintenance.*
If permeable fencing is used, a minimum of two rows of planted materials providing approximately full
opacity within one year of planting are required.*
Type B: Aesthetic Buffer
Width: 20 ft. minimum
Option 1:
Planted materials shall provide approximately 50 percent opacity within one year of planting.*
Vegetation Only
A minimum of three rows of planted material, using a minimum of two plant species that will result in
different heights at maturity, are required.
Width: 10 ft. minimum
Planted materials shall provide approximately 50% opacity within one year of planting.*
Option 2:
Combination
Fencing shall be between 4 and 10 feet in height.
Fencing &
Planted materials shall be planted between the fence and the industrial use with sufficient space to
Vegetation
accommodate regular maintenance.
If permeable fencing is used, at least one row of planted materials is required. Chain link or wire fencing
cannot be used to meet the fencing requirement.
*Plants and spacing to achieve the height and opacity requirements of this buffer option are outlined in the "Tree and Plant Materials for
Landscaping" manual.
**If the applicant increases the required buffer width, an equivalent reduction in a building's setback is allowed, except for interior side and rear
setbacks from residential properties in the B-1, B-2, and O&I districts.
18
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 3 - 18
Multi -family & Nonresidential Height Standards Update (11
2021 Board of Commissioners Public Hearing Draft)
Code sections
Key Intent
Affected
. Allow 4-story buildings, which require elevators, in all multi -family districts to increase housing access
Section 2.1,
and opportunities for seniors and residents with reduced mobility
Measurements
Adjust height standards in nonresidential and mixed use districts to allow for the building scales
Section 2.3,
recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, ensure structure heights needed for permitted uses can be
Definitions & Terms
accommodated, and provide for more flexibility in building design
Section 3.1.3,
Superseding Dimensional Standards
Offset impacts of taller structures on adjacent residential properties with a variety of mitigation options
Section 3.2.12,
• Modify setbacks in nonresidential districts to ensure consistency
Residential Multi -Family Low Density
(RMF-L) District
Amendment Features
Section 3.2.13,
• A building height allowance has been established for the RMF-L and RMF-M districts where 4-story
Residential Multi -Family Moderate
structures are allowed. Additional standards to mitigate the impact of taller structures are required
Density (RMF-M) District
when the 4-story structures are adjacent to single family homes and general "R" Residential districts
(RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, and R-5). Existing setback provisions have also been adjusted
as the maximum height in feet cap is no longer applied. (See Sections 3.1.3, 3.2.12, and 3.2.13)
Section 3.2.14,
Residential Multi -Family Medium -High
• Additional standards to mitigate the impact of taller structures when adjacent to general R Residential
Density (RMF-MH) District
districts have been outlined for 4-story structures in the RMF-MH and RMF-H districts. Existing setback
provisions have also been adjusted slightly as the maximum height in feet cap is no longer applied.
(See Sections 3.2.14 and 3.2.15)
Section 3.2.15,
Residential Multi -Family High Density
• A provision has been added to allow up to 5-story structures in the RMF-H district as part of a
(RMF-H) District
conditional zoning approval, subject to additional standards to mitigate the impact of taller structures
adjacent to single family homes and general R Residential districts (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10,
R-7, and R-15). (See Sections 3.2.15 and 3.1.3)
Section 3.3.4,
Urban Mixed -Use Zoning (UMXZ)
• Because Master Planned Developments (MPDs) are subject to Planning Board and Board of
Commissioners review and consideration through the public hearing process, the building height
maximum in the Urban Mixed Use Zoning and Planned Development districts has been removed and
Section 3.3.7
the MPD Master Plan is allowed to establish the maximum height for a particular project. (See Sections
Planned Development (PD) Districtt
3.3.4 and 3.3.7)
• Maximum height limits for nonresidential districts are adjusted to ensure the scale of buildings intended
Section 3.4.3,
for the district can be accommodated. (See Sections 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.45, 3.4.6, and 3.4.10)
Neighborhood Business (B-1) District
o Neighborhood Business, B-1
■ Maximum height increased from 35 ft. to 2 stories OR 40 ft.
Section 3.4.4,
Community Business (CB) District
o Community Business, CB
■ Maximum height increased from 3 stories, not to exceed 45 ft., to 3 stories OR 50 ft.
Section 3.4.5,
o Regional Business, B-2
Regional Business (B-2) District
■ Maximum height increased from 40 ft. to 3 stories OR 50 ft.
o Office & Institutional, 0&1
Section 3.4.6,
• Maximum height for residential uses increased from 40 ft. to 3 stories OR 45 ft.
Office and Institutional (0&1) District
■ Maximum height for nonresidential uses and mixed use structures adjusted from 52 ft.
to 3 stories OR 50 ft.
Section 3.4.10,
o Light Industrial, 1-1
Light Industrial (1-1) District
■ Maximum height increased from 45 ft. to 3 stories OR 50 ft.
• Additional height allowances, and additional standards to mitigate greater heights when adjacent to
Section 5.4.3,
general R Residential districts (outlined on the back of this summary), are established for nonresidential
Transitional Buffer Standards
districts to allow specific permitted uses that generally require structures with greater height. (See
Sections 3.1.3, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.4.6, 3.4.10, and 5.4.3)
o Community Business, CB
■ Mitigation required for structures taller than 40 ft. when adjacent to residential
o Regional Business, B-2
■ Additional height allowance maximum of 100 ft. for Hotel or Motel structures
■ Mitigation required for structures taller than 50 ft. when adjacent to residential
o Office & Institutional, 0&1
■ Additional height allowance maximum of 75 ft. for Senior Living, Government Offices
& Buildings, Bank and/or Financial Institutions, and Offices for Private Business and
Professional Activities
■ Additional height allowance maximum of 120 ft. for Colleges, Universities, &
Professional Schools and Hospital structures
■ Mitigation required for structures taller than 50 ft. when adjacent to residential
o Light Industrial, 1-1
■ Additional height allowance maximum of 100 ft. for Government Offices & Buildings,
Hotel or Motel, Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities, and Research
and Development Facility structures
■ Mitigation required for structures taller than 50 ft. when adjacent to residential
• A definition for story is added. (See Section 2.3)
• Setbacks for nonresidential districts have been modified for greater consistency. (See Sections 3.4.3,
3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.4.6, and 3.4. 10)
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 4 - 1
Mitigation Options
Option 1: Structure Setback
Idea: Taller structures are required to be located further away from adjacent residential properties than shorter buildings. Setbacks from properties
with existing single family or attached homes is about 2 feet for every 1 foot in height. Setbacks from vacant residentially zoned properties or multi-
family developments are about 1 foot for every 1 foot in height for nonresidential or mixed -use structures and 1 % feet for every 1 foot in height for
multi -family structures.
Examples:
Tall mixed use structure in Raleigh, NC with large setback
from adjacent residential
One Midtown
Apartments-4-story
building is further
from property line
that 3-story
buildings
Option 2: Architectural Stepback
Idea: Portions of the structure that are taller should be further away from adjacent residential properties than portions of the structure that are
shorter. Taller portions must be the same distance from residential properties as the setbacks described above: 2 feet for every 1 foot in height
when next to existing single family or attached homes and either 1 % feet or 1 foot for every 1 foot in height (depending on type of structures) from
vacant residentially zoned properties or multi -family developments.
Examples:
Structure with taller portion further from property line
Illustration of architectural Stepback providing a
transition in scale with existing homes
Option 3: Alternate Technique Approved in Conditional Zoning District
Idea: Site specific conditions or project design features, such as tall trees in an existing buffer or grade changes, may mitigate height without
additional setbacks or architectural stepbacks. This option provides flexibility for situations that are not easily anticipated by codified standards.
Examples:
Tall existing vegetation at Mayfaire Flats
Illustration of taller structure mitigated by existing vegetation
and grade change
I ,
Board of Commissioners - November 1, 2021
ITEM: 11- 4 - 2