HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02 PB AGENDA PACKET NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA
Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse
24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC 28401
Members of the Board
Jeffrey P Petroff, Chair | Donna Girardot, Vice-Chair
Paul Boney | Hansen Matthews | Jeffrey Stokley Jr. | H. Allen Pope | Colin J. Tarrant
Rebekah Roth, Director| Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
FEBRUARY 3, 2022 6:00 PM
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of Minutes
REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The Planning Board may consider substantial changes in these petitions as a result of objections, debate, and
discussion at the meeting, including rezoning to other classifications.
1 Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z22-01) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf
of Atlantic Coast Holdings, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 5 acres of land located
in the 6300 block of Sidbury Road from R-15, Residential District to (CZD) B-2, Regional
Business District, for a mini-warehouse/self-storage facility.
2 Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z22-02) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf
of Wilmington Realtors Foundation, Barry Dean Cribb, and Polly Dean Cribb, property owners, to
rezone approximately 6.13 acres of land located at 6221-6229 Carolina Beach Road from R-15,
Residential District, to (CZD) R-5, Residential District.
3 Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z22-03) - Request by Douglas E. Reeves, applicant, on behalf of Reeves
Holdings, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 1.84 acres of land located at 6205
Blossom Street from R-15, Residential District, to CB, Community Business, and R-10, Residential
District.
4 Public Hearing
Text Amendment Request (TA22-01) - Request by New Hanover County to modify Articles 2, 3, 4,
and 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to update permissions and standards for wireless
telecommunications facilities and to perform technical fixes to various ordinance provisions.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 2/3/2022
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Ken Vafier, Planning Supervisor
CONTACT(S): Ken Vafier; Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z22-01) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solu7ons, applicant, on behalf of Atlan7c Coast
Holdings, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 5 acres of land located in the 6300 block of Sidbury
Road from R-15, Residen7al District to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business District, for a mini-warehouse/self-storage
facility.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 5 acres of land located in the 6300 block of Sidbury Road from R-
15 to (CZD) B-2 in order to develop a mini-warehousing/self storage facility with recrea4onal vehicle and boat
storage. The proposed development consists of approximately 39,000 square feet of indoor self storage space and
approximately 1 acre of outdoor recrea4onal vehicle and boat storage. The buildings are proposed at one story with a
maximum height of 25’.
Access is proposed from Sidbury Road and will be subject to NCDOT Driveway Permi=ng regula4ons. Access to the
interior of the site will be controlled by a gated-access point to ensure security for the storage facili4es, and internal
circula4on will be controlled through one-way drive aisles. As currently zoned, it is es4mated the site would generate
about 13 trips during the peak hours if developed at the permi>ed density. The proposed use is an4cipated to generate
approximately 6 AM peak hour and 11 PM peak hour trips. The net change from the poten4al trip genera4on if the
site were to be developed under the exis4ng R-15 district shows a decrease of 7 AM peak hour trips and an
approximate decrease of 2 PM peak hour trips. The es4mated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak
hour threshold that triggers the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Sidbury Road is one of the county’s less densely developed corridors with limited commercial services to support
nearby future residents. While the majority of this area was zoned for low density housing in the early 1970s, the 2016
Comprehensive Plan recommends a mixture higher density housing and commercial uses along the corridor. While the
plan provides general guidance for the encouraged future development pa>ern, it does not specifically address this
type of use, and there is no small area plan to inform the desired loca4on of neighborhood commercial nodes in this
area. The site is directly adjacent to Sidbury Farms, an approved by-right residen4al development consis4ng of 758
residen4al units, and the site plan incorporates required landscaping and transi4onal buffers adjacent to residen4ally
zoned proper4es. Previous requests for similar land uses have included condi4ons addressing limita4ons on height or
spacing of boats and RV’s from adjacent property lines, mi4ga4on of site ligh4ng, and fencing. The applicant has
proposed condi4ons to address aesthe4cs, placement of unit doors fron4ng Sidbury Road, landscaping and buffering,
and fencing. The development would have no impact on the school system.
The proposed rezoning for this use is generally CONSISTENT with the Comprehensive Plan because it will allow for an
appropriate use in the Community Mixed Use place type and would provide lower-intensity commercial services in a
transi4onal area.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Based on the recommended uses for Community Mixed Use places as well as the context and compa4bility with the
immediate surrounding area, staff recommends approval of this applica4on and suggests the following mo4on with
the applicant’s proposed condi4ons:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-2 district. I find it to
b e CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it will allow for an
appropriate use in the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the
rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the site is located on a collector street near
an approved subdivision and within a larger area iden4fied for future growth.
Applicant’s proposed condi4ons:
1 . No storage unit entry, other than normal ingress-egress doors to meet life-safety code, will be
permi>ed along the wall facing Sidbury Road.
2. Architectural features, along with founda4on landscaping, will be incorporated along the Sidbury
Road building façade to enhance the aesthe4cs of the streetscape.
3. Both the west and south boundaries of the tract will be buffered with an 8-foot high solid
screening fence, along with required plan4ng.
Alterna7ve Mo7on for Denial:
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-2 district. While I find it to
be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it will allow for an
appropriate use in the Community Mixed Use place type, I find recommending 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 land use will adversely impact the adjacent residen4al
areas.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip4on
Z22-01 Script PB
Z22-01 Staff Report PB
Z22-01 Zoning
Z22-01 FLUM
Z22-01 Neighboring Properties
Applicant Materials Cover Sheet
Z22-01 Application
Site Plan Cover Sheet
Z22-01 Site Plan
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1
SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z22-01)
Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Atlantic Coast Holdings, LLC,
property owner, to rezone approximately 5 acres of land located in the 6300 block of Sidbury Road
from R-15, Residential District to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business District for a mini-warehouse/self-
storage facility.
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 recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-2 district. I find it to
be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it will allow for
an appropriate use in the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find
recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because
the site is located on a collector street near an approved subdivision and within a larger area
identified for future growth.
Applicant’s Proposed Conditions:
1. No storage unit entry, other than normal ingress-egress doors to meet life-safety code, will
be permitted along the wall facing Sidbury Road.
2. Architectural features, along with foundation landscaping, will be incorporated along the
Sidbury Road building façade to enhance the aesthetics of the streetscape.
3. Both the west and south boundaries of the tract will be buffered with an 8-foot high solid
screening fence, along with required planting
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 1 - 1
Example Motion for Denial
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-2 district. While I find
it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it will
allow for an appropriate use in the Community Mixed Use place type, I find
recommending 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 land use will adversely impact the adjacent residential areas.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to recommend [Approval/Denial] of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-2 district. I
find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
I also find recommending [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the
public interest because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 1 - 2
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 1 of 14
STAFF REPORT FOR Z22-01
CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z22-01
Request:
Rezone 5.00 acres to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business District
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions Atlantic Coast Holdings, LLC
Location: Acreage:
6300 Block of Sidbury Road 5
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
R01900-002-026-000 Community Mixed Use
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Undeveloped Mini-Warehousing/Self-Storage
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
R-15, Residential District (CZD) B-2, Regional Business District
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North Undeveloped R-15
East Undeveloped R-15
South Single-Family Residential under construction (Sidbury
Farms) R-15
West Single-Family Residential under construction (Sidbury
Farms) R-15
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 1
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 2 of 14
ZONING HISTORY
July 7, 1972 Initially zoned R-15 (Area 8A)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer Water and sewer services are anticipated to be provided via CFPUA upon
completion of utility line extensions.
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire
District, New Hanover County Station Castle Hayne
Schools Castle Hayne Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and Laney High Schools
Recreation Northern Regional Park, Blue Clay Bike Park
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation No known conservation resources
Historic No known historic resources
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 2
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 3 of 14
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN
The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 5 acres to (CZD) B-2 in order to
construct a self-storage operation with recreational vehicle and boat storage. The proposed
plan also incorporates required parking, internal circulation drives, required landscaping
and buffering, and stormwater management.
The proposed development consists of 2 enclosed self-storage buildings on the parcel
totaling approximately 39,000 square feet of space located on the northern portion of the
parcel closest to Sidbury Road. The buildings are proposed at one story with a maximum
height of 25’.
On the southern portion of the parcel, approximately 1 acre is proposed for recreational
vehicle and boat storage.
Stormwater management is proposed to be located in the southeast area of the site.
A 20’ wide transitional buffer is proposed along the northeast property boundary, while a
combination 10’ wide transitional buffer with an 8’ high fence is proposed along the west
and south boundaries of the project adjacent to Sidbury Farms, a residential development
currently under construction.
Access is proposed from Sidbury Road and will be subject to NCDOT Driveway Permitting
regulations.
Proposed Site Plan with Staff Markups
Stormwater
Pond
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 3
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 4 of 14
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The R-15 district in this area was established in 1972. At the time, the purpose of the R-15
district was to ensure that housing served by private septic and well would be developed
at low densities. Since that time, plans for the extension of water and sewer services have
become more available to the surrounding area; however, it is still mostly zoned for low
density housing.
Under the current R-15 zoning, a performance residential development could allow a
maximum of 13 dwelling units on the 5-acre site at a density of 2.5 du/ac.
The purpose of the B-2, Regional Business District is to provide for the proper site layout
and development of larger format or larger structure size business uses, including big box
stores and automobile dealers. It is also designed to provide for the appropriate location
and design of auto oriented uses that meet the needs of the motoring public or that rely on
pass-by traffic.
The property is located along the Sidbury Road corridor, which is currently zoned
predominantly R-15 and is developed with a low-density residential land use pattern with
limited commercial uses supporting area residents.
The proposed site plan would be subject to technical review to ensure compliance with
applicable County and State regulations, including applicable site design and approval
provisions within the UDO.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 4
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 5 of 14
AREA SUBDIVISIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 5
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 6 of 14
TRANSPORTATION
The site will be accessed by Sidbury Road, an NCDOT-maintained collector street.
Access to the interior of the site will be controlled by a gated access point to ensure security
for the storage facilities. Internal circulation will be controlled through one-way drive aisles.
As currently zoned, it is estimated the site would generate about 13 trips during the peak
hours if developed at the permitted density. The proposed use is anticipated to generate
approximately 6 AM peak hour and 11 PM peak hour trips.
The net change from the potential trip generation if the site were to be developed under
the existing R-15 district shows a decrease of 7 AM peak hour trips and an approximate
decrease of 2 PM peak hour trips.
Estimated Trip Generation
Intensity Approx. Peak Hour Trips
Existing Development: Undeveloped 0 AM / 0 PM
Typical Development
under Current Zoning: 13 SFR Units 13 AM / 13 PM
Proposed
Development:
40K SF Self-Storage, 1
acre RV/Boat Storage 6 AM / 11 PM
Estimated Net Change
under Proposed (CZD)
RMF-M Zoning:
- - 7 AM / - 2 PM
The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that
triggers the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Because a 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
Sidbury Road
5400 block, approximately
1.5 miles west of subject
site
3,300 11,000 0.30
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 that may be required through the NCDOT
Driveway permitting process.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 6
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 7 of 14
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 7
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 8 of 14
Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses
Nearby NC STIP Projects:
STIP Project R-3300A (Hampstead Bypass)
o Project to construct a new facility from I-140 to NC Highway 210. Construction
is anticipated to begin in late 2026.
Nearby Traffic Impact Analyses:
Traffic Impact Analyses are completed in accordance with the WMPO and NCDOT standards.
Approved analyses must be re-examined by NCDOT if the proposed development is not completed
by the build out date established within the TIA.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 8
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 9 of 14
Proposed Development Land Use/Intensity TIA Status
1. Sidbury Farms 655 single-family dwellings
103 townhomes
Approved February 12,
2020
Build Out Years:
o 2024 – 258 single-family
dwellings
o 2029 – 421 single-family
dwellings, 59 townhomes
2034 – Full Build
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of:
Installation of right and left turn lanes at the site’s access points on Sidbury Road (Phase
1).
Installation of southbound right turn lane and westbound right turn lane, and extension of
the westbound left turn lane and northbound right turn lane at the intersection of N.
College and Blue Clay Road (Phase 2).
Installation of a roundabout at Sidbury Road and Blue Clay Road (Phase 2).
Installation of a southbound left turn lane at Dairy Farm Road and Sidbury Road (Full
Build)
Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
Scott’s Hill Medical
Blake Farms
Scott’s Hill Village
Cape Landing
Coastal Preparatory Academy
Development Status: Construction of infrastructure is currently underway.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The property does not contain any Special Flood Hazard Areas or Natural Heritage Areas.
The property is within the Island Creek watershed.
Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class III (severe limitations for septic suitability). However, the site is
expected to be served by CFPUA when developed.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 9
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 10 of 14
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
REPRESENTATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Representative Developments of R-15:
Page’s Corner
Clay Crossing
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 10
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 11 of 14
Representative Developments of Similar Uses:
All Seasons Storage
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 11
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 12 of 14
Context and Compatibility
The property is located along Sidbury Road, which is identified as a Minor Collector on the
WMPO Functional Classification Map. Sidbury Road is one of the county’s less densely
developed corridors with limited commercial services to support future residents.
While the majority of this area was zoned for low density housing in the early 1970s, the
2016 Comprehensive Plan recommends a mixture higher density housing and commercial
uses along the Sidbury Road corridor. While the plan provides general guidance for the
encouraged future development pattern, it does not specifically address this type of use,
and there is no small area plan to inform the desired location of neighborhood commercial
nodes in this area.
Cape Fear Moving Forward: 2045, the WMPO’s current Metropolitan Transportation Plan,
includes a modernization project to bring Sidbury Road to current design standards. This is
programmed to include widening the current travel lanes to 12’ with the installation of a 10’
multi-use path.
The site is directly adjacent to Sidbury Farms, an approved by-right residential
development consisting of 758 residential units.
The site plan incorporates required landscaping and transitional buffers adjacent to
residentially zoned properties. Previous requests for similar land uses have included
conditions addressing limitations on height or spacing of boats and RV’s from adjacent
property lines, mitigation of site lighting, and fencing. The applicant has proposed
conditions to address aesthetics, placement of unit doors fronting Sidbury Road, landscaping
and buffering, and fencing.
The development would have no impact on the school system.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE 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.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 12
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 13 of 14
Future Land Use
Map Place Type Community Mixed Use
Place Type
Description
Focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve
all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors.
Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational,
commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential.
The subject property is located in a transitional area along Sidbury
Road where there are currently limited commercial services for nearby
residential units, though approximately 758 residential units have been
approved within a mile of the project vicinity. The Comprehensive Plan
classifies properties within the general area from I-140 north to Holly
Shelter Road largely as Community Mixed Use. It is the intent of the plan
to allow a land use pattern with commercial
services and moderate density residential development within this area of
the county, but the plan does not specify the exact location of future
commercial nodes in this area.
While this use is not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, the
subject site’s location adjacent to a large residential subdivision and in an
area of anticipated growth would provide a service to nearby future
residents. In addition, the proposal could provide a transition to a land use
pattern with additional commercial services available. The proposed
project can provide lower-intensity commercial services for nearby
residents as well as commuters since Sidbury Road is a collector road linking
the Northchase, Castle Hayne, and Wrightsboro areas to the west with US
Highway 17 and area waterways and commercial nodes to the east.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed rezoning for this use is generally CONSISTENT with
the Comprehensive Plan because it will allow for an appropriate use in the
Community Mixed Use place type and would provide lower-
intensity commercial services in a transitional area.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 13
Z22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2021 Page 14 of 14
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the recommended uses for Community Mixed Use places as well as the context and
compatibility with the immediate surrounding area, staff recommends approval of this application
and suggests the following motion with the applicant’s proposed conditions:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-2 district. I find it
to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it will
allow for an appropriate use in the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find
recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public
interest because the site is located on a collector street near an approved subdivision and
within a larger area identified for future growth.
Applicant’s proposed conditions:
1. No storage unit entry, other than normal ingress-egress doors to meet life-safety
code, will be permitted along the wall facing Sidbury Road.
2. Architectural features, along with foundation landscaping, will be incorporated
along the Sidbury Road building façade to enhance the aesthetics of the
streetscape.
3. Both the west and south boundaries of the tract will be buffered with an 8-foot high
solid screening fence, along with required planting.
Alternative Motion for Denial
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-2 district. While
I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
because it will allow for an appropriate use in the Community Mixed Use place
type, I find recommending 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 land use will adversely impact the adjacent residential
areas.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 14
Sidbury Rd
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
R-15
New Hanover County, NCSHODIncorporated Areas
Indicates Conditional Zoning District (CZD)
See Section 5.7 of the UDOCOD
B-1 AC R-5 EDZD
CB I-1 R-7 PD
B-2 I-2 R-10 RMF-X
CS AR R-15 RMFU
SC RA R-20 UMXZ
O&I R-20S
Zoning Districts
CZD B-2R-156300 Block of
Sidbury Road
Z22-01
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:
Subject Site
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 3 - 1
Community
Mixed Use
New Hanover County, NCCONSERVATION
RURAL RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY MIXED USE
URBAN MIXED USE
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL
EMPLOYMENT CENTER
COMMERCE ZONE
Place Types
CZD B-2R-156300 Block of
Sidbury Road
Z22-01
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:
Subject Site
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 4 - 1
SIDBURY
SIDBURY
SIDBURY
SIDBURY
6010
6220
New Hanover County, NC
I-
1
4
0
I
-
4
0
SIDBURY RD
Site
Neighboring Parcels
CZD B-2R-156300 Block of
Sidbury Road
Z22-01
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:
Subject Site
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 5 - 1
APPLICANT
MATERIALS
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 6 - 1
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 6 - 2
Page 1 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165
FAX (910) 798-7053
planningdevelopment.nhcgov.com
CONDITIONAL ZONINGAPPLICATION
This application form must be completed as part of a conditional zoning 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
below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the
application, are set out in Section 10.3.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Public Hearing Procedures
(Optional)
Pre-Application
Conference
1
Community
Information
Meeting
2
Application
Submittal &
Acceptance
3
Planning
Director Review
& Staff Report
(TRC Optional)
4
Public Hearing
Scheduling &
Notification
5
Planning Board
Hearing &
Recom-
mendation
6
Board of
Commissioners
Hearing &
Decision
7
Post-Decision
Limitations and
Actions
1.Applicant and Property Owner Information
Applicant/Agent Name Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent)
Company Company/Owner Name 2
Address Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Phone Phone
Email Email
Cindee Wolf
Design Solutions
Wilmington, NC 28406
910-620-2374
cwolf@lobodemar.biz
P.O. Box 7221
Atlantic Coast Holdings, L.L.C.
205 Gazebo Court
Wilmington, NC 28409
910-452-5133 (Contact: Daniel McIntyre)
danielmcintyrenc@gmail.com
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 1
Page 2 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
2.Subject Property Information
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s) Future Land Use Classification
3.Proposed Zoning, Use(s), & Narrative
Proposed Conditional Zoning District: Total Acreage of Proposed District:
Please list the uses that will be allowed within the proposed Conditional Zoning District, the purpose of the
district, and a project narrative (attach additional pages if necessary). Note: Only uses permitted in the
corresponding General Use District are eligible for consideration within a Conditional Zoning District.
4.Proposed Condition(s)
Note: Within a Conditional Zoning District, additional conditions and requirements which represent greater
restrictions on the development and use of the property than the corresponding general use district regulations may
be added. These conditions may assist in mitigating the impacts the proposed development may have on the
surrounding community. Please list any conditions proposed to be placed on the Conditional Zoning District below.
Staff, the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners may propose additional conditions during the review process.
R-15Community Mixed-Use
6300 Block of Sidbury Road 325103.04.2328 / R01900-002-026-000
5.00 Ac.+/-
(CZD) B-2 5.00 Ac.+/-
The proposed project is to develop a self-storage facility with both enclosed storage units and anexterior area for storage of boat trailers & recreational vehicles.
* No storage unit entry, other than normal ingress-egress doors to meet life-safety code, will be permitted along the wall facing Sidbury Road.* Architectural features, along with foundation landscaping, will be incorporated along the Sidbury Road building facade to enhance the aesthetics of the streetscape.* Both the West & South boundaries of the tract will be buffered with an 8-foot high solid screening fence, along with required planting.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 2
Page 3 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
5.Traffic Impact
Please provide the estimated number of trips generated for the proposed use(s) based off the most recent version of
the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must be completed for
all proposed developments that generate more than 100 peak hour trips, and the TIA must be included with this
application.
ITE Land Use:
Trip Generation Use and Variable (gross floor area, dwelling units, etc.)
AM Peak Hour Trips: PM Peak Hour Trips:
6.Conditional Zoning District Considerations
The Conditional Zoning District procedure is established to address situations where a particular land use would be
consistent with the New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the objectives outlined in the Unified
Development Ordinance and where only a specific use or uses is proposed. The procedure is intended primarily for
use with transitions between zoning districts of dissimilar character where a particular use or uses, with restrictive
conditions to safeguard adjacent land uses, can create a more orderly transition benefiting all affected parties and
the community at-large.
The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed Conditional
Zoning district meets the following criteria.
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.
per 1000 sqft + per space
Mini-Warehousing (151) / 38,600+/- s.f. Interior Storage + 60-70+/- spaces
5 + 1 = 6 10 + 1 = 11
The policies for growth and development encourage continued efforts to attract new business.Sustainability of the County depends on sensible in-fill and maximizing use of lands. The proposeddevelopment will provide a location-efficient service to the residential development occuring in thisarea of the County.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 3
Page 4 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
2.How would the requested Conditional Zoning district be consistent with the property’s classification on the
2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map.
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?
Sidbury Road is an arterial roadway that will ultimately support vehicular circulation for a largenumber residential developments envisioned for this area. The developer of the adjacentresidential development has not yet begun home construction, but has voiced supportfor this kind of business service to be a positive aspect for their future real estate marketingefforts.
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies the subject tract as being in a "Community Mixed-Use"place-type. A variety of uses, including commercial services, are appropriate. There are already an extensive residential development and a large apartment complex, approved within two (2) milesof the site. The desire for having self-storage facilities within a three-mile range of one'shome has become an industry standard.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 4
Page 5 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
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”. If an item is not applicable, mark as
“N/A”. Applications determined to be incomplete must be corrected in order to be processed for further review;
Staff will confirm if an application is complete within five business days of submittal.
Application Checklist Applicant Initial
This application form, completed and signed
Application fee:
x $600 for 5 acres or less
x $700 for more than 5 acres
x $300 in addition to base fee for applications requiring TRC review
Community meeting written summary
Traffic impact analysis (if applicable)
Legal description (by metes and bounds) or recorded survey Map Book and Page
Reference of the property requested for rezoning
Conceptual Plan including the following minimum elements:
Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels and roads
x Proposed use of land, building areas and other improvements
o For residential uses, include the maximum number, height, and type
of units; area to be occupied by the structures; and/or proposed
subdivision boundaries.
o For non-residential uses, include the maximum square footage and
height of each structure, an outline of the area structures will
occupy, and the specific purposes for which the structures will be
used.
x Proposed transportation and parking improvements; including proposed
rights-of-way and roadways; proposed access to and from the subject site;
arrangement and access provisions for parking areas.
x All existing and proposed easements, required setbacks, rights-of-way, and
buffers.
x The location of Special Flood Hazard Areas.
x A narrative of the existing vegetation on the subject site including the
approximate location, species, and size (DBH) of regulated trees. For site
less than 5 acres, the exact location, species, and sized (DBH) of specimen
trees must be included.
x Approximate location and type of stormwater management facilities
intended to serve the site.
x Approximate location of regulated wetlands.
x Any additional conditions and requirements that represent greater
restrictions on development and use of the tract than the corresponding
general use district regulations or additional limitations on land that may be
regulated by state law or local ordinance
One (1) hard copy of ALL documents and site plan. Additional hard copies may be
required by staff depending on the size of the document/site plan.
One (1) digital PDF copy of ALL documents AND plans
CAW
CAW
CAW
CAW
CAW
CAW
CAW
N/A
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 5
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 6
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
2
2
IT
E
M
:
1
-
7
-
7
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
2
2
IT
E
M
:
1
-
7
-
8
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 9
Legal Description for
Conditional Zoning District Petition
6300 Block of Sidbury Road
Beginning at a point in the southern boundary of Sidbury Road (S.R. 1336), a 100’ public right‐
of‐way; said point being located at the northern‐most corner of “Tract 3 – Sidbury Station,” a
division recorded among the land records of the New Hanover County Registry in Map Book 69,
at Page 154; and running thence from the point of beginning:
South 56051’13” East, 558.02 feet to a point; thence
South 75051’40” West, 720.27 feet to a point; thence
North 14018’55” West, 410.00 feet to a point in the southern boundary of Sidbury Road; thence
with that right‐of‐way,
North 75051’40” East, 343.00 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 217,971
square feet, or 5.00 acres, more or less.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 10
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
2
2
IT
E
M
:
1
-
7
-
1
1
REPORT OF COMMUNITY MEETING REQUIRED BY
NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING ORIDINANCE
FOR CONDITIONAL DISTRICT REZONINGS
Project Name: 6300 Block of Sidbury Road
Proposed Zoning: R-15 to CZD / B-2
The undersigned hereby certifies that written notice of a community meeting on the above
zoning application was given to the adjacent property owners set forth on the attached list by
first class mail, and provided to the Planning Department for notice of the Sunshine List on
December 20, 2021 . A copy of that written notice and site layout are also attached.
The meeting was held at the following time and place: Thursday, December 30th,
6:00 p.m.; at the office of Design Solutions, 107 Stokley Drive, Unit 104, Wilmington, 28403.
The persons in attendance at the meeting were: Reference attached sign-in list
The following issues were discussed at the meeting: N/A - No one attended.
As a result of the meeting, the following changes were made to the petition: None
Date: December 31, 2021
Applicant: Design Solutions
By: Cindee Wolf
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 12
Community Information Meeting
Sidbury Storage Date: December 31, 2021
NameAddressEmail (Optional)
Cindee WolfProject Planner cwolf@lobodemar.biz
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 13
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
OW
N
E
R
S
WI
T
H
I
N
A 50
0
'
PE
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
OF
SU
B
J
E
C
T
TR
A
C
T
:
OW
N
E
R
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
C
I
T
Y
/ ST
A
T
E
/ ZI
P
P
I
N
P
I
D
AT
L
A
N
T
I
C
CO
A
S
T
HO
L
D
I
N
G
S
,
LL
C
2
0
5
GA
Z
E
B
O
CT
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
9
3
2
5
1
0
3
.
0
4
.
2
3
2
8
R
0
1
9
0
0
‐002‐026‐000
CO
R
B
E
T
T
PA
C
K
A
G
E
CO
P
O
BO
X
21
0
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
2
3
2
5
1
0
3
.
3
3
.
2
3
6
7
R
0
1
9
0
0
‐002‐003‐000
SI
D
B
U
R
Y
LA
N
D
& TI
M
B
E
R
P
O
BO
X
36
4
9
W
I
L
M
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
NC
28
4
0
6
3
2
5
1
0
1
.
0
7
.
9
3
9
4
R
0
1
2
0
0
‐002‐003‐000
RM
P
SI
D
B
U
R
Y
RO
A
D
,
LL
C
1
4
0
1
CE
N
T
R
A
L
AV
E
,
ST
E
20
0
D
C
H
A
R
L
O
T
T
E
,
NC
28
2
0
5
3
2
5
1
0
3
.
1
3
.
5
0
1
1
R
0
1
9
0
0
‐002‐009‐000
RM
P
SI
D
B
U
R
Y
RO
A
D
,
LL
C
1
4
0
1
CE
N
T
R
A
L
AV
E
,
ST
E
20
0
D
C
H
A
R
L
O
T
T
E
,
NC
28
2
0
5
3
2
4
1
0
4
.
7
3
.
0
0
9
8
R
0
1
9
0
0
‐002‐004‐000
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
2
2
IT
E
M
:
1
-
7
-
1
4
December 20, 2021
To: Adjacent Property Owners
From: Cindee Wolf
Re: Sidbury Self‐Storage
The Owner of the tract shown in the exhibit, a parcel on Sidbury Road approximately 2 miles
East of the I‐40 overpass, is interested in developing a self‐service storage facility. The land is
within the proximity of your property. The development proposal would require a Conditional
Zoning District approval from New Hanover County.
A Conditional Zoning District allows particular uses to be established only in accordance with
specific standards & conditions pertaining to each individual development project. Essentially,
this means that only the use, structures & layout of an approved proposal can be developed.
An exhibit of the project is enclosed.
The County requires that the developer hold a meeting for all property owners within 500 feet
of the tract boundary, and any other interested parties. This provides neighbors with an
opportunity for explanation of the proposal and for questions to be answered concerning
project improvements, benefits and impacts.
A meeting will be held on Thursday, December 30th, 6:00 p.m., at the office of Design Solutions,
107 Stokley Drive, Unit 104, Wilmington, 28403.
If you cannot attend, you are welcome to contact me at telephone # 910‐620‐2374, or email
cwolf@lobodemar.biz with comments and/or questions.
We appreciate your interest in the project, and look forward to being a good neighbor and an
asset to the community.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 15
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
2
2
IT
E
M
:
1
-
7
-
1
6
PROPOSED
SITE PLAN
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 1
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 2
Planning Board - February 3, 2022ITEM: 1- 9 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 2/3/2022
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Zach Dickerson, Current Planner
CONTACT(S): Zach Dickerson; Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Department
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z22-02) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solu6ons, applicant, on behalf of Wilmington
Realtors Founda6on, Barry Dean Cribb, and Polly Dean Cribb, property owners, to rezone approximately 6.13 acres
of land located at 6221-6229 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residen6al District, to (CZD) R-5, Residen6al District.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to rezone 6.13 acres to (CZD) R-5 in order to construct a 48-unit townhome development.
The proposed plan also incorporates associated parking and bay garages, and stormwater management.
The proposed development consists of 48 units on the parcels, which are bounded to the west by Carolina Beach
Road, south of the Monkey Junc1on area. The proposed site is directly east of Beau Rivage Drive. Building heights are
proposed at a maximum of two stories.
The southeast por1on of the development will contain open space and the stormwater pond on approximately 1.8
acres.
The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the 1me, the purpose of the R-15 district was to ensure that
housing served by private sep1c and well would be developed at low densi1es. Since that 1me, extension of water and
sewer services have become more available to the surrounding area.
The purpose of the R-5, Residen1al Moderate-High Density District is to provide lands that accommodate moderate to
high density residen1al development on smaller lots with a compact and walkable development pa8ern. The R-5
district allows a range of housing types and can be developed in conjunc1on with a non-residen1al district to create a
ver1cal mixed-use development pa8ern as well as serve as a transi1on between mixed-use or commercial
development and low to moderate density residen1al development.
The project is proposed to meet the price criteria for workforce housing in the 81-120% Average Median Income
(AMI) range defined for for-sale residences. Restric1ve covenants will be created to assure owner occupancy and
restrict investment or short-term rental.
Under the current R-15 zoning, the acreage (6.13 ac) of this property would permit 15 single-family homes at a density
of 2.5 units per acre. The proposed 48-unit development equates to a density of 8 units per acre. The R-5 district
allows up to 8 units per acre by right.
The net change from the poten1al trip genera1on if the site were to be developed under the exis1ng R-15 district with
approximately 15 homes to the proposed (CZD) R-5 district shows an approximate increase of 11 AM peak hour trips
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2
and an approximate increase of 12 PM peak hour trips. General retail uses typically generate the bulk of their trips
during the PM hours as retail uses are oAen not the weekday rush hour des1na1on for motorists. The es1mated
traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the ordinance requirement for a
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Based on the current general student genera1on rate, the increase in homes would result in approximately 11
addi1onal students than would be generated under current zoning. The general student genera1on rate provides only
an es1mate of an1cipated 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 rela1vely stable between 2015 and 2020 (excep1ng the impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic), while 14,500 new residen1al units were permi8ed across the county. In addi1on, the student
popula1on is an1cipated to only grow by approximately 1,300 students over the next 10 years based on the recent
New Hanover County Schools Facility Needs Study.
The proposed rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the project provides for
the type of housing diversity that is recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type. The residen1al densi1es
are in-line with those recommended within this place type, and the project will provide addi1onal housing in close
proximity to exis1ng and future commercial development serving nearby residents.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Because the proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would provide for the types
and mixture of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type and the residen1al densi1es are in-line
with those recommended for the property, staff recommends approval of this applica1on and suggests the following
mo1on with the applicant's proposed condi1ons:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with
the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provides for the types and mixture of uses
recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type and the residen1al densi1es are in-line with those
recommended for the property. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in
the public interest because the proposal would benefit the community by providing a range of housing types and
opportuni1es for households of different sizes and income levels.
Applicant’s proposed condi1ons:
1. The project is proposed to meet the price criteria for workforce housing in the 81-120% Area Median
Income (AMI) as range defined for for-sale residences. Restric1ve covenants will be created to assure
owner occupancy and restrict investment or short-term rental.
Alterna6ve Mo6on for Denial
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. While I find it to
be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provides
for the types and mixture of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use plac e type and the
residen1al densi1es are in-line with those recommended for the property, I find
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2
recommending 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 density will
adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip1on
Z22-02 Script
Z22-02 Staff Report PB
Z22-02 Zoning
Z22-02 FLUM
Z22-02 Neighboring Properties
Applicant Materials Cover Sheet
Z22-02 Application
Site Plan Cover Sheet
Z22-02 Site Plan
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2
SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z22-02)
Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Wilmington Realtors
Foundation, Barry Dean Cribb, and Polly Greene Cribb, property owners, to rezone
approximately 6.13 acres of land located at 6221 – 6229 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential
District, to (CZD) R-5, Conditional Zoning Residential District for a 48-unit townhome development.
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 a Conditional R-5 district. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project
provides for the types and mixture of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place
type and the residential densities are in-line with those recommended for the property. I also
find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because the proposal would benefit the community by providing a range of housing types and
opportunities for households of different sizes and income levels.
Applicant’s proposed conditions:
1. The project is proposed to meet the price criteria for workforce housing in the 81-120% Area Median
Income (AMI) range as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, adjusted for
household size. Restrictive covenants will be created to assure owner occupancy and restrict investment
or short-term rental.
Alternative Motion for Denial
I move to DENY the proposed rezoning to a Conditional R-5 district. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it would allow
for the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place
type, I find DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1
the proposal is not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community and the
intensity will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed rezoning to a Conditional B-2, 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]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 2
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 1 of 20
STAFF REPORT FOR Z22-02
CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z22-02
Request:
Rezone 6.13 acres to (CZD) R-5, Residential District
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Cindee Wolf Wilmington Realtors Foundation; Barry Dean
Cribb & Polly Dean Cribb
Location: Acreage:
6221-6229 Carolina Beach Rd 6.13
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
R07900-003-009-000, R07900-003-010-
000, R07900-003-010-001, R07900-003-
010-002, R07900-003-011-000
Community Mixed Use
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Residential Residential
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
R-15, Residential Zoning (CZD) R-5, Residential Zoning
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North Residential R-15
East Residential R-15
South Residential R-15
West Carolina Beach Rd & across CB Rd., High-Density
Attached Residential R-15
Z22-02
Carolina
Beach Road
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 1
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 2 of 20
ZONING HISTORY
April 7, 1971 Initially zoned R-15 (Area 4)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer
Water and sewer services are not currently available through CFPUA, but
the developer is working on a concept plan with CFPUA to link into the
current system.
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Southern Fire
District, New Hanover County Myrtle Grove Station
Schools Bellamy Elementary, Murray Middle, and Ashley High Schools
Recreation Monterey Heights Park, Veterans Park
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation No known conservation resources
Historic No known historic resources
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
Z22-02
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 2
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 3 of 20
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN
• The applicant is proposing to rezone 6.13 acres to (CZD) R-5 in order to construct a 48-unit
townhome development. The proposed plan also incorporates associated parking and bay
garages, and stormwater management.
• The proposed development consists of 48 units on the parcels, which are bounded to the
west by Carolina Beach Road, south of the Monkey Junction area. The proposed site is
directly east of Beau Rivage Drive. Building heights are proposed at a maximum of two
stories.
• The southeast portion of the development will contain open space and the stormwater pond
on approximately 1.8 acres.
• A 10’ wide fenced buffer is proposed along the north and south boundaries of the project
adjacent to property zoned or developed as R-15, Residential Districts, meeting
requirements of the UDO. A 20’ buffer is proposed along the east boundary of the
project adjacent to property zoned as R-15.
Proposed Site Plan with Staff Markups
• Each townhome features a garage and a driveway accommodating two additional vehicles.
• Access is proposed via one point off Carolina Beach Road which will allow right-in/right-
out movements. A proposed left-over from southbound Carolina Beach Road will provide
access from this movement to the northern access point to the site.
• The primary road of the development is a 24’ dead-end private road terminating in a
hammerhead. There is a proposed sidewalk along the north side of the road.
Carolina Beach Road
Site Access
Point
Stormwater
Pond
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 3
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 4 of 20
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the time, the purpose of the R-15
district was to ensure that housing served by private septic and well would be developed
at low densities. Since that time, water and sewer services have become more available to
the surrounding area.
• The purpose of the R-5, Residential Moderate-High Density District is to provide lands that
accommodate moderate to high density residential development on smaller lots with a
compact and walkable development pattern. The R-5 district allows a range of housing
types and can be developed in conjunction with a non-residential district to create a vertical
mixed-use development pattern as well as serve as a transition between mixed-use or
commercial development and low to moderate density residential development.
• Under the current R-15 zoning, a performance residential development could allow a
maximum of 15 dwelling units on the 6.13 acre site at a density of 2.5 du/acre.
• The proposed 48-unit development equates to a density of 8 units per acre. The R-5 district
allows up to 8 units per acre by right.
• The project is intended to meet the price criteria for workforce housing in the 81-120%
Area Median Income (AMI) range as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development, adjusted for household size. Restrictive covenants will be created to assure
owner occupancy and restrict investment or short-term rental.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 4
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 5 of 20
AREA SUBDIVISIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 5
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 6 of 20
TRANSPORTATION
• The site will be accessed by one access point on Carolina Beach Road which will be restricted
to right-in/right-out movements.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 6
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 7 of 20
• A typical R-15 Development on this acreage would generate 11 AM and 15 PM trips. The
property as currently developed generates 1 AM and 1 PM trip.
• The project proposal estimates a trip generation of 22 AM and 27 PM peak hour trips.
Because the proposed development will not generate more than 100 peak hour trips, a
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required.
• The net change from the potential trip generation if the site were to be developed under
the existing R-15 district with approximately 15 homes to the proposed (CZD) R-5 district
shows an approximate increase of 11 AM peak hour trips and an approximate increase of
12 PM peak hour trips.
Estimated Trip Generation
Intensity Approx. Peak Hour Trips
Existing Development: Residential (4 sf homes) 1 AM / 1 PM
Typical Development
under Current Zoning: Maximum 15 sf homes 11 AM / 15 PM
Proposed
Development: 48 sf units 22 AM / 27 PM
Estimated Net Change
under Proposed (CZD)
RMF-M Zoning:
- + 11 AM / + 12 PM
• The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that
triggers the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
• As there is not a specific development proposal at this time to analyze traffic impacts for,
staff has provided the volume to capacity ration for roadways in the vicinity of the subject
site. While volume to capacity ration, 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 (ADT) - 2019
Road Location Volume Capacity V/C
Carolina Beach Road 6221-6229 Carolina Beach
Road
35,500 AADT 41,368 .86
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 7
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 8 of 20
Nearby NC STIP Projects:
• STIP Project U-5790
o Project to convert the intersection of Carolina Beach Road and College Road to a
continuous flow intersection and widen a portion of Carolina Beach Road south of
that intersection. Continuous flow intersections permit more efficient travel
movements and help alleviate congestion by allowing more of the main street’s
traffic to move through the intersection. Bidding of the project is expected to occur
in 2024.
Beau Rivage
Update
Watermark
Apartments
Congleton
Farms
Tarin Woods II
Habitat Restore
Building
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 8
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 9 of 20
Nearby Traffic Impact Analyses:
Traffic Impact Analyses are completed in accordance with the WMPO and NCDOT standards.
Approved analyses must be re-examined by NCDOT if the proposed development is not completed by
the build out date established within the TIA.
Proposed
Development
Land Use/Intensity TIA Status
1. Beau Rivage
Update
• 4,500 square feet of drive-
thru bank
• 3,500 square feet of fast
food drive thru
• 6,900 square feet of
supermarket (addition to the
existing Harris Teeter)
• 7,500 square feet of
shopping center
• Approved December 28, 2016
• 2018 Build Out Date
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of:
• Installation of an eastbound right-turn lane on Sanders Road at the site’s access and
Carolina Beach Road.
Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
• Tarin Woods
• River Lights
Development Status: Development under construction. The right-turn lane on Sanders Road
at the site’s access has been constructed.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 9
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 10 of 20
2. Watermark
Apartments
• 340 multi-family apartments
• Approved December 22, 2021
• 2023 Build Out Date
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of:
• Install traffic signal at the Southbound to Northbound U-Turn at S Ridge Blvd
• Construct the eastbound approach with one ingress lane and one egress lane to allow for
a left-in/right-in/right-out configuration
• Construct an exclusive northbound left turn lane with 200 feet of full width storage, 50
feet of deceleration and 200 feet of taper.
Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
• Tarin Woods
• River Lights
Development Status: The rezoning application for this project will be considered February
7, 2022. If approved, construction will begin in 2023.
3. Habitat Restore
Building
• 20,320 sf of Discount Store
• 14,830 sf of Shopping Center
• Approved February 26,
2018
• 2022 Build Out Year
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of:
• Installation of a southbound right turn lane on Carolina Beach Road at the site’s access.
• Increasing the length of an existing southbound U-turn lane on Carolina Beach Road at
Cathay Road.
Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
• Beau Rivage Update
• Beau Rivage Townhomes
Development Status: No construction has started at this time.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 10
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 11 of 20
4. Tarin Woods II
Phase 2B(1):
• 219 Single-Family Homes
• 398 Townhomes
• Addendum approved March
26, 2020
• 2020 Build Out Year
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of:
• Installation of a northbound leftover/U-turn on Carolina Beach Road at the Harris Teeter
driveway (required to be installed during the development of Phase 2A).
• Installation of a second westbound right turn lane on Manassas Drive at Carolina Beach
Road.
• Includes additional point of egress to Carolina Beach Road.
Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
• Beau Rivage Update
• Beau Rivage Townhomes
Development Status: Development and improvements are currently under construction.
5. Congleton Farms • 169 Single-Family Homes • Approved February 7, 2018
• 2018 Build Out Date
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of:
• Constructing the section of Lieutenant Congleton Road along the site frontage to connect
to the existing roadway with one lane in each direction.
Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
• None
Development Status: Development under construction.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 11
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 12 of 20
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The property does not contain any Special Flood Hazard Areas or Natural Heritage Areas.
• The property is within the Motts Creek watershed.
• Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class I & III. Class III indicates severe limitation. However, the site is
expected to be served by CFPUA when developed.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SCHOOLS
• Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Bellamy Elementary,
Murray Middle, and Ashley High Schools. Students may apply to attend public magnet,
year-round elementary, or specialty high schools.
• Based on the current general student generation rate*, the increase in homes would result
in approximately 12 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 the COVID-19 pandemic), 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.
Development Type Intensity Estimated Student Yield
(current general student generation rate) *
Existing Development 4 residential units Approximate** Total: 1
(0 elementary, 0 middle, 0 high)
Typical Development Under
Current R-15 Zoning 15 residential units Approximate** Total: 3
(1 elementary, 1 middle, 1 high)
Proposed (CZD) R-5 Zoning 48 residential units Approximate** Total: 11
(4 elementary, 2 middle, 4 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.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 12
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 13 of 20
School Enrollment* and Capacity** (2021-2022 School Year)
*Enrollment is based on the New Hanover County Schools enrollment projections 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
capacity data, planned facility upgrades, combined with changes to student enrollment
patterns, will result in adequate capacity district wide over the next ten years if facility
upgrades are funded.
Level
Total
NHC
Capacity
School
Projected
Enrollment of
Assignment
School
Capacity of
Assigned
School
w/Portables
Capacity of
Assigned
School
Funded or
Planned
Capacity
Upgrades
Elementary 95% Bellamy 456 499 91% None
Middle 108% Murray 853 848 101% None
High 100% Ashley 1,990 1,896 105% None
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 13
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 14 of 20
NEW HANOVER COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN
• One of the goals of the New Hanover County Strategic Plan for 2018-2023 is to encourage
the development of complete communities in the unincorporated county by increasing
housing diversity in size and price points and access to basic goods and services.
• The proposed R-5 zoning district would allow for an increase in housing diversity and would
allow those new residents to utilize existing goods and services within one mile of the subject
property.
• The predominant housing type in the area is single family detached. Under the proposed
R-5 district, the project would increase housing diversity by decreasing single family
detached (72.2% to 71.5%) and increase the number of single family attached units (12.3%
to 13.06%).
• In addition to increasing the housing type diversity of the community, the proposal would
also provide for-sale housing units at more affordable price points for residents earning
between 81% and 120% area median income (AMI). Based on the findings of the
Comprehensive Housing Study completed by the joint New Hanover County/City of
Wilmington Workforce Housing Advisory Committee, there is a need for for-sale units
serving the population at these income levels across the County.
• The subject property is located in the Veterans Park community area, where 61% of
residents currently live within one-mile of a convenience need (grocery store, retail staples,
pharmacies, etc.), a support service (urgent care, primary doctor’s office, child & adult care,
etc.), and a community facility (public park, school, museum etc.).
• With the proposed number of units, the number of residences within one-mile of goods and
services would remain at 61%.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 14
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 15 of 20
REPRESENTATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Representative Developments of R-15:
Cottage Grove
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 15
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 16 of 20
Clay Crossing
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 16
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 17 of 20
Representative Developments of R-5:
Woodlands at Echo Farms
Context and Compatibility
• While the area was zoned for residential development in the early 1970s, the 2016
Comprehensive Plan recommends multi-family or higher density single family development
patterns, and a mixture of uses can be provided via adjacent tracts or when separated by
lower traffic local or collector roads.
• The subject property is located in one of the county’s more densely developed corridors,
just south of one the three identified high growth nodes in the Comprehensive Plan.
• The subject property is one of several undeveloped tracts along Carolina Beach Road, a
major road corridor. The property is located south of a commercial node serving residents
in this area and is in a location anticipated to serve as a transition from single-family
detached land uses west of the site to Carolina Beach Road.
• The proposed height will be limited to 2 stories.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 17
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 18 of 20
2016 COMPREHENSIVE 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.
Future Land Use
Map Place Type Community Mixed Use
Place Type
Description
Focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve
all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors.
These areas share several qualities with higher-intensity mixed-use place
types, including first floor retail with office and housing above, wider
sidewalks and an emphasis on streetscaping.
Z21-08
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 18
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 19 of 20
Analysis
The subject property is located in the southern portion of the county along
a major road corridor in close proximity to a neighborhood commercial
node and other commercial services.
The Comprehensive Plan classifies the property as Community Mixed Use,
which promotes development of small-scale, mixed-use developments. This
place type is common for areas along highway corridors. This place type
assignment is intended to support more density near major roads with a
transition to lower densities adjacent to existing lower intensity residential
neighborhoods.
The site is located south of a neighborhood commercial node and across
Carolina Beach Road from higher density single-family residential
development. In addition, the project supports the Comprehensive Plan’s
goal to provide for a range of housing types and opportunities for
households of different sizes and income levels as well as a mix of uses
located on adjacent or nearby parcels.
The applicant is proposing 48 dwelling units, for an overall density
of 8 units per acre in 2-story buildings. Housing forms such as townhomes
tend to use land more efficiently and be smaller in size, making new units
more affordable and providing a greater range of housing price points in
the area. The proposal is also in line with the preferred density range for
the Community Mixed Use place type, which envisions residential
development in the range of 1-3 stories at a moderate to high density.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because the project provides for the type of housing
diversity that is recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type. The
residential densities are in-line with those recommended within this place
type, and the project will provide additional housing in close proximity to
existing and future commercial development serving nearby residents.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 19
Z22-02 Staff Report PB 2-3-2022 Page 20 of 20
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the recommended uses and intensity for Community Mixed Use places, the context and
compatibility with the immediate surrounding area, and consistency with the New Hanover County
Strategic Plan, staff recommends approval of this application and suggests the following motion
with the applicant’s proposed conditions:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. I find it
to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
project provides for the types and mixture of uses recommended in the Community Mixed
Use place type and the residential densities are in-line with those recommended for the
property. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and
in the public interest because the proposal would benefit the community by providing a
range of housing types and opportunities for households of different sizes and income levels.
Applicant’s proposed conditions:
1. The project is proposed to meet the price criteria for workforce housing in the 81-
120% Area Median Income (AMI) range as defined by the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development, adjusted for household size. Restrictive covenants
will be created to assure owner occupancy and restrict investment or short-term
rental.
Alternative Motion for Denial
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. While
I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
because the project provides for the types and mixture of uses recommended in the
Community Mixed Use place type and the residential densities are in-line with those
recommended for the property, I find recommending 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 density will adversely impact
the adjacent neighborhoods.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 20
CZD R-10
CZD B-2
CZD B-1
B-1
R-15
O&I
B-2
R-10
New Hanover County, NCSHODIncorporated Areas
Indicates Conditional Zoning District (CZD)
See Section 5.7 of the UDOCOD
B-1 AC R-5 EDZD
CB I-1 R-7 PD
B-2 I-2 R-10 RMF-X
CS AR R-15 RMFU
SC RA R-20 UMXZ
O&I R-20S
Zoning Districts
CZD R-5R-156221-6229
Carolina Beach Road
Z22-02
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:
R-15
Subject Site
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 1
CountryPlaceRd
Condo Club Dr
Cathay Rd
BlakeTrl
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
Private
General
ResidentialCommunity
Mixed Use
Urban
Mixed Use
New Hanover County, NCCONSERVATION
RURAL RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY MIXED USE
URBAN MIXED USE
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL
EMPLOYMENT CENTER
COMMERCE ZONE
Place Types
CZD R-5R-156221-6229
Carolina Beach Road
Z22-02
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:
Subject Site
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 1
6223
6216
6209
6235
6223
6241
6310
6233
6203
6231
6229
6306
6230
6245
6301
225
6207
2538
2536
2540
216
2544
6201
6305
6303
226
6221
548
552
602
6261
6208
6234
2539
2541
645
619
631
610 614
632
635
611
615
606
6205
639
62276239
6223 6223
6220
100
6218
6213
6307
6300
113 6237
6101
115
6301
2542
224
6305
2537
618
120
102
106108
114
113 1156207
632632
632618
221
62176217 6217
6217
New Hanover County, NC
CA
R
O
L
I
N
A
B
E
A
C
H
R
D
Neighboring Parcels
CZD R-5R-156221-6229
Carolina Beach Road
Z22-02
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:
Subject Site
R-15
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 1
APPLICANT
MATERIALS
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 6 - 1
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 6 - 2
Page 1 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165
FAX (910) 798-7053
planningdevelopment.nhcgov.com
CONDITIONAL ZONINGAPPLICATION
This application form must be completed as part of a conditional zoning 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
below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the
application, are set out in Section 10.3.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Public Hearing Procedures
(Optional)
Pre-Application
Conference
1
Community
Information
Meeting
2
Application
Submittal &
Acceptance
3
Planning
Director Review
& Staff Report
(TRC Optional)
4
Public Hearing
Scheduling &
Notification
5
Planning Board
Hearing &
Recom-
mendation
6
Board of
Commissioners
Hearing &
Decision
7
Post-Decision
Limitations and
Actions
1.Applicant and Property Owner Information
Applicant/Agent Name Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent)
Company Company/Owner Name 2
Address Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Phone Phone
Email Email
Cindee Wolf Wilmington Realtors Foundation
Design Solutions
1001 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 101
Wilmington, NC 28406 Wilmington, NC 28405
910-620-2374 910-232-4635 (Contact: Jody Wainio)
cwolf@lobodemar.biz jodyw@kw.com
P.O. Box 7221
Barry Dean Cribb / Polly Greene Cribb
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 1
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
s
'
L
i
s
t
Na
m
e
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
C
i
t
y
S
t
a
t
e
Z
i
p
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
T
a
x
P
I
N
T
a
x
P
I
D
Ba
r
r
y
D
e
a
n
C
r
i
b
b
e
t
a
l
42
2
S
e
a
v
i
e
w
R
d
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
N
C
2
9
4
0
9
6
2
2
1
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
3
1
3
3
1
4
.
3
3
.
0
8
5
4
R
0
7
9
0
0
-
0
0
3
-
0
0
9
-
0
0
0
Po
l
l
y
G
r
e
e
n
e
C
r
i
b
b
22
6
R
u
t
l
e
d
g
e
D
r
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
N
C
2
8
4
1
2
6
2
2
3
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
3
1
3
3
1
4
.
3
3
.
4
6
5
9
R
0
7
9
0
0
-
0
0
3
-
0
1
0
-
0
0
0
Po
l
l
y
G
r
e
e
n
e
C
r
i
b
b
22
6
R
u
t
l
e
d
g
e
D
r
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
N
C
2
8
4
1
2
6
2
2
3
A
&
B
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
3
1
3
3
1
4
.
3
3
.
8
5
7
2
R
0
7
9
0
0
-
0
0
3
-
0
1
0
-
0
0
1
Ju
l
i
a
n
D
C
r
i
b
b
H
e
i
r
s
22
6
R
u
t
l
e
d
g
e
D
r
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
N
C
2
8
4
1
2
6
2
2
3
C
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
3
1
3
3
1
4
.
4
3
.
1
4
0
3
R
0
7
9
0
0
-
0
0
3
-
0
1
0
-
0
0
2
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
R
e
a
l
t
o
r
s
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
10
0
1
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
C
u
t
o
f
f
R
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
1
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
N
C
2
8
4
0
5
6
2
2
9
C
a
r
o
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
3
1
3
3
1
4
.
3
3
.
4
5
9
7
R
0
7
9
0
0
-
0
0
3
-
0
1
1
-
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
2
2
IT
E
M
:
2
-
7
-
2
Page 2 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
2.Subject Property Information
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s) Future Land Use Classification
3.Proposed Zoning, Use(s), & Narrative
Proposed Conditional Zoning District: Total Acreage of Proposed District:
Please list the uses that will be allowed within the proposed Conditional Zoning District, the purpose of the
district, and a project narrative (attach additional pages if necessary). Note: Only uses permitted in the
corresponding General Use District are eligible for consideration within a Conditional Zoning District.
4.Proposed Condition(s)
Note: Within a Conditional Zoning District, additional conditions and requirements which represent greater
restrictions on the development and use of the property than the corresponding general use district regulations may
be added. These conditions may assist in mitigating the impacts the proposed development may have on the
surrounding community. Please list any conditions proposed to be placed on the Conditional Zoning District below.
Staff, the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners may propose additional conditions during the review process.
6221 - 6229 Carolina Beach Road See Attached List
R-15Community Mixed-Use
CZD R-5 6.14 Ac.+/-
The proposed project is a 48-unit attached-townhome community, with a density of eight (8) units peracre. Homes will be individually-owned, two-story, with a one-car garage and parking for anadditional two vehicles on a driveway pad in front of the units.
The project is proposed to meet the price criteria for "work-force" housing in the 81-120% Average Median Income (AMI) range defined for "for-sale" residences. Retrictive covenants will be created to assure owner occupancy & restrict investment or short-term rental.
6.13 Ac.+/-
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 3
Page 3 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
5.Traffic Impact
Please provide the estimated number of trips generated for the proposed use(s) based off the most recent version of
the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must be completed for
all proposed developments that generate more than 100 peak hour trips, and the TIA must be included with this
application.
ITE Land Use:
Trip Generation Use and Variable (gross floor area, dwelling units, etc.)
AM Peak Hour Trips: PM Peak Hour Trips:
6.Conditional Zoning District Considerations
The Conditional Zoning District procedure is established to address situations where a particular land use would be
consistent with the New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the objectives outlined in the Unified
Development Ordinance and where only a specific use or uses is proposed. The procedure is intended primarily for
use with transitions between zoning districts of dissimilar character where a particular use or uses, with restrictive
conditions to safeguard adjacent land uses, can create a more orderly transition benefiting all affected parties and
the community at-large.
The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed Conditional
Zoning district meets the following criteria.
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.
per dwelling unit @ 48
Residential Condo / Townhouse (230)
21 25
Policies for growth and development encourage safe and affordable housing to be available
to every citizen. Townhome communities such as this one are in demand due to lifestyle
preferences, affordablility factors and proximity to services. Rezoning to allow this housing
product and density on the subject tract would be consistent with the concept of transitioning
uses along traffic corridors such as Carolina Beach Road.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 4
Page 4 of 6
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 05-2021
2.How would the requested Conditional Zoning district be consistent with the property’s classification on the
2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map.
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 tract is identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a "Community Mixed-Use" place-type.The plan suggests higher densities as a means to support the small-scale, compact developmentpatterns necessary for sensible in-fill and maximizing use of lands already accessible to urbanservices.
Transitional uses along a busy highway have become a logical planning principle. Most residentswho desire a single-family home seek areas further from arterial road corridors, but residents who mayhave more limited means can afford their own home in communities that can can keep costs lowerbased on a higher density of product. Sustainability of the County depends on location-efficient land use.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 5
Page 5of6
Conditional Zoning DistrictApplication–Updated05-2021
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”. If an item is not applicable, mark as
“N/A”. Applications determined to be incomplete must be corrected in order to be processed for further review;
Staff will confirm if an application is complete within five business days of submittal.
Application Checklist Applicant Initial
This application form, completed and signed
Application fee:
x $600 for 5 acres or less
x $700 for more than 5 acres
x $300 in addition to base fee for applications requiring TRC review
Community meeting written summary
Traffic impact analysis (if applicable)
Legal description (by metes and bounds) or recorded survey Map Book and Page
Reference of the property requested for rezoning
Conceptual Plan including the following minimum elements:
Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels and roads
x Proposed use of land, building areas and other improvements
o For residential uses, include the maximum number, height, and type
of units; area to be occupied by the structures; and/or proposed
subdivision boundaries.
o For non-residential uses, include the maximum square footage and
height of each structure, an outline of the area structures will
occupy, and the specific purposes for which the structures will be
used.
x Proposed transportation and parking improvements; including proposed
rights-of-way and roadways; proposed access to and from the subject site;
arrangement and access provisions for parking areas.
x All existing and proposed easements, required setbacks, rights-of-way, and
buffers.
x The location of Special Flood Hazard Areas.
x A narrative of the existing vegetation on the subject site including the
approximate location, species, and size (DBH) of regulated trees. For site
less than 5 acres, the exact location, species, and sized (DBH) of specimen
trees must be included.
x Approximate location and type of stormwater management facilities
intended to serve the site.
x Approximate location of regulated wetlands.
x Any additional conditions and requirements that represent greater
restrictions on development and use of thetract than the corresponding
general use district regulations or additional limitations on land that may be
regulated by state law or local ordinance
One (1) hard copy of ALL documents and site plan. Additional hard copies may be
required by staff depending on the size of the document/site plan.
One (1) digital PDF copy of ALL documents AND plans
CAW
CAW
CAW
CAW
N/A
CAW
CAW
CAW
x $700 for more than 5 acres
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 6
Cynthia Wolf
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 7
$"+#
+*!&0&+* ( +*&*$&/0.& 0,,(& 0&+*– ,! 0"!
5)5/&$* 01." "(+31*!"./0 *! *! ",0 ((+#0%" +*!&0&+*/(&)&0 0&+*/ *!+ (&$ 0&+*/+#0%"
+*!&0&+* ( +*&*$&/0.& 06+*&*$#+.3%& % ) ,,(5&*$1*!"./0 *!0% 00%""4&/0&*$##& & ( +*&*$ ,&/
,."/1)"!0+ " +.." 0 ".02% 00%&/ ,,(& 0&+*&/ +),("0" *!0% 0 ((&*#+.) 0&+*,."/"*0"!&*0%&/
,,(& 0&+*&/ 1. 0"0+0%" "/0+#)5'*+3("!$"&*#+.) 0&+* *! "(&"#
# ,,(& (" (/+ ,,+&*00%" ,,(& *0 $"*0 /(&/0"!+*0%&/ ,,(& 0&+*0+.",."/"*0)" *!) '"!" &/&+*/
+*)5 "% (#."$ .!&*$0%&/ ,,(& 0&+*!1.&*$0%"."2&"3,.+ "//%" ,,(& *0 $"*0&/%"." 5 10%+.&6"!+*
)5 "% (#0+
1 )&0 * ,,(& 0&+*&* (1!&*$ ((."-1&."!/1,,(")"*0 (&*#+.) 0&+* *!) 0".& (/
,," . 0,1 (& %" .&*$/0+$&2".",."/"*0 0&+* *! +))"*0/
0+*)5 "% (#3&0%+10(&)&0 0&+*/3&0%."$ .!0+ *5 *! ((0%&*$/!&." 0(5+.&*!&." 0(5 +**" 0"!3&0%
+. .&/&*$+10+#0%&/ ,,(& 0&+* *!
.+2&!"3.&00"* +*/"*00+ *5 *! (( +*!&0&+*/+# ,,.+2 (
+0"%&/#+.))1/0 "/&$*"! 50%"+3*"./+#." +.!#0%"." .")1(0&,(",.+,".05+3*"./ /&$* 01."&/
."-1&."!#+." %+3*".+#." +.!
+. .&/&*$+10+#0%&/ ,
.+2222222222222222222222222&!&!&!&!&!&!&!&!&!&!&!&!&&!&&!&&!&!&!&!&!&!!!!!!!!!!"3.&00"""""""""""""""""""""""**** +*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/"*****"*"******************0
Cynthia Wolf
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 8
$"+#
+*!&0&+* ( +*&*$&/0.& 0,,(& 0&+*– ,! 0"!
5)5/&$* 01." "(+31*!"./0 *! *! ",0 ((+#0%" +*!&0&+*/(&)&0 0&+*/ *!+ (&$ 0&+*/+#0%"
+*!&0&+* ( +*&*$&/0.& 06+*&*$#+.3%& % ) ,,(5&*$1*!"./0 *!0% 00%""4&/0&*$##& & ( +*&*$ ,&/
,."/1)"!0+ " +.." 0 ".02% 00%&/ ,,(& 0&+*&/ +),("0" *!0% 0 ((&*#+.) 0&+*,."/"*0"!&*0%&/
,,(& 0&+*&/ 1. 0"0+0%" "/0+#)5'*+3("!$"&*#+.) 0&+* *! "(&"#
# ,,(& (" (/+ ,,+&*00%" ,,(& *0 $"*0 /(&/0"!+*0%&/ ,,(& 0&+*0+.",."/"*0)" *!) '"!" &/&+*/
+*)5 "% (#."$ .!&*$0%&/ ,,(& 0&+*!1.&*$0%"."2&"3,.+ "//%" ,,(& *0 $"*0&/%"." 5 10%+.&6"!+*
)5 "% (#0+
1 )&0 * ,,(& 0&+*&* (1!&*$ ((."-1&."!/1,,(")"*0 (&*#+.) 0&+* *!) 0".& (/
,," . 0,1 (& %" .&*$/0+$&2".",."/"*0 0&+* *! +))"*0/
0+*)5 "% (#3&0%+10(&)&0 0&+*/3&0%."$ .!0+ *5 *! ((0%&*$/!&." 0(5+.&*!&." 0(5 +**" 0"!3&0%
+. .&/&*$+10+#0%&/ ,,(& 0&+* *!
.+2&!"3.&00"* +*/"*00+ *5 *! (( +*!&0&+*/+# ,,.+2 (
+0"%&/#+.))1/0 "/&$*"! 50%"+3*"./+#." +.!#0%"." .")1(0&,(",.+,".05+3*"./ /&$* 01."&/
."-1&."!#+." %+3*".+#." +.!
.+2&!"3.3.3..333.3.33 &00"* +*/"*"00+ *5 *!
Cynthia Wolf
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 9
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
2
2
IT
E
M
:
2
-
7
-
1
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
2
2
IT
E
M
:
2
-
7
-
1
1
Legal Description for
Conditional Zoning District Petition for
6221 – 6229 Carolina Beach Road
Beginning at a point in the eastern boundary of Carolina Beach Road (U.S. Hwy. 421), a 160’
public right‐of‐way; said point being at the northwestern‐most corner of “Lot 5 – Property of
Mrs. Ida Keyes,” on a plat recorded among the land records of the New Hanover County
Registry in Book 362, at Page 631; and running thence from the point of beginning:
South 69054’52” East, 1384.13 feet to a point; thence
South 20005’08” West, 200.00 feet to a point; thence
North 69054’52” West, 1284.41 feet to a point in the eastern boundary of Carolina Beach Road;
thence with that right‐of‐way,
North 06024’52” West, 223.48 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 6.13 acres,
more or less.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 12
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 13
REPORT OF COMMUNITY MEETING REQUIRED BY
NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING ORIDINANCE
FOR CONDITIONAL DISTRICT REZONINGS
Project Name: 6221 to 6229 Carolina Beach Road
Proposed Zoning: R-15 to (CZD) R-5
The undersigned hereby certifies that written notice of a community meeting on the above
zoning application was given to the adjacent property owners set forth on the attached list by
first class mail, and provided to the Planning Department for notice of the Sunshine List on
December 4, 2021 . A copy of that written notice and site layout are also attached.
The meeting was held at the following time and place: Wednesday, December 15,
6:00 p.m.; at the Best Western Plus – Wilmington, 5600 Carolina Beach Road,
The persons in attendance at the meeting were: Reference attached sign-in list
The following issues were discussed at the meeting: A brief introduction of the project was
given, along with explanation of conditional zoning districts. Questions were primarily
concerning availability of public water & sewer service. Developer shared their initial research
on extension of the CFPUA water line to the site, and use of a low-pressure system for
sanitary sewer disposal – which could potentially avail other properties to the South in the
future.
As a result of the meeting, the following changes were made to the petition: None
Date: January 3, 2022
Applicant: Design Solutions
By: Cindee Wolf
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 14
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 15
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 16
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
2
2
IT
E
M
:
2
-
7
-
1
7
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 500' PERIMETER OF 6221 ‐ 6229 CAROLNA BEACH ROAD
OWNERMAILING ADDRESSCITY / STATE / ZIPPROPERTY ADDRESS
ALLEN BRENDA6201 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126201 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
ALLEN GREGORY K ETAL6205 CAROLINA BCH RD UNIT AWILMINGTON, NC 284126205 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
ALLEN GREGORY K JULIE A6205 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126205 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
ALLEN GREGORY KERMIT JULIE A6205 CAROLINA BCH RD UNIT AWILMINGTON, NC 28412
ALLEN GREGORY KERMIT JULIE A6205 CAROLINA BCH RD UNIT AWILMINGTON, NC 284126205 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
ALLEN GREGORY KERMIT JULIE A6205 CAROLINA BCH RD UNIT AWILMINGTON, NC 284126205 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
AUCTION CARNIVAL COM LLC314 LENNON DR UNIT 12216WILMINGTON, NC 284056305 APPOMATTOX DR WILMINGTON
AUSTIN RONALD D REBECCA L2544 BLAKE TRAIL WILMINGTON, NC 284092544 BLAKE TRL WILMINGTON
BONDURANT WILLIAM BRENDA 226 COUNTRY PLACE RD WILMINGTON, NC 28409226 COUNTRY PLACE RD WILMINGTON
BRADSHAW DOLORES J6303 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126303 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
CALDWELL LARRY W278 HILLCREST CIR WHITEVILLE, NC 28472602 ANTIETAM DR WILMINGTON
CAROLINA COASTAL MARINE LLC8936 SEDGLEY DR WILMINGTON, NC 284126301 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
COATS DELORIS M ETAL709 CROWS NEST CT WILMINGTON, NC 284096213 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
COATS STEVEN K DELORIS M709 CROWS NEST CT WILMINGTON, NC 284096310 APPOMATTOX DR WILMINGTON
COPENHAVER BARBARA A6203 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126203 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
CRIBB POLLY GREENE226 RUTLEDGE DR WILMINGTON, NC 284126216 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
CRIBB POLLY GREENE226 RUTLEDGE DR WILMINGTON, NC 284126208 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
DEMUNBRUN KARENPO BOX 102ROCKWELL, NC 281386261 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
FOWLER IRIS POPE HEIRS6233 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126233 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
H & H FAMILY LIMITED PTNRSHP709 CROWS NEST CT WILMINGTON, NC 284096217 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
HILL CATHY GAIL6305 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126305 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
HOOKS JULIUS D606 ANTIETAM DR WILMINGTON, NC 28412606 ANTIETAM DR WILMINGTON
JONES GERALD L REV TRUST2002 WARD ST DURHAM, NC 277076237 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
LAKEY JACQUELINE ETAL2540 BLAKE TRL WILMINGTON, NC 284092542 BLAKE TRL WILMINGTON
LAKEY THOMAS H JACQUELINE C2540 BLAKE TRL WILMINGTON, NC 284092540 BLAKE TRL WILMINGTON
LERAY BARRY W ATHANASIA B2536 BLAKE TRL WILMINGTON, NC 284092536 BLAKE TRL WILMINGTON
LEWIS PEGGY LEONARD REV TRUSTPO BOX 12226WILMINGTON, NC 28405
LONG LEAF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES6307 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126307 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
LORACK LLC12300 PEED RD RALEIGH, NC 276146306 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
LORACK LLC12300 PEED RD RALEIGH, NC 276146306 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
MCKEITHAN APRIL A224 COUNTRY PLACE RD WILMINGTON, NC 28409224 COUNTRY PLACE RD WILMINGTON
MINTZ WILLIAM KIMBERLY J614 ANTIETAM DR WILMINGTON, NC 28409614 ANTIETAM DR WILMINGTON
MIRESSI GERALD LOUIS SR HEIRS6241 CAROLINA BCH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126245 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
MIRESSI JOSEPHINE F6241 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126239 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
MIRESSI JOSEPHINE F6241 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126231 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
MIRESSI JOSEPHINE FOWLER6241 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126235 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
CFPUA320 CHESTNUT ST WILMINGTON, NC 28401113 CATHAY RD WILMINGTON
NORRIS SHIRLEY S6218 CAROLINA BCH RD WILMINGTON, NC 284126218 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
NUTZ & BOLTZ VENTURES LLC7508 CHAMPLAIN DR WILMINGTON, NC 284126209 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
OSBORNE CHRISTINE F178 CHRISTOPHER RD FLINTON, PA 166406207 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
PARKER DAVID S492 SANDLIN RD BEULAVILLE, NC 28518552 ANTIETAM DR WILMINGTON
PPC VENTURES LLCPO BOX 12226WILMINGTON, NC 284056230 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
R C FOWLER PROPERTIES INC3763 LITCHFIELD LOOP LAKE WALES, FL 338596300 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
ROGERS AMELIA S2538 BLAKE TRL WILMINGTON, NC 284092538 BLAKE TRL WILMINGTON
SHAMROCK INVESTMENTS OF NC8395 NC 581 HWY SBAILEY, NC 27807548 ANTIETAM DR WILMINGTON
STINNETT MATTHEW D MEREDITH C610 ANTIETAM DR WILMINGTON, NC 28409610 ANTIETAM DR WILMINGTON
TOWNHOMES AT BEAU RIVAGE10 S CARDINAL DRWILMINGOTN, NC 28403100 BEAU RIVAGE DR WILMINGTON
WILLIAMS STEPHEN T433 ROSLYN RD WINSTON SALEM, NC 271046234 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 18
P.O. Box 7221, Wilmington, NC 28406 * Telephone: 910-620-2374 * Email: cwolf@lobodemar.biz
Notice of Meeting
December 4, 2021
To: Adjacent Property Owners
From: Cindee Wolf
Re: Pierson’s Point – Townhome Community
The owners of the properties at 6221 – 6229 Carolina Beach Road seek to develop a new housing
community in the proximity of your property. The plan proposes forty‐eight (48) townhomes units,
that will be marketed for individual ownership. An exhibit is attached.
Approval of a Conditional District allows particular uses to be established only in accordance with a
specific plan, standards and conditions pertaining to each individual development project.
The County requires that the developer hold a meeting for all property owners within 500 feet of the
tract boundary, and any and all other interested parties. This provides neighbors with an opportunity
for explanation of the proposal and for questions to be answered concerning project improvements,
benefits and impacts.
A meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 15th, at the Best Western Plus – Wilmington, 5600
Carolina Beach Road, 6:00 p.m. If you cannot attend, you are also welcome to contact me at telephone
# 910‐620‐2374, or email cwolf@lobodemar.biz with comments and/or questions.
We appreciate your interest in the project and look forward to being a good neighbor and an asset to
the community.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 19
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
-
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
2
2
IT
E
M
:
2
-
7
-
2
0
PROPOSED
SITE PLAN
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 8 - 1
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 8 - 2
Planning Board - February 3, 2022ITEM: 2- 9 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 2/3/2022
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Amy Doss, Current Planner
CONTACT(S): Amy Doss, Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z22-03) - Request by Douglas E. Reeves, applicant, on behalf of Reeves Holdings, LLC, property
owner, to rezone approximately 1.84 acres of land located at 6205 Blossom Street from R-15, ResidenAal District,
to CB, Community Business, and R-10, ResidenAal District.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 1.84 acres from R-15, Residen(al to CB, Community Business and
R-10, Residen(al. The por(on of the land fron(ng Castle Hayne Road is intended for commercial space. The acreage
fron(ng Blossom Street would be rezoned for low density residen(al.
Although a straight rezoning, the applicant has provided a proposed plan for the parcel, but condi(ons regarding uses
cannot be placed on the approval. The subject site would be required to meet all the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) requirements for development within the proposed zoning districts. Types of uses allowed and commonly found
in the CB district include civic, ins(tu(onal, and commercial uses like community centers, religious assemblies,
restaurants, and general retail sales. Types of uses allowed and commonly found in the R-10 district include civic,
ins(tu(onal, and residen(al uses like libraries, religious assemblies, and EMS facili(es. Some of these uses allowed in
the CB and R-10 zoning districts are also permi7ed within the R-15 zoning district. Any proposed non-residen(al use
would be subject to the applicable site design and approval provisions within the UDO.
The R-15 district in this area was established within the “Castle Hayne” zoning area in 1985. At the (me, the purpose
of the R-15 district was to provide lands that accommodate very low-density housing and recrea(onal uses in order to
preserve the quiet residen(al nature of the areas included in the district. The purpose of the Residen(al-10 (R-10)
District is to provide lands that accommodate new residen(al neighborhoods and encourage the conserva(on of
exis(ng residen(al lots and neighborhoods. The purpose of the Community Business (CB) District is to provide lands
that accommodate the development, growth, and con(nued opera(on of businesses that serve surrounding
neighborhoods with goods and services. CB district lands can serve as a buffer between higher density/intensity
development and moderate or low-density mul(-family and single-family neighborhoods. This district was added to
the UDO in 2019 and was intended to be appropriate adjacent to exis(ng residen(al uses.
It is es(mated that 1.27 acres of property zoned CB can generally support approximately 10,000 square feet of
tradi(onal general retail uses based on a typical 18% building area for this type of zoning. The remaining por(on of the
parcel that would be zoned R-10 and if developed at the maximum R-10 density of 3.3 units per acre, this could yield a
poten(al maximum of 3 dwelling units. If developed at the maximum R-15 density of 2.5 units per acre, this could yield
a poten(al maximum of 5 dwelling units.
The net change from the poten(al trip genera(on if the site were to be developed under the exis(ng R-15 district to
the proposed CB and R-10 districts shows an approximate increase of 36 AM peak hour trips and an approximate
increase of 90 PM peak hour trips. General retail uses typically generate the bulk of their trips during the PM hours as
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3
retail uses are oDen not the weekday rush hour des(na(on for motorists. The es(mated traffic generated from the
site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Based on the current student genera(on rate, the maximum development within the proposed zoning district can be
es(mated to generate approximately the same number of students than if developed under exis(ng zoning. The
general student genera(on rate provides only an es(mate of an(cipated student yield as different forms of housing at
different price points yield different numbers of students. Please refer to the Schools sec(on included in this report for
addi(onal informa(on on school enrollment and capacity.
The site would serve as a transi(onal area between the commercial ac(vity along the Castle Hayne corridor and the
lower-intensity uses to the east.
The proposed rezoning for CB and R-10 is generally CONSISTENT with the Comprehensive Plan because it will allow
for the types of residen(al development and commercial uses encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Because the proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would provide a transi(on
between exis(ng commercial services and residen(al areas, Staff recommends approval of the proposal and suggests
the following mo(on:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to CB and R-10. I find it to be CONSISTENT
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it will allow for the types of residen(al
and commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find
recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the
site is located on an arterial street near exis(ng commercial services and would serve as a transi(on
between the Castle Hayne commercial node to the south and residen(al proper(es to the north and east.
Alterna(ve Mo(on for Denial
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to CB and R-10. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it would allow for the
types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type, I find
recommending 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 will
adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip(on
Z22-03 Script PB
Z22-03 Staff Report PB
Z22-03 Zoning Map
Z22-03 FLUM
Z22-03 Neighboring Properties
Z22-03 Applicant Materials Cover Sheet
Z22-03 Application Package
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3
SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z22-03)
Request by Douglas E. Reeves, applicant, on behalf of Reeves Holdings, LLC, property owner, to
rezone approximately 1.84 acres of land located at 6205 Blossom Street from R-15, Residential District,
to CB, Community Business, and R-10, 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 recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to CB and R-10. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it will allow for
the types of residential and commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community
Mixed Use place type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest because the site is located on an arterial street near
existing commercial services and would serve as a transition between the Castle Hayne
commercial node to the south and residential properties to the north and east.
Example Motion for Denial
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to CB and R-10. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it would allow
for the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place
type, I find recommending 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 will adversely impact the adjacent areas.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 1 - 1
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to recommend [Approval/Denial] of the proposed rezoning to a CB and R-10. I find it
to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because
[insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
I also find recommending [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the
public interest because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 1 - 2
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 1 of 14
STAFF REPORT OF Z22-03
REZONING APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z22-03
Request:
Rezone approximately 1.84 acres to CB, Community Business and R-10, Residential
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Douglas E Reeves with Reeves Holdings LLC Reeves Holdings, LLC
Location: Acreage:
6205 Blossom Street 1.84
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
R01109-003-001-000 Community Mixed Use
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Undeveloped Commercial use fronting Castle Hayne, and
residential use fronting Blossom Street
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
R-15, Residential CB, Community Business, and R-10 Residential
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North General Retail Sales, Undeveloped B-2, R-15
East Residential R-15
South Residential R-15
West Castle Hayne Road Right-of-Way, Residential N/A, RA
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 1
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 2 of 14
ZONING HISTORY
July 1, 1985 Initially zoned R-15 (Castle Hayne Area)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer
CFPUA sewer is available; CFPUA water has capacity at this time. Capacity
is also dependent on the analysis of the pipe collection system (gravity and
force mains).
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire
District, New Hanover County Castle Hayne Station
Schools Castle Hayne Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and Laney High Schools
Recreation Riverside Park
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation No known conservation resources.
Historic No known historic resources.
Archaeological No known archaeological resources.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 2
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 3 of 14
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL
• The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 1.84 acres from R-15, Residential to
CB, Community Business and R-10, Residential. The portion of the land fronting Castle Hayne
Road is intended for commercial space. The acreage fronting Blossom Street would be
rezoned for low density residential.
• Access to the site is provided by Castle Hayne Road and Blossom Street. As shown on the
proposed plan, the CB commercial zoning will front Castle Hayne Road and the R-10
residential zoning will front Blossom Street.
• According to the applicant, the CB portion of the property is intended to be used for a
restaurant. The acreage fronting Blossom Street will be subdivided into 3 lots for single
family residential. However, because this is a straight rezoning request, conditions regarding
uses cannot be placed on the approval.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 3
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 4 of 14
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The R-15 district in this area was established within the “Castle Hayne” zoning area in 1985.
At the time, the purpose of the R-15 district was to provide lands that accommodate very
low-density housing and recreational uses in order to preserve the quiet residential nature
of the areas included in the district. However, recent rezonings of nearby property have
allowed increased density and different levels of intensity in the surrounding Castle Hayne
area.
• The purpose of the Community Business (CB) District is to provide lands that accommodate
the development, growth, and continued operation of businesses that serve surrounding
neighborhoods with goods and services. CB district lands can serve as a buffer between
higher density/intensity development and moderate or low-density multi-family and single-
family neighborhoods. This district was added to the Unified Development Ordinance in
2019 and was intended to be appropriate adjacent to existing residential uses.
• The purpose of the Residential-10 (R-10) District is to provide lands that accommodate new
residential neighborhoods and encourage the conservation of existing residential lots and
neighborhoods. Neighborhoods in the R-10 district are relatively low density in character
and may be established in proximity to neighborhood or community commercial districts to
encourage the establishment of walkable development patterns.
• Although a straight rezoning, the applicant has provided a proposed plan for the parcel,
but conditions regarding uses cannot be placed on the approval. The subject site would be
required to meet all the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requirements for
development within the proposed zoning districts. Types of uses allowed and commonly
found in the CB district include civic, institutional, and commercial uses like community centers,
religious assemblies, restaurants, and general retail sales. Types of uses allowed and
commonly found in the R-10 district include civic, institutional, and residential uses like
libraries, religious assemblies, and EMS facilities. Some of these uses allowed in the CB and
R-10 zoning districts are also permitted within the R-15 zoning district. Any proposed non-
residential use would be subject to the applicable site design and approval provisions within
the UDO.
• The subject property is located within the commercial area of Castle Hayne. This area
includes general office, retail, and restaurant uses. Adjacent property to the north of the
site is zoned B-2, Regional Business, with a retail use established on site. Single-family
housing and undeveloped land are located directly east and northeast of the property
along Blossom Street, an unimproved public right-of-way. A small adjacent property to the
south is zoned R-15 Residential. To the west exists RA-zoned parcels, accommodating single-
family housing. To the northwest of the subject site, B-2 zoning exists and includes the Hudson
Hardware and Luck’s Tavern businesses.
• Current R-15 zoning would allow a maximum of 5 dwelling units on the 1.84-acre site at a
density of 2.5 du/ac.
• Future development of the site would be subject to technical review to ensure compliance
with applicable County and State regulations, including applicable site design and
approval provisions within the UDO.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 4
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 5 of 14
AREA SUBDIVISIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
• The property is not within one mile of any subdivisions under development.
TRANSPORTATION
• Access will be provided to the subject property from Castle Hayne Road, an NCDOT-
maintained minor arterial street, and by Blossom Street by way of Vine Street.
• Traffic Impact Analyses are not required for a straight rezoning, as a specific development
proposal is required to thoroughly analyze access, potential trip generation, and roadway
improvements.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 5
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 6 of 14
• 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
distribution. Recommended roadway improvements will be completed as required by a
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) or through the NCDOT Driveway permitting process.
• As currently zoned, it is estimated the site would generate about 4 AM peak hour trips and
5 PM peak hour trips if developed at the permitted density.
• The trips generated from the requested CB portion of the property would vary based on
the proposed uses within this district. It is estimated that 1.27 acres of property zoned CB
can generally support approximately 10,000 square feet of traditional general retail uses
based on a typical 18% building area for this type of zoning. Such a development is
estimated to generate about 38 AM peak hour trips and 92 PM peak hour trips.
• The net change from the potential trip generation if the site were to be developed under
the existing R-15 district to the proposed CB and R-10 districts shows an approximate
increase of 36 AM peak hour trips and an approximate increase of 90 PM peak hour trips.
General retail uses typically generate the bulk of their trips during the PM hours as retail
uses are often not the weekday rush hour destination for motorists.
• As there is not a specific development proposal at this time to analyze traffic impacts for,
staff has provided the volume to capacity ratio for roadways in the vicinity of 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
Castle Hayne Road 6100 block 19,494 17,375 1.12 (F)
Intensity Approx. Peak Hour Trips
Existing Development: Undeveloped 0 AM / 0 PM
Typical Development
under Current Zoning:
5 Single-Family
Dwellings 4 AM / 5 PM
Potential Trip
Generation under
Proposed Rezoning:
Approximately 10,000
Square Feet of General
Retail Sales & 3 Single-
Family Dwellings
Total: 40AM / 95 PM
(38 AM / 92 PM for CB
&
2 AM / 3PM for R-10)
Potential Net Change
under Proposed
Zoning:
- + 36AM / + 90 PM
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 6
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 7 of 14
Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses
• The property is not within 1-mile of any planned Transportation Improvement Projects or
Traffic Impact Analyses.
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area or Special Flood Hazard Area.
• The property is within the Holly Shelter Creek watershed.
• Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class I soils (suitable/slight limitation).
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SCHOOLS
• Students generated from development of this parcel would be assigned to Castle Hayne
Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and Laney High schools. Students may apply to attend public
magnet, year-round elementary, or specialty high schools.
• Under the current zoning, density would be limited to a maximum of 5 dwelling units. Under the
proposed zoning, a maximum of 3 units could be developed.
• Based on the current student generation rate*, the maximum development within the proposed
zoning district can be estimated to generate approximately the same number of students than
if developed under existing 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 the COVID-19 pandemic), 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.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 7
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 8 of 14
Development Type Intensity Estimated Student Yield
(current general student generation rate)*
Existing Development Undeveloped Approximate* Total: 0
Typical Development
under Current R-15
Zoning
5 residential units Approximate* Total: 1
Potential Development
under Proposed Zoning
Districts
3 residential units Approximate* Total: 1
*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.
• Developments of the size and type associated with the proposed rezoning would likely not
reach full build-out for over 5 years. As a result, existing school enrollment and capacity is not
likely to be relevant. New Hanover County Schools staff would include this project if approved
in future facility planning initiatives in order to accommodate any resulting student growth.
• Staff has provided information on existing school capacity to provide a general idea of the
potential impact on public schools, but these numbers do not reflect any future capacity
upgrades.
School Enrollment* and Capacity**—2021-2022 Estimates
*Enrollment is based on the New Hanover County Schools enrollment projections 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.
Level
Total
NHC %
Capacity School
Enrollment of
Assigned
School
Capacity of
Assigned
School w/
Portables
% of
Capacity of
Assigned
School
Funded
Capacity
Upgrades
Elementary 91% Castle Hayne 483 529 91% None
Middle 98% Holly Shelter 917 934 98% None
High 105% Laney 2063 1903 108% None
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 8
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 9 of 14
REPRESENTATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
Representative Developments of R-15:
Page’s Corner in Ogden
Clay Crossing
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 9
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 10 of 14
Representative Developments of R-10:
Rachel’s Place
Planters Walk and West Bay Estates
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 10
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 11 of 14
Representative Developments of CB:
Context and Compatibility
• The property is located along Castle Hayne Road, which is identified as a Minor Arterial
on the WMPO Functional Classification Map.
• The site abuts the Castle Hayne commercial node and is adjacent to single family homes to
the east on Blossom Street.
• The site would serve as a transitional area between the commercial activity along the
Castle Hayne corridor and the lower-intensity uses to the east.
• The development is expected to have no impact on the school system.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 11
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 12 of 14
2016 COMPREHENSIVE 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. `
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 12
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 13 of 14
Future Land Use
Map Place Type Community Mixed Use
Place Type
Description
Focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve
all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors.
Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational,
commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential.
Analysis
The subject property is located in a transitional area near the Castle Hayne
commercial services node and ideally would provide for the needs of
adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan classifies
properties along the Castle Hayne Road corridor as Community Mixed Use.
It is the intent of the plan to allow for the continued growth of this node with
commercial services and moderate density residential development while
also providing a transition between the lower density housing to the east
and the high intensity Castle Hayne Road Corridor. The subject site’s location
makes it appropriate to serve as a transitional area between the existing
and future businesses located within the Castle Hayne commercial node to
the south and low-density residential and low-intensity commercial land uses
to the north.
The proposed CB portion of the parcel would allow for the types of
commercial uses that would be appropriate in a Community Mixed Use
place type and would provide services to the surrounding community. Uses
permissible within the CB are meant for transitional areas between
residential areas and commercial nodes. The applicant intends for lower-
intensity commercial services such as a small restaurant, for nearby residents
as well as commuters since Castle Hayne Road is an important commuter
route to and from Pender County.
The proposed R-10 portion of the parcel will be located between the CB
and existing R-15 zoning districts. The proposed R-10 zoning district could
accommodate approximately 3 residential units, which would provide an
appropriate transition to the single-family homes existing on Blossom Street
and toward the east. While the proposed housing density is lower than
typical in a Community Mixed Use place type, it is consistent with existing
housing patterns.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed rezoning for CB and R-10 is generally CONSISTENT with the
Comprehensive Plan because it will allow for the types of residential
development and commercial uses encouraged in the Community Mixed Use
place type.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 13
Z22-03 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 14 of 14
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Because the proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would
provide a transition between existing commercial services and residential areas, Staff recommends
approval of the proposal and suggests the following motion:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to CB and R-10. I find it
to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it
will allow for the types of residential and commercial uses that would be encouraged
in the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the
rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the site is located on
an arterial street near existing commercial services and would serve as a transition
between the Castle Hayne commercial node to the south and residential properties to
the north and east.
Alternative Motion for Denial
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to CB and R-10. While I find
it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because
it would allow for the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the
Community Mixed Use place type, I find recommending 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 will adversely impact
the adjacent neighborhoods.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 14
R-15
B-2
RA
New Hanover County, NCSHODIncorporated Areas
Indicates Conditional Zoning District (CZD)
See Section 5.7 of the UDOCOD
B-1 AC R-5 EDZD
CB I-1 R-7 PD
B-2 I-2 R-10 RMF-X
CS AR R-15 RMFU
SC RA R-20 UMXZ
O&I R-20S
Zoning Districts
CB, R-10R-156205 Blossom StZ22-03
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:
R-15 Subject Site
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 1
Conservation
Rural
Residential
General
Residential
Community
Mixed Use
New Hanover County, NCCONSERVATION
RURAL RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY MIXED USE
URBAN MIXED USE
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL
EMPLOYMENT CENTER
COMMERCE ZONE
Place Types
CB, R-10R-156205 Blossom StZ22-03
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:
Subject Site
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 4 - 1
6208
6303
60006000
6214
6215
4009
6304
6307
6201
6117
6205
61076111
6000
6312
6300
6201
6101
6117
6301
6333
6401
6000
6118
6200
6311
6000
3908
6120
6100
3920
6025
6315
6115
6101
6129 6206
6301
6016
6200
6313
6000
6305
6309
6217
6205
New Hanover County, NCNeighboring Parcels
CB, R-10R-156205 Blossom StZ22-03
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:
Subject Site
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 1
APPLICANT
MATERIALS
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 6 - 1
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 6 - 2
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 7 - 1
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 7 - 2
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 7 - 3
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 7 - 4
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 7 - 5
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 2/3/2022
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Marty Lile, Long Range Planner
CONTACT(S): Marty Lile; Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Text Amendment Request (TA22-01) - Request by New Hanover County to modify Ar7cles 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
Unified Development Ordinance to update permissions and standards for wireless telecommunica7ons facili7es
and to perform technical fixes to various ordinance provisions.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The key intent of this amendment is to update standards and permissions for wireless support structures to reduce the
poten!al visual impacts of wireless towers on nearby residen!al proper!es, require colloca!on when feasible, and
priori!ze nonresiden!al districts when new towers are needed. The amendment also includes a maintenance
component to clean up and clarify various exis!ng provisions and to codify current Staff interpreta!ons. The
amendment consist of two components.
The first component is an update to telecommunica!ons standards and permissions consis!ng of the following
changes:
Incorpora!on of state law that allows coun!es to require applicants collocate new antenna and equipment
onto exis!ng nearby towers when feasible
Requirement that balloon tests be conducted at proposed tower sites in order to beer simulate perceived
visual impacts of residen!al towers
Refinement of aesthe!c design standards like prohibi!ng la,ce towers and requiring equipment be fully
screened or hidden in non-industrial districts
Update to apply faux tree stealthing to towers proposed in residen!al districts except where certain site
condi!ons exist or as allowed by condi!on of approval by the Board of Commissioners
Moderniza!on of tower setbacks in commercial and industrial districts to reflect modern engineered fall zone
prac!ces
Adjustment to principal use permissions to allow new towers by right in commercial districts to incen!vize
developers locate within those districts rather than in residen!al areas
The second component is a maintenance amendment consis!ng of the following changes:
Clarifica!on of the County's current method of rounding frac!ons
Addi!on of a defini!on for Major Subdivision for clarity
Modifica!on of superseding dimensional standards to allow Special Purpose U!lity Lots for necessary public
infrastructure
Correc!on of a clerical error to allow Assisted Living Facili!es within the B-1 Neighborhood Business District
with a special use permit
Modernize outdated provisions for the submial, review, approval, and appeals processes for Traffic Impact
Analyses
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4
Incorpora!on of a current Staff interpreta!on of how street yard standards apply to mul!-family districts
Clarifica!on of how founda!on plan!ng areas are calculated to beer align with the increased building heights
recently allowed by the code
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggests the following mo!on:
I move to APPROVE the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance
to modify permissions and standards for wireless telecommunica!on facili!es and to perform maintenance to
various iden!fied provisions throughout the code. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of
the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it aligns with the Plan’s implementa!on guidelines that aim to support
business success, workforce development, economic prosperity, and public safety while preserving the character
of exis!ng residen!al neighborhoods, and advances the County’s efforts to ensure the tools in the code
con!nue to work as they are intended. I also find APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in
the public interest because it incorporates zoning tools that address compa!bility between necessary wireless
infrastructure and established residen!al neighborhoods and provides needed maintenance for clearer and
more consistent standards.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip!on
TA22-01 Script
TA22-01 Staff Report
TA22-01 Summary Sheet - Telecommunications
TA22-01 Summary Sheet - Maintenance
TA22-01 Draft Amendment
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4
SCRIPT for Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment (TA22-01)
Request by New Hanover County to modify Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Unified Development
Ordinance to update permissions and standards for wireless telecommunications facilities and to
perform technical fixes to various ordinance provisions.
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.
1. 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 amendment request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Example Motion of Approval:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment and suggests the following motion:
I move to APPROVE the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance to modify permissions and standards for wireless telecommunication facilities and to perform
maintenance to various identified provisions throughout the code. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the
purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it aligns with the Plan’s implementation
guidelines that aim to support business success, workforce development, economic prosperity, and public
safety while preserving the character of existing residential neighborhoods, and advances the County’s
efforts to ensure the tools in the code continue to work as they are intended. I also find APPROVAL of
the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it incorporates zoning tools that
address compatibility between necessary wireless infrastructure and established residential
neighborhoods and provides needed maintenance for clearer and more consistent standards.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance to modify permissions and standards for wireless telecommunication facilities and to perform
maintenance to various identified provisions throughout the code. I find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent]
with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
I also find [Approval/Denial] of the proposed amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because
[insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 1 - 1
TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 1 of 6
STAFF REPORT FOR TA22-01
TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: TA22-01
Request:
To amend Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to update permissions
and standards for wireless telecommunications facilities and to perform technical fixes to various
ordinance provisions.
Applicant: Subject Ordinances:
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance
Purpose & Intent:
The key intent of this amendment is to update standards and permissions for wireless support
structures to reduce the potential visual impacts of wireless towers on nearby residential
properties, require collocation when feasible, and prioritize nonresidential districts when new
towers are needed. The amendment also includes a maintenance component to clean up and
clarify various existing provisions and to codify current Staff interpretations.
Telecommunications Update
• Incorporation of state law that allows counties to require applicants collocate new
antenna and equipment onto existing nearby towers when feasible
• Requirement that balloon tests be conducted at proposed tower sites in order to better
simulate perceived visual impacts of residential towers
• Refinement of aesthetic design standards like prohibiting lattice towers and requiring
equipment be fully screened or hidden in non-industrial districts
• Update to apply faux tree stealthing to towers proposed in residential districts except
where certain site conditions exist or as allowed by condition of approval by the
Board of Commissioners
• Modernization of tower setbacks in commercial and industrial districts to reflect
modern engineered fall zone practices
• Adjustment to principal use permissions to allow new towers by right in commercial
districts to incentivize developers locate within those districts rather than in residential
areas
Maintenance Amendment
• Clarification of the County’s current method of rounding fractions
• Addition of a definition for Major Subdivision for clarity
• Modification of superseding dimensional standards to allow Special Purpose Utility
Lots for necessary public infrastructure
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 1
TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 2 of 6
• Correction of a clerical error to allow Assisted Living Facilities within the B-1
Neighborhood Business District with a special use permit
• Modernize outdated provisions for the submittal, review, approval, and appeals
processes for Traffic Impact Analyses
• Incorporation of a current Staff interpretation of how street yard standards apply to
multi-family districts
• Clarification of how foundation planting areas are calculated to better align with the
increased building heights recently allowed by the code
BACKGROUND
In response to concerns raised during a special use permit review process in Summer 2021
regarding telecommunications facilities in residential areas, the Board of Commissioners requested
that Planning Staff work with Legal Staff to examine state statutes and explore potential
amendments to the County’s current telecommunications standards that would help address the
concerns routinely brought up in these types of residential tower special use permit cases.
Based on existing residential development patterns and ongoing demand for telecommunication
services in residential areas, it is likely that towers will continue to be proposed near existing
residential communities. Additionally, current standards may make it more difficult for needed
towers to locate in nonresidential areas.
As a result, Staff has drafted an amendment to the UDO with three goals in mind: (1) reduce the
potential impacts of wireless towers on nearby residential properties; (2) require collocation onto
existing towers when possible; (3) and prioritize nonresidential districts when new towers are
needed.
Modifying the code to address these goals also provides Staff an opportunity to incorporate a few
technical fixes into the amendment to clarify various code provisions that have been identified over
the past several months. As mentioned during the UDO Project process and with past amendments,
this type of maintenance amendment will be part of Staff’s ongoing efforts to ensure that the tools
in the ordinance continue to work the way they are intended.
This request consists of two primary categories: a telecommunications standards update and a
maintenance amendment component.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE
Collocation onto Existing Towers
The amendment incorporates a state law provision that allows the County to require evidence
that new antenna and equipment cannot be collocated onto an existing tower in the applicant’s
search ring. Applicants for new towers would be required to submit information with their
application package explaining why collocation is not reasonably feasible. Per state law,
collocation is not reasonably feasible if collocation is technically or commercially impractical or
if the owner of an existing tower is unwilling to enter into a contract with an applicant. Staff has
already modified the special use permit application to include this provision, but this amendment
would codify the requirement in the UDO.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 2
TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 3 of 6
Balloon Tests
The amendment requires that applicants now conduct balloon tests at proposed residential
tower sites as a way of demonstrating a proposed tower’s perceived visual impact on
surrounding residential areas. Currently, balloon tests are not mandated by the code but are
sometimes voluntarily performed by tower applicants. The amendment establishes a standard
procedure for tests to ensure consistency across applications, including a minimum size of balloon
used (3-feet in diameter), and that tests now provide the basis for the photographic simulations
required by the code, which previously had no method of determining scale or quality
assurance.
Aesthetic Design Standards
The amendment clarifies that monopole structures are permitted and that lattice type structures
are prohibited in residential and commercial districts. Towers in those districts are also required
to conceal antenna, cables, and other equipment, either within the cannister or through an
alternative method of screening. The amendment also reorganizes wireless support structure
provisions to clarify that these new aesthetic standards do not apply to towers in industrial
districts, where towers have always been allowed by right and visual impacts to residential
areas have been less of a concern.
Faux Tree Stealthing
The amendment requires new towers that are proposed within general residential districts (RA,
AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5) utilize faux tree stealthing unless located within an
area containing existing dense tree clusters that would otherwise shield it from view from nearby
existing single-family or duplex homes or platted residential lots. As drafted, the type of faux
stealthing must match a species of tree located within the nearby tree clusters. The amendment
includes a provision where the Board of Commissioners could exempt a residential tower from
utilizing faux tree sheathing with a condition of approval on the special use permit, which may
be helpful in preventing situations where a faux tower would result in a greater visual impact
than a standard monopole structure.
Setbacks in Commercial and Industrial Districts
The amendment reduces setbacks for towers in nonresidential districts to reflect modern
engineering practices and to incentivize developers to locate within those areas rather than in
residential districts. Changes in engineering over time have resulted in wireless towers utilizing
engineered fall zones, where towers are designed in a way where if they were to fall, they
would do so well within an area the height of the tower. Currently, tower setbacks are applied
from residentially zoned areas at a distance equal to the height of the tower, and in no case
may be less than 50 feet from the property line. As drafted, any tower in a nonresidential
district would be subject to that tower’s specific fall zone, which is required to be certified by a
licensed professional engineer to maintain public safety at a setback distance less than the
height of the tower.
Wireless Support Structures Allowed By-Right in Commercial Districts
The amendment proposes allowing wireless support structures by right in commercial districts to
incentivize developers to locate towers within those districts rather than residential districts.
Tower developers would be subject to administrative Technical Review Committee approvals in
these areas, whereas developers proposing new towers in residential areas would still be
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 3
TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 4 of 6
required to go through the existing quasi-judicial special use permit process. Towers are
currently allowed by right in the I-1, Light Industrial, and I-2, Heavy Industrial, districts.
MAINTENANCE AMENDMENT
Method of Rounding
The amendment clarifies and codifies the County’s current practice of rounding, which applies
the general mathematical rule that any calculation or measurement less than 0.5 rounds down
to the nearest whole number, and anything 0.5 or greater would round up. For example, a
parking calculation that results in a required minimum of 21.2 parking spaces would be rounded
down to 21 parking spaces, and a calculation resulting in 21.8 parking spaces would be
rounded up to 22 parking spaces.
Major Subdivision Definition
The amendment adds a definition for Major Subdivision to further clarify that a major
subdivision is considered any subdivision exceeding the criteria for a minor subdivision. As
currently applied, a major subdivision would be any subdivision that exceeds five lots, includes
any new street, or requires drainage improvements or easements to serve the subdivision.
Traffic Impact Analysis Process
The amendment modernizes outdated provisions for the submittal, review, approval, and
appeals processes for Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs) to reflect the procedures implemented by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Wilmington Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO), who exercise such authority over TIAs. Since
these requirements were added to the ordinance in 2002, the TIA process has changed, and
the section can now be misleading for applicants as it is not aligned with current practices. This
amendment addresses this confusion, and potentially alleviates the need for further revisions to
this section of the code, by stating that developments within the County that trigger the 100
peak hour trip generation threshold established by the ordinance must follow the current TIA
process established by the NCDOT and WMPO.
Street Yard Standards for RMF Districts
The amendment incorporates a current Staff interpretation that multi-family developments in
multi-family districts (RMF-L, RMF-M, RMF-MH, and RMF-H) are subject to the same street yard
standards as multi-family developments in other districts.
Foundation Plantings
The amendment clarifies how foundation plantings are calculated to better align with the
increased building heights recently allowed by the code. The change makes clear that the
foundation planting area is based on the area of the first floor of a building face rather than
the entire façade with the goal of preventing unintended excessive landscaped areas for taller
structures. As drafted, the required foundation planting area is 12% of the area of the first-
floor building face, or building face up to 25-feet in height, whichever is less, adjacent to
parking area or internal drive, consistent with current intent.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 4
TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 5 of 6
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposed text amendment drafts and supplemental summary sheets are attached, with red
italics indicating new language and strikethrough indicating provisions that are removed. Any
changes to the summary sheets and drafts made in response to public review comments are shown
in either blue strikethrough or blue italics.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggests the following motion:
I move to APPROVE the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance to modify permissions and standards for wireless
telecommunication facilities and to perform maintenance to various identified provisions
throughout the code. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because it aligns with the Plan’s implementation guidelines that aim to
support business success, workforce development, economic prosperity, and public safety
while preserving the character of existing residential neighborhoods, and advances the
County’s efforts to ensure the tools in the code continue to work as they are intended. I also
find APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because
it incorporates zoning tools that address compatibility between necessary wireless
infrastructure and established residential neighborhoods and provides needed maintenance
for clearer and more consistent standards.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 5
TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 6 of 6
Subject Articles and Sections
Article 2: Measurements and Definitions
• Section 2.1: Measurements
• Section 2.3: Definitions and Terms
Article 3: Zoning Districts
• Section 3.1: General
o Section 3.1.3, Superseding Dimensional Standards
Article 4: Uses and Use-Specific Standards
• Section 4.2: Allocation of Principal Uses
o Table 4.2.1, Principal Use Table
• Section 4.3: Standards for Specified Principal Uses
o Section 4.3.3, Civic & Institutional Uses
Article 5: General Development Standards
• Section 5.2: Traffic, Access, and Connectivity
o Section 5.2.4, Traffic Impact Analysis
• Section 5.4: Landscaping and Buffering
o Section 5.4.6, Street Yard Standards
o Section 5.4.7, Foundation Plantings
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 6
Telecommunications Update
Code Sections Affected
Table 4.2.1, Principal Use Table Subsection 4.3.3.C, Communication and Information Facilities
Key Intent
• Reduce the potential visual impacts of wireless towers on nearby residential properties
• Require collocation onto existing towers when possible
• Prioritize nonresidential districts when new towers are needed
Changes
• The amendment incorporates a state law provision that allows the County to require evidence that new antenna and equipment cannot be collocated onto an existing tower in the applicant’s search ring. Applicants for new towers would be required to submit information with their application package explaining why collocation is not reasonably feasible. Staff has already modified the special use permit application to include this provision, but this amendment would codify the requirement in the UDO. (See Subsection 4.3.3.C)
• Special use permit applicants would be required to conduct balloon tests at proposed tower sites. These tests are sometimes voluntarily performed by tower applicants as a way of demonstrating a proposed tower’s visual impact, though the code does not currently require them. The amendment would make tests a required part of a special use permit application submittal package (See Subsection 4.3.3.C)
• The amendment clarifies that monopole structures are permitted and that lattice type structures are prohibited in residential and commercial districts.
Towers in those districts are also required to conceal feed lines, antenna, and other equipment, either within the cannister or through an alternative method of screening. Towers located within general residential districts (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5) must utilize faux tree stealthing in specific situations. (See Subsection 4.3.3.C)
• The amendment reduces setbacks for towers in nonresidential districts to incentivize developers to locate within those areas rather than in residential districts. Currently, tower setbacks are applied from residentially zoned areas at a distance equal to the height of the tower. As drafted, towers in nonresidential districts would be subject to engineered fall zones, which are certified to maintain public safety at a setback distance less than the height of the tower. (See Subsection 4.3.3.C)
• Wireless support structures are proposed as allowed by right in commercial districts to incentivize developers to locate towers within those districts rather than residential districts. Tower developers would be subject to administrative Technical Review Committee approvals in these areas, whereas developers would be required to go through the special use permit process in residential areas. Towers are currently allowed by right in the I-2 and I-2, Light and Heavy
Industrial, districts. (See Table 4.2.1)
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 3 - 1
Maintenance Amendment
Code Sections Affected
Section 2.1 Measurements Section 2.3 Definitions Section 3.1.3 Superseding Dimensional Standards Table 4.2.1 Principal Use Table Section 5.2.4 Traffic Impact Analysis Section 5.4.6 Street Yard Standards Section 5.4.7 Foundation Plantings
Key Intent
Perform technical fixes that have been identified in recent months in order to clean up and clarify assorted ordinance provisions
Changes
• The amendment codifies the County’s current practice of rounding, which
applies the general mathematical rule that any calculation or measurement less than 0.5 rounds down to the nearest whole number, and anything 0.5 or greater would round up. (See Section 2.1)
• The amendment adds a definition for Major Subdivision, which is considered any subdivision exceeding the criteria for a minor subdivision. (See Section 2.3)
• The amendment adds provisions allowing for the creation of Special Purpose Utility Lots to reduce the acreage required for necessary public infrastructure.
(See Section 3.1.3)
• The amendment fixes a clerical error by allowing the Senior Living: Assisted
Living Facility use in the B-1 district with a special use permit and subject to use-specific standards. (See Table 4.2.1)
• The amendment modernizes outdated provisions for the submittal, review, approval, and appeals processes for Traffic Impact Analyses and brings them in line with the procedures implemented by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO). (See Section 5.2.4)
• The amendment incorporates a current Staff interpretation that multi-family developments in multi-family districts are subject to the same street yard standards as multi-family developments in other districts. (See Section 5.4.6)
• The amendment clarifies how foundation plantings are calculated to better align with the increased building heights recently allowed by the code. The change makes clear that the foundation planting area is based on the area of the first floor of a building face rather than the entire façade with the goal of preventing unintended excessive landscaped areas for taller structures. (See
Section 5.4.7)
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 4 - 1
TA22-01 Draft Amendment Planning Board 2022-02
1
2.1 Measurements
CALCULATIONS AND ROUNDING
Unless otherwise expressly stated, all calculations that result in a part or a fraction of a whole number
shall round as follows:
1. Any fractional result less than 0.5 shall be rounded down to the next (lower) consecutive whole
number; and
2. Any fractional result of 0.5 or more shall be rounded up to the next consecutive (higher) whole
number.
This method of calculation and rounding shall not apply to density calculations, for which any fraction over
the density maximum shall not be allowed.
2.3 Definitions
MAJOR SUBDIVISION
See “Subdivision, Major”.
SPECIAL PURPOSE UTILITY LOT
A lot used solely for the purpose of accommodating a public utility that is not required to meet the
minimum district dimensional standards lot area, minimum lot dimensions, or minimum access
requirements of the underlying zoning district.
SUBDIVISION, MAJOR
Any subdivision that exceeds this ordinance’s criteria for a minor subdivision and is not exempted under
NCGS 160D-802.
3.1.3. Superseding Dimensional Standards
G. Special Purpose Utility Lots
Special purpose utility lots that do not meet the minimum district dimensional standards lot area,
minimum lot dimensions, or minimum access requirements may be approved by the Planning Director,
or other applicable approval authority, under the following circumstances:
1. The use of the Special Purpose Utility Lot shall be limited to the following uses as defined in this
ordinance: Electric Substation; Communications and Infrastructure uses; and General Utility Lines,
Structures, and/or Facilities.
2. The use is allowed in the zoning district subject to the principal use permissions of Table 4.2.1:
Principal Use Table.
3. The use meets the required setbacks of the zoning district.
4. The use meets any applicable use-specific and general development standards required by this
ordinance and all other applicable codes.
5. The lot has a minimum 20-foot access easement or driveway to a public or private road with an
all-weather surface access point.
6. The lot meets all Unified Development Ordinance requirements for parking and loading, tree
retention, landscaping and buffering, exterior lighting, signs, conservation resources, and airport
height restrictions.
7. The use meets all other applicable codes.
Removed to better reflect the
County’s existing practice of
density rounding
Revised for consistency
with past practices
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 5 - 1
TA22-01 Draft Amendment Planning Board 2022-02
2
4.2.1 Principal Use Permissions
Table 4.2.1: Principal Use Table
Key: P = Permitted by Right S = Special Use Permit Required * = Specific Use Standards Apply in District blank cell = not allowed
Use
Zoning District
Us
e
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
RA
AR
R-20
S
R-20
R-15
R-10
R-7
R-5
RM
F
-L
RM
F
-M
RM
F
-MH
RM
F
-H
PD
UM
X
Z
B-1
CB
B-2
O&
I
SC
SC
AC
I-1
I-2
Group Living
Senior Living: Assisted Living
Facility S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* P* P* S* S* S* 4.3.2
Communication and Information Facilities
Other Wireless
Communication Facilities
including Wireless Support
Structures & Substantial
Modifications
S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* SP
*
SP
*
SP
*
SP
*
SP
*
SP
*
SP
* P* P* 4.3.3
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 5 - 2
2022-02 Maintenance Amendment Planning Board Draft
3
4.3.3 Civic and Institutional Uses
C. Communication and Information Facilities
1. General Requirements for All Communication and Information Facilities.
The following standards shall apply to all communications and information facilities:
a. Setbacks
The following setback requirements shall apply to all communication and information
facilities except for Amateur radio antenna below 90 feet in height, which are exempt from
these requirements in accordance with NCGS 160D-905.
1. Residential Districts
The minimum setback for wireless facilities located in general residential districts
(RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5), multi-family districts, and
residentially designated portions of master planned developments shall be a
distance equal to the height of the wireless facility, as measured from the base of
the wireless facility to the tallest point, including lightning rods or similar
appurtenances.
2. All Other Districts
The minimum setback for wireless facilities located in all other districts shall be
equal to each facility’s engineered fall zone, as established by a letter sealed by a
licensed professional engineer certifying that the wireless facility will not exceed
the distance specified in the letter should the wireless facility fail. Where an
engineered fall zone certification is not submitted, wireless facilities shall be set
back a distance equal to the height of the wireless facility, as measured from the
base of the wireless facility to the tallest point, including lightning rods or similar
appurtenances.
Except for amateur radio antenna up to 90 feet, any tower, antenna, or related wireless
support structure in any zoning district shall be set back from any existing residential
property line or residential zoning district boundary a distance equal to the height of the
tower as measured from the base of the tower. In no case shall the setback for any tower,
antenna, or related structure be less than 50 feet.
b. Certification Required
All applicants seeking approval shall also submit a written affidavit from a qualified person
or persons, including evidence of their qualifications, certifying that the construction or
placement of such structures meets the provisions of the Federal Communications Act,
47 U.S.C. § 332, as amended, section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455 (a), in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), and all other applicable federal, state, and local laws.
The statement must certify that radio frequency emissions from the antenna array(s)
comply with the FCC standards. The statement shall also certify that both individually and
cumulatively the proposed facilities located on or adjacent to the proposed facility will
comply with current FCC standards. In accordance with NCGS 160D-932, the county
cannot base its permitting decision on public safety implications of radio frequency
emissions of wireless facilities.
Concept to incentivize
towers in nonresidential
districts with reduced
setbacks
Concept to incentivize
towers in nonresidential
districts with reduced
setbacks
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 5 - 3
2022-02 Maintenance Amendment Planning Board Draft
4
c. Expert Review
Outside experts and disputes are subject to the following provisions:
1. Siting of telecommunications facilities may involve complex technical issues that
require review and input by outside experts. Staff may require the applicant to
pay the reasonable costs of a third-party technical study or a proposed facility.
Selection of expert(s) to review the proposal shall be at the sole discretion of the
decision-making body.
2. If the applicant for a telecommunications facility claims that one or more
standards of this ordinance are inconsistent with federal law as applied to a
particular property, or would prohibit the effective provision of wireless
communications within the relevant market area, the decision-making body may
require that the applications be reviewed by a qualified engineer for a
determination of the accuracy of such claims. Any costs shall be charged to the
applicant.
d. Signage
Signage shall comply with the following standards.
1. Attaching commercial messages for off-site or on-site advertising shall be
prohibited.
2. The only signage that is permitted upon an antenna, wireless support structure,
equipment cabinet, or fence shall be information and for the purpose of
identifying:
i. The antenna support structure (such as ASR registration number);
ii. The party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facility;
iii. Its current address and telephone number;
iv. Security or safety signs;
v. Property manager signs for the tower (if applicable); and
vi. Signage appropriate to warn the general public as to the use of the facility
for radiofrequency transmissions.
2. Amateur Radio Antenna
Except for in the I-1 and I-2 districts, Amateur Radio Antenna 90 feet in height or taller, in addition
to the standards set forth in Subsection 4.3.3.C.1 above, shall require a Special Use Permit and
are subject to the standards of 4.3.3.C.6 below.
3. Antenna & Towers Ancillary to the Principal Use
Except for in the I-1 and I-2 districts, Antenna & Towers 70 feet in height or taller, in addition to
the standards set forth in Subsection 4.3.3.C.1 above, shall require a Special Use Permit and are
subject to the standards of 4.3.3.C.6 below.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 5 - 4
2022-02 Maintenance Amendment Planning Board Draft
5
4. Collocations
a. Wireless collocations attached to existing structures that are not considered non-
substantial modifications shall not add more than six feet to the overall height of a
structure.
b. The applicant is encouraged to provide simulated photographic evidence of the proposed
appearance of the collocation and a statement as to the potential visual and aesthetic
impacts on all adjacent residential zoning districts. The simulation should include overall
height; configuration; physical location; mass and scale; materials and color (including
proposals for steel structures); and illumination.
c. Concealed (stealth) or camouflaged facilities are encouraged when the method of
concealment is appropriate to the proposed location. Stealth facilities may include but
are not limited to: painted antenna and feed lines to match the color of a building or
structure, faux windows, dormers, or other architectural features that blend with an
existing or proposed building or structure. Freestanding stealth facilities typically have a secondary, obvious function such as a church steeple, windmill, silo, light standards,
flagpole, bell/clock tower, water tower, or tree.
5. Non-Substantial Modification
a. The applicant is encouraged to provide simulated photographic evidence of the proposed
appearance of non-substantial modification and a statement as to the potential visual and
aesthetic impacts on all adjacent residential zoning districts. The simulation should
include overall height; configuration; physical location; mass and scale; material and color
(including proposals for steel structures; and illumination.
b. Concealed (stealth) or camouflaged facilities are encouraged when the method of
concealment is appropriate to the proposed location. Stealth facilities may include but
are not limited to painted antenna and feed lines to match the color of a building or
structure, faux windows, dormers, or other architectural features that blend with an
existing or proposed building or structure. Freestanding stealth facilities typically have a
secondary, obvious function such as a church steeple, windmill, silo, light standard,
flagpole, bell/clock tower, water tower, or tree.
6. Other Wireless Communication Facilities including New Wireless Support Structures &
Substantial Modifications
a. Standards For All New Wireless Support Structures and Substantial Modifications
The following standards shall apply to all wireless support structures and substantial
modifications:
1. A landscaped buffer with a base width not less than 25 feet and providing 100
percent opacity shall be required within the wireless support structure site to
screen the exterior of protective fencing or walls. The base station and equipment
compound of the wireless support structure and each guy wire anchor must be
surrounded by a fence or wall not less than eight feet in height.
2. All wireless support structures shall be constructed to accommodate collocation.
Structures over 150 feet in height shall be engineered to accommodate at a
minimum two additional providers. Structures 150 feet or less in height shall be
engineered to accommodate at a minimum one additional provider.
Existing standards
(black italics) have
been relocated for
clarity
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 5 - 5
2022-02 Maintenance Amendment Planning Board Draft
6
3. Equipment compounds shall comply with the following standards:
i. Shall not be used for the storage of any equipment or hazardous waste
(e.g., discarded batteries) or materials not needed for the operation. No
outdoor storage yards shall be allowed in a tower equipment compound.
ii. Shall not be used as a habitable space.
4. The applicant shall submit Form 7460 to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
to assure compliance with all FAA standards and to resolve issues of concern,
including required lighting, possible transmission interference or other conflicts
when the proposed wireless support structure site is located within 10,000 feet of
an airport or within any runway approach zone.
b. Additional Standards for New Wireless Support Structures and Substantial
Modifications Allowed By-Right
The following standards shall apply to wireless support structures and substantial
modifications allowed by-right:
1. Except in the I-1 and I-2 districts, wireless support structures shall be monopole or
unipole construction; guyed or lattice-type towers are prohibited.
2. Except in the I-1 and I-2 districts, all wireless equipment, including any feed lines,
antennas, and accessory equipment, must be enclosed in the tower cannister,
camouflaged, screened, obscured, mounted flush, or otherwise not readily
apparent to a casual observer.
c. Additional Standards for New Wireless Support Structures and Substantial
Modifications Requiring Special Use Permits
Where Special Use Permits are required, all of the following standards shall be applied,
and all requirements must be met. Additional conditions may be determined to mitigate
negative impacts, and the permit should be approved only if all negative impacts can be
mitigated. No reduction in setbacks may be granted for this use for increased buffers.
The minimum distance between the wireless support structure and any other
adjoining parcel of land or road must be equal to the minimum setback described
in Subsection 4.3.3.C.1.a above, plus any additional distance necessary to ensure
that the wireless support structure, as designed, will fall within the wireless
support structure site.
1. The applicant shall provide evidence that collocating new antennae and
equipment on an existing wireless support structure or structures within the
applicant’s search ring is not reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this section,
collocation on an existing wireless support structure is not reasonably feasible if
the collocation is technically or commercially impractical or the owner of the
existing wireless support structure is unwilling to enter into a contract for such use
at fair market value.
2. The applicant shall conduct a balloon test prior to the submittal of provide
simulated photographic evidence of the proposed appearance of the wireless
support structure and wireless facilities. The applicant shall arrange to raise a
colored balloon no less than three (3) feet in diameter at the maximum height of
Setbacks for all
wireless facilities
addressed in
Subsection
4.3.3.C.1.a
Concept to require
balloon tests
Concepts to
address structural
and aesthetic
design standards
Concept to require
collocation when
feasible, per NCGS
160D-933(c)
Existing standards
(black italics) have
been relocated for
clarity
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 5 - 6
2022-02 Maintenance Amendment Planning Board Draft
7
the proposed wireless support structure. The balloon test shall provide the basis
for simulated photographic evidence from four vantage points and a statement
as to the potential visual and aesthetic impacts on all adjacent residential zoning
districts. The simulation shall include overall height; configuration; physical
location; mass and scale; materials and color (including proposals for stealth
structures); and illumination.
3. Wireless support structures shall be monopole or unipole construction; guyed or
lattice-type towers are prohibited.
4. All wireless equipment, including any feed lines, antennas, and accessory
equipment, must be enclosed in the tower cannister, camouflaged, screened,
obscured, mounted flush, or otherwise not readily apparent to a casual observer.
5. Wireless support structures located within general residential districts (RA, AR, R-
20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5) shall be required to utilize faux tree stealthing
except where a structure is proposed in an area containing such dense existing
tree clusters that the structure is not visible from existing single-family or duplex
residential uses and/or platted lots located within a general residential district.
Faux structures shall be designed to match a species of tree located within the
existing cluster of trees in which a structure is proposed.
i. A wireless support structure may be exempted from this requirement only
by the Board of Commissioners as a condition of approval on the special
use permit.
ii. Concealed (stealth) or camouflaged facilities are encouraged when the method
of concealment is appropriate to the proposed location. Attached stealth facilities
may include but are not limited to painted antenna and feed lines to match the
color of a building or structure, faux windows, dormers, or other architectural
features that blend with an existing or proposed building or structure.
Freestanding stealth facilities typically have a secondary, obvious function such
as a church steeple, windmill, silo, light standards, flagpole, bell/clock tower,
water tower, or tree.
6. The proposed appearance of concealed or non-concealed facilities shall be
evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding community prior to submission
of the special use permit application. Applicants shall meet with Planning and
Land Use staff for a preliminary review of proposed appearance in order to assure
each facility will impose the least obtrusive visual impact.
d. Standards for Nonconforming Wireless Support Structures
Any wireless support structure and associated equipment which was lawfully constructed
under the terms of the Ordinance, which is now considered a nonconforming
improvement, may continue or be reconstructed as a conforming improvement even
though the wireless support structure and associated equipment may not conform with
the provisions of this ordinance for the district in which it is located. Wireless support
structures and associated equipment may only be enlarged and/or relocated if the
enlarged or relocated wireless support structure: is considered an eligible facilities
request, eliminates the need for an additional wireless support structure, provides
additional collocation opportunities on the wireless support structure, or provides
Concept to require
faux tree stealthing
where applicable in
general residential
districts
Concepts to
address structural
and aesthetic
design standards
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 5 - 7
2022-02 Maintenance Amendment Planning Board Draft
8
additional antenna space on the wireless support structure; and provided further than
the enlargement and/or relocation shall be in conformance with the following regulations
and design limitations:
1. Wireless support structure height may not be increased by more than 10 percent
of the originally constructed structure height, except where either of the
following is applicable:
i. The district in which the wireless support structure is located would allow
the increase by right, or
ii. The wireless support structure was originally permitted as a special use
permit and applicant obtains a special use permit modification, as
described in UDO Section 10.3.5 Special Use Permit.
2. A wireless support structure shall be allowed to be reconstructed and relocated
within the boundaries of the property on which it is located so long as the
decrease in the setbacks does not exceed 10 percent of the originally
constructed structure height and the relocated structure is sited to minimize any
increase in the existing nonconformity. Any request to reconstruct and relocate
the structure where the resulting decrease in setback exceeds 10 percent of the
originally constructed structure height shall require a special use permit or
special use permit modification, as described in UDO Section 10.3.5, Special Use
Permit.
5.2.4. Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet
Before a nonresidential project is submitted for site plan review, the applicant shall prepare a Traffic
Impact Worksheet to the Planning Director for verification.
A. Where an application the worksheet indicates estimated traffic generation of 100 or more peak
hour trips according to the most current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual, the applicant shall be required to provide a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
in accordance with the standards, practices, and policies of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) and the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(WMPO).
B. If a TIA is required to be submitted, the applicant or the applicant’s consulting engineer shall
follow all scoping, submittal, review, approval, and appeal procedures promulgated by the NCDOT
and WMPO. request a pre-application conference with the Planning Director, the MPO
Coordinator, and an NCDOT Traffic Engineer to determine the scope of the TIA. (Electronic
communication among parties may be utilized to facilitate the scoping process, when necessary.)
C. All TIAs shall be prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer that has relevant professional experience
to perform the analysis required for the TIA. Upon completion, the TIA shall be signed and sealed
by the licensed and qualified Traffic Engineer and submitted to the Planning Director for review.
(To the extent applicable, general guidance and standards for traffic impact analyses is outlined
in “Traffic Impact Study Standards” originally approved by the County Commissioners on May 20,
2002.)
D. The Planning Director, in collaboration with the MPO Coordinator and NCDOT, shall determine
whether the TIA and proposed mitigation (if appropriate) complies with the requirements of this
section, or whether additional analysis or mitigation is necessary based on identifiable cumulative
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 5 - 8
2022-02 Maintenance Amendment Planning Board Draft
9
impacts or special public safety situations. The collaboration shall follow procedures already
established by the MPO for communication with all parties.
E. The Planning Director shall notify the applicant with comments within 30 days of receipt of the
final TIA.
F. Once the mitigation measures are agreed upon by the MPO, NCDOT and County, the Wilmington
MPO will prepare a memorandum approving the TIA, identifying the transportation
improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Mitigation measures
required as part of the TIA acceptance shall be included in the final site plan submitted for review.
G. An applicant may appeal a final decision on the mitigation required by a TIA to the Board of
Adjustment, by filing an appeal request within 10 working days of a final decision, to the Board of
Adjustment, in the form of a letter stating the reasons for appeal and including documentation in
support of the appeal. In hearing disputes, the Board of Adjustment may request an independent
study by an outside source, chosen by the County and paid for by the applicant, to resolve
questions of traffic impact and appropriate mitigation.
H. Nothing in this section may be construed to exempt an applicant from obtaining other applicable
approvals from the NCDOT, including but not limited to a NCDOT Driveway Permit.
5.4.6. Street Yard Standards
Table 5.4.6.B: Street Yard Area Standards
Zoning District or Use Required Area
B-2, CS, I-1, I-2, AC
• 25 square feet for every linear foot of
street yard frontage
• Minimum street yard width: 12.5 feet
• Maximum street yard width: 37.5 feet
B-1, CB, O&I, RMF-L, RMF-M, RMF-MH, RMF-H, EDZD,
UMXZ Districts
Developments with Additional Dwelling Allowance or
High-Density Development Special Use Permit
• 18 square feet for every linear foot of
street yard frontage
• Minimum street yard width: 9 feet
• Maximum street yard width: 27 feet
Non-Residential Uses in Residential Districts
• 12 square feet for every linear foot of
street yard frontage
• Minimum street yard width: 8 feet
• Maximum street yard width: 18 feet
− The road fronting width of driveways are not included in the linear street frontage when determining the base street
yard area.
− The area of any walkways, sidewalks or other bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit amenities shall be subtracted
from the base street yard area required above to get the total required street yard area.
− Areas designated for stormwater functions, except piped areas, shall not be included in the required street yard area.
− The applicant may choose to increase the required square footage per linear foot up to 25 percent to receive an
equivalent reduction in the building’s front yard setback.
− The applicant may install the street yard in any configuration that provides the required amount of street yard square
footage between the property line and any site improvements as long as it remains in compliance with the minimum
and maximum widths outlined above.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 5 - 9
2022-02 Maintenance Amendment Planning Board Draft
10
5.4.7. Foundation Plantings
A. Foundation plantings located between the building face and the parking lot or drive aisle shall be
required for all portions of buildings adjacent to parking lots or internal drive aisles.
B. The following minimum standards are required, though additional landscaping is encouraged:
1. The foundation planting area shall be a minimum of 12 percent of the area of the first-floor
building face, or building face up to 25 feet in height, whichever is less, adjacent to the parking
area or internal drive; and.
2. The foundation planting area shall be planted as landscaped areas of sufficient variety, height,
and size, with plantings listed in “Tree and Plant Materials for Landscaping.”
C. Exemptions from foundation plantings may be granted by the Planning Director when the following
circumstances exist or when any of the following conditions are proposed on the site:
1. For those portions of buildings that have drive-up services (e.g., pharmacies, banks, fast food
restaurants, dry cleaners, photo shops, etc.); and
2. On the rear side of a building when less than 10 percent of the total required parking is located
in the rear of the building and the rear is not adjacent to any public right-of-way.
Planning Board - February 3, 2022
ITEM: 4 - 5 - 10