2022-01-06 PB MINUTES
1 | Page
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
January 6, 2022
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on January 6, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in the New
Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members Present Staff Present
Jeffrey Petroff, Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Donna Girardot, Vice Chair Marty Little, Long-Range Planner
Allen Pope Julian Griffee, Current Planner
Jeffrey Stokley Jr. Ron Meredith, Current Planner
Hansen Matthews Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
Colin J. Tarrant
Absent Members
Paul Boney
Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with all members present, and excused Board Member
Paul Boney’s absence. Planning Manager, Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the December 2, 2021, Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or
amendments were identified. Board Member Allen Pope made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Hansen
Matthews to approve the minutes as drafted.
Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0
NEW BUSINESS
Board member Hansen Matthews requested recusal from this item due to a conflict of interest. Vice Chair Donna
Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Allen Pope to recuse Mr. Matthews.
Motion to approve recusal of Board Member Hansen Matthews carried 5-0.
Rezoning Request (Z21-20) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of the property
owners, Milton T Shaffer, III, and ABA Self Storage, LLC, to rezone approximately 1.93 acres of land located at
4629 and 4631 Carolina Beach Road from (CZD) B-1, Conditional Neighborhood Business District, and (CZD) B-2,
Conditional Regional Business District, to (CZD) B-2 Conditional Regional Business District.
Planner Julian Griffee provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and
zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of
the proposed application as referred to in the staff report.
Mr. Griffee stated that the applicant was proposing to rezone approximately 1.93 acres from (CZD) B-1, and
(CZD) B-2, to (CZD) B-2. He explained that the current zoning was approved in the early 2000s as part of a
mixed-use development containing a movie theater that had never been constructed and that limited use of
the subject property to parking. He stated the applicant proposed a 22,000 square foot structure that would
house 17,000 square feet of indoor recreation area and 5,000 square feet of general retail and grooming
services, and a 10-foot buffer yard with a fence along the property lines abutting the multi-family property
located to the east and south. He stated the site had direct access to Carolina Beach Road and would have
right-in, right-out only access.
2 | Page
Mr. Griffee stated the property currently generated zero trips. He stated if the site were developed under its
current zoning, it would generate an estimate of approximately 0 trips. The proposed zoning district would
generate an estimated 46 am peak hour trips and 73 pm hour peak trips as general retail uses typically
generated the bulk of their trips in the pm hours. This would result in a net increase of 46 am peak hour trips
and 73 pm peak hour trips.
Mr. Griffee stated the site was located within the Community Mixed Use place type, which focuses on small-
scale, compact, mixed-use development patterns where transitional service uses and low traffic generators could
be appropriate.
He stated the proposed (CZD) B-2 zoning was consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan
because the proposed uses were more consistent with the uses outlined for the Community Mixed Use place
type than current zoning allowed, the district was located within a transitional area, and the uses around the
subject site were a mix of commercial, residential, and institutional. He stated if the rezoning were approved,
development of the site would be subject to full technical review to ensure all land regulations were met.
Ms. Cindee Wolf, on behalf of property owners Milton T. Shaffer, III and ABA Self Storage, LLC, provided a summary
description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Mr. Griffee had presented.
Ms. Wolf stated that this proposal was for a recreational facility that provided agility training and recreation for
dogs with their owners and was not intended to be a doggie daycare or include an outdoor run. She stated regarding
parking, based on square footage, there would possibly be a dozen people at one time coming and going from this
facility, unless there was an event. She stated there would be a good amount of parking on site and arrangements
had been made with the business across the street for event parking. She stated the site was currently zoned for
business; however, the applicant was proposing to change the conditions and types of uses based on the limitations
of existing zoning discussed earlier.
In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated all dog training and agility course use would take place
internally, which was why the facility was such a large structure to the rear of the retail.
In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated the building would be a metal structure. She stated the intent
was for the retail to be storefront retail with a glass façade, which would be primarily seen from the streetscape
when traveling on Carolina Beach Road. She stated the side facing the parking lot would include attractive
architectural features. She stated the backside abutted a storage facility and would be the standard metal siding on
a metal building. She stated the applicant would agree to the condition of a storefront façade and that the façade
facing southeast would have architectural features and not metal siding.
In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated there was not connectivity for access to the storage facility
as their facility is gated. She stated both the proposal and the storage facility would be right in – right out to Carolina
Beach Road only.
In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated there was a big pipe that was under the road for stormwater,
and she was hoping they could do some under-pavement infiltration. She stated because there was not a huge need
for daily parking, some of the extra parking could possibly be gravel, so the pond could be reduced, and that there
were decent soils along the back section of the site, so splitting up the stormwater could also be an option.
In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated regarding the overflow parking at the lodge across the street,
there were no safety concerns regarding persons crossing Carolina Beach Road. She stated if there were an event,
there would be a shuttle bus available.
In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated the new Unified Development Ordinance had very specific
uses, which was the reason kennels and doggie daycares were not in their list of uses. She stated that should the
current proposal cease in the future, the property would still be available for recreational and retail uses.
3 | Page
In response to questions of the Board, Planning Manager Ken Vafier stated any condition related to the building
facade would need to be worded to cover what the intent was. He stated based on the conversation, he would
suggest wording along the lines that the southwest and southeast facing facades of the building be constructed of
an architectural material and/or architectural features as opposed to industrial or blank metal façade.
Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition.
With no further opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion.
After further discussion from the Board, Board Member Allen Pope made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Donna
Girardot to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-2 district The Board found it to be
consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district would allow uses more in
line with those recommended for Community Mixed-Use areas than the existing zoning. The Board also found
recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed
district would allow for a use of the property, including relatively low traffic generators, and was in a transitional
area between the Monkey Junction commercial node and a mixed-use node under development, with the condition
that the applicant be required to adhere to a heightened architectural feature beyond the standard industrial style
sheathing for the southwest and southeast portions of the building.
The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 5-0
OTHER ITEMS
Unified Development Ordinance Update (Telecommunications)
Long Range Planner, Marty Little provided an overview of the draft concepts of an amendment to the Unified
Development Ordinance to update the county’s telecommunications standards.
He stated the Board of Commissioners requested that staff explore potential amendments to the county’s current
telecommunication standards that would reduce the potential impact of wireless towers on nearby residential
properties, require collocation on existing towers if possible, and prioritize nonresidential districts when new towers
are needed. He stated staff had prepared a draft amendment that incorporated five key strategies to address these
concerns.
Mr. Little stated as drafted the amendment required applicants to provide evidence explaining why collocation of a
new antenna onto an existing nearby tower was not reasonably feasible. This provision had already been
incorporated into the special use permit application, but the amendment would codify the changes into the Unified
Development Ordinance. He stated the amendment would require that a balloon test be conducted at proposed
tower sites to help simulate a tower’s perceived visual impact. He stated the amendment incorporated structural
and aesthetic design standards like prohibiting lattice towers and requiring equipment to be fully screened in all but
industrial districts and applied faux tree standards to towers located in residential districts. He stated staff added to
the amendment that an applicant could be exempt from the faux tree stealthing if it did not make sense in a
particular area but could only take place with the condition of approval agreed on by the Board.
Mr. Little stated the amendment also modified the setbacks for wireless support structures in commercial and
industrial districts to reflect modern engineered fall zone practices and proposed allowing towers by right in
commercial districts to incentivize developers to locate towers within those districts rather than residential areas.
He stated staff also reorganized the wireless tower section to be clear as to which standards applied to staff level
permits and which remained applicable to those towers that still required special use permits.
Mr. Little stated provided more detailed information about the feedback received regarding the draft amendments
and asked for more direction from the Board as to what direction they wanted to take. Vice Chair Girardot confirmed
with Mr. Little that the changes being made by the county to the ordinance would incorporate the new amendment
changes and nothing else. In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Little stated he had not received feedback from
4 | Page
the companies that install the towers, however he had emailed Board Member Tarrant to remove some subjectivity
out of an earlier draft to produce what was discussed at this meeting.
Unified Development Ordinance Ongoing Maintenance Amendment Discussion
Long Range Planner, Marty Little provided an overview of potential maintenance amendments. He stated that
refining the county’s telecommunication standards provided staff an opportunity to incorporate technical fixes
within the amendment as an ongoing effort to ensure the tools of the UDO continue to work the way they were
intended.
Mr. Little explained staff added provisions to the UDO measurement section clarifying the method of rounding,
specifying that any calculation measuring less than .5 would round down to the nearest whole number and anything
measuring .5 or greater would round up to the nearest whole number and noted that these would not apply to
density calculations.
Mr. Little stated staff wanted to propose a definition for “Major Subdivision”. He stated the UDO defined
“subdivision” and “minor subdivision” but was not explicitly clear that a subdivision exceeding any of the criteria for
a minor subdivision would constitute a major subdivision.
Mr. Little stated the amendment would allow for special purpose utility lots that could be created for public utilities
and would not be required to meet the minimum lot size, dimensions, or access requirements of the underlying
zoning district. He stated utility uses on special purpose lots would still be held to the UDO’s requirements for parking,
lighting, airport height restrictions, buffering and other applicable codes.
He stated staff was also proposing that the Senior Living: Assisted Living Facility use be allowed with a special use
permit in the B-1 neighborhood business district for consistency.
Mr. Little stated the amendment would clarify that street yard standards that applied to other multifamily
developments in the county would also within our multifamily RMF districts and would align the county’s standards
for foundation plantings with recently adopted changes to commercial and multifamily building heights. He stated
that currently foundation plantings must be 12% of the area of the building’s entire façade, but now that larger
structures are allowed, this requirement would lead to landscaped areas more excessive than what the ordinance
intended.
Mr. Little stated the final proposed amendment would modify the traffic analysis section of the code to reflect the
current practice for Traffic Impact Analysis scoping and approval. He stated the current provisions were adopted in
2002 and processes had changed since then, and this section could be misleading to applicants and was not aligned
with the approval or appeals process of the WMPO or NCDOT.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Little stated the special purpose utility lot would not be defined by the
ownership of the lot but by the use.
Mr. Little stated staff was looking to release these items for public comment and anticipated to have them along
with the telecommunication standards before the board in February with a decision from the Board of
Commissioners in March.
Chair Jeffrey Petroff adjourned the meeting at 6:32 p.m.
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting