Loading...
2022-03-03 PB MINUTES 1 | P a g e Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board March 3, 2022 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on February 3, 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 Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning Donna Girardot, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Hansen Matthews Zachary Dickerson, Current Planner Colin J. Tarrant Amy Doss, Current Planner Paul Boney Ron Meredith, Current Planner Jeffrey Stokley Jr. Julian Griffee, Current Planner Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Absent Members Allen Pope Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Planning Manager, Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the February 3, 2022, Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Colin Tarrant made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Matthews to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0 NEW BUSINESS 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. This item was continued from the February 3, 2022, meeting. Planning Manager Ken Vafier 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. Vafier stated that the applicant was proposing to rezone approximately 5 acres of land from R-15 to CZD B-2. He stated the proposal consisted of two enclosed self-storage buildings totaling 39,000 square feet on the northern portion of the parcel closest to Sidbury Road. He stated the buildings were proposed to be one story with a maximum height of 25 feet, with one acre on the southern portion of the parcel, proposed for recreational vehicle and boat storage. He stated the proposal also incorporated required parking, internal circulation drives, required landscaping and buffering and stormwater management. He stated there was a 20-foot-wide transitional buffer proposed to be located on the west, south and east boundaries of the site. He stated there was an 8-foot-high fence along the west and south boundaries of the site adjacent to Sidbury Farms, and street yard plantings would be required along the Sidbury Road frontage. Mr. Vafier stated access was proposed from Sidbury Road and would be subject to NCDOT Driveway Permitting regulations. Mr. Vafier stated as currently zoned, the site was estimated to generate approximately 13 trips during peak if developed at the permitted by-right density of 2.5 units per acre. He stated the proposed use was anticipated to generate approximately 6 AM peak hour and 11 PM peak hour trips. He stated the net change from the 2 | P a g e potential trip generation if the site was developed under the existing R-15 district shows a decrease of 7 AM peak hour trips and a decrease in 2 PM peak hours trips. Mr. Vafier stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the property within the Community Mixed-Use place type with the intent to allow land use patterns with commercial services and moderate density residential development within this area of the county. He stated while the use was not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, the subject site’s location would provide a service to nearby future residents and could provide a transition to a land use pattern with additional commercial services available. Mr. Vafier stated the proposal was generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan because it allowed for an appropriate use in the Community Mixed-Use place type and would provide lower-intensity commercial service in a transitional area. Mr. Vafier stated the applicant proposed the following 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 plantings. He stated if the rezoning were approved, the project and further development of the site would be subject to full technical review and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all zoning requirements. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, on behalf of Atlantic Coast Holdings, LLC., provided a summary description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Mr. Vafier had presented. Ms. Wolf stated that Sidbury Road was an arterial roadway that would ultimately support vehicular circulation for many residential developments and the vision for the area. She stated the Comprehensive Plan applied the place type of Community Mixed-Use along the Sidbury Road corridor. She stated the proposed storage facility would provide commercial services for development and the desire for self-storage facilities within a 3-mile range of a residence had become an industry standard. She stated the project would consist of single-story buildings with a small office. She stated once rented out there would be gates, security, and cameras. She stated the applicant proposed at the rear of the site the limited amount of boat storage as prescribed in the code. She stated there was currently an extensive buffer previously provided by the developer of the lots between the residential area and the proposed project, and that the applicant would provide an 8-foot-high fence along the western and southern boundaries. She stated that the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would promote policies of economic development that promote continued efforts to attract new businesses and that sustainability of the county depends on sensible infill and maximizing use of lands where these services will be needed. She stated that the applicant agreed with the conditions stated by Mr. Vafier. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. No one from the public was signed up to speak. In response to questions of the board, Ms. Wolf stated it made sense to start the commercial node in this area as there was convenient access to the Blue Clay Road and Dairy Farm Road. She stated near the overpass would probably be where other commercial services would be located and would not impact current residents. 3 | P a g e In response to questions of the board, Mr. Vafier stated that there was a newer code standard for this type of use that limited the height of any boat or recreational vehicle located within 45-feet of the property line to a maximum of 12 feet and any other boat or recreational vehicle to a maximum of 14 feet. He stated the new lighting standards state that the illumination levels at the shared property line, and in this instance the exterior or the interior lighting on the site, could not exceed a half-foot candle at the lot line. Mr. Vafier stated there were instances where hours of operation were mutually agreed upon between the board and applicant and varied depending on what the existing adjacent businesses would be. He stated that in one instance vehicle maintenance or maintenance on the boats was not permitted as a condition Ms. Wolf stated that the lighting would be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee. She stated hours of operation could be discussed, however they were not impacting existing residential communities. She stated with the storage facilities there would not be any businesses run out of the units. In response to questions of the board, Ms. Wolf stated there would be a combination of fencing and landscaping along the boundary lines along Sidbury Farms. In response to questions of the board, Ms. Rebekah Roth stated as mentioned at last month’s meeting, staff would be working on a timeline and a plan as to what the requested small area study for the Sidbury Road area would look like to present to the board next month. She stated that the timeline for the project would be based on how much information the board felt needed to be put together. She stated staff had information available, but it depended on what additional information was required to determine what the timeline would look like. With no opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After further discussion regarding traffic and the project design from the Board, Board member Jeff Stokely made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney 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 project would allow for an appropriate use in the Community Mixed-Use place type. The Board found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the site was located on a collector street near an approved subdivision and within a larger area identified for future growth with the following 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 foundations landscaping, will be incorporated along the Sidbury Road building façade to enhance the aesthetics of the streetscape, 3. Both the west an sough boundaries of the tract will be buffered with an 8-foodt high solid screening fence, along with required plantings, 4. Hours of operation would be limited to 6 AM and 10 PM, 5. Washing and maintenance within that area would be prohibited. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0. Rezoning Request (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 Residential District for a 48-unit townhome development. This item was continued from the February 3, 2022, meeting. Current Planner Zachary Dickerson 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. Dickerson stated that the applicant was proposing to rezone approximately 6.13 acres from R-15 CZD R- 5 for a 48-unit townhome development. He stated fenced buffering was proposed behind the townhomes adjacent to the remaining R-15 properties. He stated access to the property would be restricted to 4 | P a g e northbound Carolina Beach Road and that NCDOT would require a right-turn lane be installed along northbound Carolina Beach Road. Mr. Dickerson provided information indicating that the property currently generated 1 AM peak hour trip and 1 PM peak hour trip. He stated if the site were developed under its current zoning, it would generate an estimate of approximately 11 AM peak hour trips and 15 PM peak hour trips. He stated that the proposed zoning district would generate an estimated 22 AM peak hour trips and 27 PM peak hour trips. This would result in a net increase of 11 AM peak hour trips and 12 PM peak hour trips. Mr. Dickerson stated the site had been zoned R-15 since 1971 but since then water and sewer had become more available to the surrounding area. He stated the Comprehensive Plan classified the area as Community Mixed Use place type and that the proposal was generally consistent with the recommendations of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan of high-density single-family development. Mr. Dickerson stated that according to the applicant, the project was proposed to meet the price criteria for workforce housing in the 81-120% Area Median Income range as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, adjusted for household size. He stated restrictive covenants would be created to ensure owner occupancy and restrict investments or short-term rentals. He stated if the rezoning were approved, development of the site would be subject to full technical and zoning review to ensure compliance with all ordinance requirements. Ms. Jodi Wainio, President of Wilmington Realtors Foundation provided a brief summary of the proposed project. She provided information to their intent and parameters of providing affordable housing. She stated the target price point for the neighborhood was $250,000 and was in a USDA eligible which allowed for 100% financing for qualified individuals purchasing the property. She stated to protect affordability, there would be a deed restriction on each unit requiring that the owner reside in the property and that it never be used as an investment or rental property. Cindee Wolf, on behalf of property owners Wilmington Realtors Foundation, Barry Dean Cribb, and Polly Greene Cribb, provided a summary description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Ms. Wainio had presented. Ms. Wolf stated that transitional uses along a busy highway was a logical planning principle and that most residents who desire single-family homes seldom want to be along an arterial corridor like this but residents who had limited means could afford their own homes in communities that could keep the cost lower based upon a higher density of the product. She stated that the proposal was for a 48 single family attached townhome style community with single car garages. She stated that the duplexes would be designed with the master on the main which was desirable to a more aged community. In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated the applicant has had conversations with CFPUA. She stated regarding the timeline, if this proposal were to be approved, there would be funding to deal with and then they would move forward as quickly as possible. She stated they would be extending water currently located around the Cathay Road area which CFPUA requested be upsized and that there were development agreements in place addressing this. She stated the applicant would be responsible for the payment of the 8-inch line, and the upsizing that would be installed would be jointly paid for by the CFPUA. She stated the sewer system would come down Carolina Beach Road and would provide accessibility to the properties that it passed through. In response to questions of the board Ms. Wainio stated meeting the price criteria was a requirement of the program. She stated that they would raise additional funding if necessary to keep the price-point at the $250,000 range. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. With no opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. 5 | P a g e After further discussion from the Board, Board Member Jeff Stokely made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Matthews to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) R-5 district. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provided for the types and mixture of uses recommended in the Community Mixed-Use place type and the residential densities were in line with those recommended for the property. The Board also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request 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. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0 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. This item was continued from the February 3, 2022, meeting. Current Planner Amy Doss stated that staff had received notice from the applicant requesting a continuance of the rezoning application and deferred to the April Planning Board meeting. Board member Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Donna Girardot for a continuance of the zoning request. The motion for continuance of the rezoning request carried 6-0. Rezoning Request (Z22-06) - Request by Andy Etters, applicant and property owner, to rezone approximately 29.39 acres of land located at 312 Hermitage Road from R-20, Residential District, to (CZD) CS, Commercial Services District for warehousing and office flex space and a nursery. Planner Ron Meredith 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. Meredith explained that the site was undeveloped. He stated when the R-20 district was applied to the area, public utilities were limited to and many homes in the unincorporated areas of the county utilized private wells and septic. Mr. Meredith stated that water was now available in the area and the applicant was proposing connections to the CFPUA water and to utilize private septic systems in the area. Mr. Meredith stated the CS district was intended to provide a clear place for necessary businesses that weren’t optimally located near residential neighborhoods sometimes referred to as heavy commercial. He stated the applicant was proposing to construct a 130,000 square foot business park and to preserve the existing nursery on the site located to the south of the subject parcel. He stated the units were anticipated to be located within 11 buildings with a maximum of 40-feet in height and contain 3 to 4 units. He stated each building would range from about 9,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet. He stated access was proposed to be provided to the subject property from Hermitage Road, a state-maintained road. Mr. Meredith stated the Traffic Impact Analysis conducted for the project was approved by the NCDOT and WMPO and that the proposal was estimated to generate approximately 185 trips during peak hours Mr. Meredith stated the proposal was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it allowed for the types of commercial uses encouraged in the employment center place type and, the district was in a transitional area which would provide a transition between the light-industrial uses to the east and the current low-intensity development that may transition in the future. 6 | P a g e Mr. Meredith stated that the applicant had agreed to the condition that the total square footage of business park flex space would be limited to a maximum of 130,000 square feet. He stated if the rezoning were approved, the project would be subject to technical review to ensure full compliance with all zoning requirements. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Allison Engebretson of Paramounte Engineering, on behalf of Mr. Andy Etters, provided a summary description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Mr. Meredith had presented. Ms. Engebretson stated the Future Land Use Plan, identified Hermitage Road as an employment center and the applicant was proposing to build 130,000 square feet of flexible space. She stated the applicant intended to keep the rear portion of the property for his current nursery business. She stated the stormwater facility would be located closer to the residential homes and that the existing landscape nursery would remain. She stated a TIA was conducted and indicated two main items would be that a right turn lane would be required on Hermitage Road out onto Castle Hayne Road and a left turn lane onto Crowatan Road which would be the two main accesses to this site. In response to questions of the board, Ms. Engebretson stated there were approval issues that did not align with the recommendation in the traffic report provided by NCDOT. She stated she understood that there was sewer that ran to Chair Road but did not run past the site. In response to questions of the board, Ms. Engebretson stated the proposal was intended as a for lease product either build to suit, or spec built for tenant. She stated the TIA did factor in truck and vehicle traffic and assign certain breakdowns. She stated the applicant was looking at providing a product with a brick façade with landscaping to not have direct view of the building. In response to questions of the board, Ms. Engebretson stated there were laydown yards located in the back of the proposed site for storage. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Etters stated the levels of service and operations of those intersections were fine in the traffic study even with the full buildout of the site, however when they reviewed the TIA, the turn lanes were added as requirements. He stated that at some point they would work with NCDOT and WMPO to phase the road improvements. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Hearing no opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After further discussion from the board, Board Member Jeff Stokley Jr. made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to (CZD) CS district. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it would allow for the types of commercial uses encouraged in the employment center place type. The Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed district would provide a transition between light industrial uses to the east and current lower density development that may transition in the future with the condition that the total square footage of business park flex space be limited to a maximum of 130,000 square feet. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0 Rezoning Request (Z22-07) - Request by Adam G. Sosne, applicant, on behalf of Grove Park Properties, property owner, to rezone approximately 16.26 acres of land located at 5550 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential District, to RMF-MH, Residential Multi-Family Medium-High Density District. 7 | P a g e 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 16.26 acres from R-15 to RMF- MH. He stated that the current zoning was approved in the early 1970s. He stated under the current zoning conditions, the parcel could accommodate 40 single-family dwelling and under the proposed zoning, the parcel could accommodate a maximum of 406 multi-family units. He stated the site had access to a service road that directly connected to Carolina Beach Road both northwest and south of the Monkey Junction Intersection. He stated that the applicant indicated that another access may be possible on the north side of the parcel to the service road. Mr. Griffee provided information indicating that the property currently generated 35 AM peak hour trips and 40 PM peak hour trips. He stated if the site were developed under its current zoning, it would generate an estimate of approximately 28 AM peak hour trips and 38 PM peak hour trips. The proposed zoning district would generate an estimated 167 AM peak hour trips and 159 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 132 AM peak hour trips and 119 PM peak hour trips. Mr. Griffee stated the site was located within the Urban Mixed Use place type, which focused on residential and business development at higher density than the development allowed within the existing R-15 zoning district. He stated the proposed RMF-MH zoning was more in line with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses were more consistent with the uses outlined for the Urban Mixed Use place type, which focused on residential and business development at higher density. He stated while staff would have preferred to see a conditional rezoning request for a higher density district on the site given potential traffic impacts and proximity to low density residential neighborhoods, the RMF-MH district was designed to be used in this specific type of situation. 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. Amy Schaefer, on behalf of Mr. Adam Sosne property owners, provided a summary description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Mr. Griffee had presented. Ms. Schaefer stated that this proposal had proposed secondary access to the site. She stated the applicant had a B- 2 property located to the north under contract and were not asking for it to be included in the rezoning request but were hoping for the property to be included as part of the overall plan. She stated Citrus Cove requested that there be no connectivity through that neighborhood. She stated the current site was being used as a non-conforming mobile home park. She stated the proposed zoning was multi-family medium-high density and would require buffers up to 100 feet from residential based on the height of the proposed buildings. She stated a Traffic Impact Analysis had not been done because there was not yet a site plan in place, however the project would be located off a service road and there would be no direct traffic to Carolina Beach Road. She stated Davenport Engineering conducted a study of the area that showed there would not be the potential of more traffic to the turn lanes shown, because of the traffic patterns already developed. Ms. Schaefer stated zoning approval would revitalize the commercial corridors, promote environmentally friendly growth through cluster development, and provide housing opportunities in the growth node. She stated the project would be required to complete a full stormwater analysis to bring it to current code. She stated the project was in the Monkey Junction growth node and in proximity to the city limits which would allow for a more urban design. Ms. Schaeffer addressed staffs preferred recommendation of a conditional rezoning and referred to section 10.3.3 8 | P a g e of the Unified Development Code. She stated the proposal for multi-family housing, at this site and growth node, was not appropriate for single family or business, but for multi-family which was which was called for in the county’s adopted plan. She stated because the county and state had programs in place, the applicant would have to go through the county and state regarding stormwater as well as WMPO and NCDOT regarding traffic, therefore a conditional rezoning was not necessary. In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Schaefer stated this project would provide the opportunity for more housing which created a market for more affordable housing. She stated the hope would be that the more units that were provided the less the units would cost. In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Shaefer stated the applicant was currently under contract to purchase the property but was not the property owner at this time. NC Statutes require that a 180-day notice be provided to residents regarding displacement. She stated the applicant planned that once the proposal was approved and he had purchased the property, he would provide additional time. In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Schaefer stated that any type of development on the parcel would require both ingresses and egresses based on the traffic analysis. She stated that if the B-2 property was not transferred to the applicant he would have to find another means of ingress and egress to make the project compatible. She stated the plan with the project is to have two ingress and egresses. Board member Paul Boney expressed his concerns to Ms. Schaeffer’s responses to questions asked by the board. He stated the information he was provided prior to the meeting was not the same information being presented to the board at this meeting. He stated that there were too many uncertainties in the responses they were given and voiced his concerns with the applicant’s rush for approval and inability to provide information for the board to make a decide. In response to comments of the board, Ms. Schaefer stated that the closing date was scheduled for early May. Board Member Paul Boney asked why the applicant could not return after the closing, when they have completed the plans so that they would be able to return to the board with their intentions for the proposal. Mr. Boney stated he did not understand what the rush was since they would not have the property until May. In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Adam Sosne, applicant, stated that the two properties had separate owners and time constraints that dictated their timeline. He stated it was difficult to commit to the purchase of a property without the assurance that the property would yield more than the current zoning. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Anthony Rivera, 5550 Carolina Beach Road, 34A, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing his concern about not knowing the property was being sold. He stated there were 70 families that would be displaced. He stated the families cannot afford affordable housing which was why they lived in trailers. He stated the proposal was wrong. Pam Ulrich, 101 Antoinette Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing her concern about the impact increased traffic, noise, trash, drainage problems, and crime. Jason King, 721 Bragg Drive, on behalf of his mother and family members, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing his concern about lack of communication to the residents. He commented on the lack of plans for the current tenants. He concurred with Mr. Rivera’s comment regarding tenant’s not being able to afford other housing. He stated it would not be in the interest of the public. Ann Dosher, resident, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing her concern about the project and stated the residents were only made aware of the property being sold three weeks ago. She shared the diversity of residents living in the mobile home park. She indicated that where they currently live was their affordable housing asking where they would go for the same cost. Joseph Roskey, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing his concern about the project, illustrating through the attending residents, that the income of each family was $10,000 or less. He expressed his concern that none of 9 | P a g e the families would have the ability to afford more than their current rent. He expressed his concern of the applicant’s intent of the purchase, and the displacement of the residents and their mobile homes. Ms. Hazel Galeano, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing her concern about the project. She stated the residents do not have money to save but only to fix up their mobile homes so that they are livable. Ms. Galeano became emotional explaining her experience with discrimination and the inability to acquire other housing. She expressed her concern with the impact of traffic, the lack of communication in letting residents know the property was being sold, and residents being left homeless. Mr. Charlie Perez, spoke in support of the proposal and stated that the buyer told him to locate mobile home parks within New Hanover County to help with relocate each family. He stated the applicant would help the residents to relocate to the mobile home parks with the vacancies. Mr. Steven Green, 5723 Carolina Beach Road spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing his concern with Mr. Perez’s comment about relocating the residents. He stated the residents have invested in their mobile homes and had planned for long-term ownership. He expressed his concern with not considering the resident issues and inability to afford to move. He also expressed his concern with the impact of increased traffic. In rebuttal to the public comments, Ms. Schafer reiterated Mr. Sosne’s comment regarding ingress and egress, that he would not close on the mobile home park if he did not close on the B-2 site. She stated 400 units was the maximum by-right density for the 16.7 acres and that setbacks, buffers, parking, and stormwater would be addressed through the technical review committee. In response to questions of the board, Mr. Scott James, WMPO stated a development of this potential intensity would require two points of vehicular access most likely as a result of fire code. In response to questions of the board, Ms. Roth stated staff would need to confirm the exact threshold as it was believed to be related to some extent to the type of building. Ms. Teresa Desantes, daughter of property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposal stating that her father did not want to sell the property stating that her father was forced to sign a contract. She expressed her disagreement with Ms. Schafer’s statement that the owner did not want a mobile home park stating that it was untrue. Mr. Charles Wayne spoke in opposition to the proposal and stated he recently purchased a mobile home in the subject property and was told the park was not for sale. He expressed his concern about the process of relocating the residents and compensation for relocation the mobile home. Mr. Ralph Sizemore, 914 Peewee Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposal and expressed his concern with the idea of removing the residents from their homes. He spoke about the unanswered questions, and the rush to change the zoning. With no further opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After extensive discussion from the Board Ms. Schaefer stated the applicant was willing to ask for a continuance to the next meeting. Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Colin Tarrant for a CONTINUANCE of the proposed amendment to the April 7 Planning Board meeting. The motion for continuance of the rezoning request carried 6-0 OTHER ITEMS Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth stated the work session regarding the Western Bank of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers was tentatively scheduled for March 31 starting at 2PM before the Commissioners’ Agenda review. She stated that it would be available to join virtually or to stream live as there would be some limitations to the number of persons that would be able to attend in person. She stated when more details were available as to how that would be worked out, that information would be sent out. 10 | P a g e Chair Jeffrey Petroff adjourned the meeting at 8:52 PM. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.