Loading...
2022-04-07 PB MINUTES 1 | P a g e Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board May 5, 2022 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on May 5, 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 Julian Griffee, Current Planner Paul Boney Amy Doss, Current Planner Jeffrey Stokley Jr. Zachary Dickerson, Current Planner Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Absent Members Colin J. Tarrant 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 March 3, 2022, Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Jeffrey Stokely Jr. made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0 REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS Prior to moving to the regular business items, Chari Petroff stated there may be a need to amend the agenda regarding the second public hearing for rezoning request Z22-07 and recognized the Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman. 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. This item was continued from the March 3, 2022, meeting. Deputy Attorney Huffman indicated that due to private legal discussions regarding the subject property of 5550 Carolina Beach Road, she recommended tabling this item to an unknown date in the future. She stated the item would be readvertised, signs posted, and legal notifications would be made. Board member Colin Tarrant requested recusal from this item due to a conflict of interest. Board Member Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Chair Jeff Petroff to recuse Mr. Tarrant. Deputy Attorney Sharon Huffman stated based on conversation, the applicant conceded with tabling this item. Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Jeffrey Stokely Jr. to TABLE the proposed rezoning to an unspecified date. The motion to table the rezoning request carried 5-0. 2 | P a g e NEW BUSINESS 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 District and R-10, Residential District. This item was continued from the March 3, 2022, meeting. Current Planner Amy Doss announced that since the initial rezoning request, the property had been sold to David Lucht who wished to proceed with the rezoning request. Ms. Doss provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and zoning. She showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. She stated the site had been zoned R-15 since 1985 and that the intent of the district was to provide lands that accommodate very low to low density residential development that could serve as a transition between very low-density residential development patterns and smaller lot, more dense residential areas of the county. Ms. Doss stated that the applicant was proposing to rezone approximately 1.84 acres from R-15 to CB and R- 10 for commercial business along Castle Hayne Road and residential zoning that could accommodate three single family homes along Blossom Street. She stated primary access to the property would be provided by Castle Hayne Road and by Blossom Street by way of Vine Street. She stated if the site were developed under its current by right zoning, it would generate approximately 4 AM peak hour trips and 5 PM peak hour trips. She stated that the proposed zoning district would generate an estimated 40 AM peak hour trips and 95 PM peak hour trips. This would result in a net increase of 36 AM peak hour trips and 90 PM peak hour trips. Ms. Doss stated the Comprehensive Plan classified the area as Community Mixed Use, an area that would provide goods and services for nearby residents and the community at large. She stated that the proposal was generally consistent with the recommendations of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and allowed for the types of uses in line with the designated place type and would provide a transition between the commercial and existing residential areas. Ms. Doss stated that if the rezoning were approved, development of the site would be subject to full technical and zoning review to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Mr. David Lucht, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. He stated his intent to have commercial on the front of the property and three single family homes on the rear. He concurred with the information Ms. Doss had presented. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. With no one signed up to speak in opposition or with questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. Board Member Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Donna Girardot to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a CB and R-10 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 residential and commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed-Use place type. The Board also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the site was 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. 3 | P a g e The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0 Prior to the opening of the public hearing for rezoning request Z22-09, Mr. Vafier requested the hearing be delayed as the applicant was unavoidably detained. Chair Petroff approved the request. Rezoning Request (Z22-08) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of New Beginning Christian Church, Inc., property owner, to rezone approximately 9.60 acres of land located within the 3100 Block of Blue Clay Road from R-20, Residential District, and (CZD) R-10, Conditional Zoning Residential District to (CZD) R- 5, Conditional Zoning Residential District for a 68-unit attached housing development. 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 9.6 acres from R-20 and (CZD) R- 10 to a (CZD) R-5 district. He stated that the proposed conceptual site plan outlines 68 residential units with stormwater ponds at the extreme east and west portion of the development. He stated access to the property would be provided by a connection to Blue Clay Road. Secondary accesses include a connection to the parking lot of the New Beginnings Christian Church to the west and a connection to Rachel’s Place by way of an existing stub from Blue Bonnet Circle to the south. He stated that the initial proposal did not display an access from Blue Bonnet Circle; however, requirements within the code necessitated an access here. He stated the applicant has indicated that this access would be gated for Emergency Services use only. Mr. Griffee provided information indicating that if the site were developed under its current zoning, it would generate an estimate of approximately 26 AM peak hour trips and 34 PM peak hour trips. The proposed zoning district would generate an estimated 31 AM peak hour trips and 40 PM hour peak trips if developed as affordable housing. This would result in a net increase of 5 AM peak hour trips and 6 PM peak hour trips. If the proposal were developed as a market rate residential development, it would generate only slightly higher peak hour trips. Mr. Griffee stated the subject site was located on a minor arterial road and was near the Wrightsboro commercial node and that this portion of the county was positioned for future growth. He stated the property abutted residentially zoned property on three sides and the North Kerr Industrial Park to the east and could serve as a transition between existing neighborhoods and the employment center to the east. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan classified the area as Community Mixed-Use. He stated the proposal was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, which recommended higher density single family development patterns within this place type. He stated that the proposal was similar in form and density to that of recently approve residential developments within the general vicinity. He stated if the rezoning were approved, development of the site would be subject to full technical and zoning review to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Ms. Cindee Wolf, on behalf of New Beginning Christian Church, property owners, 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 large vacant lot and would have access to Blue Clay Road and Alex Trask Drive, by putting in a new driveway and improving what is currently an unimproved dirt road. The New Hanover County Housing Needs Study completed in 2021 showed a housing gap in the county, not only in owner occupied homes but in also in rentals. She stated the site was previously zoned R-10 for smaller lots. She stated the proposal was for quadruplex type housing in a combination of one and two-story structures and are handicap accessible. She stated that staff and Emergency Services were requiring interconnectivity to promote multiple circulation patterns. She stated that Blue Bonnet Road and Rachel’s Place Road were private so a gate to limit access would be provided. She stated the applicant would work with Emergency Services to install the Knox box override system that would allow emergency vehicles only to access the site efficiently. She stated that the applicant had agreed to line street 4 | P a g e trees along the Rachel’s Place side. She stated the proposal was consistent with the Future Land Use Map and desires of the county to expand housing opportunities. In response to questions of the board, Ms. Wolf stated that the existing stormwater pond would be expanded, and she provided the acreage information so that it would not be confusing with the density of the proposal. She stated that public transportation was accessible in this area. She stated that the main drainage pattern was along the northern part of the property and that there was an existing drainage easement that would be the overflow route. In response to questions of the board, Ms. Wolf stated affordable senior housing had low trip generation and that, this being a townhome development, it would not have the same trip generation as single-family homes. She stated that together with the previously approved Covenant I project the applicant would be under the threshold of trips during peak hours that would require a Traffic Impact Analysis. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those in opposition or with questions. Mr. Ronald Sparks, 9 Holland Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing his concern about the density of the proposal, impact of increased traffic and property values decreasing. Mr. Richard Smith, 3200 Sky Court, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing his concern about the church changing the makeup of the neighborhood from single-family residential to multi-family and charging rent to gain profits. He expressed his concern about decreased property values, multi-family units in the neighborhood, tax dollars being used to subsidize a business, and the need to retain the tree line in the ditch. Mr. Michael Bradley, 3209 Galway Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing his concern about decreased property values, storms and water in the ditch, and the density of the project. Ms. Jane Gallagher, Rachel’s Place, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing her concern about the project and requested that the applicant include in writing guidelines for buffering and stub roads. She expressed that environmental concerns and drainage should be addressed. Ross Benton, 3200 Galway Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing his concern about the project and stated that he lived along the ditch and that there was currently flooding in the pond and the drainage ditch. He stated there was very little public transportation on Blue Clay Road and is rarely used. Ms. Susan Perry, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing her concern about the project and that her home was located directly across from the proposed access, transportation being extremely limited, and drainage. In rebuttal to the public comments, Ms. Wolf stated that in regard to the driveway and safety to Blue Clay Road, NCDOT required the driveway be permitted. She stated safety of that access would depend on turn lanes, if that was what they felt was necessary to make sure that this was a safe intersection. She stated that the applicant had proposed a right and left turn out lane with a divided median for the safety of the roadway. Ms. Wolf stated the larger single-family lots were there because there were no public utilities at the time, and lots needed to be larger because there were separation requirements for wells and septic. Ms. Wolf stated that current density increases throughout the county were because available water and sewer services are now publicly provided. She stated that there was a line of buildings that had a vegetative ditch located behind them and felt that the applicant was required to enhance the buffer and provide screening from the backs of the buildings. She stated that the project was located across from the back of Rachel’s Place, which had its own buffer and that the applicant had agreed to enhance the roads with street trees and additional landscaping. She stated that there was no evidence of property values being decreased. She stated regarding stormwater management, the ditch running in the public easement was created by the church and would have to meet stormwater requirements. She stated that during the detailed design phase any issues within the drainage basin would have to be reviewed. Ms. Mary Miller, 2020 Blue Bonnet, spoke in opposition to the proposal and expressed her concern about the density of the project and decrease in property values. 5 | P a g e Mr. Carson Wood, 217 Fairford Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal and expressed his concern about increase of traffic, flooding and Fairford Road being a throughway. Mr. William Zell, 3212 Alex Trask Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposal and expressed their concern about overcrowding of schools. Prior to board discussion, Chair Petroff requested staff review any potential conditions that were requested or offered during the public hearing. Director Roth stated that there were three items the Board may want to consider as conditions: 1. Street trees along boundary at Rachel’s Place, 2. Gated access that would only allow emergency services vehicles, 3. Retaining the trees along northern property line along the drainage ditch. With no further opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated that the rear property line ditch ran on the applicant’s side of the property and could be constructed without damaging the existing vegetation. She stated that the applicant was still required to reinstate the buffer yard to visually screen that. In response to questions of the Board, Galen Jamison, County Chief Project Engineer, stated that there was an existing easement, and the ditch was on the property line. He stated they would likely ask for an additional access easement on south side of the property because the existing ditch line would be what qualified for stormwater services and the maintenance by the county. He stated the pond to the west was permitted with the church. He stated that ultimately drainage would still go back to the west, and the county would ask the applicant and engineers to look at the Alex Trask culvert and do a preliminary stormwater analysis to be sure the culvert was adequately sized. He stated possibly stormwater services along with NCDOT may be able to upgrade the culvert in the future. In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Jamison stated that starting in September 2000, New Hanover County required that the post development flow rate from a 25-year storm event to be less than or equal to the predevelopment flow rate. He stated that Rachel’s Place drainage flowed to the south and that although the proposed site was located high up on the Smith Creek watershed, that it was flat, and drainage concerns were possibly due to lack of maintenance and stormwater services being less than a year old. He encouraged the public with any drainage problems to contact stormwater services and they would go out to do an inspection to see what could be done to be of help. In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated the applicant had not talked about fencing, but if the tree line was to come down, the applicant’s requirement to provide a buffer could include fencing in addition to landscaping. She stated the ditch provided separation in addition to landscaping and fencing. In response to questions of the board, Mr. Robert Campbell, Sr. Pastor, New Beginning Christian Church provided delineation between Workforce Housing and Low-Income housing. After further discussion from the board, Board Member Hansen Matthews, made a MOTION, SECONDED by Chair Jeff Petroff, to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) R-5 district with the following four conditions: 1. Street trees shall be provided along the boundary with the Rachel’s Place Subdivision. 2. The connection to Rachel’s Place shall be gated and limited to emergency vehicle access. 3. A fenced buffer shall be provided along the northern property line and fencing shall be incorporated along the southern property line. 4. Existing trees along the drainage ditch to the north shall be retained outside of clearing necessary for stormwater conveyance and maintenance. 6 | P a g e The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provided for the types and mixtures of uses recommended in the Community Mixed-Use place type and the residential densities are 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 diverse housing options. The proposal also provided a transition between adjacent neighborhoods to the employment center to the east and would provide additional housing in close proximity to existing and future commercial development in the Wrightsboro area. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0 Rezoning Request (Z22-09) - Request by James Fentress with Stroud Engineering, PA, applicant, on behalf of Dallas Harris Land Company, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 1.1 acres of land located at 7491 Market Street from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) CB, Community Business District for a bank/financial institution. 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 when the R-15 district was established to the area in 1972 and at that time the intent of the district was to ensure that housing served by private septic and well would be developed at low densities. He stated since the original zoning designation, this portion of the county and the Market Street corridor had experienced a gradual shift from the original R-15 zoning to more commercial districts and uses. He stated that the property was recorded as a buffer lot in 1994 and had since retained the R-15 designation. Mr. Vafier stated the applicant was proposing to construct a 2400 square foot bank with a covered drive-thru ATM area consisting of three lanes. He stated that in addition to the bank/financial institution use, the applicant was also proposing that Medical and Dental Office and Clinic and Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities be included to allow for future flexibility in land uses. He stated the applicant’s proposed conceptual plan included preliminary design for required setbacks, parking, landscaping and buffering and stormwater detention. He stated that existing regulated trees in the buffer on the western boundary of the lot, would be retained, and this area would be supplemented as needed to achieve 100% opacity within one year of planning per ordinance requirements. Mr. Vafier stated a minimum 25-foot rear setback, 20-foot side setback, and 20-foot opaque buffer yard was required where the development abutted existing single-family properties. He stated the site was located within the Special Highway Overlay District which subjected it to additional standards such as increased structure and parking setbacks from Market Street as well as requirements that governed lot coverage and signage. He stated access was proposed to be provided to the subject property from two points of ingress and egress, one from Torchwood Boulevard and one from Market Street, subject to NCDOT Driveway permitting regulations. He stated both driveways would be limited to right-in/right-out movements. Mr. Vafier stated as currently zoned, the site was estimated to generate approximately 3 trips during the peak hours if developed at the permitted by-right density of 2.5 units per acre. He stated the proposed uses were anticipated to generate additional peak hour trips in the range of 2 to 26 AM peak hour trips, and approximately 3 to 55 PM peak hour trips, dependent upon the ultimate use. He stated that the bank was anticipated to generate the most peak hour trips at 29 AM peak hour trips and 58 PM peak hour trips. Mr. Vafier stated the proposed uses were generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because they would provide lower impact, transitional uses that were in line with the Community Mixed-Use place 7 | P a g e type as well as the intent of the CB district. He stated that should the rezoning be approved, development of the site would be subject to full technical review to ensure all land use requirements were met. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr. James Fentress, Stroud Engineering, on behalf of the applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. He stated that the proposal was for a bank/financial institution and that the original proposal was that medical offices building be included, as they would provide an additional benefit to the community. Mr. Fentress concurred with the information Mr. Vafier had presented. Mr. Fentress stated the requested proposal was consistent with the growth and development as recommended in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Comprehensive Plan called for Community Mixed Use, and that this small-scale compact use would serve the adjacent community by providing convenient drive through banking on a street corner as well as pedestrian connection to the mix of uses in the area. He stated the proposed bank use would be a quiet buffer to the residential development to the west. Mr. Fentress proposed a 20-foot buffer to the existing residential buffer. He stated that there was an existing fence along the back of the residential properties, and that the applicant proposed to supplement to further mitigate the commercial uses. He stated in regard to drainage, he stated that there had been some NCDOT improvements in the area and that the applicant would have to receive county and state approval for drainage improvements. In response to questions of the board, Mr. Fentress stated that he was not aware of a requirement for deceleration lane, but a right-in/right-out lane was what was understood at this time. He described how customers traveling along Market Street would access the site. Mr. Vafier stated NCDOT had not confirmed if there would be a turn lane required. He stated the comment received during the review period was that they would run the traffic counts for turn lanes on Market Street, but staff had not received any follow up. Mr. Vafier stated he was not certain about the drainage improvements, but if the drainage improvements were commensurate with the median project, early 2023 was when it was scheduled for completion. In response to questions of the board, Mr. Scot James, WMPO, stated that the completion dates are under review as there have been some changes that have pushed completion to a later date. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Ms. Patricia Hughes, resident, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing her concern about the neighborhood streets being used as a turnabout, and flooding. Ms. Geraldine Stine, 7412 Ridgeview Place spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing her concern with increased traffic, increased noise, lighting at night and flooding. In rebuttal to public comments, Mr. Fentress stated in regard to the concern of the drainage, installation would be part of the approval process required by both the state and county. He stated he would like to improve the drainage in the area through some design and strategic piping which would require permitting. He stated lighting would only be utilized during the proposed business hours and there would not be loud or disruptive noise to the adjacent property owners in the evening. He stated that they would do what was necessary to mitigate the concerns with vegetative buffering as was required by ordinance and would be agreeable to its enhancement. In response to the board, Mr. Fentress stated he would be receptive to conditions regarding lighting, potential hours of operation, and dumpsters. He stated the signaled intersection at Torchwood Boulevard was maintained by the present plans and would have to turn around on Torchwood to negotiate the right in/right out into the driveway. He stated that he believed there was a turnaround further down Market Street that would better enable negotiating the access off of Market street into the site, opposed to entering in from Torchwood Boulevard. 8 | P a g e MR. Vafier provided information for the Market Street Median Project stating that the plans was focused on this intersection. He stated that Mr. Scott James, WMPO confirmed that a U-turn movement could be performed at the subject intersection from northbound Market Street back to southbound Market Street. Prior to board discussion, Chair Petroff requested staff review of any potential conditions that were requested or offered during the public hearing. Director Roth stated that there were three items the Board may want to consider as conditions: 1. The height of exterior light fixtures shall not exceed 25-feet and all exterior luminaries, including security lighting, shall be full cut off fixtures that are directed downward, 2. An additional row of vegetation beyond the ordinance requirements shall be provided in the buffer area along the northern property line, 3. The dumpster location shall be south and screened with vegetation, 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 AM to 7 PM. With no further opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After further discussion from the board regarding traffic, Board Member Jeff Stokley Jr. made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Donna Girardot to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) CB district with the following four conditions: 1. The height of exterior light fixtures shall not exceed 25-feet and all exterior luminaries, including security lighting, shall be full cut off fixtures that are directed downward. 2. An additional row of vegetation beyond the ordinance requirements shall be provided in the buffer area along the northern property line, 3. The dumpster location shall be shifted south and screened with vegetation, 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 AM to 7 PM. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it would allow for the types of uses appropriate in the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal was in line with the intent of the CB district and could provide transitional uses from single- family residential homes to the west and the Market Street corridor. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0 Rezoning Request (Z22-05) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Har-Ste Investments, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 7.32 acres of land located near the 300 block of Edgewater Club Road from R-20, Residential District, to (CZD) R-7, Residential District for a 44-unit attached housing development. Planner Amy Doss provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and zoning. She showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. Ms. Doss stated that the applicant was proposing to rezone approximately 7.32 acres from R-20 to (CZD) R-7. She stated that the site was zoned R-20 in the 1971. She stated under the current zoning conditions, the parcel could allow up to 14 single-family dwelling units at a density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre, and under the proposed zoning, the parcel would allow for 44 single-family attached townhomes at a density of 6 dwelling units per acre. She stated access to the site was provided from an entrance on Edgewater Club Road and another entrance on Waterstone Drive. She stated a fenced buffer yard on all sides was proposed and met the requirements of the county ordinance. Ms. Doss provided information indicating that if the site were developed under its current zoning, at its maximum density, it would generate approximately 10 AM peak hour trips and 13 PM peak hour trips. The proposed zoning district would generate an estimated 21 AM peak hour trips and 25 PM hour peak trips. This would result in a net increase of 11 AM and 12 PM peak hour trips. 9 | P a g e Ms. Doss stated the intent of the R-7 district was to provide moderate density residential development with a range of housing types in proximity to jobs and services and, served as a transition between higher and lower density areas. She stated the proposed zoning was in an area that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan envisioned as General Residential and was generally consistent with the comprehensive plan place type because it focused on lower density housing and associated civic and commercial services. She stated if the rezoning were approved, development would be subject to technical and zoning review to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Ms. Cindee Wolf, on behalf of Har-Ste Investments, LLC, property owner, provided a summary description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Ms. Doss had presented. Ms. Wolf stated that this proposal would be a 44-unit age restricted development to residents over 55. She stated in 2015 the county was creating the ‘Charting the Course Land Use Plan’, which was intended to be a guiding document for fostering economic development and sustainable stewardship within the county. She stated the 2016 Comprehensive Plan assigned the Porters Neck area the place type of General Residential. Ms. Wolf introduced Ms. Katrina Redmon to discuss housing trends and projected trends for New Hanover County. Ms. Katrina Redmon, 2506 Pacific Court, provided statistics of the housing needs of New Hanover County. She stated the development would be for residents 55 and older and would provide existing residents, as well as people moving into the area, an alternative means of housing other than the upkeep of a single-family lot. She stated it would allow a resident to move to an area with less maintenance and to a common controlled community without having to give up amenities found in the Porters Neck area. She stated she understood the proposed price point to be $500,000, which was indicated as having a gap of over 4600 units within the county Mr. Mark Loudermilk, Design Architect, stated the proposed units would be townhomes at 2 ½ stories with dormers. He stated each unit would have elevators, and each bathroom would be handicap accessible. He stated the fronts of the units would face the common greenspace which would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Ms. Wolf stated that townhome communities were in high demand and that the location of the proposed development would be superior for both its lifestyle preferences and proximity to daily services. She stated that the proposal had a density of 6 units per acre. She stated that the units that did not face the courtyard would have individual fencing which would combine with the evergreen planting along the common boundary, to provide the required buffering between the homes. She stated there would be landscaping around the units, street trees along the access drive, and decorative gardens throughout the courtyard. She stated the HOA would be responsible for maintenance of all common areas and the building exteriors. She stated the applicant was promoting pedestrian accessibility along loops in the courtyard and proposed to add a sidewalk from the pathway out to the school sidewalk located in the public way. She stated that the size of the proposal did not warrant a full traffic study. Mr. Don Bennett, Traffic Engineer stated based on calculations run, the proposal was 25% of the number of units that would require a full Traffic Impact Analysis. He stated when looking at overall trips, there would be approximately 21 AM trips and 25 PM trips, about every three to two and a half minutes if accessed by one driveway. He stated NCDOT would handle the driveway permitting and run their calculations to determine what was needed. Ms. Wolf stated stormwater management would go through the permitting process through county and state. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Mr. Steve Hamburger, 8501 Emerald Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing his concern about the overall impact of increased traffic. He stated although the traffic study presented only considered the proposal, he would like to request that a full traffic study be conducted. He stated there was a two-lane road and most 10 | P a g e communities to the left were requesting traffic lights because they were unable to make left hand turns onto Porters Neck road to access Market Street. Mr. Mark Greenberg, 8809 Sawmill Creek Lane, on behalf of homeowners in Bishop Street Park, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing his concern with the proposal being developed at the expense of the residents in Porters Neck. He expressed his concern with the impact of increased traffic at Porters Neck Road, accessibility, existing flooding problems, overcrowding and the density of the project in the area. Ms. Sondra Vitols, 8208 Bald Eagle Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing her concern about traffic impact, safety issues, environmental and flooding impact. Mr. Al Shroetel, 161 Spring Creek Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing his concern about increased pollution to Futch’s Creek and Page’s Creek due to increased development in Porters Neck. He expressed his concerns of the overall impact on the Porters Neck area. Ms. Elise Bradley, 701 Everett’s Creek, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing her concern about the project, stating that this was the same developer who had attempted a rezoning in 2016 and felt they were trying to maximize profit. She voiced her concerns with esthetics of Porters Neck changing. In rebuttal to the public comments, Ms. Wolf stated perceptions of traffic intensity vary. She stated townhomes are becoming more typical than single-family homes. She stated that the state dictated that the compelling reason for any zoning change was to be its consistency with the plans and policy of the plans developed by the county and for the county. She stated the evidence provided by the applicant and staff’s research, has shown that the proposal was consistent with what the county envisions for the future. Ms. Amy Schaeffer, attorney with Lee Kaess, stated that the Federal Fair Housing Regulations required that if a product was marketed to an age qualified community of 55 plus, that there be HOA regulation that would monitor age restrictions and offered to add this as a condition. Mr. Bennett stated there was a 1989 plan that looked at the Porters Neck area regarding transportation which did include actions to be taken to attempt to mitigate the access to Market Street. He stated the actions and objectives were put in place, 1. increase safety in traffic delays along intersections along Porters Neck Road and Market Street. NCDOT was to install traffic signals which are currently in place and, that NCDOT was to install additional turning lanes in and out of Porters Neck which had also been done. 2. Widen Market street, which at the time was two lanes and is currently four lanes. 3. Construct turning lanes from Market Street both north and south onto Porters Neck Road and currently there are dual turning lane movements at most left turns at this intersection. Mr. Philip Jones, resident, resident, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing concern about traffic along the two-lane road on Porters Neck Road and quality of life Prior to board discussion, Chair Petroff requested staff review of any potential conditions that were requested or offered during the public hearing. Director Roth stated that there were three items the Board may want to consider as conditions: 1. The project will be age restricted based on State and Federal Fair Housing requirements for individuals aged 55 and above, 2. An additional sidewalk will be provided between the project and Porter’s Neck Elementary School. 3. The stormwater management system will be designed for a 100-year storm event. With no further opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. In response to questions of the board, Ms. Schaefer stated that the person of 55 years of age or older, compliant with the NC Federal Fair Housing regulations as a condition would be sufficient. Ms. Roth indicated that there was an additional condition mentioned earlier stating that there was potentially an offer of a sidewalk to the school. Ms. Wolf concurred with Ms. Roth’s statement. Chair Petroff closed the hearing and opened to board discussion. 11 | P a g e After further discussion about stormwater requirements, Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney to recommend APPROVAL the proposed rezoning to (CZD) R-7 district with the following three conditions: 1. The project will be age restricted based on State and Federal Fair Housing requirements for individuals aged 55 and above. 2. An additional sidewalk will be provided between the project and Porter’s Neck Elementary School. 3. The stormwater management system will be designed for a 100-year storm event. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it would allow for the types of residential uses that would be encouraged in the General Residential place type. The Board also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the site was located on a local street near existing residential use and would serve as a transition between the lower density residential properties to the east and west and institutional property to the south. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 5-1 (Vote Yes: Chair Petroff, Vice Chair Girardot, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Boney, Mr. Stokely Jr.- Voting No: Mr. Tarrant) OTHER ITEMS Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth provided an update on the previous Thursday’s work session regarding the Western Bank properties with the Board of Commissioners. She stated at that meeting staff was directed to prepare for an additional meeting where they would outline different potential development scenarios on the Western Bank and the type of studies and potential zoning actions that would be necessary to achieve those visions. She stated staff was still working with the clerk’s office to determine a date for the meeting but would keep the board up to date as to when that was scheduled. Ms. Roth introduced the new Senior Planner, Robert Farrell. Vice Chair Girardot asked questions about addressing lighting design features in the UDO regarding voltage, lighting height, bulb and fixture type etc. in the future. In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Roth stated there was a potential if the board was consistently finding a need to add particular conditions to rezoning applications that it may indicate the need to include a general standard in the ordinance. Chair Jeffrey Petroff adjourned the meeting at 9:28 PM. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.