2022-05-05 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 Robert Farrell, Senior Planner
Paul Boney Julian Griffee, Current Planner
Jeffrey Stokley Jr. Amy Doss, Current Planner
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 April 7, 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
Paul Boney to approve the minutes as drafted.
Motion to approve minutes carried 5-0
NEW BUSINESS
Rezoning Request (Z22-11) – Request by Martie Murphy with SHJ Construction Group, applicant, on behalf of
Waverly Investments, property owner, to rezone approximately 1.75 acres of land located at 8005 and 8015 Market
Street from O&I, Office and Institutional, to (CZD) B-1, Regional Business for a carwash.
Planner Zach 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 1.75 acres from O&I to (CZD)
B-1 for a drive-thru carwash. He stated that the proposed conceptual site plan outlined the drive-thru carwash
with 30 vacuum stalls in the central and northern parts of the site. He stated fenced buffering was proposed
between the development and the adjacent R-15 properties. He stated access to the property would be full
access in/out on Sweetwater Drive which was only accessible through right-turn traffic traveling south on
Market Street.
Mr. Dickerson provided information that indicated that the site was undeveloped but that typical
development under the current zoning would generate approximately 40 AM peak hour trips and 51 PM peak
hour trips. He stated that the proposed zoning district would generate approximately 78 PM peak hour trips
and 41 Saturday peak hour trips. This would result in a net increase of 27 PM peak hour trips. He stated the
ITE Trip Generation Manual did not provide peak AM trips for this use but did provide peak PM trips and
Saturday trips.
2 | P a g e
He stated the Comprehensive Plan classified the area as Urban Mixed Use, which promoted development of
a mix of residential, office and retail uses at higher densities. He stated that the proposal was generally
consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan which recommended commercial use and was intended to
support more density near major roads.
Mr. Dickerson 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.
Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Mr. Martie Murphy, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. He concurred with the
information Mr. Dickerson had presented.
Mr. Murphy gave a description of the carwash and described how the services would be provided, details of the
carwash process, and the equipment. He stated access would be in/out on Sweetwater Drive and that they were
proposing to put up a fence and additional landscaping on the rear of the property that abutted the residential to
mitigate concerns of noise or distractions. He stated that hours of operation would be 8 AM to 8 PM, seven days a
week and would be closed on major holidays. He stated with regard to the water used, the carwash reclaimed 85%
of the water used, recycled it and ran it back into their system. He stated their intent was to be environmentally
friendly by reusing the water. He stated that their stormwater and wash water were kept separately and that they
did not allow any of their wash water to get into the stormwater system.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Murphy stated based on the population density and traffic, this was the
highest and best use for this area. He stated with the availability of other additional properties in the area, this
property was best suited for them, along with the fact that since access was off Sweetwater Drive, they would not
be creating congestion trying to get in and out off Market Street.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Murphy stated that Sweetwater Drive was a public road and confirmed
the hours of operation. Mr. Murphy stated the only change would be in winter months when it would be dark, and
they would shut down at 7 PM. He stated through the permitting process, they must meet standards on the lumens
that would be allowed to leave the property that would affect the neighboring landowner. He stated they had
proposed to install the fence along with the additional landscaping.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Murphy stated that the carwash had extremely large air blowers, and
given the orientation of the carwash, to mitigate noise the ingress-egress at Walmart would be the noisiest end of
the carwash. He stated at 100 feet from the site, the carwash would be at a 71-decibel level. Since the residences
were well over 300 feet from the site, the carwash would be well below 60-decibels. He stated more traffic would
be heard from Market Street than would be from the carwash. He stated the vacuum producer was inside of a
building with a muffler, completely enclosed for both noise and aesthetics.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Murphy stated they would go through the engineering process and were
very aware of the stormwater quantity and quality. He stated they were prepared to handle the stormwater as seen
necessary by the local and stated governing bodies.
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 Jeff Stokely Jr. made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Donna Girardot to recommend APPROVAL
of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-1 district with the following conditions:
1. A fence shall be included as part of the required vegetative buffer along the northern property line.
3 | P a g e
2. Any landscaping provided in the submitted landscape plan exceeding the minimum standards of the
Unified Development Ordinance shall be retained as part of the development.
3. Hours of operations shall be limited to 8 AM to 8 PM.
4. Architectural features such as stacked stone and brick exterior shall be included in the façade of the
project facing Market Street.
The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it was located
in an area designated as Urban Mixed-Use and as a growth node and provided for the uses appropriate for this
area. The Board also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest
because the proposal provided neighborhood-serving commercial development.
The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 5-0
Rezoning Request (Z22-12) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Catherine E.
Burney Heirs, property owner, to rezone approximately 8.02 acres of land located at 5000 N. College Road from R-
15, Residential, to (CZD) CB, Community Business for an indoor and outdoor recreation facility.
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 8.02 acres from R-15 to (CZD) CB
district to develop a pickleball facility with a restaurant and clubhouse. She stated the site was initially zoned
R-15 residential in 1972. She stated as currently zoned, the site would allow up to 20 single-family dwelling
units at a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. She stated the proposed conditional zoning would allow for
23 pickleball courts and an 8,00 square foot restaurant/clubhouse. She stated the proposed conditional
rezoning would allow for an appropriate transition between the industrial site across form College Road and
the R-15 residential to the north, east, and south. She stated access to the site would be provided from an
entrance off College Road.
Ms. Doss provided information indicating that if the site were developed under its current zoning, it would
generate an estimate of approximately 17 AM peak hour trips and 22 PM peak hour trips. The proposed zoning
district would generate an estimated 10 AM peak hour trips and 28 PM hour peak trips. This would result in
a net decrease of 7 AM peak hour trips and an increase of 6 PM peak hour trips.
Ms. Doss stated the subject site was located between single-family homes, undeveloped land, and an
industrial site and, that the proposed district would serve as a transition between those uses while increasing
the diversity of recreational activities available to residents in proximity of the site.
She stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the area as General Residential and Community
Mixed-Use which focused on low density housing and associated civic and commercial services. She stated
the proposed recreational use was appropriate and encouraged in the Comprehensive plan and therefore was
generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan place type. She 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 Catherine E. Burney Heirs, property owner, provided a summary description of the
proposed project. She concurred with the information Ms. Doss had presented.
Ms. Wolf stated that although recreational establishments were permitted in residential districts by special use
permit, the masterplan for this proposal was to combine the activity with a pro-shop and a restaurant facility. She
stated by using the Conditional District process, any impact to surrounding properties could be mitigated with
4 | P a g e
features of the plan or conditions. She that there was a ditch running through the northwestern part of the tract
and provided a separation between the site and the residential area. She stated the entire boundary would have a
buffer requirement which could be a combination of fencing, vegetation or whatever would be appropriate.
In response to questions of the board, Ms. Wolf stated that the facility would be open to the public however,
memberships would be available. She stated the primary use was a recreational facility with the accessory use as
the restaurant. She stated the applicant was willing to condition the proposal to indicate that the restaurant was
an accessory use so that it would only operate alongside the operation of the recreational facility.
In response to questions of the board, Ms. Wolf stated the general hours of operation would be from 7 AM to 9 PM
and the lights would go off with the closing of the restaurant.
Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those in opposition or with questions.
With no one signed up to speak in opposition or with questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened
to Board discussion.
After further discussion from the board, Board Member Jeff Stokely Jr., made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board
Member Hansen Matthews, to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) CB district with the
following condition:
1. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 AM to 9 PM.
The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it allowed for
the types of residential uses that would be encouraged in the Mixed Use and General Residential place types. The
Board also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because
the proposed district would provide a recreational service for nearby residents, includes relatively low traffic
generators, and is located on an arterial road.
The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 5-0
Rezoning Request (Z22-13) – Request submitted by Northside Baptist Church, property owner, to rezone
approximately 21 acres of land located at 2501 N. College Road from (CZD) B-2, Regional Business to PD, Planned
Development to add a school.
Planner Zach 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 the applicant was proposing to rezone the subject site from a (CZD) B-2 district to a PD
district to construct a school at an existing church. He stated the site was located on the western side of North
College Road. He stated that the surrounding area on the western side of North College Road was primarily
residential with a few commercial developments and to the east, across North College Road was primarily
commercial development. He stated the property was bounded to the east by North College Road and to the
south by Bavarian Lane and was currently developed and used as a church campus. Mr. Dickerson stated there
was no construction proposed for the development of the school as it would be served by existing buildings
on-site.
He stated access to the property would be full-access ingress from Bavarian Lane to Red Hawk Road. Egress
would be provided by a right-turn only onto southbound N. College Road. He stated the NCDOT Traffic Impact
Analysis for this proposal was finalized on February 8, 2022 and required roadway improvements prior to the
full school threshold of 400 students or five years of operation as outlined in the TIA. He stated one of the
required improvements involved extending the southbound left turn land on to North College Road to at least
450 feet. He stated the other improvement involved adjusting signal timing at the North College Road
intersection to compensate for the additional school traffic.
5 | P a g e
Mr. Dickerson provided information indicating that the existing development generated 404 Sunday trips. He
stated the proposed school would generate approximately 90 AM peak hour trips and approximately 68 PM
peak hour trips at the initial build-out with approximately 70 students. He stated at maximum school capacity
of 400 students, the project would generate 498 AM and 364 PM peak hour trips. He stated at full buildout,
the weekly trips would be comparable to what would currently be seen on a Sunday.
Mr. Dickerson stated the Comprehensive Plan classified this area as Community Mixed Use and was generally
consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the project provided for the type of use that was
recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type.
He stated that staff had proposed conditions for this proposal; 1. That roadway improvements required by
the NCDOT Traffic Impact Analysis be completed prior any future expansion or development and 2. that the
Terms and Conditions document be revised to clarify the process for approval of future development.
He stated should the rezoning be approved development of the site would be subject to full technical review
to ensure all land use requirements were met.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Dickerson stated the project would have to go through a
modification of the Planned Development district in order to add any phases beyond the proposed school.
The rezoning as part of tonight’s hearing only covered the currently existing church and the proposed school.
He stated the maximum threshold was outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis and was a maximum of 400
students or 5 years, whichever occurred first.
Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Mr. Clyde Holley, Northside Baptist Church, on behalf of the applicant, provided a summary description of the
proposed project. He stated that the purpose for the school was that it was brought to their attention that there
was a need in the area for additional school space. He stated buildings were already on the site that would start the
process. He stated the future automotive use would be for individuals who could not afford parts and labor. He
stated they understood that any future development would require a full traffic study. Mr. Holly concurred with
the information Mr. Dickerson had presented.
In response to questions of the board, Mr. Holley stated that they took recommendations from the state of a
threshold of five years or 400 students. He stated this would consist of starting with K-2 the first year and
progressing forward over the rest of the years and actual student numbers would be based on the reception of the
community. He stated if the threshold was hit within two years, they would have to have a traffic study conducted
for any future development.
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.
After further discussion from the board regarding traffic, Board Member Jeff Stokley Jr. made a MOTION,
SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) PD district
with the following four conditions:
1. Prior to the approval of any future phase of this project or expansion of school beyond 400 students,
required NCDOT road improvements, as included in the TIA, must be completed.
2. The Terms and Conditions documents shall be revised to clarify the process for approval of future
development. Section 1A shall be revised as follows:
6 | P a g e
“Phase 1 on Master Plan to be completed upon approval of rezoning to Planned Development. Phases 2
through 4 are listed as future development and cannot be started without an approved modification to the
Planned Development District.”
The Board also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest
because the proposal provided uses that would serve the needs of the surrounding community.
The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 5-0
Rezoning Request (Z22-14) – Request submitted by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of ABA
Self Storage, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 0.23 acres of land located at 4631 Carolina Beach Road
from (CZD) B-2, Regional Business to (CZD) R-5, Residential for a single-family residential unit with accessory
structure.
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 0.23 acres from (CZD) B-2 to
(CZD) R-5 to construct a 30-foot by 50-foot accessory structure to be located behind the existing vacant single-
family dwelling. He stated that the site was one of two parcels associated with case Z21-20, which approved
the conceptual plan for Carolina Dog Sports in February 2022 by the Board of Commissioners. He stated under
the current zoning conditions approved within Z21-20, the subject site would accommodate some of the
parking as well as a portion of the proposed buffering for the Carolina Dog Sports conceptual plan.
Mr. Griffee stated that the applicant has indicated that there would be a new access, separate from the access
for future development that would take place on the abutting parcel to the north/west. He stated the subject
site fronted to Carolina Beach Road and that a residential drive with right-in, right-out only was proposed to
serve the parcel.
Mr. Griffee provided information indicating that if the site were developed under its current zoning, typical
development would generate approximately 2 AM peak hour trips and 2 PM peak hour trips. The proposed
zoning district would generate an estimated 1 AM peak hour trips and 1 PM hour peak trips. This would result
in a net increase of 1 AM and 1 PM peak hour trips.
Mr. Griffee stated the site was located within the Community Mixed Use place type, which focused on small
scale, compact, mixed-use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor for
county residents and visitors. Typical zoning associated with this place type included moderate density
residential, commercial, office and institutional, and mixed-use. He stated the proposed zoning was less
consistent with the uses and intensity recommended in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan than the development
allowed within the existing (CZD) B-2 zoning district. Mr. Griffee stated that the proposal was a low-density,
single-family dwelling, was located along a heavily traveled corridor between two developing nodes, and was
not in line with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area.
He stated should the rezoning be approved development of the site would be subject to full technical review
to ensure all land use requirements were met.
Ms. Cindee Wolf, on behalf of ABA Self Storage, LLC, property owner, provided a summary description of the
proposed project. She concurred with the information Mr. Griffee had presented.
Ms. Wolf stated that this proposal would be one single-family development. She stated a previously approved
proposal for Carolina Dog Sports was a project over two individually owned parcels. She stated the smaller parcel
only contained parking. She stated the owner of larger tract was not interested in buying the smaller tract and the
owner of that tract had no use for the land. She stated the applicant proposed to eliminate the smaller parcel from
7 | P a g e
the existing CB approval and whatever use would be needed would still require the Technical Review Committee
process. She stated the proposed site was only 50-feet wide and 100-feet deep and the owner would propose to
use it as a residential accessory structure. She stated the nearby existing structure already had a 10-foot fenced
buffer and the 20-foot setback along the boundary.
Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition.
Mr. Charlie Rivenbark, Resident, spoke in support of the proposal expressing his concern about the project, stating
that it would be a great idea to take a piece of property and make it attractive to the public.
In response to questions of the Board, the larger parcel could come back before the board but would not include
the subject site.
With no one signed up to speak in opposition or with questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened
to Board discussion.
After further discussion, Board Member Jeff Stokely Jr. made a MOTION, SECONDED by Chair Jeff Petroff to
recommend DENIAL the proposed rezoning to (CZD) R-5 district. The Board found it to be INCONSISTENT with the
purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provided a type of use not recommended in
the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also found recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request
reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal was located within an area that possessed a mixture of
uses and higher intensities. The proposal was not similar in form and density to other nearby projects and would
not serve as a benefit as it did not provide an appropriate transition between adjacent land uses.
The motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request carried 5-0
Rezoning Request (Z22-15) – Request submitted by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of
Oceanside Property Management, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 0.55 acres of land located at 49
Lennon Drive from R-15, Residential to R-5, Residential.
Current Planner Julian Griffee 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.
He stated the site had been zoned R-15 since the early 1970s. He stated under the current zoning the parcel
could accommodate 1 single-family dwelling and under the proposed zoning, it could accommodate a
maximum of six residential units as 3 duplex structures. Mr. Griffee stated that the subject site fronted and
had access to Lennon Drive.
Mr. Griffee provided information indicating that the existing development generated approximately 1 AM
peak hour trips and 1 PM peak hour trips. The proposed zoning district would generate approximately 3 AM
peak hour trips and 3 PM peak hour trips. This would result in a net increase of 2 AM peak hour trips and 2
PM peak hour trips.
He stated that area was zoned for lower density residential development in the early 1970s and that the 2016
Comprehensive Plan recommended a general residential development pattern. He stated that the subject site
was surrounded on three sides by the City of Wilmington and that the adjacent land uses with the majority
governed by the City of Wilmington, included office and institutional, a multi-family development, and
densities at R-5 levels. He stated given these facts, the site was less likely to be appropriate for low density,
single-family development than when the R-15 zoning was originally applied. He stated staff, along with the
City of Wilmington, found the proposal generally consistent with the City of Wilmington’s Comprehensive Plan
and with the surrounding area.
8 | P a g e
He stated the site was located within the General Residential Place Type, which promoted low to moderate
density and that the types of residential development promoted within this place type which included single-
family and duplexes.
Mr. Griffee 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.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Griffee stated because this proposal was a straight rezoning,
nothing had been proposed or submitted formally as to the number of stories of the structures.
Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Ms. Cindee Wolf, on behalf of Oceanside Property Management, LLC, property owner, provided a summary
description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Mr. Griffee had presented.
Ms. Wolf stated that the R-5 district was intended for lands accommodating moderate to high-density residential
development on smaller lots that were compact and walkable. She stated this would be the most efficient
development for this location. She stated the proposal was consistent with the City of Wilmington’s zoning
surrounding the site. She stated that both the city and county’s Land Use Plans recommended this type of infill.
Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition.
Ms. Holly Hunnicutt, 113 Birch Court, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with property
flooding. She stated when there were big rainstorms, the water would run down across their property.
Ms. Cassandra Lopez, 51 Lennon Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with
environmental factors on the site that needed to be addressed to protect potential residents as well as her own
property, property flooding and lack of sidewalks for safety.
Mr. Charles Thompson, 5101 Hunters Trail spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with the
project taking away from current zoning and decreasing the diversity in housing types and the applicant’s concept
of affordable housing.
In rebuttal to public comments, Ms. Wolf stated any new development would have to meet all current criteria and
permitting in order to pull the building permits. She stated that there were sidewalks down to the intersection of
Ringo and Lennon Drive which was a four-way stop and that there was an opportunity for crosswalks.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Jim Iannucci, Chief County Engineer, stated that this property drained
into the city limits and that county regulations stated that the proposal would have to meet the current county
ordinance. He stated the ordinance states that the applicant would be required to have a drainage plan if there was
less then 10,000 square feet of impervious. He stated he was not aware of any offsite drainage being maintained
by the county in this vicinity.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Iannucci stated the applicant could build up to 10,000 square feet of
impervious surface before engineered stormwater control was required. He said that because of infill projects such
as this, when the stormwater ordinance was updated, it stated that any infill project would be required to provide
a drainage plan showing that the drainage coming from their parcel would not adversely affect existing properties
in the area.
In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Iannucci stated the applicant could not direct the water of the property
if it was not the current natural flow.
In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated that the drainage plan would be that it would go to the
normal curbing system in the city. She stated because there was nothing yet improved on site, the drainage plan
would be built into the street gutters.
9 | P a g e
In rebuttal to Ms. Wolf’s response, Ms. Lopez further expressed her concern with no sidewalk to the transit system
and impact of the properties with no guarantee of a flood plan.
With no further opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion.
Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Jeff Stokely Jr. to recommend
APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to an R-5 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 uses encouraged in the General
Residential place type and the potential development patterns and density are consistent with the surrounding
neighborhoods. 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, is an
appropriate application of infill development due to its proximity to major roadways, a transit hub, commercial
services, and other existing multi-family developments and zoning.
The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 5-0
OTHER ITEMS
No items to be discussed.
Chair Jeffrey Petroff adjourned the meeting at 8:05 PM.
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.