HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09 PB AGENDA PACKET NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA
Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse
24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC 28401
Members of the Board
Donna Girardot, Chair | Jeffrey B. Petroff, Vice-Chair
Colin J. Tarrant | Hansen Matthews | Jeffrey Stokley Jr. | Walter “Pete” Avery | Clark Hipp
Rebekah Roth, Director| Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
SEPTEMBER 1, 2022 6:00 PM
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of Minutes
REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The Planning Board may consider substantial changes in these petitions as a result of objections, debate, and
discussion at the meeting, including rezoning to other classifications.
1 Public Hearing
Rezoning request (Z22-17) - Request submitted by Adam Shanks with Carolina Beach Villa, applicant,
on behalf of Elizabeth B. Harris LLC, to rezone approximately 7.11 acres of land located at 924
Seabreeze Road from R-15, Residential, and B-2, Regional Business. to (CZD) R-7, Residential.
2 Public Hearing
Text Amendment Request (TA22-02) – Request by Austen Truhe and Christina Sheltra, applicants, to
amend the Unified Development Ordinance to permit the use of Accessory Dwelling Units in all
residential zoning districts.
3 Public Hearing
Text Amendment Request (TA22-03) - Request by New Hanover County to amend Articles 2, 3, 4, 5,
7, and 10 of the Unified Development Ordinance in order to modernize standards, clarify existing
standards, and update standards to make sure they are effective.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2022
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Julian Griffee, Current Planner
CONTACT(S): Julian Griffee; Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Rezoning Request (Z22-17) – Request by Adam Shanks with Carolina Beach Villa, applicant, on behalf of the
Elizabeth B. Harris LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 7.11 acres of land located at 924 Seabreeze Road
from R-15, ResidenAal and B-2, Regional Business to
(CZD) R-7, ResidenAal.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 7.11 acres from R-15, Residen*al and B-2, Regional Business, to
(CZD) R-7, Condi*onal Residen*al, to develop 30 single-family dwellings, associated roads, driveway parking pads, and
stormwater management. The subject site would be required to meet all the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
requirements for development within the proposed zoning district.
The applicant has provided a proposed site plan with the layout of the development. The applicant has indicated that
the method of managing stormwater will be for systems to be placed on each individual residen*al lot.
The site plan indicates that the lot sizes will vary between 13,850 square feet to approximately 7,000 square feet, with
an overall density of approximately 4.2 units per acre, accessed by 40’ private rights-of-way. The subject property
fronts and has access to S Seabreeze Road and N Seabreeze Road.
The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the *me, the purpose of the R-15 district was to ensure that
housing served by private sep*c and wells would be developed at low densi*es. Since that *me, water and sewer
services have become available to the surrounding area. The R-7 district was established to accommodate lands for
moderate to high density residen*al development on smaller lots with compact and walkable development pa?erns.
The district also serves as a transi*on between nonresiden*al development and low to moderate density residen*al
development.
The majority of the parcel is located within AE and VE flood zones. Roughly an acre of the extreme western por*on is
located outside of these flood zones. Performance residen*al developments within floodplains are limited to a
maximum density of 2.5 du/acre. Any development of the sites at densi*es greater than 2.5 units/acre would require a
conven*onal residen*al development and must meet the minimum dimensional standards.
The subject site is currently vacant. If developed conven*onally, the approximate number of single-family dwellings
that could be constructed is 18 under current R-15 zoning. As a performance development is not possible, the parcel
must be developed conven*onally. Conven*onal development within the R-7 zoning district requires a minimum lot
size of 7,000 square feet.
As currently zoned, it is es*mated the site would generate about 15 trips during the peak hours if developed at the
permi?ed density. The proposed R-7 development would increase the es*mated number of peak hour trips by
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1
approximately 13 trips. The es*mated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers
the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Based on a generalized historic genera*on rate, staff es*mates that approximately 3 addi*onal students would be
generated if developed under the proposed zoning than under current zoning.
The subject site is located within the historic Seabreeze community, which served as a beach resort community for
African Americans from the 1930s to the 1950s. While the subject site is undeveloped, a few structures from this
community remain within the general vicinity. This area was the focus of the Seabreeze Small Area Plan, created in
1989. The recommenda*ons for the area included a revitaliza*on of the businesses and a redevelopment of the
waterfront.
The exis*ng land uses within the area include a mix of small and large single-family dwellings, boat and recrea*onal
vehicle storage, and small-scale businesses. Lot sizes within the general vicinity of the proposal vary, with some single-
family dwellings exis*ng on lots as small as approximately 8,500 square feet. These lots pre-date the adop*on of the
1971 zoning designa*on and do not currently meet the dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Mixed Use, a land use classifica*on that promotes
the development of a mix of retail, office, and residen*al uses at moderate densi*es (7-15 units per acre). While this
area is designated for moderate densi*es, much of it—and almost the en*re subject parcel—is within a flood
zone. Staff has historically interpreted that place type classifica*ons seeking higher intensity and mixed uses are
intended to override density limits more generally placed in flood prone areas, as lower densi*es would not allow the
place type recommenda*ons but flood proofing and engineering solu*ons could mi*gate risks that might be associated
with higher densi*es. T he proposed rezoning request is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
because the densi*es and range of housing types allowed in the proposed zoning district would support exis*ng and
future community-level nodes envisioned for the Seabreeze waterfront.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
While the condi*onal rezoning request seeks to provide new residen*al opportuni*es that may foster a revitaliza*on
of the area as iden*fied and envisioned within the adopted plans, the parcel contains significant environmental
challenges pertaining to stormwater that the proposal does not adequately address. Per engineering comments, the
proposed method of stormwater management may not appropriately and sufficiently manage conveyance of proposed
future development. In addi*on, the concept plan does not clearly show how required open space will be met.
As such, Staff recommends denial of the request and suggests the following mo*on:
I move to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed R-7 rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with
the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the densi*es and range of housing types
allowed in the proposed zoning district would support exis*ng and future community-level nodes
envisioned for the Seabreeze waterfront, I find RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest because it is unclear if the proposal may be constructed as depicted,
and there is insufficient informa*on regarding stormwater infrastructure provided within the applica*on
to ensure that the surrounding area would not be affected nega*vely.
AlternaAve MoAon for Approval
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed R-7 rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with
the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the densi*es and range of housing types
allowed in the proposed zoning district would support exis*ng and future community-level nodes
envisioned for the Seabreeze waterfront. I also find RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning
request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would benefit the community by
providing diverse housing op*ons and may spur a revitaliza*on of the area as recommended within the
Seabreeze Small Area Plan with the introduc*on of water and sewer capacity.
Proposed Condi*ons:
1. Open space shall be provided mee*ng the requirements of Sec*on 5.8 of the Unified Development
Ordinance. The total number of approved lots and housing density may be reduced, and roadway
configura*on internal to the site may be modified to accommodate required open space.
2. The applicant shall delineate any wetlands located on the subject parcel. Wetland delinea*on must
be verified by the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to Preliminary Plat approval.
3. Stormwater control shall be provided through a regional stormwater control system approved by
the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and New Hanover County Engineering. The total
number of approved lots and housing density may be reduced, and roadway configura*on internal
to the site may be modified to accommodate regional stormwater control measures.
4. Public or private water and sewer u*li*es must be provided to accommodate the maximum
number of lots allowed in the concept plan.
5. Internal access to the property and internal traffic circula*on may be provided through an alley
with approval by the Technical Review Commi?ee (TRC). The total number of approved lots and
housing density may be reduced, and roadway and/or alleyway configura*on internal to the site
may be modified to accommodate internal access changes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip*on
Z22-17 PB Script
Z22-17 PB Staff Report
Z22-17 Mailout Map
Z22-17 FLUM
Z22-17 Zoning Map
Initial Application Cover Sheet
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1
Application Package PB
Concept Plan Cover Sheet
Seabreeze Concept Plan
Public Comments Cover Sheet
Public Comments Opposition
Supplementary Applicant Materials
Utility Provider LOI
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1
PLANNING BOARD SCRIPT
for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z22-17)
Request by Adam Shanks with Carolina Beach Villa, applicant, on behalf of the Elizabeth B. Harris
LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 7.11 acres of land located at 924 Seabreeze Road from
R-15, Residential and B-2, Regional Business to (CZD) R-7, Residential.
1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes
for rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Applicant’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
f. Staff review of any additional conditions
3. Close the public hearing
4. Board discussion
5. Before we proceed with the vote, I would like to invite the applicant to the podium. Based on
the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, would you like withdraw
your petition, request a continuance, or proceed with a vote?
6. Vote on the application. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or
is not, consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Example Motion for Denial
I move to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed R-7 rezoning. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the densities
and range of housing types allowed in the proposed zoning district would support existing and
future community-level nodes envisioned for the Seabreeze waterfront, I find
RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because it is unclear if the proposal may be constructed as depicted, and there is insufficient
information regarding stormwater infrastructure provided within the application to ensure that
the surrounding area would not be affected negatively.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 1 - 1
Example Motion for Approval
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed R-7 rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the densities and range of
housing types allowed in the proposed zoning district would support existing and future
community-level nodes envisioned for the Seabreeze waterfront. I also find RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the
proposal would benefit the community by providing diverse housing options and may spur a
revitalization of the area as recommended within the Seabreeze Small Area Plan with the
introduction of water and sewer capacity.
Proposed Conditions:
1. Open space shall be provided meeting the requirements of Section 5.8 of the Unified
Development Ordinance. The total number of approved lots and housing density may be
reduced, and roadway configuration internal to the site may be modified to accommodate
required open space.
2. The applicant shall delineate any wetlands located on the subject parcel. Wetland
delineation must be verified by the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to Preliminary Plat
approval.
3. Stormwater control shall be provided through a regional stormwater control system
approved by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and New Hanover County
Engineering. The total number of approved lots and housing density may be reduced, and
roadway configuration internal to the site may be modified to accommodate regional
stormwater control measures.
4. Public or private water and sewer utilities must be provided to accommodate the maximum
number of lots allowed in the concept plan.
5. Internal access to the property and internal traffic circulation may be provided through an
alley with approval by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). The total number of
approved lots and housing density may be reduced, and alleyway configuration internal
to the site may be modified to accommodate internal access changes.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to RECOMMEND [Approval/Denial] of the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-M
district. I find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
I also find RECOMMENDING [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in
the public interest because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 1 - 2
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 1 of 20
STAFF REPORT FOR Z22-17
CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z22-17
Request:
Rezone 7.11 acres to (CZD) R-7, Conditional Residential District
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Tracey Pettigrew & Adam Shanks The Elizabeth B. Harris LLC an Ohio Limited
Liability Company
Location: Acreage:
924 N Seabreeze 7.11 acres
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
R08514-003-001-000 Community Mixed Use
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Undeveloped 30 single-family dwellings
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
R-15, Residential & B-2, Regional Business (CZD) R-7, Residential
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North Single-family Dwellings R-15
East Undeveloped, Commercial Services; Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway R-15, B-2
South Single-family Residential; Commercial Services R-15, B-2
West Single-family Dwellings R-15
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 1
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 2 of 20
ZONING HISTORY
April 7, 1971 Initially zoned R-15 and B-2
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer Currently well and septic; Aqua has provided a non-binding committal
agreement to provide water and sewer to the area
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Southern Fire
District, New Hanover County Federal Point Station
Schools Anderson Elementary, Murray Middle, Ashley High Schools
Recreation Veterans Park
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation No known conservation resources
Historic
While undeveloped, the parcels are located within the historical Seabreeze
neighborhood. Established in the mid-1920s, the area was a prime vacation
resort for African Americans within southeastern North Carolina from the
1930s through the 1950s before a decline stemming from Hurricane Hazel
in 1954, financial trouble, and the end of segregation in the 1960s.
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 2
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 3 of 20
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN
Proposed Site Plan with Staff Markups
• The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 7.11 acres from R-15, Residential and
B-2, Regional Business, to (CZD) R-7, Conditional Residential, to develop 30 single-family
dwellings, associated roads, driveway parking pads, and stormwater management.
• The site plan indicates that the lot sizes will vary between 13,850 square feet to
approximately 7,000 square feet, with an overall density of approximately 4.2 units per
acre, accessed by 40’ private rights-of-way.
• The applicant has provided a proposed site plan with the layout of the development. The
applicant has indicated that the method of managing stormwater will be for systems to be
placed on each individual residential lot.
• The site plan does not display designated open space, which is required to be at 10% within
a conventional subdivision. For this proposal, the required space designated for open space
amounts to approximately 31,000 square feet.
• According to the applicant, the proposed zoning will allow for the provision of housing for
future development in a land use pattern that is generally more consistent with the 2016
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 3
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 4 of 20
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the time, the purpose of the R-15
district was to ensure that housing served by private septic and wells would be developed
at low densities. Since that time, water and sewer services have become available to the
surrounding area.
• The R-7 district was established to accommodate lands for moderate to high density
residential development on smaller lots with compact and walkable development patterns.
The district also serves as a transition between nonresidential development and low to
moderate density residential development.
• Currently, the subject site is undeveloped.
• The majority of the parcel is located within AE and VE flood zones. Roughly an acre of the
extreme western portion is located outside of these flood zones. Performance residential
developments within floodplains are limited to a maximum density of 2.5 du/acre. Any
development of the sites at densities greater than 2.5 units/acre would require a
conventional residential development and must meet the minimum dimensional standards.
• If developed conventionally, the approximate number of single-family dwellings that could
be constructed is 18 under current R-15 zoning.
• Development within special hazard areas is subject to floodplain standards. Such standards
include habitable space of residential structures required to be at a certain elevation and
design of lower floors with flood vents or breakaway walls, as mandated by federal and
local regulations.
• As a performance development is not possible, the parcel must be developed
conventionally. Conventional development within the R-7 zoning district requires a minimum
lot size of 7,000 square feet. Designated open space within this type of development is
required to be 10%. The proposal does not currently have designated open space.
• Development of this scale must adhere to the stormwater management regulations outlined
within the UDO. The applicant has indicated that the method of stormwater management
will be through individual infiltration systems placed on the platted lots, which would require
a permit for each lot. Should the operation and maintenance of the basins be the
responsibility of the property owner, each owner shall supply evidence acceptable to the
County Attorney that they will operate and maintain the facilities.
• Per engineering staff, it is anticipated that the size and setbacks for each system could
negatively impact the buildable area of the lots. The lack of a regional stormwater control
measure would also likely be challenging moving forward with final engineering and
permitting.
• While there are no utilities available currently, utility provider Aqua has provided a non-
binding commitment that would provide water and sewer to the subject sites. Water and
sewer infrastructure would allow for denser development to be possible within the area.
Without water and sewer, a typical three-bedroom single-family dwelling would need a
lot size of approximately 13,000 square feet for well and septic.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 4
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 5 of 20
• If approved, development on the parcel would be subject to Technical Review Committee
and Zoning Compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance
requirements and specific conditions included in the approval. Only minor deviations from
the approved conceptual plan, as defined by the UDO, would be allowed.
AREA SUBDIVISIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 5
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 6 of 20
TRANSPORTATION
• Currently, access is provided to the subject property by S Seabreeze Road and N
Seabreeze Road, which are classified by NCDOT as local roads.
• The site is currently undeveloped and estimated to generate 0 trips.
• As currently zoned, it is estimated the site would generate about 15 trips during the peak
hours if developed at the permitted density. The proposed R-7 development would increase
the estimated number of peak hour trips by approximately 13 trips.
• The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that
triggers the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 6
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 7 of 20
• Because a TIA is not required to analyze transportation impacts at this time, Staff has
provided the volume to capacity ratio for the adjacent roadway near the subject site. While
volume to capacity ratio, based on average daily trips, can provide a general idea of the
function of adjacent roadways, the delay vehicles take in seconds to pass through
intersections is generally considered a more effective measure when determining the Level
of Service of a roadway. However, the available volume to capacity data indicates
capacity currently exists in this area.
NCDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) – 2020
Road Location Volume Capacity V/C
S Seabreeze Road Between US 421 and N
Seabreeze Road 350 4,000 0.09
• The LOS of this portion of S Seabreeze Road is rated as ‘A’.
WMPO Annual Daily Traffic (ADT) – 4/5/2021
Road Location Volume Capacity V/C
Carolina Beach Road Between Snow’s Cut Bridge
and S Seabreeze Road 34,555 41,368 0.84
• The LOS of this portion of Carolina Beach Road is rated as ‘D’.
Intensity Approx. Peak Hour Trips
Existing Development: Undeveloped 0 AM / 0 PM
R-15
Conventional Development
18 Single-family
Dwellings 13 AM / 17 PM
Proposed (CZD) R-7 30 Single-family
Dwellings 25 AM / 32 PM
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 7
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 8 of 20
Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 8
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 9 of 20
Nearby Traffic Impact Analyses:
Traffic Impact Analyses are completed in accordance with the WMPO and NCDOT standards.
Approved analyses must be re-examined by NCDOT if the proposed development is not completed by
the build out date established within the TIA.
Proposed Development Land Use/Intensity TIA Status
1. Masonboro Golf
Club
• 141 single-family detached
housing units
• Approved August 16, 2018
• Full build out 2020
The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable
improvements consisted of:
• Provide a southbound, left-turn lane on River Road with 50 feet of storage, 50 feet of full-
width deceleration and appropriate taper on River Road at The Cape Boulevard.
Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA:
• None.
Development Status: Development and improvements are currently under construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area. The majority of the property is located
within the AE and VE Special Flood Hazard Areas, with approximately one acre on the
extreme western portion of the parcel located within the X floodplain.
• The property is within the ICW 13 and ICW 14 watersheds, which drain into the Intracoastal
Waterway.
• A verified delineation of the presence of features on the parcel is recommended, and if
conducted, would provide insight into the limitations or permitting challenges of the
development, per the US Army Corps of Engineers.
• Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class I, (suitable and slight limitation), Class II (moderate limitation), and
Class IV (unsuitable); however, the applicant has submitted documents indicating utility
provider Aqua will provide water and sewer services to the property.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 9
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 10 of 20
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Schools
• Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Anderson Elementary,
Murray Middle, and Ashley High School. Students may apply to attend public magnet,
year-round elementary, or specialty high schools.
• Based on a generalized historic generation rate*, staff estimates that approximately 4
students would be generated if developed under the existing zoning.
• Based on a generalized historic generation rate*, staff estimates that the increase in homes
would result in approximately 3 additional students than the number of students who are
estimated to be generated if developed under the existing zoning.
• The general student generation rate provides only an estimate of anticipated student yield
as different forms of housing at different price points yield different numbers of students.
Over the past four years, staff has also seen a decline in the number of students generated
by new development. Student numbers remained relatively stable between 2015 and
2020 (excepting the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic), while 14,500 new residential
units were permitted across the county. In addition, the student population is anticipated to
only grow by approximately 1,300 students over the next 10 years based on the recent
New Hanover County Schools Facility Needs Study.
Development Type Intensity Estimated Student Yield
(current general student generation rate) *
Existing Development Undeveloped Approximate** Total: 0
(0 elementary, 0 middle, 0 high)
Typical Density under
Proposed R-15 Zoning
18 Single-family
Dwellings
Approximate** Total: 4
(2 elementary, 1 middle, 2 high)
Proposed R-7 Zoning 30 Single-family
Dwellings
Approximate** Total: 7
(3 elementary, 2 middle, 2 high)
*The current general student generation rate was calculated by dividing the projected New Hanover County public
school student enrollment for the 2021-2022 school year by the number of dwelling units in the county. Currently, there
are an average of 0.22 public school students (0.09 for elementary, 0.05 for middle, and 0.08 for high) generated
per dwelling unit across New Hanover County. These numbers are updated annually and include students attending
out-of-district specialty schools, such as year-round elementary schools, Isaac Bear, and SeaTech.
**Because the student generation rate often results in fractional numbers, all approximate student generation yields
with a fraction of 0.5 or higher are rounded up to a whole number and yields with a fraction of less than 0.5 are
rounded down. This may result in student numbers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels not equaling the
approximate total.
• Staff has provided information on existing school capacity to provide a general idea of the
potential impact on public schools, but these numbers do not reflect any future capacity
upgrades.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 10
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 11 of 20
School Enrollment* and Capacity** (2021-2022 School Year)
*Enrollment is based on the New Hanover County Schools enrollment projections for the 2021-2022 school year.
**Capacity calculations were determined based on the projected capacities for the 2021-2022 school year, and
funded or planned capacity upgrades were those included in the Facility Needs Study presented by New Hanover
County Schools to the Board of Education in January 2021. This information does not take into account flexible
scheduling that may be available in high school settings, which can reduce the portion of the student body on campus
at any one time.
• The 2021 facility needs survey prepared by Schools staff indicates that, based on NC
Department of Public Instruction (DPI) student growth projections and school capacity data,
planned facility upgrades, combined with changes to student enrollment patterns, will result
in adequate capacity district wide over the next ten years if facility upgrades are funded.
New Hanover County Strategic Plan
• One of the goals of the New Hanover County Strategic Plan for 2018-2023 is to
encourage the development of complete communities in the unincorporated county by
increasing housing diversity and access to basic goods and services.
• The proposed R-7 zoning district would allow for those new residents to utilize existing
goods and services within one mile of the subject property.
• The predominant housing type in the area is single family detached. Under the proposed
R-7 district, the percentages of housing types would not change.
• The subject property is located in the Snows Cut community area, where 19% of residents
currently live within one-mile of a convenience need (grocery store, retail staples,
pharmacies, etc.), a support service (urgent care, primary doctor’s office, child & adult
care, etc.), and a community facility (public park, school, museum etc.).
• Approximately half of the proposed number of units would be within one-mile of a
convenience need, a support, and a community facility, allowing an increase to the number
of residences in proximity to goods and services.
Level
Total
NHC
Capacity
School
Projected
Enrollment of
Assignment
School
Capacity of
Assigned
School
w/Portables
Capacity of
Assigned
School
Funded or
Planned
Capacity
Upgrades
Elementary 95% Anderson 618 563 110% None
Middle 108% Murray 853 848 101% None
High 100% Ashley 1584 1648 96% None
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 11
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 12 of 20
Existing Development
Current Conditions of the parcel:
Looking northeast from S Seabreeze Looking south along N Seabreeze
Looking east along N Seabreeze Looking west along N Seabreeze
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 12
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 13 of 20
Current Conditions of the parcel:
Looking south along N Seabreeze
Looking east along N Seabreeze Looking west along N Seabreeze
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 13
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 14 of 20
Surrounding Area
Current Conditions within the Community:
800 Block of S Seabreeze (west of proposal) 1100 Block of Elm (east of proposal)
800 Block of S Seabreeze (west of proposal)
1000 Block of S Seabreeze (southeast of proposal) 1100 Block of Elm (east of proposal)
Seabreeze Community
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 14
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 15 of 20
Representative Developments
Representative Developments of R-15:
Clay Crossing
Page’s Corner
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 15
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 16 of 20
Representative Developments of R-7:
Adam’s Landing
River Lights
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 16
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 17 of 20
Context and Compatibility
• The property is located within the southern portion of the County and accessed by N and S
Seabreeze Road, which connect directly to Carolina Beach Road, a major arterial highway.
• The subject site is located within the historic Seabreeze community, which served as a beach
resort community for African Americans from the 1930s to the 1950s. While the subject site
is undeveloped, a few structures from this community remain within the general vicinity.
• This area was the focus of the Seabreeze Small Area Plan, created in 1989. The
recommendations for the area included a revitalization of the businesses and a
redevelopment of the waterfront. However, this revitalization has not been accomplished
since the adoption of the plan, and some of the historic structures have been converted into
luxury homes.
• The existing land uses within the area include a mix of small and large single-family
dwellings, boat and recreational vehicle storage, and small-scale businesses.
• Lot sizes within the general vicinity of the proposal vary, with some single-family dwellings
existing on lots as small as approximately 8,500 square feet. These lots pre-date the
adoption of the 1971 zoning designation and do not currently meet the dimensional
standards of the R-15 zoning district. Lots within the R-15 zoning district require a minimum
lot size of 15,000 square feet.
• Two adjacent parcels east of the subject parcel, 1001 and 1045 N Seabreeze Road, are
under the same ownership but are not a part of this conditional rezoning request.
• While the majority of the land of the subject sites is located within the AE and VE flood
zones, development at the scale proposed by the R-7 zoning districts exist within other
portions of the County that share similar flood risks, namely the beach communities of
Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach, and Kure Beach.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for
New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and
function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are
intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be
interpreted as being parcel specific.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 17
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 18 of 20
Future Land Use
Map Place Type Community Mixed Use
Place Type
Description
Promotes development of small-scale, compact, mixed use development
patterns. Types of uses encouraged include office, retail, mixed use,
recreation, single-family, and multi-family residential.
Analysis
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Mixed Use,
a land use classification that promotes the development of a mix of retail,
office, and residential uses at moderate densities (7-15 units per acre). This
classification is generally applied to areas that are intended to be
community-level service nodes and/or transitions between lower density
housing and higher intensity development.
Community Mixed Use was applied to this area during the development of
the 2016 Comprehensive Plan to support and encourage the mix of uses
envisioned in the 1989 Seabreeze Small Area Plan. Because of the location
of the parcel between the commercially-zoned property to the east and the
major road corridor to the west, moderate density residential development
could be appropriate and would support the residential base needed to
achieve the current policy goals of a revitalized waterfront.
While this area is designated for moderate densities, much of it—and
almost the entire subject parcel—is within a flood zone. Generally, lower
residential densities are recommended for flood prone areas in the
Comprehensive Plan to reduce the number of homeowners with higher risks
of flood damage. There are several locations in the county other than the
Seabreeze area, for instance the western bank area across from downtown
Wilmington, portions of Monkey Junction, and land near Cape Fear
Community College North Campus, where higher densities and intensities
are recommended for areas in flood zones, though.
Staff has historically interpreted that place type classifications seeking
higher intensity and mixed uses are intended to override density limits more
generally placed in flood prone areas, as lower densities would not allow
the place type recommendations but flood proofing and engineering
solutions could mitigate risks that might be associated with higher densities.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed rezoning request is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because the densities and range of housing types
allowed in the proposed zoning district would support existing and future
community-level nodes envisioned for the Seabreeze waterfront.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 18
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 19 of 20
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The general Seabreeze area has been designated as Community Mixed Use within the
Comprehensive Plan, which shares similar characteristics of density and form envisioned within the
Seabreeze Small Area Plan and is the standing land use policy direction for this area.
Understanding that revitalization is the long-term, envisioned goal of the historic Seabreeze area,
a mixture of uses supported by appropriate housing may be appropriate in order to achieve that
vision.
The applicant previously proposed a straight R-7 rezoning for this parcel, which was considered by
the Planning Board in June 2022, tabled at the request of the applicant, and later withdrawn. Staff
had recommended approval of the request, though a conditional request was preferred given the
cultural heritage and historic context of the area, based on the recommendations for the Community
Mixed Use place type.
While the conditional rezoning request seeks to provide new residential opportunities that may
foster a revitalization of the area as identified and envisioned within the adopted plans, the parcel
contains significant environmental challenges pertaining to stormwater that the proposal does not
adequately address. Per engineering comments, the proposed method of stormwater management
may not appropriately and sufficiently manage conveyance of proposed future development. In
addition, the concept plan does not clearly show how required open space will be met. As such,
staff recommends denial of the request and suggests the following motion:
I move to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed R-7 rezoning. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
densities and range of housing types allowed in the proposed zoning district would
support existing and future community-level nodes envisioned for the Seabreeze
waterfront, I find RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and
in the public interest because it is unclear if the proposal may be constructed as
depicted, and there is insufficient information regarding stormwater infrastructure
provided within the application to ensure that the surrounding area would not be
affected negatively.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 19
Z22-17 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 20 of 20
If the Board votes to recommend approval, staff would recommend the following motion and
additional conditions:
Alternative Motion
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed R-7 rezoning. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
densities and range of housing types allowed in the proposed zoning district would
support existing and future community-level nodes envisioned for the Seabreeze
waterfront. I also find RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would benefit the community
by providing diverse housing options and may spur a revitalization of the area as
recommended within the Seabreeze Small Area Plan with the introduction of water and
sewer capacity.
Proposed Conditions:
1. Open space shall be provided meeting the requirements of Section 5.8 of the
Unified Development Ordinance. The total number of approved lots and housing
density may be reduced, and roadway configuration internal to the site may be
modified to accommodate required open space.
2. The applicant shall delineate any wetlands located on the subject parcel. Wetland
delineation must be verified by the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to Preliminary
Plat approval.
3. Stormwater control shall be provided through a regional stormwater control system
approved by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and New Hanover
County Engineering. The total number of approved lots and housing density may
be reduced, and roadway configuration internal to the site may be modified to
accommodate regional stormwater control measures.
4. Public or private water and sewer utilities must be provided to accommodate the
maximum number of lots allowed in the concept plan.
5. Internal access to the property and internal traffic circulation may be provided
through an alley with approval by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). The total
number of approved lots and housing density may be reduced, and roadway
and/or alleyway configuration internal to the site may be modified to
accommodate internal access changes.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 2 - 20
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 3 - 1
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 4 - 1
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 5 - 1
Initial Application
Documents & Materials
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 6 - 1
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 1
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 2
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 3
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 4
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 5
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 6
Letter Of Notice
Attendance Request
1113 Tidalwalk Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
(217) 621-1864
carolinabeachvilla@gmail.com
July 15, 2022
To Seabreeze Community and Fellow Neighbors,
This letter is to inform you of the upcoming community hearing meeting on the future
developments of the community. Your attendance is highly-encouraged and appreciated.
Date: July 26th, 2022
Time: 5:00 PM
Location: 1124 South Seabreeze Road, Wilmington, NC 28409
Sincerely yours,
Carolina Beach Villa, LLC
Managing Members / Owners
Adam Shanks and Tracey Pettigrew
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 7
Carolina Beach Villa LLC
1113 Tidalwalk Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
(217) 621-1864
carolinabeachvilla@gmail.com
July 28, 2022
To Whom It May Concern,
We would like to share our notes and input received regarding the community meeting
that took place on July 26, 2022. Most items discussed were repetitive and addressed in
our last county meeting.
Concerns and desires addressed by the community:
•Concern on water drainage for additional housing and soil protection for the
current vacant land for existing home owners.
•A desire to develop the land as R-15 with no change in zoning
•A desire to limit the number of homes built and to price these homes at no less than
1 Million dollars.
•Concerns on the potential increase in traffic from this future development
•A large portion of the discussions were based in the attendees asking for
enhancements on the land that we would be developing, that would be managed
and paid for by the developer and future HOA, that would benefit the community
as a whole. These enhancements discussed were sidewalks, street lights, nature
walks, etc.
•When asked about the desire to enter an HOA, the attendees were against joining
an HOA and would prefer to opt out.
•A desire to not allow cutting down trees and our response was explained that there
is a county process in place that we would have to closely follow to eliminate
excessive destruction of vegetation.
Items discussed to make the development more favorable to the community:
•Provide golf cart parking, beach access for the community, a sidewalk near the
street, an open space or play area, park, and trails. We stated that we intend to work
with the county to address this in a responsible manner.
•We were also asked about screening plants and we stated we would follow
regulations, codes, and the recommendations of the county specifically.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 8
•We were asked about a bulkhead wall and explained how we intend to deal with
storm water and explained that it is our best intention to contain a storm water
infiltration system on each individual lot that meets strict county and state codes
and regulations.
•We were asked if the area would be fenced and stated, we explained that, yes, this
would be a limited access community with possible future access cards.
•We were told that there is a negative view of driving by and seeing the backs of
houses and only “seeing vinyl”. We explained that our development would be
custom, “non-cooky-cutter” homes to enhance the communities current conditions.
•Community provided positive and negative views of having all driveways on the
road side.
•The community expressed that since we, as developers, “do not intend on living in
this neighborhood we don't care what it looks like”. We explained that we have
partners and ourselves within the group, that have extended interest in moving to
this development once completed.
•There was interest and positive feedback in having not one but two entrance / exits
to the development to avoid traffic at the once traffic light.
•It was expressed that this land should all be held as a natural area, and stated that
this is why the attendees decided to move to the area. Attendees comments were
that this is one of the last undeveloped areas and that the people who bought and
built their homes there would like to see this area remain undeveloped and not
become “another Carolina Beach.”
•Attendees asked if we intend to do any boat docks or piers and asked if the whole
area could have complimentary access to these amenities as well. We explained
that this is not yet part of out plan but hope to provide in the possible future and
was not against this suggestion.
•The community asked if we intend to dredge the waterway and we explained that
this is not allowed in this specific area and will not be performing this action.
•Attendees were asked about the pricing of these homes and we responded by
stating no less than $600,000 on the single family homes and no less than $500,000
on each side of the condos. This pricing may be higher but would not be lower.
•Discussion occurred on the townhomes being changed to single family and we
explained that we were working with the county to do this in a manner that left a
large open space so that the water and the wetlands would be viewable and
attractable to more homeowners and minimize the affects of developing this area.
•We were told that some individuals drive too fast on north and south Seabreeze
roads, once-more the discussion on adding an additional entrance / exit took place
as a positive addition.
•The community asked why we needed the specific number of houses and
expressed opinions on we can't build much less and charge much more in value per
property. We explained that this land is owned by the seller and we wish to
purchase it and develop the land to its full extent and served value. We explained
that our market research performed with our experienced real-estate team is how
we are estimating realistic sale values that will allow for the purchase of the land
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 9
with numbers that meet the needs of our lenders and investors, while providing
quality homes and benefits to the community as a whole.
We appreciate the community in providing us insight in our future plans and intend on
taking accountability for every suggestion and positive or negative feedback.
Sincerely yours,
Adam Shanks
Tracey Pettigrew
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 10
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 11
WILMINGTON TOWNSHIP - NEW HANOVER COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINAJUNE 30, 2022 JOB No.0114 - 2022
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR
924 NORTH SEABREEZE ROAD NATHAN FREEMAN TRACT & EXCEPTIONS
SCALE 1" = 50'
15001005025
LAND SURVEY / PLANNING / GIS
910-367-0066 - lsbaggie@pldcpa.com / P-0874
P.O. BOX 1028, CAROLINA BEACH NC 28428
Development Consultants, PLLC
A VETERANS OWNED SMALL BUSINESS
Progressive Land
LOT 1
LOT 2
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 5
LOT 6
LOT 7
40' PR
I
V
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
40
'
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
40' PR
I
V
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
LOT 8 LOT 9
LOT 10
LOT 11
LOT 12LOT 30
LOT 29
LOT 28
LOT 27
LOT 26
LOT 23
LOT 22 LOT 21
LOT 20
LOT 19LOT 18 LOT 16LOT 15
LOT 14
LOT 13
LOT 17
LOT 24
LOT 25
13'
11'
10'11'
9'
8'
11'
12'
10'
8'6'5'
12'
12'
11'
10'
TYPICA
L
1
8
'
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
11,150 sq. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-7,000 sq. ft.+/-7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
10,467 sq. ft.
9,829 sq. ft.7,274 sq. ft
7,162 sq. ft
7,000 sq. ft.
7,626 sq. ft.
8,676 sq. ft.
8,066 sq. ft.
9,765 sq. ft9,354 sq. ft.9,435 sq. ft.
11,852 sq. ft.
13,845 sq. ft.
9,455 sq. ft.
13,850 sq. ft.
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
2
'
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
3
'
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
2
'
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
2
'
ZO
N
E
X
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 12
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 13
WILMINGTON TOWNSHIP - NEW HANOVER COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 30, 2022 JOB No.0114 - 2022
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR
1001 & 924 NORTH SEABREEZE ROAD NATHAN FREEMAN TRACT & EXCEPTIONS
SCALE 1" = 100'
200015010050
LAND SURVEY / PLANNING / GIS
910-367-0066 - lsbaggie@pldcpa.com / P-0874
P.O. BOX 1028, CAROLINA BEACH NC 28428
Development Consultants, PLLC
A VETERANS OWNED SMALL BUSINESS
Progressive Land
LOT 1
LOT 2
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 5
LOT 6
LOT 7
40' P
R
I
V
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
40
'
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
40' P
R
I
V
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
LOT 8 LOT 9
LOT 10
LOT 11
LOT 12LOT 30
LOT 29
LOT 28
LOT 27
LOT 26
LOT 23
LOT 22 LOT 21
LOT 20
LOT 19LOT 18 LOT 16LOT 15
LOT 14
LOT 13
LOT 17
LOT 24
LOT 25
13'
11'
10'11'
9'
8'
11'
12'
10'
8'6'5'
12'
12'
11'
10'
TYPIC
A
L
1
8
'
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
11,150 sq. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-7,000 sq. ft.+/-7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
10,467 sq. ft.
9,829 sq. ft.7,274 sq. ft
7,162 sq. ft
7,000 sq. ft.
7,626 sq. ft.
8,676 sq. ft.
8,066 sq. ft.
9,765 sq. ft9,354 sq. ft.9,435 sq. ft.
11,852 sq. ft.
13,845 sq. ft.
9,455 sq. ft.
13,850 sq. ft.
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
2
'
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
2
'
ZO
N
E
X
MY
R
T
L
E
G
R
O
V
E
S
O
U
N
D
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
2
'
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
3
'
ZONE
V
E
-
1
3
'
ZONE
A
E
-
1
3
'
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 14
3668 6068
3068
3068
16080
3068
2424FX
2424FX
2424FX
3068
UP
UP
10'-11 1/2"10'-11 1/2"
5'-1"21'-11"
27'-0"
5'-6"16'-5"2'-4"2'-9"
21'-11"5'-1"
27'-0"
2'-4"
2'-8"
2'-7 1/2"
8'-5 1/2"
9'-3 1/2"
5'-0"
11'-1"
10'-7 1/2"
36'-0"
5'-3"
8'-4"
8'-4"
14'-1"
6'-4 1/2"
10'-1 1/2"
3'-6"
36'-0"
16'-6"16'-9 1/2"10'-0"
9'-11"
7'-7 1/2"
7'-1"
5'-0 1/2"
5'-5"
5'-5"
3'-1"
5'-4 1/2"
3'-8"
4'-3 1/2"
3'-4"
9'-11"
4'-0"
9'-3 1/2"
1'-11 1/2"
5'-5"16'-6"
20'-11" X 24'-3"
20'-11" X 10'-5"
GARAGE
TRASH
CANS
STORAGE
LOW WALL RAIL
FIELD VERIFY
POTTER SQ.FT.
FIRST FLOOR 1,224 SQFT
SECOND FLOOR 676 SQFT
TOTAL CONDITIONED 1,900 SQFT
GARAGE 777 SQFT
FRONT PORCH 1ST FLR 110 SQFT
FRONT PORCH 2ND FLR 109 SQFT
REAR DECK 2ND FLR 491 SQFT
HOUSE IMPERVIOUS 1,549 SQ.FT.
STORAGE
GROUND FLOOR
DN
DN
2860SC2860SC
2040SC
4010FX
3080
2460SC
2860SC
2860SC
2860SC
2860SC
2850SC
6080
2860SC 2860FX 2860SC
5017PT
2424FX
2460SC
2868 2468
2468
2468
3068
2860SC
2068
UP
1'-6 1/2"
5'-10 1/2"
11'-4 1/2"
5'-4"
9'-5 1/4"
3'-4"
1'-6"
1'-11 1/2"
5'-6"
2'-10"
5'-11 1/2"
2'-10"
3'-8"
10'-0"
3'-6"
3'-5"9'-4"3'-5"
5'-1"21'-11"
2'-9"2'-4"
7'-11 1/2"
6'-3"
7'-6"
42'-6"
10'-0"
5'-0 1/2"4'-11 1/2"5'-8"2'-10"2'-10"5'-8"
10'-0"17'-0"2'-0"
29'-0"
2'-7 1/2"
1'-6 1/2"
4'-2"
8'-0"
40'-4"
52'-6"
5'-1"5'-7"4'-3"5'-0 1/2"7'-0 1/2"
2'-8 1/2"
3'-7"
6'-0"
4'-7 1/2"
2'-0"
3'-2"
2'-4"
3'-6 1/2"
3'-11 1/2"
20'-10"
5'-7"4'-3"3'-1 1/2"1'-11"7'-0 1/2"
9'-2"3'-6"
27'-0"
5'-1"4'-11 1/2"
9'-11" X 9'-8"
15'-8" X 10'-6"
1224 SQ FT
15'-4" X 13'-8"
4'-8" X 7'-2"
5'-1" X 12'-5"
8'-2" X 7'-2"
16'-0" X 15'-6"
15'-8" X 9'-5"
4'-6" X 7'-4"
LIVING AREA
M.BATH
MASTER BDRM
CLOSET
KITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
B #2DECK
BALCONY
ENTRY
REF.
ZERO ENTRY
OPEN TO
ABOVE
PANTRY
CAB
WATERFALL
ENDS
FULL WALL
1/2 WALL
AWNING
(T.B.T.)
2 X 6
WALL
2 X 6
WALL
5' LOW PROFILE
MODERN F.P. (T.B.T.)
@ 9'4" A.F.F.
FIRST FLOOR
DN
2068
2068
2424FX2424FX2424FX
2868
2868 2468
2850SC
2850SC
2424FX
2424FX
3068 2860SC
5068
2468
4068
2860SC
2868
2868
2424FX
2424FX
2424FX
2424FX
10'-1"
2'-5"
2'-5"
5'-9"2'-6"2'-6"2'-11 1/2"2'-9 1/2"7'-1"3'-5"
16'-6"10'-6"1'-6"
27'-0"
9'-10 1/2"
6'-8 1/2"
2'-2"
8'-0"
2'-10"
6'-5"
1'-6"
36'-0"
6'-0"
2'-6"
3'-1 1/2"
6'-10 3/4"
2'-6"
4'-5 3/4"
10'-6"
1'-6"
10'-1"10'-7"4'-0"
11'-0"
6'-8"
3'-10"
1'-4"
5'-5"
3'-5"
4'-4"
4'-6 1/2"10'-2 1/4"1'-5 3/4"4'-1 1/2"3'-1"3'-7"
2'-8 1/2"2'-10"4'-1"6'-7"10'-9 1/2"
13'-2" X 11'-4"
862 SQ FT
10'-0" X 11'-1"10'-4" X 5'-0"
10'-5" X 10'-5"
22'-0" X 14'-1"
11'-9" X 10'-6"
LIVING AREA
BATH #3
BEDROOM #2
BEDROOM #3
BALCONY
W/D
WOOD
DECKING
GRAVEL
SURROUND
OPEN TO
BELOW
36" RAILING
18" X 18"
FAUX BOX ACCENT
18" X 18"
FAUX BOX
ACCENT
OFFICE
DECK
SECOND FLOOR
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@gmail.com
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
FLOOR PLANS
DATE:
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
22
AA--22
7/26/2022
FROARCH DESIGN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY
HOME CONSTRUCTED OR ANY DEVIATION FROM
THESE PLANS. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR MUST
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING
WITH CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR VERIFY
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES
-CODES GOVERN OVER PLANS- CONTRACTOR
MUST VERIFY ALL STRUCTURAL OR FRAMING PLANS.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"11SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"33
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 15
3'-0"
8'-0"
9'-1 1/2"
9'-1 1/2"
7'-2"
10'-1 1/2"
8'-0"
3'-0"
OVERHANG
FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
WINDOW HT. TYP
TOP OF PLATE
WINDOW HT. TYP
3 1/2" CORNER BD.
18" FASCIA
HORIZ. SIDING
4" REVEL
PANELS
AWNING
(T.B.T.)
18" X 18"
FAUX BOX
ACCENT
WINDOW HT. TYP
HORIZ. SIDING
6" REVEL
3 1/2" CORNER BD.
18" FASCIA
OVERHANG
18" X 18"
FAUX BOX
ACCENT
PANELS
FRONT ELEVATION
8'-0"
9'-1 1/2"
9'-1 1/2"
6'-2 1/2"
10'-1 1/2"
8'-0"
FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
WINDOW HT. TYP
TOP OF PLATE
WINDOW HT. TYP
3 1/2" CORNER BD.
18" FASCIA
HORIZ. SIDING
4" REVEL
PANELS
AWNING
(T.B.T.)
18" X 18"
FAUX BOX
ACCENT
WINDOW HT. TYP
HORIZ. SIDING
6" REVEL
18" FASCIA
SIDE ELEVATION
ELEVATIONS
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@gmail.com
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
DATE:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--33
7/26/2022
FROARCH DESIGN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY
HOME CONSTRUCTED OR ANY DEVIATION FROM
THESE PLANS. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR MUST
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING
WITH CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR VERIFY
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES
-CODES GOVERN OVER PLANS- CONTRACTOR
MUST VERIFY ALL STRUCTURAL OR FRAMING PLANS.
22 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
11 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 16
REAR ELEVATION
11 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SIDE ELEVATION
ROOF PLAN
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@gmail.com
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
DATE:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--44
ELEVATIONS
7/26/2022
FROARCH DESIGN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY
HOME CONSTRUCTED OR ANY DEVIATION FROM
THESE PLANS. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR MUST
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING
WITH CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR VERIFY
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES
-CODES GOVERN OVER PLANS- CONTRACTOR
MUST VERIFY ALL STRUCTURAL OR FRAMING PLANS.
22 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
33 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 17
UP
ALABAMA AVE.
100.00'
10' REAR SETBACK
50.00'
100.00'
5' SIDE SETBACK
5' SIDE SETBACK
20' FRONT SETBACKIMPERVIOUS SURFACE
LOT SIZE 5,000 SQFT
HOUSE 1,736 SQFT
DRIVEWAYS 204 SQFT
TOTAL 1,940 SQFT
IMP% = 38.8%
SITE PLAN
2424FX
2040SH 3068 2850SH 2850SH
2468
3068
4068
2868
2468
2468
2468
UP
32'-0"
8'-0"
6'-7"
6'-8 1/2"
7'-2 1/2"
7'-10"
8'-6"
9'-2"
8'-0"
9'-0"14'-0"9'-0"
12'-4"7'-4"12'-4"
8'-0"
6'-7"
6'-8 1/2"
7'-2 1/2"
7'-10"
5'-10"
2'-8"
2'-3"
4'-5"
2'-6"
28'-4"
17'-8"
32'-0"
5'-8"1'-11"4'-5"4'-1 1/4"4'-6 3/4"3'-11"2'-10"4'-7"
11'-4"9'-4"11'-4"
6'-0"5'-8 1/2"3'-7 1/2"5'-4"11'-4"
4'-6"
3'-4"
5'-4 1/2"
5'-5"
4'-4 1/2"
2'-6"
5'-8" X 10'-5"
3'-1" X 4'-0"
19'-8" X 17'-0"
5'-4" X 5'-1"
12'-3" X 6'-5"
LIVING AREA
STORAGE
GAME RM
ELEV.
1/2 B
ENTRY
ASHWORTH SQ.FT.
GROUND FLOOR 523 SQFT
FIRST FLOOR 1,412 SQFT
SECOND FLOOR 1,230 SQFT
TOTAL CONDITIONED 3,165 SQFT
REAR DECKS 109 SQFT EA.
1ST FLR FRONT DECK 252 SQFT
2ND FLR FRONT DECK 442 SQFT
42" X 48"
SHOWER
OPEN
SHELVES
LINE OF
DECK ABOVE
LINE OF
FLOOR ABOVE
2 X 6
WALLS
LINE OF
DECK ABOVE
GROUND FLOOR
SHEET:
SITE PLAN
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@gmail.com
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
11
DATE:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--11
SCALE: 1" = 10'
7/26/2022
FROARCH DESIGN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY
HOME CONSTRUCTED OR ANY DEVIATION FROM
THESE PLANS. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR MUST
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING
WITH CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR VERIFY
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES
-CODES GOVERN OVER PLANS- CONTRACTOR
MUST VERIFY ALL STRUCTURAL OR FRAMING PLANS.
11
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 18
DN
2424FX
2424FX
2424FX
2040SH
2450SH
2450SH
80702844SH2844SH
2020FX
2020FX
2040SH
2040SH
2850SH
2850SH
2850SH 2850SH 3070 2850SH 2850SH
2868
2468
4068
4068
DBL POC
3068
1668
4068
2468
1668
4068
2468
2868
2868 2468
2868
UP
32'-0"
46'-0"
8'-0"
8'-0"
46'-0"
9'-0"14'-0"9'-0"
3'-3 1/2"
9'-0"
3'-0"
6'-5 1/2"
5'-7 1/2"
1'-8 1/2"
2'-4"
4'-7"
2'-6"
2'-6"
5'-0"
8'-0"
9'-7 1/2"2'-10"2'-4 1/2"8'-8"8'-6"
6'-7"
2'-5"
1'-11"
1'-7"
2'-4 1/2"
2'-10 1/2"
4'-0"
5'-3 1/2"
1'-7"
2'-4 1/2"
2'-11"
9'-2"
2'-11"
2'-0"12'-4"2'-0"
2'-0"
10'-11 1/2"
2'-0"
6'-8"8'-3 1/4"17'-2"
4'-1 1/2"3'-10"3'-9"3'-1"5'-2 1/2"4'-1"7'-11"
5'-4 1/2"2'-8"3'-8"8'-3 1/2"3'-8"2'-11 1/2"5'-4 1/2"
4'-3"3'-11 1/2"3'-6"3'-7 1/2"4'-8"3'-5 1/2"4'-3"4'-3 1/2"
4'-7"2'-10"4'-3"4'-4"3'-11 1/2"4'-7 1/2"2'-10"4'-7"
3'-0"
12'-0"
2'-4"
3'-10"
2'-1 1/2"
11"
4'-10 1/2"
4'-9 1/2"
9'-10 1/2"
5'-11"
4'-11"
2'-4"
4'-0"
2'-1 1/2"
11"
16'-4" X 15'-0"
1414 SQ FT
11'-4" X 14'-4"
11'-4" X 6'-6"
11'-4" X 13'-11"
3'-1" X 4'-0"
14'-0" X 7'-11"
11'-4" X 7'-0"
11'-4" X 6'-6"
11'-4" X 6'-1"
14'-5" X 12'-2"
32'-1" X 7'-11"
LIVING AREA
MASTER BDRM #1
BEDROOM #3
BEDROOM #4
ELEVLINEN LINEN
BATH
BATH
DECK
5' X 3'
SHOWER
6'8" X 4'
SHOWER
BENCH
W D
M.BATH
DECK
LAUNDRY
W.I.C.
MECH
30" X 60"
TUB
TRAY CEILING
DRIP THRU
FIRST FLOOR
DN
2850SH
2850SH
2860SH2860SH120802860SH2860SH
2450SH
3068
2468
2850SH 2850SH 6068 2850SH 2850SH
2868
2868
2468
4068
2468
2468
2468
2468
2450SH
2450SH
2450SH
32'-0"
4'-7"2'-10"4'-7"4'-0"4'-0"4'-7"2'-10"4'-7"
32'-0"
8'-0"
6'-0"
4'-3 1/4"
2'-11"
17'-7 1/2"
5'-3"
9'-11 1/2"
9'-0"14'-0"9'-0"
3'-4"
2'-1"
6'-0"
2'-1"
3'-1"
5'-4 1/2"
3'-7"
2'-6"
9'-5 1/2"
2'-6"
40'-0"
3'-4"2'-8"2'-4 1/2"3'-4"3'-7"4'-8 1/2"5'-0"7'-0"
4'-11 1/2"
4'-8"
3'-8"2'-11"9'-5"9'-5"2'-11"3'-8"
3'-8"
8'-2 1/2"3'-6"3'-10 1/2"7'-1"3'-0"4'-0"
14'-6"
4'-9 1/2"
3'-3 1/2"
11'-5"
6'-0"
8'-8"
1237 SQ FT
16'-3" X 9'-11"
14'-0" X 7'-11"
11'-4" X 13'-9"
3'-1" X 4'-0"
11'-4" X 9'-3"
14'-3" X 16'-1"
4'-8" X 4'-11"6'-2" X 4'-9"
16'-1" X 14'-5"
31'-11" X 13'-11"
LIVING AREA
DECK
MASTER BDRM #2
ELEV.
FLEV SPACE
LIVING
1/2 B PANTRY
WETBAR
DECK
DINING
COVERED SECTION
WATER PROOF
36" X 60"
SHOWER
36" VENT FREE
GAS FIREPLACE
2 X 6
WALLS
REF
DW
OVEN/
MIRCO
COOKTOP
RAILING
2 X 6
EXTERIOR WALL
DRIP THRU
KITCHEN
SECOND FLOOR
SHEET:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@gmail.com
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
DATE:
FLOOR PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--22
11
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
7/26/2022
FROARCH DESIGN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY
HOME CONSTRUCTED OR ANY DEVIATION FROM
THESE PLANS. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR MUST
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING
WITH CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR VERIFY
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES
-CODES GOVERN OVER PLANS- CONTRACTOR
MUST VERIFY ALL STRUCTURAL OR FRAMING PLANS.
11
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 19
6'-8"
8'-1 1/2"
9'-1 1/2"
7'-9 1/2"
7'-0"
9'-1 1/2"
8'-0"
34'-10"
FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
8" COL. TYPICAL
WINDOW HT. TYP
TOP OF PLATE
BOTTOM OF BEAM
WINDOW HT. TYP
BOARD AND BATTEN
3 1/2" CORNER BD.
8" COL. TYPICAL
HORIZ. SIDING
7 1/2" FASCIA BD. W/
5 1/2" FRIEZE BD. (TYP)
5 1/2" CORNER BD.
CABLE RAIL
SYSTEM
HORIZ. SIDING
5 1/2" CORNER BD.
CABLE RAIL
SYSTEM
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
TOP OF PLATE
WINDOW HT. TYP
OVERALL HEIGHT
FRONT ELEVATIONSIDE ELEVATION
6'-8"
8'-1 1/2"
9'-1 1/2"
7'-9 1/2"
7'-0"
9'-1 1/2"
8'-0"
FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
8" COL. TYPICAL
WINDOW HT. TYP
TOP OF PLATE
BOTTOM OF BEAM
WINDOW HT. TYP
BOARD AND BATTEN
8" COL. TYPICAL
HORIZ. SIDING
7 1/2" FASCIA BD. W/
5 1/2" FRIEZE BD. (TYP)
5 1/2" CORNER BD.
CABLE RAIL
SYSTEM
HORIZ. SIDING
5 1/2" CORNER BD.
CABLE RAIL
SYSTEM
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
TOP OF PLATE
WINDOW HT. TYP
SIDE ELEVATIONREAR ELEVATION
SHEET:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@gmail.com
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
DATE:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--33
ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
11
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
33
7/26/2022
FROARCH DESIGN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY
HOME CONSTRUCTED OR ANY DEVIATION FROM
THESE PLANS. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR MUST
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING
WITH CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR VERIFY
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES
-CODES GOVERN OVER PLANS- CONTRACTOR
MUST VERIFY ALL STRUCTURAL OR FRAMING PLANS.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
22
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
44
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 20
10080
2450SH30682450SH
10080
2450SH
2450SH
2450SH
3068 2450SH
2450SH
3068
2668
2450SH
2450SH
UP
UP
CL
CLCLCLCLCL
CL CLCL CL
CL
7'-9 1/4"
1'-11"
12'-8"12'-8"
13'-2"9'-6"7'-8 1/2"9'-6"
54'-8"
29'-4"25'-4"
6'-8 1/2"13'-3"9'-4 1/2"6'-11 1/2"18'-4 1/2"
45'-0"
45'-0"
14'-1"
17'-4"
13'-7"
7'-0"
38'-0"
9'-6"
4'-5"
11'-5 1/2"
14'-7 1/2"
7'-6"
6'-8"6'-0 1/2"5'-2 1/2"8'-8"9'-6"11'-11"6'-8"
7'-2 3/4"7'-2 3/4"7'-2 3/4"7'-2 3/4"6 3/4"
60 SQ FT
5'-0" X 4'-11"
7'-9" X 3'-10"
LIVING AREA
ELECTRIC
PANEL BOX
CONC.CONC.
2 X 6 WALLS
UP
CONCRETE
SLAB
2 X 6 WALLS
NOTE:
SEPARATE GARAGE
FROM LIVING SPACE
W/ TYPE "X" 5/8" SHEETROCK
APPLIED ON CLG.
2 X 6 WALLS
8 X 8 P.T. POST
WRAPPED TO W/
4 X 8 BLOCK WITH
STUCCO FINISH
HVAC UNITS
ON RAISED DECK @
3' ABOVE GRADE
W/ SURROUND
8 X 8 POST
8 X 8 POST
UP
GAS
DECK
2 X 6 STUD WALLS
NO DRYWALL
RECESS CONC
8" FOR ELEV
ELEV
4' x 6'
OUTSIDE
SHOWER
FUTURE
GROUND LEVEL
SHEET:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@charter.net
DESCRIPTION
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
DATE:
FLOOR PLAN
BY
DATE
NO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--22
11
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
7/26/2022
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 21
DN
DN
2068
2450SH
2426FX
2426FX
2426FX
2450SH
2426FX
2040SH
2850SH
2850SH
2040SH
2850SH 2850SH
5068
3068 3068
2468
2468
2468
2868
2068
3068
3080
2868
4068
2468
3080
2468 2468 2668
2080
2440SH 2440SH 2440SH 6068
2468 3068
2856SH2856SH5068506850682856SH2856SH
2068
UP UP
UP
CL CLCL CL
CLCLCLCL CL
CL
2'-2"2'-4"2'-0"
2'-5 1/2"
2'-4"
5'-1"
5'-4 1/2"3'-7 1/2"3'-10 1/2"3'-10 1/2"
38'-0"
29'-4"
1'-8"
1'-8"
1'-8"10'-4"1'-8"
5'-3"2'-10"6'-2"3'-8 1/2"8'-7"8'-7"5'-2"5'-9 1/2"2'-10"5'-9"
13'-2"9'-6"7'-8 1/2"9'-6"14'-9 1/2"
3'-5"
3'-7"
11'-6"
9'-10 1/2"
16'-7 1/2"
9'-6"
3'-3 3/4"
2'-6"
2'-6"
2'-6"
2'-6"
3'-3 3/4"
8'-0"
1'-11"
1'-7"
54'-8"
14'-4"6'-6 1/2"2'-6"2'-6"3'-5 1/2"4'-8"2'-10"4'-11 1/2"3'-8 1/2"9'-2"
7'-9"
45'-0"
20'-6 1/2"
12'-9"
11'-8 1/2"
4'-5"
2'-2"
6'-2"
4'-10"
2'-9 1/2"
5'-0"
2'-10"
5'-1"
54'-8"
7'-2 3/4"7'-2 3/4"7'-2 3/4"7'-2 3/4"
2'-2 1/2"15'-8 1/2"5'-4 1/2"4'-2"4'-8 1/2"
5'-2 1/2"
6'-3 1/2"4'-0 1/2"4'-0"
1'-8"
12'-7 1/2"
1'-8"
1'-6"4'-9"8"4'-9"8"4'-9"8"4'-9"3'-3 1/2"
1'-6"
5'-3 1/2"
8"
5'-3 1/2"
8"
5'-3 1/2"
1'-6"
5'-2"
1'-1 1/2"
3'-8 1/2"
7'-5"
6'-0"
7'-1 1/2"
2'-7"
5'-0 1/2"
7'-0"
5'-6"
6 1/4"
6'-0"
5'-8 1/2"
2'-4"
2'-0 1/2"
4'-5 1/2"
5'-0"
28'-0" X 8'-8"
13'-8" X 16'-0"
11'-10" X 14'-4"
5'-7" X 9'-6"
7'-4" X 10'-1"
5'-0" X 4'-11"
12'-6" X 7'-0"
13'-11" X 11'-4"
29'-3" X 10'-0"
18'-3" X 17'-0"
23'-7" X 20'-4"
2202 SQ FT
13'-8" X 21'-0"
12'-6" X 12'-7"
5'-0" X 7'-9"
LIVING AREA
MASTER BDRM
W.I.C.
TILE
DECK
OFFICE
LOT 401 SQ.FT.
FIRST FLOOR 2,202 SQFT
SECOND FLOOR 578 SQFT
TOTAL CONDITIONED 2,833 SQFT
FRONT PORCH 230 SQFT
REAR PORCH 294 SQFT
GARAGE AREA 2,116 SQFT
GREAT RM
HALL
6 X 6 P.T. POST
WRAPPED TO
8 X 8
6 X 6 POST
P.T. DECK
ELEV.
TRAY CEILING
9'-1" TRAY W/
8" DROP CLG
W/ROPE LGT
CARPET
TILE
2 X 6
WALL
36" GAS
FIREPLACE
4' X 5'
SHOWER
8 X 8 P.T. POST
W/ 2' X 2' BASE
AND TAPERED
COLUMN
6 X 6 POST
40" A.F.F.
M. BATH
CARPET
P.T. DECK
HVAC
KITCHEN
DINING
DN
SCREEN PORCH
BUILT-IN
BUILT-IN
DROPPED BULKHEAD
@ 8'-0" A.F.F.
COFFER CEILING
9'-1" TRAY W/
8" BEAMS
LAUNDRY
W D
BEDROOM
BARN
DOOR
3' X 5'
TILE SHOWER
CARPET
HRD WD
HRD WD
HRD WD
BATH
HRD WD
HRD WD
TILE
BATH
BATH
TILE
TILE
BARN
DOORS
FUTURE
BUILD REMOVABLE
PLATFORM IN SHAFT
AT FLOOR LEVEL
BEDRM/
HORIZONTAL
LATTICE WRAPPING
STAIRS (NOT SHOWN
ON ELEVATIONS)
48" X 72"
FIRST FLOOR SHEET:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@charter.net
DESCRIPTION
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
DATE:
BY
DATE
NO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--33
FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
11
7/26/2022
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 22
DN
2668
28802480
2850SH2850SH
3068
2480
2480
12'-3 1/4"2'-10"5'-3 1/2"
3'-10 1/4"
1'-4 1/2"8'-2"2'-7 1/2"2'-4"6'-2 1/2"
5'-4"
17'-8"
16'-0"
6'-5"
16'-7"
9'-6 1/2"2'-6"8'-4 1/4"
13'-4" X 22'-8"
5'-0" X 5'-0"10'-9" X 11'-3"
3'-6" X 10'-2"
7'-10" X 6'-1"
576 SQ FT
5'-6" X 5'-0"
BEDROOM
LIVING AREA
ELEV.
STAIRWELL
DRYWALL
WINDOW
FUTURE
BUILD REMOVABLE
PLATFORM IN SHAFT
AT FLOOR LEVEL
FLEX SPACE
ATTIC SPACE
BATH
W.I.C.36" X 36"
TOP OF WALL 6'-11"
TOP OF WALL 6'-11"
CEILING BREAK LINE
CEILING BREAK LINE
SECOND FLOOR
10 : 12
10 : 12
12 : 12 12 : 12
10 : 12
10 : 12
4 : 12
ROOF PLAN
SHEET:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@charter.net
DESCRIPTION
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
DATE:
BY
DATE
NO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--44
22 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
11
FLOOR PLAN /
ROOF PLAN
7/26/2022
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 23
8'-8"
9'-1 1/2"
9'-5 1/2"
9'-1 1/2"
8'-1 1/2"
36'-8 3/4"
7'-4"
8 X 8 P.T. POST
WRAPPED W/
4 X 8 BLOCK AND
STUCCO/TABBY SHELL
FINISH
1 X 6 FASCIA
COTTAGE STYLE
SHUTTERS
GARAGE/ F.E.E.10.5'
HARDI SIDING
BOTTOM OF BEAM
WINDOW HT. TYP
2 X 10 BAND BD
W/ Z FLASHING
AS REQUIRED
ENTRY
BLOCK FOUNDATION
W/ PARGED FINISH
TOP OF PLATE
CORNER BOARD
DECORATIVE GABLE
BRACKET
CORNER BOARD
8 X 8 P.T. POSTW/
2' BOX BASE AND
TAPERED COL.
TOP OF PLATE
BOARD AND BATTEN
3/8" HARDI SHEET W/
1X2 PT. @ 16" O.C.
OVER ALL HEIGHT
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING
SHAKE SIDING
2 X12 PT BAND BD
W/ Z FLASHING FIRST FLOOR
BOARD AND BATTEN
3/8" HARDI SHEET W/
1X2 PT. @ 12" O.C.
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
FRONT ELEVATION
LATTICE UNDER
STAIRS NOT SHOWN
SIDE ELEVATION
SHEET:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@charter.net
DESCRIPTION
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
DATE:
BY
DATE
NO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--55
22
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ELEVATIONS
11
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
7/26/2022
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 24
REAR ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION
SHEET:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@charter.net
DESCRIPTION
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
DATE:
BY
DATE
NO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--66
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"22
ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"11
7/26/2022
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 25
WH
UP
UP
UP
SANDMAN DR.
N 07°52'45" E 100.27'
10' REAR SETBACK
IPF S 86°16'00" E 52.36'
5' SIDE SETBACK
N. FOURTH ST.
10' SIDE SETBACK
20' FRONT SETBACK
S 86°16'00" E 52.36'
S 03°44'00" W 100.01'
SITE PLAN
WH
90809080
2424AW
2424AW
2850SC
2850SC
2850SC
2850SC 6068
6010
2470
2424AW
2424AW
2424AW
3070
3070
2860
4070 2870 2470
28704070
2870
UP
UP
UP
2'-6"
7'-9"
2'-8"
5'-6"
11'-0"
5'-3"
5'-11"3'-6"
3'-6"
3'-6"
6'-4"11'-4"6'-4"
24'-0"9'-3"
33'-3"
5'-6"
1'-0"
10'-8"
13'-0"
14'-0"
3'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
3'-4"
10'-8"
27'-0"
14'-4"
52'-0"
11'-3"6'-8"2'-8"8'-8"
4'-0"29'-3"
33'-3"
10'-4 1/2"
2'-3"
2'-4"
2'-4 1/2"
10'-0"
52'-0"
12'-0"12'-0"5'-3"
7'-3"5'-4"6'-4 1/2"4'-4 1/2"5'-5 1/2"5"4'-0 1/2"
7'-3"4'-1"17'-11"
12'-7"6'-4 1/2"4'-7"1'-5 1/2"8'-3"
5'-10 1/2"
5'-8"
1'-11"
3'-7"
5'-7 1/2"
3'-10 1/2"
3'-8"
23'-0" X 21'-3"
930 SQ FT
5'-3" X 5'-3"
10'-10" X 11'-10"
6'-0" X 12'-5"
17'-1" X 18'-0"
8'-9" X 12'-6"
12'-1" X 12'-5"
LIVING AREA
GARAGE
ELEV.
FAMILY
BEDROOM #2
BEDROOM #3
BATH #2
UTILITY
TEAGUE / LOT 36 SQ.FT.
GROUND FLOOR 905 SQFT
FIRST FLOOR 1,281 SQFT
SECOND FLOOR 976 SQFT
TOTAL CONDITIONED 3,162 SQFT
GARAGE 536 SQFT
ENTRY DECK 54 SQFT
FRONT PORCH 1ST 80 SQFT
REAR DECK 1ST 190 SQFT
FRONT DECK 2ND 80 SQFT
REAR COVERED PORCH (BOTH) 235 SQFT
OPEN DECK 2ND FLR 120 SQFT
STORAGE/
STACK
W/D
72" x 36"
TUB/SHOWER
REF.
UP TO 42" HORIZONTAL
NICHE IN SHOWER.
NEEDS HEADER S.S.
AIR
HANDLER
BRACKET UNDER
BUMP OUT ABOVE
BRACKET UNDER
BUMP OUT ABOVE
2 x 6
WALLS
2 x 6
WALLS
4' X 6'
OUTDOOR SHOWER
1
A5
1
A5
2
A5
2
A5
3
A5
3
A5
4
A5
4
A5
5
A5
5
A5
GROUND FLOOR
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@gmail.com
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
FLOOR PLANS
DATE:
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
22 AA--11
7/26/2022
FROARCH DESIGN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY
HOME CONSTRUCTED OR ANY DEVIATION FROM
THESE PLANS. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR MUST
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING
WITH CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR VERIFY
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES
-CODES GOVERN OVER PLANS- CONTRACTOR
MUST VERIFY ALL STRUCTURAL OR FRAMING PLANS.
SCALE: 1" = 10'11
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 26
DN
2020FX
2020FX
2020FX
2020FX
2020FX
2020FX
1250FX
1210
2450SC
2410
1250FX
1210
2424FX
2424FX
2424FX
4014AW
4014AW
4014AW 2450SC
2410
6068
6010
2450SC
2410
3070
2468
1068FX
10123012
30681068FX
1012
6068
6010
2470
2870
2470
2470
2870
2070
2870
2870
2470
2450SC
2410
2450SC
2410
2470
2450SC
2410
UP
7'-6 1/2"
6"
2'-6 1/2"
3'-0"
3'-5"
2'-7"
2'-7"
4'-5"
7'-2"
6"
3'-0"
2'-1 1/2"
2'-0 1/2"
2'-0 1/2"
3'-11 1/2"
4'-6"
4'-6"
2'-6"
2'-6"2'-6"4'-4"4'-4"2'-6"2'-6"
1'-4"5'-0"1'-4"8'-8"1'-4"5'-0"1'-4"9'-3"
33'-3"
5'-3"
7'-9"
6"
16'-0"
21'-8"
14'-4"
52'-6"
9'-3"3'-2"4'-10"4'-10"3'-3 1/2"3'-8 1/2"4'-2"
24'-0"
10'-0"
12'-5 1/2"
2'-8 1/2"
3'-1"
52'-6"
7'-0"
11'-2"
2'-0"
1'-8"
4'-4 1/2"
6'-5 1/2"
3'-10"
15'-6"
1'-8"
4'-0"3'-10 1/2"3'-10 1/2"7'-3 1/2"4'-11 1/2"
2'-6 1/2"4'-0"5'-7"4'-4"
3'-8"
5'-7 1/2"
3'-10 1/2"
3'-3"
12'-0"12'-0"
4'-5 1/2"4'-4"
1281 SQ FT
15'-4" X 18'-6"
16'-0" X 12'-8"
11'-3" X 5'-6"
6'-9" X 10'-5"
24'-0" X 9'-11"
6'-8" X 7'-4"6'-8" X 13'-2"
8'-6" X 6'-11"
13'-5" X 7'-7"
9'-2" X 5'-4"
5'-3" X 5'-3"
7'-4" X 11'-8"
11'-3" X 7'-2"
LIVING AREA
ELEV.
MASTER BDRM
M. BATH
W.I.C.
PORCH
BATH #1
LAUNDRY
W
D
BEDROOM #1
LINEN
W.I.C.
WATER PROOF DECK
COVERED
WATERPRO0F
WATER PROOF DECK
ENTRY
OPEN RAIL
NOOK
BARN DR
BUILT-IN DESK
AREA T.B.T.
PANEL MOLDING
IN STAIR TOWER
SCREEN PORCH
ZERO ENTRY SHOWER
CORNER
SEAT
HVAC
DN
6" CANTILEVER
DECK
6" CANTILEVER
88" X 48"
SHOWER
1
A5
1
A5
2
A5
2
A5
3
A5
3
A5
4
A5
4
A5
5
A5
5
A5
FIRST FLOOR
DN
2424FX
6068
6010
2810
2856SC
2810
2856FX
2810
2856SC
2850FX
2810
2020
2020
2020
2810
2840FX
1640SC
16106068
60101640SC
1610
6068
6010FX
3046DH
2020AW2020AW
2468
2470
3070
3070
3034
VAULT UP
VAULT UP
VAULT UP
VAULT UPVAULT UP
VAULT UP
14'-7"
7'-4"
4'-11"
4'-2"
3'-6"
5'-8"
3'-6"
2'-0"2'-0"1'-10"6'-2"6'-2"1'-10"2'-0"2'-0"
4'-0"3'-2 1/2"9'-7"3'-2 1/2"4'-0"9'-3"
2'-8"2'-1"2'-8"4'-6"
5'-2 3/4"
4'-9 1/4"
10'-0"
10'-0"
31'-0"
4'-0"
7'-0 1/2"
45'-0"
2'-6"
4'-6"
4'-6"
2'-6"
4'-0"
2'-10"
2'-10"
4'-8"
4'-0"
3'-6 1/2"
6'-4"
2'-9 1/2"
14'-0"
14'-4"
45'-0"
6'-0"6'-0"
9'-3"12'-0"12'-0"
4'-0"16'-0"4'-0"
5'-6"
5'-7"4'-4"
5'-0"7'-0"
976 SQ FT
11'-0" X 9'-10"
11'-9" X 9'-9"
16'-10" X 18'-1"
11'-9" X 15'-11"
8'-10" X 6'-7"
12'-0" X 9'-11"12'-0" X 10'-2"
3'-8" X 8'-7"
5'-3" X 5'-3"
LIVING AREA
LIVING
KITCHEN
ELEV.
COVERED DECKDECK
COVERED PORCH
WATERPROOF
DINING
CASUAL
36" VENT FREE
GAS F.P.
PANTRY
BUILT-IN
DW
COOK TOP
REF
WATERPROOF
1/2 B
SCREEN PORCH
54" KNEE WALL
W/ WD CAP
UP
5' DIA SPIRAL
STAIR CASE
T.B.T.
BUILT-IN
COFFEE/WINEBAR
PANEL MOLDING
IN STAIR TOWER
10' CLG
10' CLG
ACTIVE CENTER
ONLY SLIDER
FARM SINK
MIRCO/
OVEN
1
A5
1
A5
2
A5
2
A5
3
A5
3
A5
4
A5
4
A5
5
A5
5
A5
SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
14'-6" X 10'-3"
DECK
ROOF DECK
FLOOR PLANS
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@gmail.com
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
DATE:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--22
7/26/2022
FROARCH DESIGN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY
HOME CONSTRUCTED OR ANY DEVIATION FROM
THESE PLANS. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR MUST
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING
WITH CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR VERIFY
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES
-CODES GOVERN OVER PLANS- CONTRACTOR
MUST VERIFY ALL STRUCTURAL OR FRAMING PLANS.
11 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
22 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 27
11 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
7'-4"
4"
9'-1 1/2"
9'-1 1/2"
7'-4"
9'-1"
1'-0"
7'-8 3/4"
34'-10 1/2"
FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
WINDOW HT. TYP
TOP OF PLATE
WINDOW HT. TYP
8" COL. TYPICAL
8" HORIZ. SIDING
7 1/2" FASCIA BD. W/
1 1/2" SHADOW BD. &
5 1/2" FRIEZE BD. (TYP)
SECOND FLOOR
10' CEILING HGT
WINDOW HT. TYP
8" HARDI ARTISAN
HORIZ. LAP SIDING
STAIR TOWER WINDOWS
@ 6'8" W/ 12" TRANS
TOP OF PLATE
OVERALL HEIGHT
WEAVE LAP SIDING
TYPICAL
GARAGE
5 1/2" CORNER BD
BOARD AND BATTEN
6" CANTILEVER WALL
W/ 5" SIDING REVEAL
5" HARDI ARTISAN
HORIZ. LAP SIDING
8" HARDI ARTISAN
HORIZ. LAP SIDING
6" CANTILEVER WALL
W/ HARDI PANEL
FRONT ELEVATION
7'-4"9'-1 1/2"
9'-1 1/2"
7'-4"
1'-0"
9'-1"
7'-10"
9'-7"
9'-9 1/2"
9'-4"
12'-9 1/2"
9'-5 1/2"
6'-5 1/2"
15'-11 1/2"
9'-1"
3'-8"
FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF PLATE
SECOND FLOOR
WINDOW HT. TYP
TOP OF PLATE
WINDOW HT. TYP
SECOND FLOOR
10' CEILING HGT
WINDOW HT. TYP
TOP OF PLATE
SIDE ELEVATION
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@gmail.com
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
DATE:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--33
ELEVATIONS
7/26/2022
FROARCH DESIGN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY
HOME CONSTRUCTED OR ANY DEVIATION FROM
THESE PLANS. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR MUST
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING
WITH CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR VERIFY
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES
-CODES GOVERN OVER PLANS- CONTRACTOR
MUST VERIFY ALL STRUCTURAL OR FRAMING PLANS.
22
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 28
11 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
REAR ELEVATION
OUT DOOR
SHOWER W/
B & B SIDES
SIDE ELEVATION4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
4 : 12
VAULT UP
VAULT UP
VAULT UP
VAULT UPVAULT UP
VAULT UP
ROOF PLAN
SHEET:
SCALE:
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:
(910) 599-7901
froarch@gmail.com
7109 Sea Bass Dr.
Wilmington, Nc. 28409
DATE:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SHEET TITLE:
AA--44
ELEVATIONS
7/26/2022
FROARCH DESIGN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY
HOME CONSTRUCTED OR ANY DEVIATION FROM
THESE PLANS. BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR MUST
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING
WITH CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR VERIFY
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES
-CODES GOVERN OVER PLANS- CONTRACTOR
MUST VERIFY ALL STRUCTURAL OR FRAMING PLANS.
33 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
22 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 7 - 29
Concept Plan
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 8 - 1
WILMINGTON TOWNSHIP - NEW HANOVER COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINAJUNE 30, 2022 JOB No.0114 - 2022
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR
924 NORTH SEABREEZE ROAD NATHAN FREEMAN TRACT & EXCEPTIONS
SCALE 1" = 50'
15001005025
LAND SURVEY / PLANNING / GIS
910-367-0066 - lsbaggie@pldcpa.com / P-0874
P.O. BOX 1028, CAROLINA BEACH NC 28428
Development Consultants, PLLC
A VETERANS OWNED SMALL BUSINESS
Progressive Land
LOT 1
LOT 2
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 5
LOT 6
LOT 7
40' PR
I
V
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
40
'
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
40' PR
I
V
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
LOT 8 LOT 9
LOT 10
LOT 11
LOT 12LOT 30
LOT 29
LOT 28
LOT 27
LOT 26
LOT 23
LOT 22 LOT 21
LOT 20
LOT 19LOT 18 LOT 16LOT 15
LOT 14
LOT 13
LOT 17
LOT 24
LOT 25
13'
11'
10'11'
9'
8'
11'
12'
10'
8'6'5'
12'
12'
11'
10'
TYPICA
L
1
8
'
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
11,150 sq. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-7,000 sq. ft.+/-7,000 sq. ft.+/-
7,000 sq. ft.+/-
10,467 sq. ft.
9,829 sq. ft.7,274 sq. ft
7,162 sq. ft
7,000 sq. ft.
7,626 sq. ft.
8,676 sq. ft.
8,066 sq. ft.
9,765 sq. ft9,354 sq. ft.9,435 sq. ft.
11,852 sq. ft.
13,845 sq. ft.
9,455 sq. ft.
13,850 sq. ft.
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
2
'
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
3
'
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
2
'
ZO
N
E
A
E
-
1
2
'
ZO
N
E
X
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 9 - 1
Public Comments
In Support X
Neutral X
In Opposition 10
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 10 - 1
From: mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com on behalf of Audra Moore
<mvolkmar@nhcgov.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 12:11 PM
To: May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Meredith, Ron;
Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary
Subject: Public Comment on Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Name
Audra Moore
Address
804 Hatteras Court
Wilmington, NC 28409
United States
Map It
Email
audra@livingseaside.com
Projects available for comment.
Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
What is the nature of your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment
As a resident of the Seabreeze Community and a member of the Seabreeze Committee, I oppose the
rezoning for several reasons. 1. Over half the area is in an AE flood zone and changing the zoning would
increase flooding into surrounding homes displaced from the higher density homes being requested for
approval. This is a major issue as a resident of the area. We have not had much rain this past year, so the
wetlands appear dryer then compared to seasonally normal rain periods. Our area takes on a lot of water
during hurricanes and flooding, but given the spaced out homes currently in the area, the placement of homes
around wetlands allows for proper water displacement. 2. Traffic and pedestrian safety is also a huge issue.
The requested development will have one entrance to the neighborhood off of S Seabreeze Rd. intersecting at
the light at Carolina Beach Rd. which can cause delays and backup in traffic. S. Seabreeze Rd. is a very
narrow 2 lane road with an 8 ft ditch on one side without any room for error. As neighbors, we worry about
safety in walking/bike riding the neighborhood with increased traffic. Not to mention fire truck access, which is
already an issue if someone were to need assistance. 3. The builder has absolutely zero experience in taking
on such a huge project in a flood zone. When addressing this issue, with required community meeting he held,
the builder constantly referenced his project in Carolina Beach that has proved successful for the last 6 month
with its drainage. Our committee members have driven past this project that is not even connected to the
underground drainage system the builder raves about working so well and is still in the framing stage. This
community meeting held by the builder was not an actual meeting with the community, it was a box he
checked off in order to further the process with the county. Only a handful of neighbors actually received
notice of the meeting to be held. Luckily, because we have a very involved Seabreeze Committee, the notice
was shared by the few and a large number of community residents showed up for said meeting. During the
builder community meeting we were fed lie after lie in a meeting held indoors in which the developer didn't
even take off his sunglasses, nor introduce himself or his team until being asked to do so. We are not opposed
to development in our area, we are opposed to irresponsible development in a flood zone by an inexperienced
developer that holds a stance based on greed in profits over purposeful planning.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 1
From: mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com on behalf of laird flournoy
<mvolkmar@nhcgov.com>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 11:38 AM
To: May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Meredith, Ron;
Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary
Subject: Public Comment on Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Name
laird flournoy
Address
909 salt spray lane
wilmington, NC 28409
United States
Map It
Email
laird@homerepairnc.com
Projects available for comment.
Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
What is the nature of your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment
The proposed property has major issues with drainage. The DOT actually dug a 6-7 foot ditch all along the
property to allow drainage from as far away as dolphin bay. We also have a property at 7531 Carolina beach
rd that actually drains down 421 in to this area. It would be a mistake to not plan out this area for proper
density and wet land preservation. Similar to the Landing at Snows cut that borders this property . Which has
full wet land maps by Army corp. Wet land preservation areas , proper ditches and swells. What this developer
is requesting is formulated for maximum profit and devaluation of our neighborhood with no consideration of
wetlands and or drainage . i have made complaints with CAMA and Army Corps. We will also be running an
article in the local newspaper.
Thanks, Laird Flournoy
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 2
From: mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com on behalf of JOHN FORD
<mvolkmar@nhcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 12:54 PM
To: May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Meredith, Ron;
Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary
Subject: Public Comment on Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Name
JOHN FORD
Address
1074 S SEABREEZE RD
WILMINGTON, NC 28409
United States
Map It
Email
jmford139@msn.com
Projects available for comment.
Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
What is the nature of your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment
New Hanover Comprehensive Plan
Building The Future, Goal X
X. B23 Encourage lower density in flood plain.
Framing The Policy
Discourage development in flood plains
Visualizing The Future
Low density in special flood hazard areas.
If the county is not going to go by these documents that recommend low density in the 100 year flood plain
then they need to be removed.
There is an offer on the table for this property to be developed at R15, the realtor can verify this.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 3
From: mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com on behalf of Robert Ponzoni
<mvolkmar@nhcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 2:16 PM
To: May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Meredith, Ron;
Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary
Subject: Public Comment on Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Name
Robert Ponzoni
Address
1201 Canal Drive
Carolina Beach, NC 28428
United States
Map It
Email
rjponzoni@yahoo.com
Projects available for comment.
Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
What is the nature of your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment
Please reconsider the zoning change from R15 which is recommended for AE conditions to double that
density. More impervious surface, traffic and stretching of local schools, fire and police departments. This is a
bad thing for this entire area. Please don’t approve this request.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 4
From: mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com on behalf of David Sink
<mvolkmar@nhcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 5:00 PM
To: May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Meredith, Ron;
Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary
Subject: Public Comment on Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Name
David Sink
Address
1006 Carolina beach ave north
Carolina beach, North Carolina 28428
United States
Map It
Email
Shreder_dave@yahoo.com
Projects available for comment.
Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
What is the nature of your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment
Definitely do not support adding extra homes or condos or apartments to this area
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 5
From: mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com on behalf of Janis Bradish
<mvolkmar@nhcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 6:03 PM
To: May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Meredith, Ron;
Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary
Subject: Public Comment on Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Name
Janis Bradish
Address
203 Seventh St N
Carolina Beach, North Carolina 28428-4342
United States
Map It
Email
jjbrad31@hotmail.com
Projects available for comment.
Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
What is the nature of your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment
The Sea Breeze project is way too dense. I am completely disappointed in New Hanover County county-wide
lack of responsible planning & zoning. Have you given up on maintaining the charm & uniq unless of our
environment? You are destroying what brings people to our coastal area.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 6
From: mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com on behalf of Maribeth
Scanlon <mvolkmar@nhcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 7:05 PM
To: May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Meredith, Ron;
Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary
Subject: Public Comment on Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Name
Maribeth Scanlon
Address
980 Annie LEE LANE
Wilmington, North Carolina 28409
United States
Map It
Email
mbwwatkins@yahoo.com
Projects available for comment.
Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
What is the nature of your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment
Strongly oppose the de-forestation and environmental damage of changing the zoning to R-7 from R15. The
main road is already dangerous for foot/bike use without adding additional traffic to area.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 7
From: mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com on behalf of Symanthia
Watson <mvolkmar@nhcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 10:25 AM
To: May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Meredith, Ron;
Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary
Subject: Public Comment on Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Name
Symanthia Watson
Address
1319 Carolina Beach Ave. N
Carolina Beach, NC 28428
United States
Map It
Email
symanthia@earthlink.net
Projects available for comment.
Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
What is the nature of your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment
Do not agree with re-zoning plans to increase to 6 houses/acre.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 8
From: mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com on behalf of Steve Tylee
<mvolkmar@nhcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 2:42 PM
To: May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Meredith, Ron;
Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary
Subject: Public Comment on Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Name
Steve Tylee
Address
1056 S. Seabreeze Rd.
Wilmington, NC 28409
United States
Map It
Email
stev530@gmail.com
Projects available for comment.
Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
What is the nature of your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment
Dear Planning Board,
I would appreciate your help in protecting my property and the property of my neighbors by denying this re-
zone application.
All of us at Seabreeze are living in the floodplain. We are all on R-15 parcels that provide enough property that
is not covered by concrete, asphalt, and roofs that assist with drainage of the area. To allow the increased
density afforded by R-7 district is not responsible planning and development. There are plenty of sites outside
of the flood plain that lend themselves to R-7 and other higher densities. No need put R-7 in the floodplain.
Thank you,
Steve Tylee
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 9
From: mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com on behalf of Katherine Tylee
<mvolkmar@nhcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 2:21 PM
To: May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Meredith, Ron;
Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary
Subject: Public Comment on Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Name
Katherine Tylee
Address
1056 S Seabreeze Rd
Wilmington, NC 28409
United States
Map It
Email
kmtylee@gmail.com
Projects available for comment.
Z22-17: Rezoning at 924 N Seabreeze (9-1-2022)
What is the nature of your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment
Dear Planning Staff,
I recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. It is INCONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan because it will allow for densities higher than what is recommended within the floodplain.
Denial is reasonable and in the public interest because of the uncertainty of negative impacts that increased
density could have on the adjacent land uses, the environment, the local infrastructure and most importantly
the people living at Seabreeze, now and in the future.
If Planning Staff recommend approval of this rezone, you are choosing development dollars over purposeful
planning.
I am opposed to this proposed re-zoning for several reasons:
1) First and foremost, six acres of this 7 acre parcel 924 N. Seabreeze are in a Special Flood Hazard Area
(AE) per FEMA.
My property is in the VE zone, east of this parcel. Almost ALL of Seabreeze is in the floodplain. Storm water,
drainage ditches, incoming tidal waters, all add up with normal storm events. Add to that the hurricane season.
DENSITY SHOULD BE LIMITED IN THE FLOODPLAIN AREAS AND NOT INCREASED!! Neighbors have
older homes that are not built to the new flood guidelines. I have a newer home with as many hurricane
protections as I was able to afford to build into it. We all have a right to have our lives and property protected
to the maximum extent possible. This area has been flooded before and will be flooded again. Allowing
increased density is a blatant disregard for one of the best mitigation opportunities available. For what reason?
15 additional homes will not solve NHC's housing shortage but it will put those of us already living here and
paying our share of the tax base at an increased risk.
2) Road safety -- we have none to begin with. I walk Seabreeze every day. To estimate 15 additional vehicular
trips in the a.m. and 15 in the p.m. for a subdivision with 30 homes. Really? Are we to assume that 15 of those
homes do not have drivers in them? And the other 15 only have one driver. Not typical. I do not believe those
numbers at all.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 10
3) The developer says he wants to "add to the beauty and historical value of Seabreeze" yet he proposes a
gated community with one way in and out, set up in a circle with the homes facing in toward each other. He is
proposing a seperate community within the existing community of Seabreeze. And just who is he keeping out?
Ironic!
He says his demographic is "families" yet could not find the place in his plan for any open space or
playground. Quite frankly, the plan is UGLY!
4) I believe this is a money grab. The developer has zero experience in NHC and only one project that is still
under construction in C.B. Everything he says is questionable.
Thank you for logging my opposition. I will be at the Sept 1st hearing.
Kathy Tylee
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 11 - 11
Supplementary Applicant
Materials
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 12 - 1
May 4, 2022
Re: 924 S. Seabreeze Road, 1001 N. Seabreeze Road & 1045 N. Seabreeze Road
Water & Wastewater Utility System
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Pettigrew:
Please accept this letter as Aqua North Carolina’s (“Aqua”) non-binding commitment to provide water and
wastewater utility service to the planned development at 924 S. Seabreeze Road, 1001 N. Seabreeze
Road & 1045 N. Seabreeze Road, Wilmington, NC. This offer is contingent upon Aqua and the Developer
entering into Water and Wastewater Utility Agreement (“Agreement”) with mutually acceptable terms,
permit approvals by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, and the North Carolina
Utilities Commission’s approval of this transaction.
The structure of the Agreement would include the following:
1. Developer to install the water and wastewater utility system infrastructure to serve up
to 50 single family units and 25 townhouses;
2. Developer to complete interconnections to Aqua’s existing water and wastewater
facilities including making any necessary improvements to Aqua’s existing water and
wastewater facilities in an effort to serve the proposed up to 50 single family units and
25 townhouses;
3. Developer to pay Aqua a cash contribution in aid of construction capacity (CIAC)
reserve payment for the reservation of wastewater capacity in Aqua’s existing
wastewater facilities.
4. Developer to install a community well to support the proposed development and
interconnect to Aqua’s existing water facilities based on Aqua’s specifications.
5. The capacity payment amount and structure shall be detailed further in the Agreement.
This letter of intent does not constitute an agreement for the ownership and operation of the
water and wastewater assets of the Developer. The Agreement will be prepared by Aqua and will
contain the provisions set forth above and other traditional covenants, warranties and representations.
Thank you for considering Aqua as the water and wastewater provider. I look forward to having
the opportunity to work with your team on this project. Should you have any questions or wish to
discuss this project further please contact me at 919-653-6967.
Sincerely,
C. Ruffin Poole
Director, Corporate Development
cc: Robert Farrell, Sr. Current Planner, New Hanover County rfarrell@nhcgov.com
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 1 - 13 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2022
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Sarah Lipkin Sularz, Housing Planner
CONTACT(S): Sarah Lipkin Sularz; Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Text Amendment Request (TA22-02) – Request by Austen Truhe and Chris2na Sheltra, applicants, to amend the
Unified Development Ordinance to permit the use of Accessory Dwelling Units in all residen2al zoning districts.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Applicants Chris na Sheltra and Austen Truhe have submi$ed a request for a text amendment to the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in all residen al zoning districts. In February
2022, the applicants purchased a home in an R-15 zoning district with an exis ng accessory dwelling unit. Though not
permi$ed in the zoning district, an approved accessory structure had been upfi$ed with the necessary bathroom and
kitchen areas that allowed for it to be used as living space, and the home was listed and adver sed with the detached
apartment highlighted as a selling feature. In order to bring their home into compliance, the applicants have requested
that ADUs be allowed in all residen al zoning districts based on the poten al benefits of affordable housing, affordable
short-term rentals, and affordability for home buyers.
The applicant’s situa on may not be unusual in unincorporated New Hanover County. Zoning compliance staff have
experienced increased calls regarding ADUs over the past several years. While we have not received specific
complaints, residents’ ques ons have led staff to an cipate that some property owners may have used loopholes in
the permi;ng process to up-fit accessory structures or inadvertently made improvements that allowed the structures
to be used as accessory dwellings.
Because of compliance concerns, ongoing resident queries, and the poten al benefits of ADUs, which are commonly
recognized as a way to provide what is known as “missing middle” housing, the county has considered how to best
accommodate this use for almost a decade and the recommenda on to explore an ordinance to allow accessory
dwelling units that are compa ble with exis ng neighborhoods was included in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
While staff remains suppor ve of ADUs, the staff proposed amendment does address par cular impacts and concerns
related to this use. These supplemental requirements were shaped by best prac ces to reduce the likelihood that
nega ve, unintended impacts will occur. Staff considered impacts on communi es, neighborhoods, and individuals, as
well as impacts that will make ADU allowances effec ve and safe as a type of housing.
Excep ons to any ordinance put in place allowing ADUs for the County’s residen al zoning districts would apply to
HOA regula ons prohibi ng ADU allowances. Addi onal limita ons can be a part of condi onal rezonings. If the text
amendment is approved, staff does recommend the effec ve date be three (3) months post adop on, to allow for
sufficient me to develop an effec ve permi;ng process that will ensure that any structures would be in compliance
with Environmental Health, Engineering, CFPUA, and state stormwater requirements. This process may extend to
conversions that only currently require a Building Safety permit to reduce the number of upfits that inadvertently
circumvent other agencies’ review.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units to the RA, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, and PD districts,
subject to use-specific standards. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because it provides for a range of housing types, opportuni es, and choices. I also find
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it
provides diverse housing op ons for all residents while preserving community character. Addi onally, the
recommended updates to the standards will minimize the poten al nega ve impacts of stormwater and
parking issues, reduce the likelihood of loopholes and unintended nega ve impacts to these residen al
districts.
Alternate Mo on for Denial:
I move to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units to the RA, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, and PD districts,
subject to use-specific standards. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan because the amendment provides for a range of housing types, opportuni es, and
choices, I find RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the amendment request is reasonable and in the public interest
because the amendment is not consistent with the desired character of all residen al communi es in the
county and the density or poten al uses may adversely impact adjacent neighbors.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip on
Script
Staff Report
TA Section 2
TA Section 4
Application Cover Sheet
Application
Public Comment Cover Sheet
PC Beejay Grob
PC Paige Woodruff
PC Gaddy
Public Comments to City Council 7-22
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2
SCRIPT for Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment (TA22-02)
Request by Christina Sheltra and Austen Truhe to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to
redefine Accessory Dwelling and to allow for Accessory Dwelling Units in all residential zoning
districts.
1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes for
rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Applicant’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
3. Close the public hearing
4. Board discussion
5. Before we proceed with the vote, I would like to invite the applicant to the podium. Based on the
Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, would you like withdraw your
petition, request a continuance, or proceed with a vote?
6. Vote on amendment. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or is not,
consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is reasonable
and in the public interest.
Example Motion of Approval
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units to the RA, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, and PD
districts, subject to use-specific standards. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the
2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides for a range of housing types, opportunities, and choices.
I also find RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public
interest because it provides diverse housing options for all residents while preserving community
character. Additionally, the recommended updates to the standards will minimize the potential negative
impacts of stormwater and parking issues, reduce the likelihood of loopholes and unintended negative
impacts to these residential districts.
Example Motion for Denial
I move to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units to the RA, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, and PD
districts, subject to use-specific standards. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent
of the Comprehensive Plan because the amendment provides for a range of housing types, opportunities,
and choices, I find RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the amendment request is reasonable and in the public
interest because the amendment is not consistent with the desired character of all residential communities
in the county and the density or potential uses may adversely impact adjacent neighbors.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance to establish the allowance of Accessory Dwelling Units. I find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent]
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
I also find [Approval/Denial] of the proposed amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because
[insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 2
TA22-02 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 1 of 4
STAFF REPORT OF TA22-02
TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: TA22-02
Request:
To amend Articles 2 and 4 of the Unified Development Ordinance to update permissions to
allow for accessory dwelling units (ADU’s) in all residential zoning districts.
Applicant: Subject Ordinance:
Christina Sheltra and Austen Truhe Unified Development Ordinance
Subject Article(s) and Section(s):
Article 2: Measurements & Definitions
o Section 2.3 Definitions and Terms
Article 4: Uses and Use Specific Standards
o Table 4.4.3 Accessory Use Table
o Section 4.4.4 Standards for Specified Accessory Uses and Structures
BACKGROUND
Applicants Christina Sheltra and Austen Truhe have submitted a request for a text amendment to
the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in all residential
zoning districts. In February 2022, the applicants purchased a home in an R-15 zoning district with
an existing accessory dwelling unit. Though not permitted in the zoning district, an approved
accessory structure had been upfitted with the necessary bathroom and kitchen areas that allowed
for it to be used as living space, and the home was listed and advertised with the detached
apartment highlighted as a selling feature. In order to bring their home into compliance, the
applicants have requested that ADUs be allowed in all residential zoning districts based on the
potential benefits of affordable housing, affordable short-term rentals, and affordability for home
buyers.
The applicant’s situations may not be unusual in unincorporated New Hanover County. Zoning
compliance staff have experienced increased calls regarding ADUs over the past several years,
with one official receiving eleven (11) calls specifically addressing accessory dwelling units from
March 13th to August 24th. Calls logged on this topic are primarily regarding the desire for ADU
additions/conversions, permits upfitting an accessory structure into an ADU, dwellings such as RV’s
acting as ADUs, or wanting to add a “Tiny Home” as an ADU. While we have not received specific
complaints, residents’ questions have led staff to anticipate that some property owners may have
used loopholes in the permitting process to upfit accessory structures or inadvertently made
improvements that allowed the structures to be used as accessory dwellings.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 1
TA22-02 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 2 of 4
Because of compliance concerns, ongoing resident queries, and the potential benefits of ADUs, which
are commonly recognized as a way to provide what is known as “missing middle” housing, the
county has considered how to best accommodate this use for almost a decade. Previously, in 2014,
the county received a request for a text amendment to include ADUs as an accessory use permitted
by right in zoning districts: PD, R-20S, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, Office & Institutional (O&I), Airport
Residential (AR), Airport Industrial (AI), Rural Agricultural (RA), and permitted by special use in B-1
and B-2. Applicant Eric Conklin made the request to allow for a place for his aging mother to reside.
At the time, staff recommended approval of the text amendment with the elimination of ADU use in
the business districts, the O&I district, and the AI district to keep the use focused on residential
districts. Staff also recommended a definition of ADUs to clarify what would qualify, how they
would differentiate from other accessory structures, as well as other additional regulations to
preserve the character of any residential district.
Based on resident and Board member concerns during the public hearing regarding residency
requirements, potential parking issues, and increased density in all zoning districts, the Planning
Board recommended denial of the text amendment with a vote of 6-0 in July 2014. Staff indicated
that while they were in the midst of developing a comprehensive plan, they had the intention to
revisit ADUs during an update to the ordinance, and the recommendation to explore an ordinance
to allow accessory dwelling units that are compatible with existing neighborhoods was included in
the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
In 2019, as part of the UDO code update project intended to implement the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan, accessory dwelling units were added to the permitted use table in the newly created zoning
districts, R-5, RMF-L, RFM-M, RFM-MH, RFM-H, and UMXZ. These districts were adapted from zoning
designations already successfully used in the City of Wilmington, which include the permitted use of
accessory dwelling units.
Since the adoption of new zoning districts in 2019, staff has received an increase in inquiries
concerning accessory dwelling units throughout the county. The City of Wilmington has recently
updated their Land Development Code to include accessory dwelling units in all residential zoning
districts permitted with conditions.
In addition, New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington created a joint Workforce Housing
Advisory Committee (WHAC) in 2019 to make advisory recommendations on procedures, processes,
or policies that will promote workforce housing. Following a Comprehensive Housing Study and
Survey and in consultation with recommendations by the consultants, the committee identified ADUs
as a viable option for increasing the housing stock by providing additional housing options at
different price points.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Accessory Dwelling Units have become increasingly popular throughout the country as a tool to
provide affordable and/or flexible housing options without the need for significant infrastructure
or further land development. However, in New Hanover County, additional provisions would be
required in order to avoid unanticipated impacts to Environmental Health, stormwater, or other
permits and to ensure compliance with fire codes and other regulations that are more rigorous for
residential uses.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 2
TA22-02 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 3 of 4
While staff remains supportive of ADUs, the staff proposed amendment does address particular
impacts and concerns related to this use. Staff has also taken into consideration concerns brought
up at the 2014 Planning Board public hearing, feedback from community members during the UDO
project, and changing state legislation prohibiting residency requirements.
While the applicant has requested ADUs in all residential zoning districts, Staff recommends
updating Table 4.4.3 Accessory Use Table to permit ADUs in RA, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, and PD,
excluding residential zoning districts AR and R-20S from being permitted by right as those districts
are specifically designed to reduce density and impervious surfaces. In addition, staff recommends
additional amendments to Section 4.4.4 Standards for Specified Accessory Uses and Structures to
update the supplemental requirements.
These supplemental requirements were shaped by best practices to reduce the likelihood that
negative, unintended impacts will occur. Staff considered impacts on communities, neighborhoods,
and individuals, as well as impacts that will make ADU allowances effective and safe as a type of
housing. These include the reduction of required off-street parking spaces, considerations of
water/sewer capacity, impervious surface runoff, maintaining height standards, and building size
limitations. Updated standards would allow ADUs in performance subdivisions but would require
setbacks of ten feet.
Exceptions to any ordinance put in place allowing ADUs for the County’s residential zoning districts
would apply to HOA regulations prohibiting ADU allowances. Additional limitations can be a part
of conditional rezonings. If the text amendment is approved, staff does recommend the effective
date be three (3) months post adoption, to allow for sufficient time to ensure compliance through
an effective permitting process that will ensure that any structures would be in compliance with
Environmental Health, Engineering, CFPUA, and state stormwater requirements. This process may
extend to conversions that only currently require a Building Safety permit to reduce the number of
upfits that inadvertently circumvent other agencies’ review.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The application and staff’s proposed text amendment is attached, with red italics indicating new
language and strikethrough indicating provisions that are removed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the recommendations of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the Joint City/County
Workforce Housing Committee and in response to ongoing demand and compliance concerns, staff
recommends approval of the requested amendment, with the provided edits, and suggests the
following motion:
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units to the RA, R-20,
R-15, R-10, R-7, and PD districts, subject to use-specific standards. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it
provides for a range of housing types, opportunities, and choices. I also find
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public
interest because it provides diverse housing options for all residents while preserving
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 3
TA22-02 Staff Report PB 9.1.2022 Page 4 of 4
community character. Additionally, the recommended updates to the standards will minimize
the potential negative impacts of stormwater and parking issues, reduce the likelihood of
loopholes and unintended negative impacts to these residential districts.
Alternate Motion for Denial:
I move to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County
Unified Development Ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units to the RA, R-20, R-15, R-
10, R-7, and PD districts, subject to use-specific standards. While I find it to be CONSISTENT
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the amendment provides
for a range of housing types, opportunities, and choices, I find RECOMMENDING DENIAL
of the amendment request is reasonable and in the public interest because the amendment
is not consistent with the desired character of all residential communities in the county and
the density or potential uses may adversely impact adjacent neighbors.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 4
TA22-02 – ADUs Text Amendment
2-5 New Hanover County, NC | Unified Development Ordinance
Section 2.3. Definitions and Terms:
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
An ancillary or secondary dwelling unit that is clearly subordinate to the principal dwelling, which
has a separate egress/ingress independent from the principal dwelling, and which provides
complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, and which includes provisions for
living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. It is located on the same parcel lot as the
principal dwelling unit and may be either attached to or is detached from the principal dwelling.
Accessory dwelling units are also known as accessory apartments, ancillary units, secondary
dwelling units, carriage homes, mother-in-law suites, and granny flats. All shall be considered as
an ADU.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 1
TA22-02 – ADUs Text Amendment
4-62 New Hanover County, NC | Unified Development Ordinance
Section 4.4. Accessory Use and Structure Standards
4.4.1. PURPOSE
This section authorizes the establishment of accessory uses and structures that are
customarily subordinate to principal uses, provided that the accessory use or
structure complies with all applicable standards in this section.
4.4.2. APPROVAL OF ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
All principal uses allowed in a zoning district shall be deemed to include those
accessory uses, structures, and activities typically associated with this use, unless
specifically prohibited in this ordinance. All accessory uses shall be subject to the
standards in this section, as well as any applicable use-specific standards required
for the associated principal use as set forth in this article.
4.4.3. PERMISSIONS FOR SPECIFIED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
Table 4.4.3: Accessory Use Table, identifies which uses are permitted by right,
permitted subject to approval of a special use permit, and prohibited in each zoning
district. Permissions for the RFMU and EDZD districts are outlined in Article 3: Zoning
Districts. The meanings of abbreviations in Table 4.4.3 are set forth in subsections A
through C below.
A. A “P” in a cell indicates the use is permitted by right in the zoning district. Permitted
uses, except for exempt bona fide farm uses, are subject to all other applicable
standards of this UDO.
B. An “S” in a cell indicates that the use is allowed only if reviewed and approved as a
special use in accordance with 10.3.5, Special Use Permit. Special uses are subject
to all other applicable standards of this UDO.
C. A blank cell indicates that the use is not allowed in the respective zoning district.
Table 4.4.3: Accessory Use Table
Key: P = Permitted by Right S = Special Use Permit Required blank cell = not allowed
Accessory Uses
Zoning Districts
RA
AR
R-20
S
R-20
R-15
R-10
R-7
R-5
RM
F
-L
RM
F
-M
RM
F
-MH
RM
F
-H
PD
UM
X
Z
B-1
CB
B-2
O&
I
SC
CS
AC
I-1
I-2
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P P P P
Accessory Structure P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Accessory Use, Customary P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Dry Stack Boat Storage
Facility, at a Marina
S S S S P P P P P P
Electronic Gaming Operation P P P P
Electric Vehicle Charging
Station [11-16-2020] P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Farm Stand P P P P P P P P P
Home Occupation [11-16-2020] P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 1
TA22-02 – ADUs Text Amendment
4-64 New Hanover County, NC | Unified Development Ordinance
4.4.4. STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
A. Accessory Dwelling Unit
Detached accessory dwelling units shall be allowed in districts where permitted by
right, subject to the following standards requirements:
1. Only one accessory dwelling unit per lot apartment shall be permitted by
right.
2. One Area sufficient for two off-street parking spaces shall be required for
the accessory dwelling unit required.
3. In all districts excluding RA, the detached dwelling unit shall be accessed
using the driveway that serves the principal dwelling unit and shall not be
accessed by a separate driveway.
4. If the property is served by a water/sewer utility provider, proof of adequate
water and sewer capacity from the appropriate provider (CFPUA, etc.) shall
be provided if accessory units are not included in subdivision approvals. If
the property is served by well or septic, the unit shall comply with all the
well and septic standards of New Hanover County Environmental Health.
5. In the RMF and PD districts, accessory dwelling units apartments shall only
be allowed when constructed in connection with any single family detached
dwelling development allowed within the district.
6. For conventional zoning districts the lot must meet minimum lot area
requirements. In conventional subdivisions, the subject lot must exceed the
minimum lot area of the applicable zoning district by at least 50 percent or
5,000 square feet, whichever is less.
7. In performance subdivisions, accessory dwelling units having up to one
bedroom shall not be considered a dwelling unit for density requirements,
otherwise and new accessory units may not increase density beyond the
maximum allowed in the applicable zoning district.
8. The total gross floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed
1,000 square feet. The entire accessory unit shall not exceed 50 percent of
the gross total enclosed heated square footage of the existing single-family
dwelling or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less.
9. The side setbacks for the detached unit shall be no less than required for
the principal structure and a minimum of five feet.
10. Rear setbacks for the detached unit shall be a minimum of five feet.
11. The detached accessory dwelling unit shall be located in the rear yard
completely behind the plane of the front rear façade of the principal
structure unless constructed over a detached garage.
12. In both conventional and performance subdivision developments, the
accessory dwelling unit shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from
any other structure, including other accessory structures. The side
setbacks for the detached unit shall be no less than required for the
principal structure and a minimum of five (5) feet. Rear setbacks for the
detached unit shall be a minimum of five (5) feet.
13. An existing accessory structure can be converted to an accessory dwelling
unit, if it meets all non-dimensional standards listed in Section 4.4.4.A, even
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 2
TA22-02 – ADUs Text Amendment
4-64 New Hanover County, NC | Unified Development Ordinance
if it does not comply with the built dimensions stated in Section 4.4.4.A. For
this ordinance, existing accessory structure shall not apply to any structure
built after the effective date of this amendment (Effective Date
XX/XX/202X).
14. Must comply with Article 9 of the UDO Floodplain Requirements.
15. Property owners must provide verification that the proposed accessory
dwelling unit complies with the allocation of impervious surfaces allowed
by the subdivision’s state stormwater permit.
16. A drainage plan subject to approval by New Hanover County Engineering
shall be required for any additions or new structures associated with the
accessory dwelling unit.
17. Mobile homes, RVs, and manufactured homes shall not be permitted as
accessory dwelling units.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 3
Initial Application
Documents & Materials
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 1
Page 1 of 3
Text Amendment Application – Updated 12-2020
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165
FAX (910) 798-7053
planningdevelopment.nhcgov.com
UDO TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION
This application form must be completed as part of a text amendment application submitted through the county’s online
COAST portal. The main procedural steps in the submittal and review of applications are outlined in the flowchart
below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the
application, are set out in Section 10.3.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Public Hearing Procedures
(Optional)
Pre-Application
Conference
Community
Information
Meeting
1
Application
Submittal &
Acceptance
2
Planning
Director Review
& Staff Report
3
Public Hearing
Scheduling &
Notification
4
Planning Board
Hearing &
Recom-
mendation
5
Board of
Commissioners
Hearing &
Decision
6
Post-Decision
Limitations and
Actions
1. Applicant Information
Name
Company
Address
City, State, Zip
Phone
Email
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 6 - 1
Page 2 of 3
Text Amendment Application – Updated 12-2020
2. Proposed Amendment
Current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Article:
Current UDO Section(s) and Subsection(s):
Proposed amendment to the above section(s)/subsection(s) (attach additional pages if necessary):
Reason for request, citing consistency with 2016 Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant plans,
development trends, problems posed by existing language, etc. (attach additional pages if necessary):
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 6 - 2
Page 3 of 3
Text Amendment Application – Updated 12-2020
Staff will use the following checklist to determine the completeness of your application. Please verify all of the
listed items are included and confirm by initialing under “Applicant Initial”. Applications determined to be
incomplete must be corrected in order to be processed for further review.
Application Checklist Applicant Initial
This application form, completed and signed
Application fee: $400
One copy of ALL documents. Additional hard copies may be required by staff
depending on the size of the document.
3. Acknowledgement and Signatures
By my signature below, I understand and accept all of the conditions, limitations and obligations of the text amendment
for which I am applying. I certify that this application is complete and that all information presented in this application
is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
Signature of Applicant(s) Print Name(s)
If an applicant requests delay of consideration from the Planning Board or Board of County Commissioners before notice has
been sent to the newspaper, the item will be calendared for the next meeting and no fee will be required. If delay is requested
after notice has been sent to the newspaper, the Board will act on the request at the scheduled meeting and are under no
obligation to grant the continuance. If the continuance is granted, a fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule as
published on the New Hanover County Planning website will be required.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 6 - 3
Public Comments
In Support X
Neutral X
In Opposition
Comments originally
submitted to Wilmington
City Council
3
25
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 7 - 1
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in
Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.
Get Adobe Reader Now!
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 8 - 1
Friday, August 19, 2022
To the New Hanover County Planning Board,
I would like to address Item 2, the “request by Austen Truhe and Christina Sheltra,
applicants, to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to permit the use of
Accessory Dwelling Units in all residential zoning districts.”
I oppose this request, and confidently state that my neighbors of Audubon & Devon
Park; more specifically Edgewood & Idlewild, would also oppose this request.
My reason is that beginning in April, 2022 (and earlier), we organized to oppose a
proposal for rezoning in Edgewood, and stated our pleas at The July 19, 2022 City
Council Meeting.
See the archived video of The City Council Meeting starting at 2:02:30 for the opposition
and debate:
https://www.wilmingtonnc.gov/departments/city-manager/gtv8/city-council-archive
The builder, Michael White of Karma Rentals LLC proposed to rezone from R-10 to R-5
to turn what was previously 4 lots into 9, in which he stated his intention was to build 9
single family homes. Residents/citizens of Edgewood, Idlewild, and surrounding areas
wished for him to keep the zoning and build garage apartments, also known as
accessory dwellings, on the underutilized lots, which only contain 3 single family homes
on the 4 lots. Our recommendation would increase the dwellings from 3 to 8, and keep
with the character of our arguably historical neighborhood in which garage apartments
on larger lots are a mainstay. If he was granted the rezoning and his plan for 9 new lots,
we asked for the condition to not allow additional accessory dwellings, as we felt
increasing the lots to 9 single family homes was plenty, and that more than that was
definitely inappropriate for the character of our neighborhood. The pressure at the City
Council Meeting was intense enough that Michael White was forced to speak on his
own behalf (his secretary Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions usually does all the talking)
and revealed for the first time that he did indeed have plans to build accessory dwellings
on each of the 9 single family homes, increasing the dwellings to 18. The City Council
granted him rezoning so that he would be liable to make improvements to the road and
stormwater (there was confusion about whether he would be obligated to make these
improvements without rezoning and this obscurity was never clarified). The Council also
granted us our condition to forbid accessory dwellings in his building plans.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 9 - 1
Residents in opposition followed N.C. Legislation, Article 6, Development Regulation §
160D-603 on citizen commentary to submit over 30 public comments. I will attach a
document with most of the compiled written comments in this email. Many more
residents were informed because of door to door efforts, and were unanimously,
verbally in opposition to rezoning our neighborhood, although we are not entirely
against new development.
What became apparent to everyone in attendance that night at The City Council
Meeting was that listening to the needs of the residents who know their neighborhoods
best, finding the necessary compromises for both parties, and being the protecting force
for our neighborhoods is the duty of The City Council, and is in their power only to do
so, because builders and developers hold their playing cards close. They will, and they
do, take every inch of leeway that they are permitted, even if it is inappropriate and to
the detriment of the neighborhood.
For these reasons I ask The Planning Board to reject the request “to permit the use of
Accessory Dwelling Units in all residential zoning districts.” This blanket ordinance
creates another loophole for builders and oversteps the process of public input to
decide what, why, and why not projects will fit their specific neighborhoods. Our process
of public input already heavily favors the interests of developers and builders and for
that reason amongst other reasons citizens/residents are uninspired, disenfranchised,
and largely discouraged to participate and understand the process. This is problematic
to the vibrancy and prosperity of our city in the long-term.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Paige Woodruff
938 41st Street
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 9 - 2
From:Farrell, Robert
To:Lipkin Sularz, Sarah
Subject:FW: Public Comment on TA22-02: Citizen request for ADU allowance. (PB 9-1-2022)
Date:Friday, August 19, 2022 3:48:15 PM
Not sure if anyone sent you this or told you about it yet or not. This is the public comment portal
where folks can give their thoughts on items going to the boards.
-Robert
Robert Farrell (He/Him/His)
Senior Current Planner
New Hanover County ‑ Planning & Land Use ‑ Planning & Zoning
(910) 798-7164 p | (910) 798-7053 f
rfarrell@nhcgov.com
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
www.NHCgov.com
From: mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com
<mvolkmar=nhcgov.com@webformsnhcgov.com> On Behalf Of Robert & Mary Gaddy
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 1:29 PM
To: May, Katherine <kmay@nhcgov.com>; Roth, Rebekah <rroth@nhcgov.com>; Vafier, Ken
<kvafier@nhcgov.com>; Farrell, Robert <rfarrell@nhcgov.com>; Meredith, Ron
<rmeredith@nhcgov.com>; Doss, Amy <adoss@nhcgov.com>; Griffee, Julian
<jgriffee@nhcgov.com>; Dickerson, Zachary <zdickerson@nhcgov.com>
Subject: Public Comment on TA22-02: Citizen request for ADU allowance. (PB 9-1-2022)
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Name
Robert & Mary Gaddy
Address
1017 43rd St
Wilmington, North Carolina Wilmington
United States
Map It
Email
gadcompound@yahoo.com
Projects available for comment.
TA22-02: Citizen request for ADU allowance. (PB 9-1-2022)
What is the nature of your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment
We oppose the allowance of ADU being allowed for ALL residential buildings. R5 zoned lots are too small
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 10 - 1
to support additional dwellings….parking becomes an issue…..even lack of proper storm
drainage…..increase in traffic in areas that are already overloaded with traffic….
What about areas such as Cedar Ave. where R5 zoning was just approved with the condition that no
ADU would be allowed….would that be able to be changed?….WE CERTAINLY HOPE NOT!
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 10 - 2
____________________________________________________________________________
I am writing to strongly oppose your proposal to change the rezoning of our beautiful
neighborhood community. Please do not change this. Keep R-10.
My name is Kaye Bruestle at 4001 Cedar Ave., 28403. My husband Darryl and I moved to this
area in June, 1975. We reared three great children who have memories of growing up here, a
very happy childhood. My husband Darryl Lee Bruestle served as Wilmington Chief of Police for
16 years. After retiring, he remains active in all areas of law enforcement here in Wilmington,
NC. He is a long term member of our local Rotary Club. His reputation stands impeccable; very
respectable and loved throughout this community. At present, he is at Davis Community Rehab
Facility and is unable to be his own spokesman in our opposition to this rezoning proposal.
Changes that have been proposed will affect this entire neighborhood and areas surrounding it.
To consider this as "progress" is wrong and will only destroy something too valuable.
As members of City Council, you know in your hearts that this proposal would greatly affect your
own neighborhoods and would not be worthy of your consideration. Do what is right and look it
squarely in the face of justice and fairness for all of us.
I respectfully submit these comments and pray they will make a difference.
____________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 1
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 2
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 3
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 4
______________________________________________________________________
Dear Council Members,
I am writing in regards to the proposed rezoning request at 4127, 4211. 4219 and 4221
Cedar Ave. I have lived at my residence at 4209 Wrightsville Avenue for 25 years and I
access 41st and Cedar from the alley behind my house. This is the main access to my
home because of the increasing traffic on Wrightsville Avenue. Over the years the
pressure to redevelop and rezone property around our neighborhood has intensified but
fortunately our neighborhood has been able to withstand this pressure.
Unfortunately, there are numerous efforts currently underway to rezone developed and
vacant R-10 properties in our neighborhood to higher density. There is no need for this
in our neighborhood. The R-10 zoning allows for 2 living units per lot under current
zoning. The 4 lots on Cedar would allow 8 units and the request to rezone is only to
gain one additional unit. The beauty of R-10 zoning is it allows for a main living unit
which in our market has become increasingly more expensive but also allows for a
smaller more affordable garage accessory apartment. The issue with changing to R-5
zoning requires a manipulation of the land planning in order to try to "fit" it into the
neighborhood. By doing so it compromises the existing pattern of development and is
out of character with the neighborhood. The newly formed plan changes the orientation
of the houses to the existing street frontage and now the backs of several houses are
oriented to the side of existing single lots thus diminishing the privacy of the existing
home.
The Edgewood and Audubon neighborhoods are some of the most stable and character
defining neighborhoods in the City. They have withstood the test of time as originally
planned and developed as more intensive development has taken place around us.
Please help us by maintaining the existing R-10 zoning and development pattern.
Sincerely,
Mark Saulnier
______________________________________________________________________
City Council Members
We are Bernhard and Song Thuersam at 1030 43rd Street and have resided in the
historic Edgewood community since 1992. Regarding the requested rezoning of 4 lots
on Cedar Avenue and elsewhere near historic Audubon from R-10 to R-5, we wish to
convey our very strong opposition to any increase in density.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 5
Our neighborhood of Edgewood is an outgrowth of the trolley suburb planning of
Historic Audubon. The long-tradition of single-family lots – many being 70’ x 200’
-should be strictly maintained as well as the orientation of main house to the street.
Many homes here have garage apartments which has been a boon to affordable
housing for young couples and single persons. The density this traditional arrangement
provides must be maintained and complemented.
We understand the applicant is responsible for the attractive home at 4014 Wrightsville
Avenue. Also, the applicant renovated an early-1920s Bungalow at 4012 Wrightsville
Avenue into a beautiful addition to our area with exceptional and high-quality
landscaping. These recent projects strongly reinforce maintaining our R-10 zoning and
no compelling reason for increased density. This is a fine example of following the
existing zoning and predominantly traditional architecture of the area. These and a
newer home recently built on Cherry Avenue are positive additions to our area and
reinforce its longtime single-family, one home per lot character and each home oriented
to the street.
The applicant was surely aware of the R-10 zoning of the four Cedar Avenue lots prior
to purchase and could have found higher-density zoned areas in which to build his
project. If the applicant is allowed to rezoned these lots to a higher density, we know
this will only bring additional requests for adjacent properties to do the same and thus
undermine the quiet character of our neighborhood which has been a longtime asset to
the city. This is essentially “spot zoning” within a stable R-10 area.
We encourage the applicant to work within our existing zoning requirements and place
our neighborhood’s integrity, character and stability above the simple profitability of only
one more unit gained.
Sincerely,
John Bernhard and Song Sook Thuersam – 1030 43rd Street.
______________________________________________________________________
My name is Michael Marcelli, I work in the film industry and have lived at 1018 41st
Street for 20 years and at 1034 41st for several years before that; and my long-time
companion, also in the film industry, has lived at 4120 Cedar until recently moving to
1018 41st as well.
We are on our last house payment at 1018 41st, and we both strongly oppose the
rezoning of our small, 4-street neighborhood.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 6
At the zoning meeting, the developers misrepresented our enclave as “adjacent” to
South Kerr, it is not. South Kerr runs outside of the large drainage ditch and swath of old
growth behind the businesses on South Kerr, and is not accessible even on foot.
Likewise, Cedar Avenue is across the same drainage ditch after it bends 90-degrees at
the edges of the proposed development and runs parallel to Wilshire Blvd.
This means that on paper, it looks like we are right there with the multi-unit housing and
businesses on Wilshire; we are not, it is entirely separate and you are being deceived
when Mr. White’s team tells you this is all the same area.
R-10 zoning, not R-5. Whether or not you hear from every resident in
Idlewild/Edgewood, the residents are 100% opposed to R-5 development—these are
our long-time neighbors, we talk.
You may not get a huge response for two reasons--one,we lack the density to give you
a rousing turnout and two, those who do live here are largely elderly and often infirm
and unable to speak their mind but rest assured we are unanimous, we do not think R-5
development for ANY of the tracts being bought up in our neighborhood is appropriate.
We are already a giant cut-through, for one.
Further, this is a really low-lying area. Overdevelopment is going to worsen the flooding
we already get on Montclair, 41st in the back yards on both sides of the street that face
the weltands tracts, and on Cedar in front of the pond house at Montclair.
Sometimes when we are not in a drought like now, you can smell the sewerage from the
storm drains that just cannot handle it now—adding this many houses is simply not a
sound idea.
These lots were bought as R-10, knowingly. Now they want R-5 for them so they can
make money. We all like to make money, but this is being done at the expense of the
current taxpayers who live here, and we do not like it.
We collectively hope you will do the right thing,we would like consideration in this. Thank
you.
Michael Marcelli, Beejay Grob
______________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 7
To whom it may concern,
Hello, my name is Kirra Beitel, resident and owner of 917 Montclair Dr. Wilmington, NC
28403. Having lived my entire life in the city of Wilmington I have a deep love and
appreciation for the place we are all so lucky to call home. This is why I have grave
concerns for the over-development proposed in my neighborhood as being an extreme
threat to the City of Wilmington in the sense of keeping the beauty, our flora, and the
rich history intact for visitors and future generations alike.
My parents both moved to Wilmington in the 1970s to attend UNCW, to which my
brother and I are also alumni. Our entire family has chosen year after year to continue
to call Wilmington home. Much has changed over the years and the rate of
over-development is quickly eroding Wilmington's charm. This is why I am submitting
my argument against the rezoning of 938, 1121, and 1125 Montclair Ave. and 4127,
4211, 4219, 4221 Cedar Ave.(Wilmington, NC 28403).
The land on Montclair Dr. and Cedar Ave. is currently zoned as R-10. This property can
not risk a rezoning to a higher density zoning, (specifically R-5) due to protecting the
character of our neighborhood and preserving our breath-taking tree canopy.
The owner of the land in question, Michael White of Karma Rentals LLC, fully
understood that our neighborhood is zoned for R-10 when he purchased the lots. As a
developer, it is his duty to have a plan for development within the current laws of R-10
zoning, thus, he will still be able to develop his land, we are just asking to keep the
current density zoning while doing so.
Mr. White frequently references the house and garage apartment he built on 4014
Wrightsville Ave. as an example of how the new homes will look. I would like to make it
very clear that this is not an accurate representation of the new development since this
property sits on a lot of almost 17,000 sqft (16,988 sqft to be exact), over 3 times the
size of his proposed zoning for our neighborhood (5,000 sqft per lot). With the current
R-10 zoning of the Montclair properties, he could build 6 homes with 6 garage
apartments just like the one on Wrightsville Ave. that they use as an example. This
makes for a total of 12 structures, or just 1 structure short of their current plan to
develop 13 homes. On Cedar Ave. the four lots with our current R-10 zoning would
allow for 4 homes and 4 garage apartments, making 8 total structures, or 1 less than
proposed. Through this method they would be able to maintain the characteristic of our
neighbourhood with the appropriate space between homes and more flexibility to keep
mature trees on the property.
Mr. White also states that his development will alleviate the affordable housing shortage
in Wilmington. This could not be farther from the truth. Let's break down the numbers:
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 8
●Affordable housing is considered 30% of less of an individual's income.
●Per our neighborhoods census tract code, the medium income is $52,713.
●52,713 x 30% = $15,814 as an annual housing budget, or $1,318 monthly.
●Current average interest rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage is 5.73%.
●Assuming property taxes are $1,500, home insurance is $1000, and our new
neighbor is able to make a generous 20% down payment,the average person
could not afford a home valued at $240,000 or higher.
(https://www.mortgagecalculator.org)
Examining his other projects, it is hard to believe Mr. White is planning to sell these new
homes at an affordable price point to combat Wilmington's affordable housing issue they
claim to address, making his argument for this obsolete.
Reading through the Application for Conditional Zoning Map that was submitted on
behalf of Michael White and Cindee Wolf, they claim that single-person households
(who they believe will dominate the future housing market) prefer a smaller lot size. As
the sole owner and occupant of my property (14,000 sqft lot) they claim my
demographic would like to live on less land, when in fact I purchased my house largely
due to the size of the lot it was on. During the home buying process I was originally only
interested in homes in downtown Wilmington due to their charisma and history, however
after living in the area for a year and touring homes, all I wanted was more space and to
be able to enjoy an adequate sized yard. This has been a universal feeling I have heard
from my colleagues and people in my demographic of first-time home buyers. I would
also like to note that in the Application, the language "slightly higher density" is used in
response to question #4 when describing the proposed rezoning of R-10 to R-5. It
needs to be clear that doubling the density of the lots is not slightly higher density.
To all the above points, I respectfully ask that the Planning Commision and City Council,
as voices of the people, stand in solidarity with the residents of Idlewild and Edgewood
and keep the properties on Montclair and Cedar Ave.zoned as R-10. We
understand that change and development is inevitable, but it is possible to do so
elegantly at the current zoning level of R-10.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to having you all hearing our concerns in
person at City Hall.
Respectfully,
Kirra Beitel
917 Montclair Dr. Wilmington, NC 28403
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 9
______________________________________________________________________
Hello Ms. Spicer-Sidbury,
I am writing to you as our Wilmington City Clerck and am providing the attachment Statement
titled "7-19 Letter to city council". I wish for this statement to be presented to our Council
Members at the upcoming meeting on Tuesday 7-19-2022. The subject of this letter is
regarding a proposed development in Wilmington's Edgewood community at 4127, 4211, 4219,
& 4221 Cedar Ave 28403.
I am a long-time Wilmington resident and I can be reached at:
John Workman
4007-B Wrightsville Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
910-726-4704
Thank you for your assistance in this matter and,
Best Regards,
John Workman
7/15/2022
To our Wilmington City Council Members,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the properties at 4127,4211,
4219, & 4221 Cedar Avenue. I do not object to the development of these parcels. I do object
strongly to the proposed rezoning from R-10 to R-5.
I sincerely hope that as members of our City Council, and leaders our beautiful city, you will
ensure that all new development along the historic Wrightsville Avenue Corridor, and its
associated neighborhoods, is compatible with the character of the area.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 10
I agree with the majority of residents in this community, that the proposed development of the
properties, as it stands, is not in keeping with the neighborhoods character, based on mass &
density, scale, height, materials, and context.
The proposed re-zoning to R-5 lot size will not build on existing design standards in place for
properties located in the Idlewild/Edgewood communities.
My vote is with the majority on this issue; lets protect single-family use and neighborhood
density. In fact, lets strive even harder to encourage single- family residential uses that are in
keeping with the adjacent properties and neighborhood zoning.
We can make Wilmington an even greater treasure than it already is IF, when considering
zoning/land use changes, we encourage and recommend the rezoning of smaller parcels to
residential R-10 or R-15. More homes along and around the historic Wrightsville Avenue
Corridor like the Page-Ward House at 3917 Wrightsville Avenue and the Fenley-Starnes House at
3617 Wrightsville Avenue, both large homes on large parcels of land, have added to real charm
and character to our neighborhood for over 100 years. Let’s move in that direction in this
historic part of town and leave the high-density, small lot development for other areas of our
city that remain undeveloped, such as along Randall Parkway or N. Kerr Ave.
Thank you for your consideration. I hope for an uplifting and forward thinking decision on this
issue.
Best Regards,
John Workman
______________________________________________________________________________
Dear Ms.Spicer-Sidbury,
I have been a resident of N.C. since 2002. Since 2018, my permanent resident has
been 4019 Wrightsville Avenue here in Wilmington. Most recently I have been aware
that there might be some terrible changes in the neighborhood - namely the re-zoning of
R-10, which I am completely against.
I do not want the building of
4127,4211,4219 and 4221 Cedar and
938,1121and 11250 Montclair as it stands to re-zone.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 11
I am writing to ask you not to change R-10
to a R-5 zone.
Please consider my plea in your next City Council meeting on July 19, 2022.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Hansen
______________________________________________________________________
Persons of Council,
I am writing this letter to voice my opposition to the proposed rezoning of
4127,4211,4219 and 4221 Cedar Ave. as well as 938, 1121 and 1125 Montclair Dr. I
understand our neighborhood is labeled as Neighborhood-Scale Infill Development In
Wilmington's Comprehensive Plan. I am not opposed to development, but to preserve
the character of our neighborhood, myself and many others would like to see it done
without rezoning. There is still ample space to remain R-10 and build single family
homes to help meet the housing needs without overcrowding and further depleting what
little green space the inner city has left. Across the country developers are swooping in
and buying up any undeveloped neighborhood property and building on it. It is nowhere
more apparent than here in Wilmington, where many see it as unregulated growth,
making a once wonderful mid-sized town into a large, overcrowded city. I am 63 and
have lived here my entire life and have seen some positive changes, and many things
go steadily down hill. Property values and taxes continue to rise, crime and traffic
worsen. Services and the QUALITY of LIFE continues to go down. Rezoning is a fight
we will have to continue to wage unless our neighborhood is removed from
classification of "infill development".
We are not a wealthy neighborhood, and cannot afford an attorney to fight this battle
for us. It is YOU, our elected officials, that should be looking out for the people you
serve and listening to their concerns. Way too much leeway is given to developers that
want to make profit and walk away without considering the effects, needs and wants of
long time residents. Please consider and act positively on our request to keep our area
the small, quant, uncrowded neighborhood that we moved to and have enjoyed for
many years. Sincerely,
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 12
Henry C Foreman
918 Montclair Dr.
Wilmington,NC 28403
______________________________________________________________________
Dear Ms. Penelope Spicer-Sidbury,
I have lived at 944 Page Ave. since 2018, and been a Wilmington resident since 1989.
Previously I have owned homes in historic downtown. I am writing in regards to
rezoning proposals for 4127, 4211, 4219, and 4221 Cedar Ave. as well as a future
proposal for 938, 1121, and 1125 Montclair Dr.
Please give my statement to the City Council for their next meeting, currently scheduled
for July 19.
I was a real estate agent and developer starting in 1989 until about 2008 here in
Wilmington. I believe in “choice cutting” instead of clear-cutting when developing
property. There is nothing man-engineered that can do a better job at absorbing water
than trees, not even underground cisterns, which would also need maintenance over
time. Plain and simple, we are overbuilt in the city of Wilmington, and it shows where I
live here on Page Ave. There is severe flooding at both ends of this street where it
meets Wilshire Blvd. and Wrightsville Ave. No one in the city can figure out how to fix
the flooding. Again, cutting down more of our trees and building in an area that has not
yet been delineated as a wetland, but was once referred to as wetlands by the city, will
only worsen the flooding problems. We need to keep green spaces to help with the
flooding, and we need to build appropriately to the current R-10 zoning in this
neighborhood. Higher density in this neighborhood is not appropriate. Keep Cedar Ave.
R-10. Keep Montclair Ave. R-10.
There are also many breeding pairs of barred owls, other bird species, and wildlife in
this neighborhood because of the older trees here that residents enjoy. We want to
protect their home too.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Nathans
______________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 13
To all that it may concern,
My name is Joseph ODonnell I live at 4002 Cedar ave in wilmington. I am writing this letter to
oppose the re-zoning of my neighborhood . Address in concern are 4127,4211,4219,and 4221
cedar as well as 938,1121,1125 Montclair dr. We DO NOT want our neighborhood re zoned and
want to keep the appropriate R-10. I also feel we need to have us removed from the “ infill
development” classification. We are a small lot area and this does not fit the principles of the of
the infill character. We are a R-10 treasured neighborhood and want to keep that. These
comprehensive plans that have been presented are NOT correct. The developer bought the
properties in a R-10 and thus should stay an R-10 and NOT be changed to an R-5 just for his
soul purpose to make money. I do not object of him to put up a new home in the place of the
others to make the neighborhood nicer but to put more than the already constructed home just
for his and the cities want for for money is WRONG!
Sincerely
Joseph ODonnell
____________________________________________________________________________
2nd submission:
No rezoning, My name is Joseph O'Donnel I live at 4002 cedar ave, Wilmington NC 28403. There is a
developer that is trying to re zone on both sides of my home on cedar ave and the plan is NOT good plan
for this family neighborhood.The addresses in question are 4127,4211,4219, and 4221 cedar as well as
938,1121, and 1125 montclair dr. We want to keep it a R-10 that is our neighborhood. The builder bought
it as a R-10 and it should stay that way to be consistent with what we already have . The comprehensive
plan and infill development is NOT right for our neighborhood and should be removed from that. we are
small homes on small lots and want to continue the character of this neighborhood. Who came up with
this comprehensive plan? Surely no one that lives in our neighborhood! Even the homes on montclair are
not R-10 homes. Keep our zone the same and Michael can build a few nice home to add to out wonderful
neighborhood but under the guidelines of R-10 zoning
Sincerly
Joseph O'Donnell homeowner and family man of 4 on cedar ave.
____________________________________________________________________________
Penelope Spicer-Sidbury,
My name is Jill O’Donnell. I live at 4002 Cedar Ave with my husband two school aged children
and our little dog. The neighborhood that I live in is made up of mostly small lots with single
family homes zoned for R-10. The city council meeting on 7/19 there will be requests by
developers to rezone our quiet quaint neighborhood. I am highly opposed to this notion.
In The Comprehensive Plan there is a map on page 24. The area called “Areas of
Opportunity” is our neighborhood called Idlewild or Edgewood. It is NOT in the best interest of
the residents in this small knit community to rezone for small-lot infill development. I propose
that you remove our neighborhood from this classification of infill development. It would be
out of character in our neighborhood to change the zoning to R-5. Michael White knew he was
buying R-10 zoned properties when he bought 4127, 4211, 4219, 4221 Cedar Ave. and 938,
1121, and 1125 Montclair. There is a way for this developer to get a good return on his
investment with the current zoning R-10 kept in place.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 14
The high density development would bring an influx of traffic these narrow streets do not
have room for. Currently two compact cars can barely pass each other. The high density traffic
problem currently on Wrightsville Ave between College Rd and Kerr Ave would become
unmanageable. Our tiny school Winter Park is maxed out where my kids go to school. Rezoning
for R-5 would be a mistake. Keep our area zoned appropriately at R-10 to protect the character
of our treasured tight knit neighborhood.
Please consider my request and don’t let money drive our wonderful Wilmington neighborhood
into a high density cluster of mismatched housing styles. Listen to the people and keep the
R-10.
Thank you for your time,
Jill O’Donnell
____________________________________________________________________________
To: City Clerk, Penelope Spicer-Sidbury
From: Jill Hari
4209 1/2 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington NC 28403
Re: Upcoming City Council Meeting July 19, 2022
I am deeply concerned about the proposed rezoning and development in the
Edgewood/ Idlewood neighborhood. These areas contain some of the few remaining
areas that have older growth trees. These trees not only help promote rain in a
coastal region that often experiences drought, they also provide protection from
tropical storms and hurricane force winds. Part of what is drawing new residents is
the charm of Wilmington which includes lower density wooded communities. When
these sections are bulldozed to accommodate higher density housing, we lose the
beneficial aspects of the older growth trees and the charm that makes Wilmington
both the city of bees and the city of trees.
I do not want rezoning in our neighborhood. Keeping R-10 zoning retains the
integrity of our neighborhood, and allows for steady growth as defined in the
comprehensive plan. I live in a unique and treasured neighborhood of Wilmington,
and need R-10 zoning to remain in effect in order to protect the character of this
neighborhood. Furthermore, rezoning to R-5 is unnecessary because 4127, 4211,
4219, and 4221 Cedar Ave. as well as 938, 1121, and 1125 Montclair Dr. are not
even developed to R-10 standards. It is clearly profitable to build houses and
garage apartments on this scale on R-10 lots. This model is what fits the character
of our neighborhood.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 15
Wilmington can grow and retain its charm and character if the city will support the
requests of its residents and the essence of its properly zoned neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Jill Hari
____________________________________________________________________________
Hi, my name is Michael Parker and I have lived in my house at 910 Montclair for over a decade.
I strongly oppose rezoning of this neighborhood.
I'm a homeowner, a resident, this is my home; I'm not trying to become some landlord or real
estate speculator, and changing this neighborhood from R-10 zoning will only give more power
to these groups that frankly already hold an unbalanced amount of power all over this city. It's
not going to do a thing to alleviate the extraordinarily high housing costs in Wilmington either.
What it will do is line a few pockets and little of that money is going to benefit the community.
Rezoning will hurt the community in a number of ways too. It would go from being reasonably
walkable/bikeable to...like the rest of this city, i.e. not walkable or bikeable at all unless you have
a death wish. There are precious few green spaces with trees in this part of town anymore, and
rezoning would be it for our little patch. We have all kinds of wildlife we share this small area
with. I see whole families of foxes all the time at the corner down by those wetlands. We'd have
less flora and fauna and lots more traffic and pollution. What's more, we all know there are
already massive problems with drainage and flooding. Try turning down Wilshire from College or
Kerr after even a moderate amount of rain. You will be lucky not to mess up your car, and the
kind of big profit-seeking development that would come with rezoning would advance far ahead
of the necessary infrastructure. I'm talking about moderate rain. Wait for a hurricane!
This neighborhood is good the way it is. R-10 zoning makes it a neighborly place to live and not
a mere commercial opportunity for people who don't even live here. We have a nice diverse
community of old and new residents who can play and exercise and take their pets out and not
worry about the things that so many Wilmingtonians are now facing with rapid growth concerned
only with the profit for a few. Keep it R-10. You have a responsibility to us as public officials to
make decisions based on all our interests and we will hold you accountable.
Sincerely,
Michael Parker
____________________________________________________________________________
Date of meeting for the statement to be heard: July 19, 2022
In reference to the address(es) of discussion :
4127,4211,4219, 4221 Cedar Ave (Edgewood) , 938, 1121 ,1125 Monticlair Dr (Idlewild).
Statement from: Kylie Hillyer; 1029 Page Ave
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 16
I am opposed to the rezoning and development of the above addresses. The property
behind our home gives shelter to so much wildlife. Rabbits, foxes, squirrels, and many many
birds find refuge in the untouched land. There's a pair of owls as well that the street listens
for and chats about. Where will these animals go? Page Ave. currently experiences
cut-through traffic between Wrightville Ave and S. Kerr, which the drivers regularly speed.
Adding multiple homes/apartments will surely increase this occurrence. The feel of our
street is special and clearing land behind the homes will take away the privacy that our and
neighboring homes were originally purchased for. Ultimately, decreasing the value of my
home.
Kylie Hillyer
_________________________________________________________________________
Hello, I am Christian Richter, I am a new resident who moved into 926 Montclair Dr, Wilmington,
NC 28403 this year in May/June. I am representing my parents, Maria & Stephan Richter, the
property owners. I strongly oppose the rezoning of 4127, 4211, 4219, 4221 Cedar Ave. & 938,
1121, & 1125 Montclair Dr. These properties should be kept as R10 and developed as such.
Two of the main reasons we bought this property was because of the low amount of traffic on
the street and the aesthetic of the neighborhood. After attending a meeting and seeing the
proposed development plans for 938, 1121, & 1125 Montclair Drive, I am extremely
disappointed. Allowing the Montclair Dr. properties and Cedar Ave. properties to be rezoned as
R5 will be a mistake. The proposed plans for the Montclair properties show 13 properties
shoehorned into small lots with the houses right next to each other with barely any front &
backyard space. It is set up just like Page Ave., but even worse. Page Ave. is an eyesore and it
is not the fault of the residents, but of the City Council that approved such a dense street. I am
assuming Page Ave. was originally developed to be affordable entry level housing for young
families. However it looks like most properties on that street have become rentals. A typical
family may have one or two cars, but with rentals you could have 3-4 cars, depending on how
many adults are living there. At least on Page Ave. there is still enough space for the residents
to park their cars off the street. Some of the front yards are just full of cars and it's unsightly, but
the residents have no choice, especially if they are renting. With the way the houses are using
the land in the proposed development for the Montclair Drive, there would be no space for cars
to park in front of the house. The cars would overflow into the streets. As far as I am aware,
Karma Rentals is looking to build these houses to be rented out, not to bring affordable housing
to the market. They are using the excuse of the housing shortage to have the means to build an
unsightly neighborhood so that they maximize profit and line their pockets. While compromising
the investment others have in the surrounding properties. This will allow for another street to
become an eyesore just like Page Ave.. Allowing the rezoning of R10 to R5 would invalidate my
earlier mentioned reasons as to why we bought the 926 Montclair Dr. property. This rezoning of
R10 to R5 only makes sense because of the housing shortage, which will not be an endless
issue. R10 development keeps in line with the aesthetic of the neighborhood whilst also keeping
traffic flow low whilst not negatively affecting the investment people have in the surrounding
properties. If the City Council is so worried and focused on making sure there is enough
housing, why hasn't the forest all along the stretch of Independence Blvd, South of Shipyard
Blvd been developed into apartment complexes/neighborhoods already. The housing shortage
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 17
is not a new problem, it is a result of the COVID19 pandemic, which has been around since
spring of 2020. There is no reason to compromise the integrity of the aesthetic of my
neighborhood & the surrounding neighborhoods when there is plenty of land elsewhere with
road designs that can handle the increased flow of traffic. I do hope you all see that rezoning
from R10 to R5 will only please the developers and none of the tax paying, voting, residents in
the area.
__________________________________________________________________________
To all that it may concern,
My name is Elizabeth ODonnell Brady I live in the Historic Downtown District at 711 S. 2nd St in
Wilmington. I am writing this letter to oppose the re-zoning of my neighboring neighborhood .
Address in concern is 4127,4211,4219,and 4221 Cedar as well as 938,1121,1125 Montclair Dr.
Rezoning of this neighborhood is unnecessary and will only benefit the owner of the properties.
We DO NOT want our neighborhood re zoned and want to keep the appropriate R-10. I also feel
we need to have us removed from the “ infill development” classification. We are a small lot area
and this does not fit the principles of the of the infill character. We are a R-10 treasured
neighborhood and want to keep that. These comprehensive plans that have been presented are
NOT correct. The developer bought the properties in a R-10 and thus should stay an R-10 and
NOT be changed to an R-5 just for his soul purpose to make money. I do not object of him to put
up a new home in the place of the others to make the neighborhood nicer but to put more than
the already constructed home just for his and the cities want for money is WRONG!
Elizabeth O'Donnell
____________________________________________________________________________
As a resident of 938 41st Street, and the Egdewood- Idlewild neighborhood, I am writing in
regards to the prosed Rezoning from R-10 to R-5 effecting the following addresses which are
currently being considered for rezoning:4127,4211,4219, and 4221 Cedar Avenue which will
affect future rezoning proposals such as 938, 1121, and 1125 Montclair Drive and potentially
1021 41st Street, 4201 Maple Street, and 4124 Cedar Avenue as well. I am submitting the
following comments in order to have them considered by our "democratic" system, here in the
city of Wilmington, which claims to progressive, compassionate, and responsive to the needs of
the people who pay the salaries of city officials.
It is very fashionable for people to talk about their "legacies" these days, as billionaires and
kings once did. The developers of these sites have likely picked up this thinking and ran with it.
Very likely, they are dreaming of the financial legacy they will leave their children and
grandchildren.
However, they, like most developers in Wilmington, have been very short sighted and have
negligently overlooked a very important part of their legacy. Year after year, Wilmington is
looking more like the over-crowded, over-developed, crime-ridden, treeless, concrete -covered
eye sore that is Myrtle Beach, SC. In the future, when people see the children and
grandchildren of these developers they will say, "His or her father or grandfather (mother or
grandmother) was the man (woman) who turned Wilmington into Myrtle Beach and ruined it
forever."
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 18
We need to ask ourselves if destroying our open spaces and putting Wilmington on track to
become the next Myrtle Beach (or worse Southern California) is how we want to grow wealthier.
Your legacy will not just be a pile of money, it will be that you helped to slowly destroy a peaceful
quiet neighborhood, and Wilmington, just to give your family a leg up on the pile.
After listening to the principals from both Karma Rentals and Cindee Wolf Design Solutions, it is
abundantly clear that none of those involved in these proposed developments have given any
thought the future of Wilmington. They have only been enticed by the prospect of maximum
profit. Money frees us, improves our quality of life, and gives us options regarding how we
spend our time. However, some money isn't worth making, particularly when the means to
making that money lacks ethics and integrity. Not only will rezoning of the neighborhood in
question create more traffic, more congestion, and fill in an area that absorbs rain water
(causing flooding in the neighborhood), but it will bring a quiet, peaceful, forested neighborhood
one step closer to looking like the eye sores that are Myrtle Beach, SC and southern California.
A rezoning of Egdewood-Idlewild (from R-10 to R-5) will strip away the character of the
neighborhood and replace it with the chinsy, cookie-cutter houses and apartment buildings that
are becoming the norm in Wilmington. The willingness to strip away the character of this
neighborhood is an undisputable indicator of the lack of character in the developers proposing
this rezoning. People lacking in character only think of the bottom line, and never the quality of
their work or its consequences. But is the childish desire for instant gratification.
This proposed rezoning has also brought much half-assed virtue signaling, on the part of the
developers involved, to light. These developers act like they are compassionately providing a
service to poor unfortunate people who desperately dream of the day they can move to
Wilmington. These new homes, however, will largely only be affordable to 6 figure remote
workers moving from out of state, due to the current real estate bubble, which is, incidentally,
ripe for a 2008-like crash, a factor which has been likely been obscured by greed. Catering to
this demographic effectively "sells" most Wilmingtonians "down the river." Wilmington is a city of
restaurant and retail workers overwhelmingly making minimum wage, or just slightly more. The
proposed developments do not serve the vast majority of local residents. As a business
practice, this certainly not illegal, but at the very least, these virtue signaling developers could
do us all the courtesy of being honest about how they make their money, and drop the virtue
signaling and the talk of how they're alleviating the local housing crisis. They are, in point of fact,
only worsening the local housing crisis.
There is an old saying that Mr. Saffo, foreman of the city council and lead public servant,
should know well: "beware Greeks bearing gifts." This saying is a reference to how sneaky,
deceptive Greeks, unable to win honestly in open battle, resorted to trickery in order to win.
Leaders set the tone for the communities and organizations they lead. With that said, it is plainly
obvious that the city council and planning board (staffed heavily by none other than real estate
developers) are little more than rubber stamps for real estate developers who virtue signal and
do little more than pay lip service to serving the people of Wilmington. This approach works very
well with the majority of people who, frankly, lack the ability to think critically and see
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 19
government officials for who and what they truly are: a group of stealthy shadow warriors hiding
in the belly of a Trojan Horse, like vermin, ready to throw open the city gates to allow white
collar looters to have their way with the city.
I'd like to remind all those involved who are concerned with their legacies: in the years to come
you will not only be remembered for your net worth. You will be remembered for what you did to
the city of Wilmington and for the quality of your work. You will either have preserved (or
perhaps even improved) what beauty the city has left, or you will have short-sightedly made it
look more like the hell hole that is Myrtle Beach, SC than it already does. And Wilmington looks
more like Myrtle Beach every day. Your call.
Patrick Giguère
____________________________________________________________________________
To whom it may concern:
I'm writing in regard to the proposed conditional rezoning for the properties on Cedar Ave. I'm a
20-year Wilmington resident, engaged citizen and property owner, who resides at 4210 Cedar
Ave. (the house across the street from the development) with my wife and two daughters.
When my wife and I bought this house in 2017 we understood this neighborhood was ripe for
change and were prepared to embrace that change. While the proposed nine homes on what's
essentially four lots directly across the street wasn't exactly what we had in mind, I'm also
realistic about the infill and development taking place throughout this part of midtown. (Ideally,
this area would consist of four homes with garage apartments but that would slice into the
developer's profit margin).
This is the developer's second plan for the property after he scrapped a 23-unit townhome idea
that was ludicrous. It's worth pointing out to the Council that the developer's representative,
Cindee Wolf, admitted at the Planning Committee hearing that they wouldn't have been able to
go forward with such a development anyway. So it's not as if the developer has made any real
concession to the residents at this point. You should be able to verify that information in the
minutes from the June 1 planning meeting.
Regardless, my request is simple. Since this is a conditional rezoning, place a condition that
garage apartments are prohibited on these lots. Adding 9 homes to this street will also add
approximately 18 automobiles, essentially doubling the traffic flow on this part of Cedar Ave
from where it currently stands. Allowing 9 additional garage apartments and the 9-18
automobiles would add undue stress to one of the last quiet streets in Midtown and completely
disrupt the integrity of the neighborhood.
The Council has a choice to make: Cater solely to the developer and allow him to maximize his
profit or listen to the concerns of the longtime residents and taxpayers in this neighborhood.
Regards,
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 20
Brian G Mull
__________________________________________________________________
To The City Council of Wilmington
I am writing in opposition to the rezoning of Idlewild and Edgewood, specifically addresses,
4127, 4211, 4219, 4221 on Cedar Ave. and 938, 1121,1125 on Montclair Dr. from a R-10
neighborhood to a R-5 zoned neighborhood. I lived on Cedar Ave. In 2016, and have had friends
in this neighborhood for quite some time. As such I have spent a large amount of time in the
area. Not only is the area a quiet, peaceful area with low traffic, but also is a safe haven for
multitude of wildlife. I've routinely seen Red, and Grey tail foxes, Screech owls, Barred owls, and
the elusive Great Horned owl. As a Wilmington native I have seen the explosion of development
throughout the city, from apartments, subdivisions, and expanding roads. All in vain. The
traffic is unbearable, housing prices tripling, and rental prices quadrupling in most cases.
Pushing out natives, and making living in Wilmington near impossible. When did development
become more important than the people who built this town? The proposition to rezone the
Edgewood and Idlewild neighborhood is a very poignant example of profit before people. I call
to the moral responsibility of those on the city council to make the ethical decision regarding the
rezoning of Idlewild and Edgewood.
Hoping for an epiphone of reason,
Michael Gibson
926 Hood Drive.
Wilmington, NC
28409
__________________________________________________________________
Dear Ms. Spicer-Sidbury,
In reference to addresses 4127, 4211, 4219 and 4221 on Cedar Ave.; 938, 1121, and 1125
Montclair Dr., please ask the council to be considerate of those in this area who are and have
been working hard to make this area a beautiful and safe area to live in.
I moved here in 2020 from Pennsylvania. In that time, I have watched the neighbors pour
their labors of love and pride into their homes and landscapes. I ask that this area not be
destroyed by cheap homes, condos and poor infrastructure that would bring in a bad element
and destroy property values, all in the name of increased city and state revenue.
John Duff & Ana Gonzalez Molloy
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 21
1010 41st Street
Wilmington, NC 28403
__________________________________________________________________
My name is Guy Pushée. I live in the Idlewild neighborhood in mid-town Wilmington
at 4101 Wrightsville Ave. I am writing this letter to oppose the re-zoning of my
neighboring neighborhood .
Address(es) of discussion: 4127, 4211, 4219, and 4221 Cedar Ave.
(Edgewood), 938, 1121, and 1125 Montclair Dr. (Idlewild)
Rezoning of this neighborhood is unnecessary and will only benefit the owner of the
properties. We DO NOT want our neighborhood re zoned and want to keep the
appropriate R-10. I also feel we need to have us removed from the “ infill
development” classification. We are a small lot area and this does not fit the principles
of the of the infill character. We are a R-10 treasured neighborhood and want to keep
that. These comprehensive plans that have been presented are NOT correct. The
developer bought the properties in a R-10 and thus should stay an R-10 and NOT be
changed to an R-5 just for his sole purpose to make money. I do not object of him to
put up a new home in the place of the others to make the neighborhood nicer but to
put more than the already constructed home just for his and the cities want for money
is WRONG!
I’d say it’s time the local politicians should understand the town is being overbuilt, the
infrastructure strained, traffic is horrendous, and the quality of life here is diminishing
with every new high density, vegetation stripping eyesore that goes up.
Guy Pushée
_____________________________________________________________________
I am writing to strongly oppose your proposal to change the rezoning of our
beautiful neighborhood community. Please do not change this. Keep R-10. I live in
this community and do not want to see the changes that are currently being
proposed going into effect. This is a beautiful community and does not need what
is on the docket, it will destroy the beauty of our neighborhood.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 22
Tuesday, July 19, 2022.
I am distraught that the City Council thinks that this rezoning proposal is the right
things to do. Changes that have been proposed will affect this entire neighborhood
and areas surrounding it. To consider this as "progress" is wrong and will only
destroy something too valuable. As members of City Council, you know in your
hearts that this proposal would greatly affect your own neighborhoods and would
not be worthy of your consideration. Do what is right and look it squarely in the
face of justice and fairness for all of us. I respectfully submit these comments and
pray they will make a difference.
Theresa McManus, 1036 41st Street, #2, Wilmington NC 28403
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
This communication is intended to be included as an official statement for the next city council
meeting. The items in which this is relevant are to be addressed at the next city council meeting
in July 19, 2022 in reference to the properties: 4127, 4211, 4219, and 4221 Cedar Ave, 938, 1121
and 1125 Montclair Dr, 28403.
To the planning and zoning committees,
I am writing to strongly oppose the rezoning of properties and land in the Idlewild, Edgewood,
and Audubon neighborhoods. The homes in these areas are mostly single family homes. These
beautiful, charming areas in Wilmington, are becoming more and more rare and this is part of
the attraction to this city. Developers and builders are quick to grab lots and properties in bulk
in hopes to build multi unit projects which will redefine the area. This is certainly NOT in the
interest of the city, the neighborhoods and the families who have purchased homes here. The
rezoning to allow larger multi-unit residences will destroy the very thing that makes midtown
the lovely, family oriented, peaceful area that it is. We purchased a house at 4202 Wrightsville
Ave, built in 1943, as a home for our family, where our child can grow and enjoy the bike path,
area parks and other families with kids in the vicinity. We enjoy the comfort of having true
neighbors who are invested in their homes and neighborhoods versus the transient population
that would inhabit the proposed developments. Our safety and peace would greatly deteriorate.
The aesthetics and allure of these areas are exactly why Wilmington is a tourist attraction, to
erase this with multi-unit buildings would be a big disservice to everyone both the residents and
the visitors. We have some incredible offerings here, the old pecan groves are still standing in
many yards and lots, the cross city bike path goes right through the heart of the area, several city
parks, classic architecture and bungalows, and the people…Wilmington residents people who
have invested in homes for their families in these neighborhoods. We want to keep our area
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 23
charming, beautiful and safe. Please do not allow developers to take away what we consider
HOME, please deny requests for rezoning in these areas.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and for preserving our city’s beauty and
charm!
Stephanie Avery
Midtown Resident and Taxpayer in the city of Wilmington
__________________________________________________________________
To whom it may concern
My name is Gustavo Carranza, former resident of 4127 Cedar ave and I’m writing to the city
because I also oppose the proposed rezone. My wife and 3 kids moved into 4127 cedar ave in
June of 2021 under Myers property under the impression that the home would be available to
rent for years to come. Later that year we were informed that Michael White purchased not only
4127 but also 4211,4219, and 4221 to build “affordable housing, with that being said I’ve listed
other reasons to not rezone.
• Have since moved without finding a reasonable priced place to rent
• Was not notified that Michael White had purchased home until the final 3 months
• Roads are too narrow for high volume traffic
• Abundance of wildlife that habitats the community
• Neighbors feel safe getting around with the way the community already is.
• Over development will likely increase the chances of flooding
Please keep R-10 zoning and retain the integrity of the community and neighborhood.
Sincerely
Gustavo Carranza, thank you for your time.
__________________________________________________________________
Thursday, June 30, 2022
Intended use of this statement is to be presented to City Council members for their next
meeting. Presented in this fashion according to N.C. Legislation, Article 6, Development
Regulation § 160D-603 on citizen commentary.
Address(es) of discussion: 4127, 4211, 4219, and 4221 Cedar Avenue which will affect future
rezoning proposals such as 938, 1121, and 1125 Montclair Drive and potentially 1021 41st
Street, 4201 Maple Street, and 4124 Cedar Avenue as well.
The next City Council meeting is currently scheduled for Tuesday, July 19, 2022.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 24
My name is Paige Woodruff. I live at 938 41st Street. All of the above addresses are in an area
less than a square mile in size (calcmaps.com to calculate), historically known as Edgewood
and Idlewild. This neighborhood runs adjacent to the Wrightsville Avenue corridor, which
formally and for good reason, had historical character preserved. The oldest home in our
neighborhood was built in 1915, with homes from the 20s, 30s, and so on.
As Wilmington adds density throughout the city, I feel that it is important to also keep some
areas less dense, especially if current tax payers of those places are advocating to keep their
zoning and protect their way of life. Everyone who lives in Edgewood and Idlewild, as well as
surrounding areas, pretty much unanimously, does not want rezoning. We are taking the time in
our busy schedules and in the aftermath of the mortifying and isolating events of COVID, to talk
to our neighbors during this process. All of this is to say that the odds are stacked against the
regular people, also in the midst of economic uncertainty on a world scale, in effectively
organizing and communicating with each other. Collectively, people are demoralized, and what
is happening to our neighborhoods is certainly not helping. Everyone I talk to in Wilmington has
a project happening near them that they don't want. What could have been a compromise to
make both sides of the fence happy?
Perhaps economic prosperity would be better regulated and inspired by slower, smaller-scale,
and steady growth versus allowing an explosion of change and higher density all over the city,
and effectively making this into a completely different place than what makes people want to live
here (see Slow Money concepts).
For these reasons we are asking to keep R-10 zoning and to remove us from
"Neighborhood-Scale Infill Development" on the Areas of Opportunity map within The
Comprehensive Plan, so long as this color-coding recommends rezoning to smaller lots. Within
The Comprehensive Plan, this is the 1 thing that works against residents here in the proposal to
rezone, whereas there are about 300 things in the plan working for us (for another letter), and
we respectfully disagree with this designation of our neighborhood. We would like to be
color-coded as a historically valuable and treasured neighborhood, zoned forevermore at R-10.
The lots that were purchased still have room to build to the R-10 standards, and they were
knowingly purchased at R-10. The builder, Michael White of Karma Rentals LLC, is capable of
building a home for an R-10 lot, as he did so at 4014 Wrightsville Avenue. The home sold for
$425,000 in 2020 and has appreciated to an estimated $539,000 value. That sounds like a
profitable-enough venture, to me! According to R-10, there is room for 5 more units at 4127,
4211, 4219, and 4221 Cedar Avenue than are currently there and future proposals are
wooded/vacant lots with zero buildings on them currently; clean slates of opportunity, except for
the old and well-established tree canopy that exists in our neighborhood. In order to preserve
more of the tree canopy as The Comprehensive Plan supports, it would be more beneficial to
have less density and develop vacant lots to the current R-10 standards. A large tree anywhere
from 100 to several hundreds of years old cannot simply be replaced, as developers
nonchalantly say.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 25
When Michael White initially proposed 22 townhomes at 4127, 4211, 4219, and 4221 Cedar
Avenue and then changed his plans to 9 single family homes, this can be defined as a "bait and
switch" psychological tactic, in which current residents "should feel better" about the proposed
rezoning and "better plan" that the developer succumbed to. To tell us that we should feel better
when we are clearly stating that we do not want rezoning is a psychological manipulation known
as "gaslighting."
This is to say that we do not feel good about our new neighbors and feel they should be held to
the same R-10 standards as everyone else, lest they be given too many liberties than they are
responsible enough, and quite frankly honest enough, to employ. Developers, as well as the
new school of contractors and real estate agents have a conflict of interest that regular residents
and working people do not have: not only profit but maximization of profit. R-10 zoning is still
profitable to the enterprises of Michael White and his team as well as to future residents of
these acquired properties. Maximization of profit should not be allowed at the expense of
current residents. Developing within R-10 will create a more beautiful neighborhood that the
future residents can enjoy for decades more to come.
Thank you for your time and have a nice holiday weekend,
Paige Woodruff
____________________________________________________________________________
Monday, July 11, 2022
Letter to the Council:
Hi,
I want to bring it to your attention that citizens of Edgewood and Idlewild have been submitting
comments to the City Clerk, in accordance with N.C. Legislation, Article 6, Development
Regulation §160D-603 on citizen commentary, in preparation for the next City Council meeting,
and on behalf of 4127, 4211, 4219, and 4221 Cedar Ave.
I am attaching a document with the bulk of the comments made thus far, and we intend to keep
submitting them all week, until noon on Friday, as the N.C. law advises. Please read and take
our comments into consideration.
We are cohesively and strongly opposed to rezoning in our neighborhood. There are several
future proposals on the table for this neighborhood, which is less than a square mile in size, and
rezoning to Cedar Ave. will affect future proposals. We are imploring to keep R-10 zoning in our
neighborhood and therefore keep the integrity of our neighborhood, which is a geographically
and historically treasured location to all of Wilmington, right in the heart. The people who live
here know best what this neighborhood is worth, and we are inviting city staff to take a deeper
look. Please remove Idlewild and Edgewood from "Neighborhood-Scale Infill
Development" on the Areas of Opportunity map within The Comprehensive Plan.
Keeping R-10 will allow the builder, Michael White of Karma Rentals LLC, and his team, to build
one less dwelling on Cedar Ave., than they are currently proposing, but it will ensure that they
build to the same standards and rules as the rest of the neighborhood. Building within R-10 will
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 26
allow for less houses that are more valuable than if there were more houses. It's OK to have
neighborhoods like this. They are objectively more desirable places to live for many reasons.
Some of the housing in our neighborhood is slightly run down and could use improvement. We
look forward to improvements that Michael White can make with the current zoning, R-10 and
are confident that it will be very profitable for him and the city because this neighborhood is a
desirable place to live.
This neighborhood is not a transitional area for housing. We are currently not affected in any
way by apartments in surrounding areas. We are surprisingly protected from noise from the
major corridors that surround us due to the deeper lots and old growth trees. This is a healthy
and therefore desirable place to live because of that. Creating more density in this particular
location will degrade and possibly eliminate one of the last quiet places left in the heart of
Wilmington.
Sincerely,
Paige Woodruff
938 41st Street
____________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, July 19, 2022
Spoken at the City Council meeting:
I am Paige Woodruff. I live at 938 41st Street.
Did all of you read the comments submitted by residents?
What I would like to say is the system you have in place to get feedback from residents is not
working and you are not sufficiently using the feedback you got during the “Create Wilmington”
process in 2013/2014. I read The Comprehensive Plan and The Foundations Report. The top
three of twenty priorities people voiced for their neighborhoods were quote “1) more crosswalks,
sidewalks, bike lanes, and bike paths are desired, 2)more natural areas, trails,trees, and
open spaces are desired, and 3)residential character and family atmosphere should be
protected,” end quote.
And now, many of the residents in Edgewood and Idlewild are giving more feedback. We
decided to keep our eyes on each others’ comments because if they only go into your email
inboxes, how do we know that you read them?
Signs that you aren’t listening to us are unresponsiveness and/or dismissiveness to points
we’ve made. Please address points we have made such as:
●The Cedar Avenue lots are currently underutilized with R-10 zoning and can be
developed further using R-10, which will be profitable and maintain neighborhood
character.
●We disagree with our categorization as “Neighborhood-Scale Infill Development” and
desire for the historical value to be recognized and elevated.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 27
●The Comprehensive Plan is a tool, not a hard and fast regulation, which is why we are
standing here now.
●A housing shortage in Wilmington is not a good excuse to approve this because 50
acres, for example, are on the agenda tonight to be developed next to The Pointe
shopping center, and maximizing profits in our neighborhood should not be done at the
expense of current and long-standing residents.
●Changing plans from 21 townhouses to 9 single family homes and telling us “we should
feel good about it” was a bait and switch sort of tactic and gaslighting, because we are
expressing we don’t feel good about it.
●We are not transitional or affected by apartments on Wilshire and R-5 zoning is not
consistent with this neighborhood.
Again, please address those points.
I knocked on doors and spoke with people on 41st Street, 43rd Street, Cedar Avenue, Montclair
Drive, Wrightsville Avenue, Page Avenue, Bonham Drive, and Cherry Avenue. No one wants to
see rezoning at Cedar Avenue and people on Page, Bonham, and Cherry are unhappy with
development permitted to happen around them.
If you care about Wilmington, you would plant seeds of hope in us. People in this city are as
quiet and uninspired by leadership as ever, and you’re ruining our neighborhoods.
Keep our R-10 zoning and deny rezoning on Cedar Avenue.
____________________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, July 20, 2022
Follow up letter to the Council:
Hi, I spoke at the meeting last night on behalf of Cedar Ave.
I want to thank all of you for taking the time to read our comments and for listening to us, and
considering what we said. I truly felt that was the case last night.
You will be hearing from us again soon because there is another proposal by the same builder,
Michael White, on Montclair Drive, and it is my understanding that he also purchased 1021 41st
Street.
I see on the website your individual emails now, and I can use those in the future.
I especially want to thank Charlie Rivenbark for standing up for our neighborhood and saving
some of the integrity of those lots. We left the meeting feeling pretty good about that, and are
mostly happy with the compromise. We deeply appreciate you!
To be clear, the best outcome would have been to keep the 4 lots as are, and utilize them by
adding an additional house and 4 garage apartments, still equaling 8 dwellings. I understand
that would not be utilizing the lots to their full potential.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 28
To Mr. Clifford Barnett, I heard you express that you liked the original plan that would allow the
accessory dwellings behind the single family homes. I would like to tell you why I respectfully
disagree. Simply because it would be incredibly tacky and would not match the fabric of the
neighborhood. Development like this is happening all over Wilmington and it is very ugly. "The
current trends" for housing do not match this neighborhood, but are built adjacent to us on Kerr
Ave., and will be built next to The Pointe shopping center, for example, which are more
appropriate. I hope you will consider this moving forward on other proposals that Michael White
makes for our neighborhood.
Lastly, you as the Council are the only ones who can make the decision to protect our
neighborhoods from developers, who will take advantage of every possible inch they can, when
given the leeway. We knew that Michael White was hiding information from us, and that he
seemed like he wanted to get away with as much as possible. That was made more clear last
night. Please, for the city of Wilmington as a whole, protect neighborhoods from this kind of
thinking, and find the necessary compromises to keep our neighborhoods beautiful. We surely
are well on the way to looking like Myrtle Beach, and even newcomers to Wilmington are taking
notice.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Paige Woodruff
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 2 - 11 - 29
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 9/1/2022
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director
CONTACT(S): Rebekah Roth
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Text Amendment Request (TA22-03) - Request by New Hanover County to amend Ar7cles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 of
the Unified Development Ordinance in order to modernize standards, clarify exis7ng standards, and update
standards to make sure they are effec7ve.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Since the comple on of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Project in November 2020, staff has been
regularly bringing forward amendments to code provisions as part of ongoing efforts to ensure that the tools of the
ordinance remain up-to-date, are clear to all users of the code, and con nue to work the way they are intended.
Poten al amendment concepts were presented to the Planning Board at their August 4, 2022 mee ng, and dra/s of
the amendments were released on August 12 for public comment. All comments received are a1ached to this staff
report.
All proposed amendments are discrete, and the Board may move forward with only some of them without impac ng
other proposed provisions in the case that par cular amendments are determined to need addi onal considera on or
staff research.
The proposed amendments fall into three primary categories: Addi ons and Moderniza ons, Clarifica ons, and
Updates:
Addi ons and Moderniza ons
- Incorpora on of the exis ng County Stormwater Ordinance into the UDO
- Addi on of provisions for electric vehicle (EV) charging sta ons to support the retrofi;ng of sites
- Inclusion of standards regarding fixture height and cut-offs for light fixtures on non-residen al and mul -family sites
adjacent to single family neighborhoods
- Extension of current limits on inopera ve motor vehicles to inopera ve boats
- Specifica on of the extent building appurtenances, such as HVAC systems and can levers, can encroach into a
setback
- Adjustment of tree reten on requirements for projects in the Hwy 421 industrial corridor
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3
Clarifica ons
- Inclusion of Office & Ins tu onal sign standards in the same loca on as standards for signs in other districts
- Clarifica on of specimen tree standards applicability
- Specifica on that Senior Living: Independent Living Re rement Communi es must comply with the standards that
apply to the type of dwelling unit included in the project
- Specifica on that development standards are eligible for variances regardless of their loca on in the ordinance
- Clarifica on that buildings may be taller than 35 /. in the Airport Commerce district if allowed in the Airport Height
Restric on Standards and approved by the FAA
- Addi on of requirement that minimum acreage for Planned Development and Urban Mixed Use zoning districts must
be con guous
- Refinement of building separa on requirements for performance residen al projects
Updates
- Modifica on of when staff has the authority to approve minor devia ons to site plans administra vely
- Codifica on of development review process ming for tree removal permit related-landscaping plans and ligh ng
designs
- Incorpora on of a frequent reasonable accommoda on request received by the Board of Adjustment to increase the
number of residents with disabili es allowed in group homes from six to eight
- Modifica on of the defini on of family to allow household types not currently covered under the ordinance
provisions and those that include both related and unrelated people
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggests the following mo on:
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance to modernize, clarify, and update provisions. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of
the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides up-to-date zoning tools that promote business success, provide for a
range of housing opportuni es, and support a mixture of uses. I also find RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the
proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it provides for clear and effec ve ordinance
standards.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip on
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3
TA 22-03 PB Script
TA 22-03 PB Staff Report
TA 22-03 Additions & Modernizations Summary and Amendments
TA 22-03 Clarifications Summary and Amendments
TA 22-03 Updates Summary and Amendments
TA 22-03 Public Comment Cover Sheet
Public Comment - Tyler Newman
Public Comment - Bill Jayne
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3
SCRIPT for Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment (TA22-03)
Request by New Hanover County to amend Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 of the Unified Development
Ordinance in order to modernize standards, clarify existing standards, and update standards to make
sure they are effective.
1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then any supporters and
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes
for rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Applicant’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
3. Close the public hearing
4. Board discussion
5. Vote on amendment. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or is not,
consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is reasonable
and in the public interest.
Example Motion of Approval
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance to modernize, clarify, and update provisions. I find it to be CONSISTENT with
the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides up-to-date zoning tools that
promote business success, provide for a range of housing opportunities, and support a mixture of uses. I
also find RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public
interest because it provides for clear and effective ordinance standards.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance to establish the Riverfront Urban Mixed-Use Zoning (RUMXZ) district. I find it to be
[Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
I also find [Approval/Denial] of the proposed amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because
[insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 1 - 1
STAFF REPORT FOR TA22-03
TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: TA22-03
Request:
To amend Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 of the Unified Development Ordinance in order to
modernize standards, clarify existing standards, and update standards to make sure they are
effective.
Applicant: Subject Ordinances:
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Purpose & Intent
The key intent of this amendment is to perform ongoing code maintenance to ensure that code
provisions are up-to-date and work as intended. Components of the amendment include:
Additions & Modernizations
- Incorporation of the existing County Stormwater Ordinance into the UDO
- Addition of provisions for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations to support the retrofitting
of sites
- Inclusion of standards regarding fixture height and cut-offs for light fixtures on non-
residential and multi-family sites adjacent to single family neighborhoods
- Extension of current limits on inoperative motor vehicles to inoperative boats
- Specification of the extent building appurtenances, such as HVAC systems and cantilevers,
can encroach into a setback
- Adjustment of tree retention requirements for projects in the Hwy 421 industrial corridor
Clarifications
- Inclusion of Office & Institutional district sign standards in same location as standards for
signs in other districts
- Clarification of specimen tree standards applicability
- Specification that zoning district height maximums do not apply to utility structures
- Stipulation that Senior Living: Independent Living Retirement Communities must comply
with the standards that apply to the type of dwelling unit included in the project
- Specification that development standards are eligible for variances regardless of their
location in the ordinance
- Clarification that buildings may be taller than 35 ft. in the Airport Commerce district if
allowed in the Airport Height Restriction Standards and approved by the FAA
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 1
Clarifications continued
- Addition of requirement that minimum acreage for Planned Development and Urban
Mixed Use zoning districts must be contiguous
- Refinement of building separation requirements for performance residential projects
Updates
- Modification of when staff has the authority to approve minor deviations to site plans
administratively
- Codification of development review process timing for tree removal permit related-
landscaping plans and lighting designs
- Incorporation of a frequent reasonable accommodation request received by the Board
of Adjustment to increase of the number of residents with disabilities allowed in group
homes from six to eight
- Modification of the definition of family to allow household types not currently covered
under the ordinance provisions and those that include both related and unrelated people
BACKGROUND
Since the completion of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Project in November 2020, staff
has been regularly bringing forward amendments to code provisions as part of ongoing efforts to
ensure that the tools of the ordinance remain up-to-date, are clear to all users of the code, and
continue to work the way they are intended.
Potential amendment concepts were presented to the Planning Board at their August 4, 2022
meeting, and drafts of the amendments were released on August 12 for public comment. The only
public comments received by the publication of this report are related to the proposed Highway
421 tree retention amendment. The public hearing draft of the amendment has not been revised
to reflect these public comments as they conflict, though staff will continue to engage stakeholders
and will provide an update to the board as part of the staff presentation. All comments received
are attached to this staff report.
As a note, all amendments are discrete, and the Board may move forward with only some of them
without impacting other proposed provisions in the case that particular amendments are determined
to need additional consideration or staff research.
Proposed amendments fall into three primary categories: Additions and Modernizations,
Clarifications, and Updates.
ADDITIONS AND MODERNIZATIONS
New Hanover County Stormwater Ordinance
A specific place, Article 7, was provided for the County’s Stormwater Ordinance when the UDO
format was adopted in 2019, but these provisions were not intended to be incorporated until they
had been coordinated with the County’s stormwater utility services program. This was completed
in 2021, and the Stormwater Ordinance was updated and adopted by the Board of Commissioners
last year. The final step would be adding the adopted ordinance to the UDO.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 2
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
A 2021 Biden Executive Order and 2022 Cooper Executive Order have established federal and
state goals for zero-emission vehicles—that 50% of new vehicles in the United States be zero-
emission by 2030 and that there be at least 1.25 million registered zero emission vehicles in North
Carolina by 2030. Most commonly, zero-emission automobiles are electric vehicles (EVs), which
along with hybrid vehicles, are expected to account for more than half of all light vehicles sold
world-wide by 2026.
Based on current data collected by the state, the number of electric vehicles in New Hanover County
is relatively small but is on the rise, and these numbers do not include any visitor vehicles related to
area tourism. The US Department of Energy’s recommendations for electric vehicle charging stations
indicate that the local private market is meeting the needs of local electric vehicle drivers,
suggesting that it is not currently necessary to adopt regulations requiring charging stations for
particular types of uses. However, retrofitting sites can be expensive and site design requirements
for these types of retrofits is not clear, so some additional ordinance provisions to cover these topics
could be helpful to support the private market’s efforts.
Currently, the UDO includes a definition for electric vehicle charging stations and explicitly states
they are allowed as accessory uses in all zoning districts. Because there are different types of
electric vehicle charging stations, some of which require little upfitting and others that may require
additional conduit lines, signage, and may impact parking, differentiating them in the ordinance’s
definitions would be helpful.
In addition, provisions related to future retrofits of parking spaces into charging stations could also
be helpful, as requiring that the necessary infrastructure for EV stations be installed up-front would
reduce the future cost of conversion of those spaces. Clear standards for parking spaces converted
to EV charging stations ensure that spaces are clearly marked, safe for users, and still accommodate
sufficient short-term parking necessary for the use.
Exterior Lighting Standards for Non-residential and Multi-Family Projects
When the lighting standards section of the UDO was adopted in fall 2020, it was intended to be
as policy neutral as possible and only related to light trespass onto neighboring properties.
However, in recent months, staff has started to see greater impacts from lighting associated with
nonresidential and multi-family uses on adjacent neighborhoods than was anticipated in 2020 due
to some newer trends with the use of more LED lighting. This lighting, while producing less light
pollution and trespass, is much brighter than older lighting types, especially when combined with
taller commercial fixtures that are not always blocked by landscaped and fenced buffers.
The proposed amendment would replicate language used in recent conditional rezoning approvals,
which limited the height of lighting structures adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods
and required full cut-off fixtures to reduce the visual impacts on those adjacent properties.
Inoperative Boats
Zoning compliance staff have received five complaints over just this past year about properties in
residential neighborhoods being used for the non-commercial storage of multiple inoperative boats.
The UDO currently includes provisions that limit the number of inoperative motor vehicles allowed
on a residential lot to one, so it is in line with current policy to also limit the storage for inoperative
boats. Draft ordinance language outlines that this standard would only apply to visibly inoperative,
wrecked, or dismantled boats to ensure that boats without motors would not be included in the
restriction. It also would not apply to any boats—regardless of state—that are stored within an
enclosed structure.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 3
Encroachments
Staff has received questions regarding whether features such as HVAC units and building
cantilevers—upper-story portions of buildings that extend beyond the footprint—can encroach into
required setbacks. Current ordinance provisions don’t address these types of situations, and
encroachments of building appurtenances, such as steps and stairways, is a common topic for
variance requests considered by the Board of Adjustment. The draft amendment provides clear
guidance on when and how much these types of features are allowed to encroach to provide
flexibility for site design without negating the intent of setback provisions.
Highway 421 Corridor Tree Retention Standards
At the August 4, 2022 Planning Board meeting, staff was requested to look into a potential
amendment that would alleviate development challenges in the Highway 421 industrial area
related to existing tree retention standards. Currently, the County’s tree retention standards are
uniform across all zoning districts and areas of the county and are largely based on retaining
individual trees of a certain size, though incentives adopted in 2020 are intended to support
retention of tree canopy and larger stands of trees. These standards are intended to provide a
variety of public benefits, including protection of natural habitat, retention of the existing tree
canopy for stormwater and mitigation of additional impervious surfaces, and preservation of
community character.
The Highway 421 corridor is primarily zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial, from the Isabel Holmes bridge
to the Pender County line and is identified for future industrial development by the 2016
Comprehensive Plan. To encourage that vision, the County worked with CFPUA over the past five
years to extend water and sewer utilities to this area. This has helped to support a resurgence of
industrial interest in the corridor, some of which is from larger industries with development project
prototypes that allow for less site-specific design. The standardized project designs associated
with larger industrial employers have led to current tree retention standards being identified as a
challenge and potential barrier to ongoing industrial investment.
Sites in this corridor were often re-planted with pine trees after previous clearing, so unlike other
wooded areas, trees are all of a similar size. From staff’s understanding, there is a concern that this
may lead to a property consisting entirely of significant trees, as identified in the ordinance,
requiring large amounts of mitigation if trees are removed (either through replanting at a rate of
2 inches for every 1 removed or by paying fees-in-lieu that support county tree plantings).
Current tree retention standards include the requirement for a tree survey and protection of larger
trees. Trees identified as “significant” based on size and species cannot be removed unless required
for essential site improvements and must be mitigated by replacement trees (at a rate of 2” for
every 1” removed) or a fee-in-lieu. Those fees are used by the County’s Parks & Gardens
department to plant long leaf saplings at Long Leaf Park annually, supplement tree canopy in other
parks (such as the buffer along the trail at Echo Farms Park), restore native plantings to FEMA buy-
out properties, and purchase forested lands (such as a tract adjacent to Pages Creek Preserve to
allow for public access).
Current mitigation requirements are intended to incentivize the retention of existing trees but may
result in much larger numbers of trees being required than on the site originally. For instance, a
turkey oak or long leaf pine 20” diameter at breast height (DBH) would require 20 new trees at
2” DBH or a fee-in-lieu of $4,000.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 4
Trees identified as “specimen” trees based on size and species cannot be removed unless a variance
is approved by the Board of Adjustment, and double mitigation is required even if the variance is
approved.
Incentives are in place to also allow the retention of smaller trees to meet mitigation requirements,
since those trees are often larger than replacement trees and may even be considered significant
within the first 5-10 years of development.
The County also has landscaping requirements that are coordinated with tree retention standards,
requiring a significant number of trees be planted in an industrial development’s streetyard, and a
total of 15 trees per acre be planted or retained.
In response to the Planning Board request, staff identified three potential options for an
amendment—reducing mitigation requirements, removing mitigation requirements, and exempting
the corridor from tree retention standards altogether. The proposed amendment consists of the
middle option, which would still require a tree survey, only allow removal of significant trees for
essential site improvements, and still protect specimen trees. Mitigation requirements would not be
required though, as it would be unlikely that if a parcel includes large numbers of “significant” trees
they could be accommodated on-site. Landscaping standards requiring the minimum 15 trees per
acres be retained or replanted would remain in effect, though the fee-in-lieu option is provided if
they cannot be accommodated on-site.
Public comments have been provided by both representatives of business and tree advocacy
organizations (included in the board packet). Concerns have been voiced that the landscaping
requirements retained by the amendment may still serve as a barrier to industrial development on
the one hand, and on the other, that the landscaping requirements on their own provide less
environmental value than existing trees and the proposed amendment would set a dangerous
precedent that erodes existing tree protections.
CLARIFICATIONS
Freestanding Signs in the Office and Institutional (O&I) District
Standards for freestanding signs in the O&I district are listed in Article 3 as district-specific
standards and not included in the same table that outlines provisions for other districts. The
proposed amendment moves all freestanding sign standards to Section 5.6: Signs and clarifies
setback requirements.
Specimen Tree Standards Applicability
When the original specimen tree ordinance was adopted by the Board of Commissioners in 2019,
it was explicitly stated that properties currently exempt from tree retention provisions, such as
existing residential lots, would also be exempt from the new standards. The proposed amendment
would codify the current staff interpretation that administrative waivers to dimensional
requirements, such as setbacks, are available for residential properties if necessary to save
specimen and significant trees. In the past, this has allowed for the preservation of two specimen
live oaks.
Utility Structure Heights
Last year’s UDO amendment to align with new state general statutes required a modification for
the definition of the term building. This has created ambiguity regarding the types of structures
that zoning district building height maximums apply to, and the proposed amendment clarifies that
they do not apply to utility structures, such as water towers and power poles.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 5
Senior Living: Independent Living Retirement Communities
The proposed amendment specifies that Independent Living developments must comply with the
standards that apply to the type of dwelling unit included, such as multi-family standards apply to
multi-family Independent Living developments.
Variance Eligibility
The proposed amendment clarifies that district specific provisions are eligible for variances. While
development standards are located in multiples sections of the ordinance, the variance eligibility
provisions currently only cite specific locations in the code.
Airport Commerce (AC) District Height Provisions
As the result of recent projects at the Wilmington International Airport business park, the proposed
amendment clarifies height requirements in the AC zoning district. While the building height
maximum currently listed in the district’s table of dimensional standards is 35 ft., the Airport Height
Restrictions provisions in Article 5, General Development Standards, allows for heights up to 50 ft.
The proposed amendment clarifies this, using the same Additional Height Allowance language
incorporated into the code last year, but specifies that heights over 35 ft. much be approved by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Minimum Acreage for Planned Development (PD) and Urban Mixed Use Zoning (UMXZ)
Districts
The ordinance currently does not specify that land must be contiguous in order to meet the minimum
district requirements for PD and UMXZ projects. The proposed amendment clarifies that this is a
requirement, as it is important to ensure that proposed districts are the cohesive development
projects intended.
Performance Residential Building Separation Requirements
The proposed amendment refines the building separation requirements for performance residential
projects to clarify that attached dwelling units, such as townhomes and duplexes, have the same
standards as single-family dwellings. These provisions were not updated in 2019 when new terms
were added to the code, specifying a variety of attached dwelling types in addition to the
detached single-family and multi-family terms used previously.
UPDATES
Minor Deviations
As part of last year’s amendment to align with new state general statutes, new provisions outlining
when staff has the authority to approve minor deviations to a site plan administratively were
adopted. These provisions control when changes to site plans associated with conditional zoning
districts, special use permits, or master planned developments that occur during the technical
permitting process require that a developer go back through the rezoning or special use permit
process in order to update the site plan.
Over the past year, staff has learned that in some situations, such as with building height increases,
current authorities may allow changes greater than those anticipated by the reviewing and
approving boards or the outside stakeholders involved in the original process. In other situations,
current authorities may not reflect common types of changes that occur as site plans move through
the engineering and technical permitting phases, even those they do not substantively change the
way a project functions or its impact on adjacent properties or roadways. In those instances, having
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 6
an applicant go back through the original approval process may require more board and
stakeholder oversight than necessary given the nature of the change.
The proposed amendment includes the following changes, though it should be noted that deviations
to ordinance standards or specific conditions placed on an approval would not be allowed:
Expanding the current authority to allow deviations to building or structure placements by
also allowing changes to building or site design configuration;
Replacing the authority to allow increases in building size and height with the more specific
ability to allow increases in square footage of a use type (commercial, office, residential,
etc.) not to exceed 10% and to limit increases in height to 10% or 10 ft., whichever is less,
to reduce potential impacts now that taller buildings are allowed in the code; and
Adding the ability to approve changes to internal circulation patterns that do not impact
public safety.
Process Improvements
The current tree removal permit process requires both the tree removal authorization and mitigation
plan be approved up-front during the technical review process before a developer can receive an
erosion and sedimentation control permit. Now that there are incentives built into the ordinance
that allow retention of existing trees be used for mitigation and included in a project’s landscaping
plan, staff has found that mitigation plans must often be revised after stormwater and construction
plan approvals because the location of infrastructure and other site design has shifted during the
engineering process. This requires staff and the applicant duplicate efforts by repeating the plan
review process. The proposed amendment would still require the tree removal authorization as
part of the initial approval but allow the mitigation/landscaping plan be reviewed at the time of
construction plan approval once all engineering has been completed.
Staff has also proposed that lighting plan designs also be allowed to be submitted at the
construction approval stage, which still allows review prior to installation of conduit for the lights,
but only in certain pre-approved instances. Lighting design work has been taking longer in recent
years, and this process modification would allow developers to move forward with parts of their
project even if their lighting design is delayed.
Group Home Standards
Group homes are commonly the subject of reasonable accommodation requests submitted to the
Board of Adjustment. These types of requests are allowed in order to comply with the Federal Fair
Housing Act, as they allow accommodations for persons with disabilities. Over the past seven years,
the Board of Adjustment has received and approved seven requests for reasonable
accommodations to allow eight residents in a group home, though current ordinance standards allow
a maximum of six. Other standards are in place for group homes that are more stringent than for
other residential uses so impacts of the use are already mitigated, and in general, if the Board of
Adjustment receives and approves multiple requests for the same action, it is a best practice to
amend the standard.
Definition of Family
The current ordinance definition for family is outdated and does not include common household
types, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. The proposed amendment modernizes
language and also includes provisions for households that include both related and unrelated
people.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 7
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposed text amendment and supplemental summary sheets are attached, with red italics
indicating new language and strikethrough indicating provisions that are removed. No changes
have been made in response to public review comments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggests the following motion:
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance to modernize, clarify, and update provisions. I find
it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because
it provides up-to-date zoning tools that promote business success, provide for a range of
housing opportunities, and support a mixture of uses. I also find RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it
provides for clear and effective ordinance standards.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 8
Subject Articles and Sections
Article 2: Measurements and Definitions
Section 2.1: Measurements
Section 2.3: Definitions and Terms
Article 3: Zoning Districts
Section 3.2: Residential Zoning Districts
o Section 3.2.3, Residential District Specific Standards
Section 3.3: Mixed Use Zoning Districts
o Section 3.3.4, Urban Mixed Use Zoning (UMXZ)
o Section 3.3.7, Planned Development (PD) District
Section 3.4: Commercial and Industrial Districts
o Section 3.4.6, Office and Institutional (O&I) District
o Section 3.4.9, Airport Commerce (AC) District
Article 4: Uses and Use-Specific Standards
Section 4.3: Standards for Specified Principal Uses
o Section 4.3.2, Residential Uses
Section 4.4: Accessory Use and Structure Standards
o Section 4.4.4, Standards for Specified Accessory Uses and Structures
Article 5: General Development Standards
Section 5.1: Parking and Loading
o Section 5.1.2, Minimum Off-Street Parking Standards
Section 5.3: Tree Retention
o Section 5.3.3, Tree Inventory
o Section 5.3.4, Tree Retention Standards
o Section 5.3.5, Tree Removal Permits
o Section 5.3.7, Mitigation
Section 5.5: Exterior Lighting
o Section 5.5.3, Time of Review
o Section 5.5.4, General Standards
Section 5.6: Signs
o Table 5.6.2.J.4.a, Freestanding Sign Standards
Article 7: Stormwater Management
Article 10: Administrative Procedures
Section 10.1: Advisory and Decision-Making Bodies
o Section 10.1.1, General
o Section 10.1.7, County Engineer
Section 10.3: Application-Specific Procedures
o Section 10.3.3, Conditional Zoning
o Section 10.3.4, Master Planned Development
o Section 10.3.5, Special Use Permit
o Section 10.3.9, Tree Removal Permit
o Section 10.3.11, Variance – Zoning and Subdivision
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 9
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment –
Additions & Modernizations
Code Sections Affected
Section 2.1,
Measurements
Section 2.3,
Definitions and Terms
Section 3.2.3,
Residential District
Specific Standards
Section 4.4,
Standards for
Specified Accessory
Uses and Structures
Section 5.1.2,
Minimum Off-Street
Parking Standards
Section 5.3.7,
Mitigation
Section 5.5,
Exterior Lighting
Article 7,
Stormwater
Management
Section 10.1,
Advisory and
Decision-Making
Bodies
Key Intent
Add provisions to modernize standards and ensure the ordinance can address
new development trends
Changes
• Addition of the current New Hanover County Stormwater Ordinance (effective
May 12, 2021) to the UDO. (See Article 7, Stormwater Management and
Section 10.1, Advisory and Decision-Making Bodies)
• Provisions added for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations to support the
retrofitting of sites, including:
o An expansion of the definition for EV charging stations to differentiate
between the three types, which have different impacts on
development; (See Section 2.3, Definitions and Terms)
o Inclusion of standards that will allow for easier retrofitting of parking
spaces to EV charging stations by requiring up-front infrastructure to
support future retrofits; (See Section 5.1.2, Minimum Off-Street
Parking Standards) and
o Clear standards for what is required when spaces are installed or
retrofitted to ensure that spaces are clearly marked, are safe for users,
and parking lots still accommodate sufficient short-term parking
necessary for the use. (See Section 4.4.4, Standards for Specified
Accessory Uses and Structures and Section 5.1.2, Minimum Off-
Street Parking Standards)
• Standards regarding fixture height and cut-offs added for light fixtures on non-
residential and multi-family sites adjacent to single family neighborhoods to
reduce potential impacts. (See Section 5.5, Exterior Lighting)
• Extension of current limits on inoperative motor vehicles to inoperative boats
so that no more than one inoperative boat would be allowed on a residential
property unless within an enclosed structure. (See Section 3.2.3,
Residential District Specific Standards)
• Specifications provided for the extent building appurtenances, such as HVAC
systems and cantilevers, can encroach into a setback. (See Section 2.1,
Measurements)
• Tree mitigation requirements for projects in the Hwy 421 industrial corridor
removed to support ongoing investment, though specimen tree protections
and landscaping and buffering requirements would still apply. Note: At the
August 4, 2022 Planning Board meeting, staff was requested to look into a potential
amendment that would alleviate development challenges in this area related to
existing tree retention standards. (Section 5.3.7, Mitigation)
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 1
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
Article 2: Measurements and Definitions
Section 2.1. Measurements
ENCROACHMENTS
Certain building features, mechanical equipment and other landscape features are allowed to
encroach upon the front, side and rear setbacks and into the periphery setback for lots within
performance residential subdivisions. Encroachments into access easements are prohibited.
All encroachments are subject to the standards found in Article 9: Flood Damage Prevention,
but the definition included there is for the purpose of that article only.
A. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
Building features, such as but not limited to, balconies, bay windows, cantilevers,
chimneys, cornices, eaves, fire escapes, and sills, may encroach 4 feet into a required
setback but no closer than 3 feet from any property line and must meet all fire and building
code requirements.
B. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
Mechanical equipment, such as but not limited to, heating and air conditioning equipment,
backup power generator, electrical fuse box and meter, or natural gas meter may
encroach 5 feet into a required setback but no closer than 3 feet from any property line so
long as fire, building, and manufacturer’s requirements are met.
C. ACCESSIBILITY FEATURES
1. Stairs and exterior elevators may encroach 2 feet into a required setback but no closer
than 3 feet to the property line.
2. Americans with Disabilities Act-required accessibility features or temporary
accessibility ramps may encroach into a required setback as necessary to meet
building code requirements but must be a minimum of 3 feet from the property line.
SETBACK
The minimum distance a building or structure must be separated from the lot lines. Setbacks
are specified as front, side, and rear; are located within the corresponding front, side, and rear
yards; and establish the minimum required front, side, and rear yards.
Setbacks shall not be occupied or obstructed by a structure or portion of a structure, unless
otherwise allowed by another provision of this Ordinance.
Setbacks shall be measured from the structure. If a roof overhang extends more than two feet
from the structure, the setback shall be measured from the drip line of the roof. Cantilevers
shall be considered part of the roof overhang if the combined distance of the cantilever and
roof overhang do not extend more than 2 feet.
Fences, walls, poles, posts, and other customary yard accessories, ornaments, and furniture
may be permitted in any setback subject to height limitations and requirements limiting
obstruction of visibility.
Private driveways or easements serving three or fewer lots in accordance with Section 5.2.2.3
may also be permitted in any setback.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 2
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
Minimum setback distances for overhead canopies shall be determined by measuring a
straight line distance from the nearest point of the required reference boundary (i.e., street
right-of-way, zoning district line, or property line) to the point on the ground surface which is
perpendicular to the closest edge of the canopy overhang. Setback distances from street
rights-of-way may be reduced by one half.
A. SETBACK, FRONT
The depth of a front setback shall be measured at right angles to a straight line joining
the foremost points of the side lot lines, and in such a manner that the front yard
established shall provide minimum depth parallel to the front lot line.
B. SETBACK, SIDE
The width of a side setback shall be measured in such a manner that the side yard
established is a strip of the minimum width required by the district regulations with its
inner edge parallel with the side lot line.
C. SETBACK, REAR
The depth of a rear setback shall be measured in such a manner that the rear yard
established is a strip of the minimum width required by district regulations with its inner
edge parallel with the rear lot line.
D. SETBACK LINE
The line on the front, rear, and sides of a lot, which delineates the area upon which a
structure may be built and maintained.
Section 2.3. Definitions and Terms
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION
A vehicle parking space served by an electrical component assembly or cluster of component
assemblies (battery charging station) designed and intended to transfer electric energy by
conductive or inductive means from the electric grid or other off-board electrical source to a battery
or other energy storage device within a vehicle that operates, partially or exclusively, on electric
energy. Charging stations are differentiated by charging levels, which are the standardized
indicators of electrical force, or voltage, at which an electric vehicle’s battery is recharged. The
terms 1, 2, and 3 are the most common charging levels, and include the following specifications:
A. LEVEL 1
Level 1 charging provides charging through a 120 volt (V), alternating-current (AC) plug.
Level 1 is considered as slow charging. Level 1 charging equipment is standard on
vehicles and therefore does not require the installation of charging equipment. The most
common place for Level 1 charging is at the vehicle owner’s home and is typically
conducted overnight.
B. LEVEL 2
Level 2 charging is through a 240V, AC plug and are commonly found in residential
settings, public parking areas, places of employment and commercial settings.
C. LEVEL 3
Level 3 charging is through a 480V, direct-current (DC) plug. Level 3 chargers are typically
found in commercial or industrial locations rather than residential.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 3
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
Article 3: Zoning Districts
Section 3.2. Residential Zoning Districts
3.2.3. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SPECIFIC STANDARDS
A. Storage of Inoperative Motor Vehicles and Boats
a. It shall be unlawful for any person to store, keep, or maintain more than
one inoperative motor vehicle in any residential district.
b. It shall be unlawful for any person to store, keep, or maintain more than
one visiblly inoperative, wrecked, or dismantled boat outside of an
enclosed accessory structure in any residential district.
Section 4.4. Accessory Use and Structure Standards
7.1.1. 4.4.4 STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
M. Electric Vehicle Charging Station, Accessory
Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging Stations shall comply with the following
standards:
1. No use-specific standards for individual single-family or two-family
residential units. Reference the standards in 5.1.2.G for other uses.
Article 5: General Development Standards
Section 5.1. Parking and Loading
5.1.2. MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS
G. Electric Vehicle Parking
1. Minimum Number of Required Spaces
In parking facilities where 25 or more parking spaces are provided,
including expansion of an existing parking facility, the following shall apply:
a. At least one space, or two percent of all provided parking spaces,
whichever is less, shall be electric vehicle-ready spaces with necessary
infrastructure to permit conversion to full vehicle charging stations.
b. To allow for additional electric vehicle parking in the future, all new or
expanded structured parking facilities shall be designed to allow for at
least four percent of the number of parking spaces to be electric-vehicle
ready.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 4
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
2. Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) Design Requirements
a. Size: A standard parking space shall be used for an electric vehicle
charging station (EVCS) where such a station is required or planned.
b. Equipment Standards and Protection. Where provided, parking for
electric vehicle charging purposes shall meet the standards of
subsection 5.1.2.G.2.b (i) through (iv) of this section.
i. Clearance. Charging station equipment mounted on pedestals,
private light posts, bollards or other devices shall be a minimum of
24 inches from the face of the curb.
ii. Charging Station Equipment. Charging station outlets and
connector devices shall be no less than 36 inches or no higher than
48 inches from the top of the surface where mounted and shall be
designed and located as to not impede pedestrian travel or create
trip hazards on sidewalks.
iii. Charging Station Equipment Protection. When the electric vehicle
parking space is perpendicular or at an angle to curb face and
charging equipment, adequate equipment protection, such as
wheel stops or concrete-filled steel bollards shall be used.
iv. Maintenance. Charging station equipment shall be maintained in all
respects, including the functioning of the charging equipment. A
phone number or other contact information shall be provided on the
charging station equipment for reporting when the equipment is not
functioning or other problems are encountered.
c. Signage. Electric vehicle charging stations, other than in residential
use, shall have posted signage allowing only charging electric vehicles
to park in such spaces. For the purposes of this subsection, “charging”
means that an electric vehicle is parked at an electric vehicle charging
station and is connected to the charging station equipment. Signage for
parking of electric vehicles shall include:
i. Information on the charging station to identify voltage and
amperage levels and anytime of use, fees, or safety information.
ii. Restrictions shall be included on the signage, if removal provisions
are to be enforced by the property owner.
iii. As appropriate, direction signs to effectively guide motorists to the
charging station space(s).
d. Lighting. Site lighting shall be provided where the EVCS is installed
unless charging is for daytime purposes only. Lighting standards shall
be pursuant to Section 5.5. Exterior Lighting.
e. Time limits may be placed on the number of hours that an electric
vehicle is allowed to charge, prohibiting indefinite charging/parking. If
applicable, warnings shall be posted to alert charging station users
about hours of use and possible actions affecting EVCS that are not
being used according to posted rules.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 5
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
f. The EVCS must be in operation during the normal business hours of
the use(s) that it serves. EVCS may be de-energized or otherwise
restricted after normal business hours of the use(s) it serves.
g. Usage Fees. The property owner or operator is not restricted from
collecting a service fee for the use of an electric vehicle charging
station made available to visitors of the property.
3. Accessible Facilities
a. Where electric vehicle charging stations are provided in parking lots or
structured parking facilities, accessible electric vehicle charging
stations shall be provided according to the ratios shown in table
5.1.2.G.3. The first column indicated the number of electric vehicle
stations being provided on-site and the second column indicated the
number of accessible charging stations that are to be provided for the
corresponding number(s) of charging stations.
Table 5.1.2.G:3: Minimum Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Number of EV Charging Stations Minimum Accessible
EV Charging Stations
5 - 50 1
51 - 100 2
101 - 150 3
b. It is strongly encouraged, but not required, that a minimum of one
accessible EVCS be provided at sites with fewer than 5 EVCS.
c. Accessible electric vehicle charging stations should be located in close
proximity to the building or facility entrance and shall be connected to
a barrier-free accessible route of travel. It is not necessary to
designate the accessible electric vehicle charging station exclusively
for the use of disabled persons.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 6
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
Section 5.3. Tree Retention
5.3.7. MITIGATION
A. When Significant Trees are authorized for removal by a tree removal permit or
Specimen Trees are authorized for removal by a variance, they shall be replaced at
a rate of 2.0 times the caliper inches at DBH removed, except as provided in
subsections D and E below and Section 5.3.8, Optional Incentives for Retaining
Trees.
B. Each replacement tree shall be a minimum of 2-inch caliper size at time of planting.
C. Replacement trees should reflect the type (e.g., hardwood, flowering, evergreen,
deciduous, canopy, understory, etc.) of tree being removed to the maximum extent
practicable based on the compatibility of the species with proposed buildings and
infrastructure, existing environmental conditions, and diversity of tree species.
D. If the Planning Director determines it is infeasible for a portion or all of the
replacement tree(s) to be accommodated on the site, the Planning Director may
direct that an in-lieu fee be paid to the County’s Tree Improvement Fund. The
mitigation fee as set forth in the County’s fee schedule shall be charged for every
inch at DBH of Significant Tree removed and two times every inch at DBH of
Specimen Tree removed.
E. Properties zoned I-2 located along the Hwy 421 corridor between the Isabel Holmes
Bridge to the south, the Pender County line to the north, the Cape Fear River to the
west, and the Northeast Cape Fear River to the east shall not be required to mitigate
removed Significant trees or Specimen trees. These sites shall still be required to
meet all requirements of Section 5.4, Landscaping and Buffering or pay an in-lieu fee
as described in D above if the Planning Director determines that required trees cannot
be accommodated on the site.
F. Significant Trees and Specimen Trees that are removed by spading and planted
elsewhere on the site are exempt from mitigation. Significant Trees and Specimen
Trees that are removed by spading and accepted by the County for planting on
property at a location designated by the County Manager are exempt from mitigation.
Any tree that has been transplanted for the purpose of this section and becomes
diseased or dies within three years of transplanting shall be replanted by the party
requesting the exemption with a tree of the same species and size or mitigated
pursuant to this article.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 7
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
Section 5.5. Exterior Lighting
5.5.3. TIME OF REVIEW
Information about the exterior lighting for the site that demonstrates compliance with the
standards in this section shall be submitted in conjunction with an application for site plan approval
(Section 10.3.6, Site Plan) or zoning compliance approval (Section 10.3.8, Zoning Compliance
Approval), whichever comes first.
An administrative waiver for this requirement to allow submittal of the lighting plan no later than
the time of construction plan approval may be granted by the Planning Director, provided the
application is accompanied by a letter from the utility provider or lighting designer explaining why
the lighting plan cannot be submitted at the time of site plan approval or zoning compliance
approval.
5.5.4. GENERAL STANDARDS
B. Maximum Height
The height of exterior light fixtures for nonresidential, multi-family, and mixed-use
developments adjacent to single family residential subdivisions shall not exceed
25 feet, whether mounted on poles, walls, or by other means.
C. Fixture Cut-Offs
All exterior luminaries, including security lighting, for nonresidential, multi-family,
and mixed-use developments adjacent to single family residential subdivisions
shall be full cut-off fixtures that are directed downward (see Figure 5.5.4.C: Full
Cut-off Fixtures). In no case shall lighting be directed at or above a horizontal
plane through the lighting fixture.
Figure 5.5.4.C: Full Cut-off Fixtures
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 8
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
Article 7: Stormwater Management
Section 7.2. Title
This Article may be cited as the “New Hanover County Stormwater Management Ordinance.”
Section 7.3. Purpose
The purpose of this article is to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the
public; and to safeguard the natural and manmade resources of the County by regulating
stormwater runoff. This purpose is accomplished by imposing conditions and requirements upon
existing and proposed development activities and establishing procedures by which these
requirements and conditions are to be administered and enforced.
Section 7.4. Authority and Jurisdiction
A. The provisions of this article are adopted under the authority granted by the General
Assembly of North Carolina.
B. The regulations set forth in this article shall be applicable to all territory within the
unincorporated areas of the County.
Section 7.5. Objectives
The objectives of this article are to:
A. Establish the County's stormwater management program;
B. Identify areas prone to flooding;
C. Prevent the creation of new floodprone areas;
D. Reduce the discharge of stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable by
controlling discharge rates;
E. Reduce erosion associated with stormwater runoff;
F. Provide for the inspection and proper maintenance of structural and nonstructural
stormwater control measures and;
G. Provide for the enforcement of the County's stormwater management program in the
unincorporated portions of the County.
Section 7.6. Incorporation of Design Manual by Reference
The latest version of the New Hanover County Storm Water Design Manual, as
administratively amended from time to time to reflect advancements in knowledge,
technology, engineering practice, and state and federal regulatory changes, is adopted by
reference as part of this article and shall be available through the Engineering Department.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 9
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
Section 7.7. Definitions
For the purpose of this Article, the following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article,
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly
indicates a different meaning:
APPLICANT
The owner of a site who submits a plan for a project pursuant to this article.
APPLICATION
The application form to be submitted by applicant for a plan for a project pursuant to this
article.
STORMWATER PERMIT
The County will issue a Stormwater Permit following the satisfactory review of the application
form and supporting documents demonstrating the applicant has satisfied the requirements
of this article.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP)
A structural or nonstructural management-based practice used singularly or in combination to
reduce flow and/or nonpoint source pollution inputs to receiving waters to achieve stormwater
management goals. (see also Stormwater Control Measure and Facility)
BUILT-UPON AREA
Impervious surface and partially impervious surface to the extent that the partially impervious
surface does not allow water to infiltrate through the surface and into the subsoil including but not
limited to buildings, pavement, gravel, tennis and basketball courts, etc. "Built-upon area" does
not include a slatted deck; the water area of a swimming pool; a surface of number 57 stone, as
designated by the American Society for Testing and Materials, laid at least four inches thick over
a geotextile fabric; a pedestrian trail as defined in NC G.S. 113A-85 that is either unpaved or
paved as long as the pavement is porous with a hydraulic conductivity greater than 0.001
centimeters per second (1.41 inches per hour); or landscaping material, including, but not limited
to, gravel, mulch, sand, and vegetation, placed on areas that receive pedestrian or bicycle traffic
or on portions of driveways and parking areas that will not be compacted by the weight of a
vehicle, such as the area between sections of pavement that support the weight of a vehicle.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
A signed, sealed and dated certificate prepared by an authorized design professional which states
that the construction authorized by the Stormwater Permit as issued by the County has been
completed.
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
The certificate from the County inspections department allowing the occupancy of a building.
COMMON PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
A site where multiple separate and distinct development activities may be taking place at different
times on different schedules but governed by a single development plan regardless of ownership
of the parcels. Information that may be used to determine a "common plan of development"
include plats, blueprints, marketing plans, contracts, building permits, public notices or hearings,
zoning requests, and infrastructure development plans.
CONNECTION
Any ditch, pipe or other device for the diversion or transmission of storm drainage which will in
any way affect the operation or maintenance of the receiving stormwater conveyance.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 10
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
The individual meeting North Carolina occupational licensing requirements who designs the
proposed stormwater system.
DETENTION
The collection and storage of stormwater runoff with subsequent discharge to surface waters.
DEVELOPED LAND
Parcels altered from a natural state by construction or installation of impervious surfaces. For new
construction, the County shall consider parcels developed upon the issuance of a Land Disturbing
Permit or Building Permit or Stormwater Permit or Certificate of Occupancy Stormwater Permit
pursuant to this article.
DEVELOPER
A person engaged in land, site or building development.
DEVELOPMENT
Any activity for which a building permit or a land disturbing permit is required, or where any land
disturbing activity occurs, and that does not provide greater or equal stormwater control to that of
the previous development.
DRAINAGE NUISANCE
The unapproved obstruction of swales, ditches, culverts, pipes or other stormwater conveyances
and includes Stormwater Control Measures and associated conveyances that are not performing
as designed.
DRAINAGE PLAN
For development not requiring a stormwater permit, a plan showing existing drainage features,
direction of stormwater runoff and details demonstrating how existing drainage patterns will be
maintained.
EXCAVATION
Any act, or the conditions resulting therefrom, by which soil, earth, sand, gravel, rock, or similar
material is cut into, dug, quarried, uncovered, removed, displaced or relocated.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Development that, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, has either been lawfully
constructed or has established a vested right under North Carolina law to construct a
proposed project or portion thereof. With regard to application of this ordinance, a vested right
will be recognized as follows:
1. For development that does not require a state permit, a vested right shall exist for any
portion of a development that has an approved or a completed written or subdivision plat
covering that portion. A “completed application” is one that meets all application
requirements, including payment of all required fees and submission of all required
information, prior to the effective date of this ordinance. A vested right shall expire if the
validity of an approved or completed application or approval is not continuously maintained
as otherwise required under this Article.
2. For development that requires a state permit, vested rights shall be recognized if the
project meets all the requirements of A) above, and additionally has received necessary
state permits required for the use or for construction.
FACILITY
A structural stormwater management-based measure used singularly or in combination to reduce
flow to receiving waters to achieve stormwater management goals, and shall include all land,
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 11
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
materials, and appurtenances used in construction and operation of the facility. Facilities may
include, but are not necessarily limited to, constructed wetlands, infiltration systems, retention
ponds, detention ponds, grassed swales, and ditches. (see also Best Management Practice and
Stormwater Control Measure)
FILL
Any act, or the conditions resulting therefrom, by which soil, earth, sand, gravel, rock or any similar
material is deposited, placed, pushed, pulled or transported.
FLOODPLAIN
Any area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. All development activity
governed by this article shall be evaluated for the flood conditions anticipated for the 100-year
frequency storm.
GRADING
Any act causing disturbance of the earth. Grading shall include but not be limited to any
excavating, filling, stockpiling of earth materials, grubbing, root mat or topsoil disturbance, or any
combination of such activities.
IMPERVIOUS
Any material that impedes or prevents the natural filtration of water into the soil.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Developed areas of land that prevent or significantly impede the infiltration of Stormwater into the
soil. Typical impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to: roofs, sidewalks, walkways,
patios, swimming pools, private driveways, parking lots, access extensions, alleys and other
paved, engineered, compacted or gravel surfaces containing materials that prevent or significantly
impede the natural infiltration of Stormwater into the soil.
IMPERVIOUSNESS
The degree to which a site is impervious.
INFILTRATION
The recharge of stormwater runoff into the subsurface soil.
LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY
Any earth movement and land use changes which may result in soil erosion or the movement of
sediments into waters or onto other lands, including, but not limited to, tilling, clearing, grading,
excavating, stripping, filling and related activities, and the covering of land surfaces with any
structure, impermeable, or partially-impermeable material. Mowing and bush hogging operations,
which does not disturb the root mat, shall not be considered land-disturbing activity.
NATURAL GROUND SURFACE
The ground surface in its original state before any land disturbing activity.
NATURAL STATE
Existing undeveloped land where the soil and vegetation characteristics have not been
substantially modified or disturbed by human activities and the hydrologic function is in an
unaltered or natural condition.
OFF-SITE FACILITY
With respect to any particular property, a stormwater management facility serving the property
but not located on the property.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 12
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
ON-SITE FACILITY
With respect to any particular property, a stormwater management facility serving such property
and located on such property.
OWNER
The owner or owners of a site on which land disturbing activity is, will or has been done.
PERMIT
Any and all permits required by federal, state and local ordinances and regulations.
PERMITTEE
Any person to whom a permit is issued.
PERSON
Any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, agency, unincorporated association,
municipal corporation, County, state or federal agency, or any combination thereof.
PHASED DEVELOPMENT
The development of land by phasing over an extended period of time.
POST-DEVELOPMENT STATE
A site in its proposed condition following the completion of a development activity.
PREDEVELOPMENT STATE
A site in its natural state prior to any development activity.
REDEVELOPMENT
The substantial modification of an existing developed area. Redevelopment does not include
projects limited strictly to interior remodeling. When additional development occurs at a site that
has existing development, the built-upon area of the existing development shall not be included
in the density calculations for additional stormwater control requirements, and stormwater control
requirements cannot be applied retroactively to existing development
RETENTION
The collection and storage of stormwater runoff without subsequent discharge to surface waters.
SEDIMENT CONTROL (LAND DISTURBANCE) PERMIT
The sediment control permit issued by the County or the state authorizing land disturbing activities
in accordance with applicable ordinances and regulations.
SITE
That portion of land, lot, or parcel of land, or combination of contiguous lots or parcels of land
upon which development is to be performed.
STORM FREQUENCY
The average recurrence interval, in years, between rainfall events which equal or exceed the
given event. (Example: A two-year frequency storm is a storm of an intensity expected to occur
on the average, at least once in two years, and of a duration which will produce the peak rate of
runoff for the watershed of interest).
STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE (SCM)
A device or practice that is designed to alter or reduce runoff velocity, amount, timing, or other
stormwater characteristics and/or trap, settle out, filter, or otherwise reduce pollutants from
stormwater runoff. The term includes all measures formerly known as “best management
practices” or “BMPs”. Such measures include but are not limited to stormwater detention facilities,
constructed wetlands, bioretention areas, sand filters, rainwater harvesting systems, vegetative
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 13
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
areas, level spreaders, filter strips, buffers, vegetated swales, and appurtenant drainage facilities.
(see also Best Management Practice and Facility)
STORMWATER CONVEYANCE
Any feature of the landscape or earth, manmade or natural, whose primary purpose is to carry
stormwater in a concentrated flow. It does not include stormwater control measures, best
management practices, and stormwater facilities whose purpose is to manage the quantity or
quality of stormwater.
STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL
The current New Hanover County Storm Water Design Manual available from the Engineering
Department.
STORMWATER DISCHARGE
Runoff of water resulting from precipitation in any form.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Qualitative and quantitative measures for controlling stormwater runoff. Qualitative controls
consist of vegetative, structural and other measures which control or treat pollutants carried by
runoff. Quantitative controls consist of vegetative and structural measures which control the
increased volume and rate of surface runoff caused by manmade changes to the land and have
the effect of maintaining the predevelopment patterns of flood magnitude and frequency.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
A plan designed in accordance with the County stormwater design manual to minimize flooding,
water quality impacts and erosion, prevent off-site sedimentation and manage stormwater runoff,
submitted as a prerequisite to obtaining a Stormwater Permit. The plan shall be prepared and
designed in accordance with this article, all other County regulations, and applicable state and
federal laws and regulations.
STORMWATER SYSTEM
All manmade structures or natural features within the County that serve to provide for conveyance
of stormwater runoff water resulting from natural storm events. Components of the stormwater
system include but are not limited to swales, ditches, pipes, channels, creeks, ponds, weirs,
culverts, manholes, swales, inlet structures and infiltration fields.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Plans, profiles, details, specifications, calculations, deeds, easements, covenants, operation and
maintenance plans, maps delineating the 404 wetlands on the site signed by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, soils investigation data, and other such material as may be required by the County
to review the application for Stormwater Permit for a project pursuant to this article.
UNDEVELOPED LAND
Land that does not meet the definition of developed land.
WATERCOURSE AND DRAINAGEWAY
Any natural or artificial feature, including, but not limited to: streams, rivers, creeks, ponds, lakes,
ditches, channels, canals, conduits, culverts, drains, waterways, gullies, ravines or washes in
which waters flow in a definite direction or course, either continuously or intermittently; and
including any area adjacent thereto which is subject to inundation by reason of overflow of
floodwater.
WETLANDS (404 WETLANDS)
Those areas defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as jurisdiction 404 wetlands.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 14
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
Section 7.8. Policies
7.8.1. COUNTY’S ROLE
The County has a role in the management of stormwater through authorization, planning,
construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities to reduce the adverse effects of stormwater
runoff and to satisfy state and federal statutes and regulations. It is the intent of the County for
Stormwater Services to ensure proper conveyance of stormwater through provision of limited
maintenance for some portions of stormwater conveyances on private property in accordance
with administrative policies.
7.8.2. PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBILITY
Although the County Stormwater Services intends to provide limited maintenance on private
property, it shall remain the ultimate responsibility of individual property owners of developed or
undeveloped land within the unincorporated areas of the County, to maintain stormwater
conveyance facilities, such as waterways, streams, creeks, ditches, swales, channels, canals,
conduits and culverts, and stormwater control facilities, such as ponds and lakes within their
property. Where conditions of existing stormwater facilities are determined to be deficient or a
public nuisance, and the property owner fails to correct the deficiencies after being notified by the
County, the County may arrange for the deficiencies to be corrected and recover all costs thereto
from the property owner. However, the recovery of costs from property owners is subject to appeal
as described in Section 7.17.
7.8.3. LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE
This article does not imply that properties within the unincorporated area shall always be free from
flooding or flood damage, surface water stagnation or nonpoint source pollution or that all flood
control and water treatment projects to control the quantity and quality of runoff can be cost-
effectively constructed. Nothing in this article shall create additional duties on the part of the
County or hold the County liable for any damages incurred in a flood or from adverse water quality
due to stormwater runoff. Nothing in this article shall waive the County's immunity or defenses
under state law or reduce the need or necessity for flood insurance.
7.8.4. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS
The requirements of this article shall be enacted, administered, and enforced consistently with
the requirements of the County, state and federal government for controlling stormwater quality
and quantity. If the requirements of this article are found to conflict with other rules and regulations
of the County, the state, or the federal government, the more stringent or higher requirements
shall govern unless limited by state or federal law.
Section 7.9. Development Plans and Permits
7.9.1. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS
All land within the unincorporated areas of the County to be developed shall have sufficient
stormwater conveyances and control measures to ensure the protection of life, property, and
natural resources from increased quantity of runoff.
Development subject to this article shall, at a minimum, provide stormwater conveyances
designed to properly convey stormwater runoff for post-development conditions during the 2-
year, 10-year, and 25-year frequency storm events and shall provide adequate stormwater
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 15
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
control measures to mitigate the increased runoff from the post-development conditions during
the 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year frequency storm events such that the discharge rate leaving
the development in post-development condition does not exceed the pre-development rates.
A. Drainage Plan Requirement:
Submittal and approval of a Drainage Plan is required for all development unless all
of the following conditions are met.
1. The development does not result in additional built upon area;
2. The development does not include the importation of any fill material;
3. The development does not alter the capacity or pattern of any existing
drainage conveyance systems or involve the piping of any open
conveyance; and
4. The development provides greater or equal stormwater control to that of
the previous development.
It is the responsibility of an applicant to provide sufficient information in the Drainage
Plan so the County or its agents may reasonably evaluate the characteristics of
stormwater modifications, the potential and predicted impacts of the proposed
activity on adjacent areas, and the effectiveness and acceptability of those measures
proposed by the applicant for reducing adverse impacts. The applicant shall provide,
as necessary, maps, tables, photographs, narrative descriptions and explanations
to demonstrate compliance with the County's stormwater management standards.
The Drainage Plan need not be prepared by a registered design professional.
However, the County will consider plans and additional alternatives to meet the
stormwater requirements if prepared by a registered design professional. An on-site
meeting with the County Engineer or his/her designee is strongly encouraged prior
to plan preparation.
The Drainage Plan shall be submitted as part of the application for a building permit
or land disturbing permit.
B. Stormwater Permit Requirement:
A Stormwater Permit and Stormwater Management Plan are required for any
development activity that will result in the accumulation of 10,000 square feet or more
of built upon area on any site or as part of a common plan of development. A one-
time exemption may be granted for the addition of 3,000 square feet of built upon
area when the existing built upon area exceeds 10,000 square feet or will exceed
10,000 square feet upon the addition of 3,000 square feet of new built upon area.
1. Required stormwater control measures shall be designed, constructed and
maintained by the owner of the property in accordance with the provisions
of this article.
2. The County Engineer may require submittal of a stormwater impact
analysis and additional stormwater control measures for development at or
upstream of documented flooding cases or where stormwater runoff from
the site may cause adverse effects on other public or private properties.
The stormwater impact analysis shall evaluate downstream conditions and
make design recommendations for improvements to maintain adequate
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 16
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
stormwater management per this article. Analysis must be conducted to
the next downstream facility (i.e. NCDOT culvert or natural water body).
Section 7.10. Plan Review
A. The application and supporting documents shall be reviewed by the County or its
agents. Upon satisfactory review of the application form and supporting documents
whereby the County finds that the application and supporting documents are
consistent with the requirements of the ordinance from which this article is derived,
the County will issue a Stormwater Permit. If no action is taken by the County within
the time limits specified in the design manual, the project will be deemed to have
been approved and the County will take appropriate action.
B. The review of the application and supporting documents by the County shall
determine if the request submittal is complete and in accordance with the
requirements of the ordinance from which this article is derived. Nothing in the review
shall create additional duties on the part of the County that are the responsibilities of
the owner and the design professional.
Section 7.11. Operation and Maintenance
The owner shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of required permitted
stormwater control facilities and conveyances serving those facilities. If repairs are needed to the
stormwater facilities and associated conveyances, the owners of record, as ascertained from the
County tax record or other public documents that the County personnel may choose to examine,
shall be responsible for making the repairs.
Section 7.12. Transfer of Ownership
A. Transfer of Ownership Authorization for Stormwater Control Facilities Falling
within Common Areas of a Development
Ownership of stormwater control facilities falling within the common areas of a
development shall not be transferred without the written authorization of the County.
The application form to transfer ownership may be obtained from County
Engineering. The application fee for requesting authorization to change ownership
shall be based on a fee schedule approved by the County Board of Commissioners.
B. Transfer of Ownership of Stormwater Control Facilities Not Falling within
Common Areas of a Development
Ownership of stormwater control facilities, including, but not limited to grassed
swales, ditches and water-carrying devices, that fall within the deeded areas of an
individual parcel or home site, shall not be transferred with the passing of a general
warranty deed without the written authorization of the County. The deed restrictions
are to state that the owner will continue to operate and maintain the facilities in
accordance with the conditions, obligations and duties of the Stormwater Permit and
the ordinance from which this article is derived. Acceptance of the general warranty
deed shall be a certification that the proposed owner(s) will continue to operate and
maintain the stormwater control facilities in accordance with the conditions,
obligations and duties of the Stormwater Permit and the ordinance from which this
article is derived.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 17
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
Section 7.13. Variance Requests
A design variance from the requirement to provide management of post-development runoff of
this article must be requested in advance in writing. A final permit will be issued to the applicant
subject to verification and certification by the County Engineer that the final design meets the
requirements identified in the original written variance request. All other provisions of the article
remain applicable to development within the unincorporated areas.
Section 7.14. Right of Entry
A. The County shall have right-of-entry on or upon the property of any person subject
to this article and any construction authorization issued under this article. The County
shall be provided ready access to all parts of the premises for the purposes of
inspection, monitoring, sampling, inventory, records examination and copying, and
the performance of any other duties necessary to determine compliance with this
article.
B. Where a person has security measures in force which require proper identification
and clearance before entry into its premises, the person shall make necessary
arrangements with its security guards so that, upon presentation of suitable
identification, the County will be permitted to enter without delay for the purposes of
performing specific responsibilities.
C. The County shall have the right to set up on the person's property such devices as
are necessary to conduct sampling and/or metering of the person's operations as it
applies to this article.
D. Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the areas to be
inspected and/or monitored shall be removed promptly by the person at the written
or verbal request of the County. The costs of clearing such access shall be borne by
the person.
E. The County may inspect the facilities of any user to ensure compliance with this
article. Such inspection shall be made with the consent of the owner, manager or
signatory official. The County may seek issuance of an administrative search warrant
if such consent is refused.
Section 7.15. Violations
Any of the following shall be a violation of this article and shall be subject to the enforcement
remedies and penalties provided by this article and by state law.
A. Development without permit
To engage in any development or redevelopment, subject to the jurisdiction of this
article without all required certificates or other forms of authorization as set forth in
this article.
B. Development inconsistent with permit
To engage in any development, use, construction, remodeling or other activity of any
nature in any way inconsistent with any approved required certificate or other form
of authorization granted for such activity.
C. Violation by act or omission
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 18
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
To violate, by act or omission, any term, variance, modification, condition or
qualification placed by the County or its agent boards upon any required permit,
certificate or other form of authorization of the use, development or other activity
upon land or improvements on the land.
D. Use in violation
To erect, construct, reconstruct, alter, repair, convert, maintain or use any building
or structure, or to use any land in violation or contravention of this article or any other
regulation made under the authority conferred by this article.
E. Continuation
To continue any of the violations listed in subsections (A) through (D) of Section 7.14
is a separate and distinct offense for each day.
Section 7.16. Public Nuisances
A. Drainage Nuisances
The following conditions shall constitute a detriment, danger and hazard to the
health, safety, morals and general welfare of the inhabitants of the County and shall
be public nuisances wherever such conditions may exist. The creation, maintenance
or failure to abate any nuisance is hereby declared unlawful.
1. Any condition which blocks, hinders or obstructs in any way the natural flow
of branches, streams, creeks, surface waters, ditches or drains to the
extent that the premises is not free from standing water.
2. Any conditions whereas earth, sediment, or other natural or man-made
material is placed, washes or erodes onto a natural or manmade swale,
ditch, pipe, channel or water body, either on or off-site, so as to block,
hinder, impair or obstruct positive water flow, in the reasonable discretion
of the County Engineer.
3. Flooding caused by improper or inadequate drainage from private property
which interferes with the use of, or endangers in any way the streets,
sidewalks, parks or other county owned property of any kind provided that
such determination shall be made by the County Engineer.
4. Any collection of stagnant water for which no adequate drainage is
provided and which is, or is likely to become, a nuisance.
5. Any stormwater retention or impoundment device determined to be
operating improperly by the County Engineer or his designee.
B. Notice to abate; emergency abatement by County
If any person shall violate the provisions of this article, it shall be the duty of the
County to give notice to the owner or to any person in possession of the subject
property, directing that all unlawful conditions existing upon the property be abated
within ten days from the date of such notice or within ten days from the date of a final
decision if appealed to the County Manager or designee. If the County determines
that the unlawful condition poses an imminent danger or peril to the public, then an
authorized representative of the County may, without notice, proceed to abate the
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 19
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
unlawful condition. The cost thereof shall be charged against the property as a lien
collectible in the same manner as ad valorem taxes.
C. Abatement by County where owner fails to abate
Upon the failure of the owner or person in possession of any premises to abate within
ten days any unlawful condition existing on the premises, it shall be the duty of an
authorized representative of the County to cause the removal and abatement of such
unlawful condition.
Section 7.17. Enforcement
Any or all of the following procedures may be used to enforce the provisions of this article.
A. Injunction
Any violation of this article or of any condition, order, requirement or remedy adopted
pursuant hereto may be restrained, corrected, abated, mandated or enjoined by other
appropriate proceeding pursuant to state law.
B. Civil Penalties
Any person who violates any provisions of this article shall be subject to the
assessment of a civil penalty.
C. Denial of Permit
The County shall withhold or deny any permit, certificate or other authorization on
any land, building, structure or use in which there is an uncorrected violation of a
provision of this article, or of a condition or qualification of a previously granted
permit, certificate or other authorization.
D. Conditional Permit or Temporary Certificate
The County may condition the authorization of any permit or certificate upon the
correction of the deficiency, payment of civil penalties within a specified time, or the
posting of a compliance security approved by appropriate government authority.
E. Revocation of Permit
The County may revoke and require the return of a permit or certificate by notifying
the permit holder in writing, stating the reason for the revocation. Permits or
certificates shall be revoked for any substantial departure from the approved
application plans or specifications; refusal or failure to comply with the requirements
of state or local law; or for false statements or misrepresentations made in securing
the permit or certificate. Any permit or certificate mistakenly issued in violation of any
applicable state or local law may also be revoked.
F. Criminal Penalties
Any violation of this article shall be a misdemeanor or infraction as provided by NCGS
14-4. Each violation shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $500.00.
G. Judicial Enforcement
When any person is in violation of the provisions of this article, the County, through
the County attorney, may petition the superior court of justice for the issuance of a
restraining order or a preliminary and permanent injunction which restrains or
compels the activities in question.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 20
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
Section 7.18. Appeals
A. Any Person subject to an administrative decision or enforcement under this article
may appeal such decisions or enforcement actions to the County Engineer.
B. Any person assessed a civil penalty or ordered to abate a nuisance under this article
shall have the right to a hearing before the County Manager or the Manager's
designee upon making a written demand to the County Manager specifying the
issues to be contested, within 14 days following receipt of the assessment or
abatement notice.
C. Unless such written demand is made within the time specified in subsection (a) of
this section, the action shall be final and binding.
D. The County Manager or the Manager's designee shall make a final decision on the
contested penalty or abatement notice within 30 days of the receipt of the written
demand for a hearing.
E. The County Manager or the Manager's designee shall transmit a copy of the decision
by registered or certified mail.
F. The decision of the County Manager or the Manager's designee shall be considered
the final administrative action for the purposes of judicial review. However, a person
assessed a penalty or ordered to abate a nuisance may petition the board of County
commissioners requesting review of the County Manager's final decision. The
petition must be presented to the clerk of the board within five days following receipt
of the County Manager's final decision. Any review by the board shall be solely at its
discretion.
Section 7.19. Judicial Review
Any person may seek judicial review of a final administrative decision by the County Manager or
the Manager's designee by filing a petition for writ of certiorari within 30 days after receipt of notice
by registered or certified mail, but not thereafter, with the superior court of the County and with a
copy to the County Manager.
Section 7.20. Severability
If any section or sections of this Ordinance is/are held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other
sections shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect.
Section 7.21. Effective Date
May 12, 2021
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 21
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Additions & Modernizations
Article 10. Administrative Procedures
Section 10.1. Advisory and Decision-Making Bodies
10.1.1. GENERAL
B. Table 10.1.1 Summary Table of Development Review Responsibilities, summarizes
the specific review responsibilities of advisory and decision-making bodies and
County staff for each type of application. [05-03-2021]
Table 0: Summary Table of Development Review Responsibilities
R = review and recommendation or report; D = decision; A = appeal; F = preliminary forum; <> =
hearing
Type of Application
Bo
a
r
d
o
f
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
s
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
Bo
a
r
d
o
f
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
T
R
C
)
Co
u
n
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
Relief
Variance – Zoning and Subdivision <D> R
Variance – Floodplain See Article 9: Flood Damage Prevention
Variance - Stormwater See Article 7: Stormwater Management
Reasonable Accommodation <D> R
NOTES:
[1] If the Planning Board’s decision is to recommend denial of the application, the applicant must submit written notice to the
Planning Director of the applicant’s intent to proceed with the hearing before the Board of Commissioners within 10
calendar days of the Planning Board’s decision. If the applicant does not provide such notice within that time period, the
application shall be deemed withdrawn.
[2] The applicant may request, at the applicant’s option, that the TRC review and provide comments on the application. In such
cases, the TRC does not make a recommendation on the application.
[3] The decision may be appealed directly to the Superior Court of New Hanover County (see N.C.G.S. § 160D-1403).
10.1.7. COUNTY ENGINEER
The County Engineer shall have the following powers and duties:
A. Meet the objectives and enforce the stormwater management standards as stated
within Article 7 Stormwater Management; and
B. To accept applications for construction plans and to issue approval letters for the
installation of the required improvements in accordance with the approved plans and
the design standards specified in this Ordinance.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 22
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment –
Clarifications
Code Sections Affected
Section 3.1.3,
Superseding
Dimensional
Standards
Section 3.3.4,
Urban Mixed Use
Zoning (UMXZ)
Section 3.3.7,
Planned
Development (PD)
District
Section 3.4.6,
Office and
Institutional (O&I)
District
Section 3.4.9,
Airport Commerce
(AC) District
Section 4.3.2,
Residential Uses
Article 5.3.4,
Tree Retention
Standards
Table 5.6.2.J.4.a,
Freestanding Sign
Standards
Section 10.3.11,
Variance – Zoning
and Subdivision
Key Intent
Clarify existing ordinance standards and requirements so ordinance users
understand the provisions the same way
Changes
• Include the freestanding sign standards for the Office & Institutional (O&I)
district in the same place and in the same format as the provisions for other
zoning districts. (See Section 3.4.6, Office and Institutional (O&I)
District and Table 5.6.2.J.4.a: Freestanding Sign Standards)
• Clarify the applicability of specimen tree standards on existing residential
lots. While generally exempt from tree retention standards, dimensional
waivers to allow the retention specimen trees still apply. (See Section
5.3.4, Tree Retention Standards)
• Add language specifying that zoning district height maximums are not
intended to apply to utility structures, such as power poles and water
towers. (See Section 3.1.3, Superseding Dimensional Standards)
• Outline provisions for Senior Living: Independent Living Retirement
Communities requiring developments comply with the standards that apply
to the type of dwelling unit included, e.g., multi-family standards apply to
multi-family independent living projects, single family standards apply to
single family independent living projects. (See Section 4.3.2, Residential
Uses)
• Specify that development standards are eligible for variances regardless of
where they are located within the ordinance. (See Section 10.3.11,
Variance – Zoning and Subdivision)
• Clarify that buildings may be taller than 35 ft. in the Airport Commerce Zone
if allowed in the Airport Height Restrictions Standards and approved by the
Federal Aviation Agency (FAA). (See Section 3.4.9, Airport Commerce
(AC) District)
• Add language to make it clear that the minimum acreage required for
Planned Development and Urban Mixed Use Zoning Districts must be
contiguous. (See Section 3.3.4, Urban Mixed Use Zoning (UMXZ) and
Section 3.3.7, Planned Development (PD) District)
• Refine building separation requirements for performance residential
projects to clarify that attached dwelling units, such as townhomes and
duplexes, have the same standards as single family dwellings. (See
Section 3.1.3, Superseding Dimensional Standards and Section 3.3.7.,
Planned Development (PD) District)
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 4 - 1
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Clarifications
Article 3: Zoning Districts
Section 3.1. General
3.1.3. SUPERSEDING DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
Dimensional standards for each zoning district are in tabular format in this article. Notes within
each table provide additional details where necessary, and rules for measuring dimensional
standards are in Section 2.1: Measurements. The dimensional standards in this article apply
generally, but may be superseded by other standards in this Ordinance, including but not limited
to the standards identified in this section.
A. Use-Specific Standards
Superseding dimensional standards are set forth for some uses in Article 4: Uses
and Use-Specific Standards.
B. Structural Appurtenances or Utility Structures
The height limitations contained in the table of dimensional standards for each
zoning district do not apply to antennas, water tanks, ventilators, chimneys, or other
appurtenances, which are required to be placed above the roof level and not
intended for human occupancy, or utility structures such as utility poles and water
towers.
C. Additional Standards in Certain Districts When Adjacent to Residential
Properties
[11-16-2020][11-01-2021]
D. Performance Residential
Performance Residential Developments are not subject to the minimum lot size,
minimum lot width, and front, rear, and side setback requirements in the zoning
district where they are located. Performance Residential Developments shall comply
with the standards in this section and with all other applicable standards in this
Ordinance.
1. Setbacks and Spacing
Buildings on the periphery of a Performance Residential Development
shall setback a minimum of 20 feet from the adjoining property line.
Multi-family dwelling units shall be spaced a minimum of 20 feet from any
part of another dwelling unit. All other dwelling types shall be spaced a
minimum of 10 feet from each other. [11-16-2020]
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 4 - 2
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Clarifications
Section 3.3. Mixed Use Zoning Districts
3.3.4. URBAN MIXED USE ZONING (UMXZ)
D. District Dimensional Standards [11-01-2021]
Standard All Uses
Minimum district size (acres) 5*
Setbacks
Minimum distance from single family
residential zoning districts
35 feet for buildings ≤ 35 feet in height
45 feet for buildings > 35 feet in height
Maximum distance from any street (feet) 10**
Maximum single family residential density
(dwelling units/acre) 15
Maximum multi-family residential density
(dwelling units/acre) 25
Maximum vertically integrated mixed-use
building density (dwelling units/acre) 36
Building height, maximum Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with
Section 3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
* 5 acres shall be contiguous or separated only by an easement, right of way, or street.
** Front setbacks are not required along alleyways; TRC may waive strict adherence to requirement where
an existing easement or significant natural feature exists.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 4 - 3
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Clarifications
3.3.7. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT [09-08-2020]
D. District Dimensional and Density Standards [09-08-2020][11-01-2021]
Standard Residential Uses Commercial Uses Industrial Uses
Minimum district size, under common ownership or joint petition: 10 acres *
Building setback from PD District
boundary (feet) 20 CB Setback
Requirements
I-1 Setback
Requirements
Building setback from pedestrian
and bicycle paths (feet) 10
Front setback (feet)
Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with Section
3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
Side setback, street (feet)
Side setback, interior (feet)
Rear setback (feet)
Density, maximum (du/acre) **
Intensity, maximum Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with Section
3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
Building height, maximum Established in MPD Master Plan in accordance with Section
3.3.3.A, MPD Master Plan
* 10 acres shall be contiguous or separated only by an easement, right of way, or street.
** Maximum density in Urban Mixed-Use areas identified on the New Hanover County Future Land Use
Map shall be established in the MPD Master Plan. Maximum Density in areas outside of the Urban
Mixed-Use areas shall also be established in the MPD Master Plan but shall not exceed 17 dwelling
units per acre.
E. Other District Standards
4. Building Separations Standards
a. The project shall be designed so as to avoid encroachment into the
path of any proposed transportation project included in the Wilmington
MPO’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
b. Multi-family dwelling units shall be spaced a minimum of 20 feet from
any part of another dwelling unit. All other dwelling types shall be
spaced a minimum of 10 feet from each other. [11-16-2020]
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 4 - 4
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Clarifications
Section 3.4. Commercial and Industrial Districts
3.4.6. OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL (O&I) DISTRICT
E. Other District Standards
1. Signs.
i. Properties located adjacent to minor or major arterials as identified on the most recent
officially adopted WMPO Functional Classification Map shall be limited to total signage of 75
square feet in surface area. [05-03-2021]
ii. One sign of an advertising nature depicting the name or nature of a product, service, or
business located on that premises shall be permitted on any property in the O&I District.
Such signs shall be limited to 12 square feet in surface area and shall not exceed the height
of the principal structure on the premises. Such signs, if illuminated, shall be indirectly
illuminated with the source of light concealed from the view of any public street or residential
lot.
iii Signs or a directional nature shall be permitted; however, each such sign shall not exceed 2
square feet in surface area (one side) with no lighting and shall be limited to 7 feet in height.
2. Lighting. The source of any outdoor lighting in an O&I district shall be concealed so as not to be
visible from any public street or any residential lot.
3.4.9. AIRPORT COMMERCE (AC) DISTRICT
D. District Dimensional Standards
Standard All Uses
Lot area, minimum (square feet) 43,560*
1 Lot width, minimum (feet) 150
2 Front setback (feet) 50
3 Side setback, street (feet) 50
Side setback, interior **
Rear setback **
Building height, maximum (feet) 35***
Additional height allowance, maximum (feet) 50***
* Any property subdivided and recorded prior to June 1, 1981 may be less than the minimum lot area, provided
such lots are located outside of an approach zone for Wilmington International Airport. Any such property located
within an airport approach zone may be approved pursuant to a Special Use Permit issued in accordance with
10.3.5: Special Use Permit.
** Determined in accordance with Section 3.1.3.C, Additional Standards in Certain Districts.
*** Unless otherwise specified in Section 5.10, Airport Height Restrictions. Any proposed height above 35 ft will
require FAA approval.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 4 - 5
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Clarifications
Article 4: Uses and Use-Specific Standards
Section 4.3. Standard for Specific Principal Uses
4.3.2. RESIDENTIAL USES
A. Household Living
12. Senior Living: Independent Living Retirement Community
Any independent living retirement community shall comply with the dwelling
type standards applicable for the development or unit type. For example, if
a multi-family structure is included in the development, the dwelling must
comply with multi-family dwelling unit standards.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 4 - 6
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Clarifications
Article 5: General Development Standards
Section 5.3. Tree Retention
5.3.4. TREE RETENTION STANDARDS
B. The Planning Director may permit or require a reduction in required street yards,
landscape islands, foundation plantings, setbacks, or other dimensional, parking, or
landscaping standards for the purpose of retaining significant or specimen trees,.
including on single family lots otherwise exempt from these standards.
Section 5.6. Signs
5.6.2. GENERAL PROVISIONS
J. Signs Which Require a Permit
4. Principal Use Signs
a. Freestanding Signs
Table 5.6.2.J.4.a: Freestanding Sign Standards
Zoning
District
Number
of Lanes
Street
Frontage
(Feet) [1]
Front
Setback
(Min./Max.)
(Feet) [2][3]
Maximum
Primary
Sign
Height
(Feet)
Maximum
Aux. Sign
Height
(Feet)
Maximum
Primary
Sign Area
(Square
Feet)
Maximum
Auxiliary
Sign Area
(Square
Feet)
O&I
2 N/A 10/20 20 10 12 25
4 >100 10/20 20 N/A 75* N/A
B-1, PD,
CB [09-08-
2020]
2 N/A 10 / 20 20 10 50 25
4 < 100 10 / 20 20 N/A 50 N/A
> 100 10 / 20 20 12 65 32
B-2, CS, I-
1, I-2, AC,
SC [09-08-
2020]
2 < 100 10 / 20 20 N/A 65 N/A
> 100 10 / 25 20 18 100 50
4
< 100 10 / 25 20 N/A 100 N/A
> 100 10 / 30 25 20 150 75
> 300 10 / 30 30 20 175 90
NOTES:
[1] Number of lanes refers to the ultimate number of lanes based upon existing roadway conditions or upon construction plans
approved as part of the current NC DOT Transportation Improvement Program.
[2] Notwithstanding the minimum and maximum front setback requirements indicated above, primary freestanding signs which
do not exceed six feet in height and are less than 76 percent of the maximum sign area established above, may be located
within five feet of the front property line and shall have no maximum front setback.
[3] Front Setback refers to the setback from the front or corner side property lines.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 4 - 7
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Clarifications
1. Primary. One primary freestanding sign per premises, in
accordance with Table 5.6.2.J.4.a: Freestanding Sign Standards.
* Signs area for properties located adjacent to minor or major arterials as identified on the officially adopted WMPO Functional
Classification Map. Otherwise, the maximum area for 2-lane roadways shall apply.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 4 - 8
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Clarifications
Article 10. Administrative Procedures
Section 10.1. Advisory and Decision-Making Bodies
10.3.11. VARIANCE – ZONING AND SUBDIVISION
A. Purpose
The purpose of a variance is to allow certain deviations from specified standards of
this Ordinance when the landowner demonstrates that, owing to special conditions
beyond the landowner’s control (such as exceptional topographical conditions,
narrowness, shallowness, or the shape of a specific parcel of land), a literal
application of the standards would result in undue and unique hardship to the
landowner and the deviation would not be contrary to the public interest.
B. Applicability
1. The variance procedure in this section may be used to vary any of the
following standards:
a. General development standards and Sstandards for maximum height,
maximum lot coverage, setbacks, minimum lot area, and minimum lot
width for each zoning district in Article 3: Zoning Districts;
b. Article 5: General Development Standards; and
c. Article 6: Subdivision Design and Improvement.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 4 - 9
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment –
Updates
Code Sections Affected
Section 2.3,
Definitions and Terms
Section 4.3.2,
Residential Uses
Section 5.3,
Tree Retention
Section 5.5,
Exterior Lighting
Section 10.3,
Application-Specific
Procedures
Key Intent
Update existing standards to ensure ordinance provisions are effective and work
the way they are intended
Changes
• Modification of when staff has the authority to approve minor deviations to
a site plan administratively to limit the ability to modify changes in height
for taller buildings and to allow for non-substantive changes likely to occur
during the engineering and technical permitting phases of a project. (See
Article 10.3, Application-Specific Procedures)
• Codification of development review process timing for tree removal permit
related-landscaping plans and for lighting designs. (See Section 5.3, Tree
Retention, Section 10.3, Application-Specific Procedures, and
Section 5.5, Exterior Lighting)
• Incorporate a frequent reasonable accommodation request received by the
Board of Adjustment and increase the number of residents with disabilities
allowed in a group home from six to eight (See Section 4.3.2, Residential
Uses)
• Revise the definition of family to allow household types such as domestic
partnerships and civil unions not currently covered under the ordinance
provisions and those that include both related and unrelated people. (See
Section 2.3, Definitions and Terms)
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 1
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Updates
Article 2: Measurements and Definitions
Section 2.3. Definitions and Terms
FAMILY
One or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are
related by blood, adoption, or marriage, domestic partnership, or civil union, living together as
a single housekeeping unit, no such family shall contain over three persons, but further
provided that:
A. Domestic servants employed on the premises may be housed on the premises
without being counted as part of the family residing on the premises; The family
contains no more than three unrelated persons in addition to related householder
members. and
B. A foster home as designated by the North Carolina Department of Social
Services for the care of not more than five children less than 18 years of age shall be
considered as family.
C. Any child less than eighteen years of age living with parent(s) or a legal
guardian is not to be counted as a person in the calculations.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 2
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Updates
Article 4: Uses and Use-Specific Standards
Section 4.3. Standard for Specific Principal Uses
4.3.2. RESIDENTIAL USES
B. Group Living
1. Group Home
[11-16-2020]
Group homes shall comply with the following standards:
a. Group homes shall be limited to eight six disabled persons with
disabilities, living together as a self-supporting and self-sufficient
household unit.
b. No group home shall be occupied or operated without zoning approval.
1. Group homes that are exempt from licensure pursuant to NCGS
§122C-22 must recertify their exemption status annually; and
2. Group homes for special needs persons must recertify qualification
of all residents as special needs persons annually.
c. Group homes shall not be located closer than 2,000 feet to any other
existing group home, measured by a straight line from the nearest
property lines, irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries. The distance
shall be reduced by the right-of-way of a major thoroughfare exceeding
100 feet, major topographical features such as a major watercourse, or
by major nonresidential or public uses such as a park, school, or
religious institution.
d. Reasonable accommodations shall be provided in accordance with
Section 10.3.13 Reasonable Accommodation.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 3
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Updates
Article 5: General Development Standards
Section 5.3. Tree Retention
5.3.3. TREE INVENTORY
Regulated trees existing on a site at the time of development application that are required to be
retained or replaced in accordance with this section shall be inventoried by a cover type survey
conducted by point sampling, fixed plot sampling, field survey or other method approved by the
Planning Director. Areas that will not be disturbed shall be delineated as such and do not require
inventorying individual trees.
5.3.5. TREE REMOVAL PERMITS
A. Unless a waiver, exemption, or exception applies in accordance with Section 5.3.1,
Applicability or Section 10.3.9.B.2, Waivers, Exemptions, and Exceptions, no person,
directly or indirectly, shall remove any regulated tree identified in Section 5.3.4, Tree
Retention Standards, from public or private property without first obtaining a tree
removal permit in accordance with Section 10.3.9, Tree Removal Permit.
B. Unless a waiver, exemption, or exception applies in accordance with Section
10.3.9.B.2, Waivers, Exemptions, and Exceptions, a tree removal permit authorizing
removal is required before any clearing, grading, or other authorizations may be
issued, including building permits. The portion of the tree removal permit approving
the required mitigation plan shall not be required until construction plan approval.
B. The removal of any specimen tree is prohibited on any parcel unless exempt
according to Section 10.3.11, Variance – Zoning and Subdivision. If a specimen tree
is removed without a permit, the penalty for this violation shall be twice the mitigation
fee.
Section 5.5. Exterior Lighting
5.5.3. TIME OF REVIEW
Information about the exterior lighting for the site that demonstrates compliance with the
standards in this section shall be submitted in conjunction with an application for site plan approval
(Section 10.3.6, Site Plan) or zoning compliance approval (Section 10.3.8, Zoning Compliance
Approval), whichever comes first.
An administrative waiver for this requirement to allow submittal of the lighting plan no later than
the time of construction plan approval may be granted by the Planning Director, provided the
application is accompanied by a letter from the utility provider or lighting designer explaining why
the lighting plan cannot be submitted at the time of site plan approval or zoning compliance
approval.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 4
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Updates
Article 10. Administrative Procedures
Section 10.3. Application-Specific Procedures
10.3.3. CONDITIONAL ZONING
C. Conditional Zoning Procedure
7. Post-Decision Limitations and Actions
The post-decision limitations and actions in Section 10.2.10, Post-decision
Limitations and Actions, apply, in addition to subsections a through c below.
b. Minor Deviations
[05-03-2021]
Subsequent applications for development within a conditional zoning
district may include minor modifications from the approved conceptual
site plan, provided such modifications do not result in a change in the
permitted uses or density, specified conditions of approval, or and
otherwise have no material effect on the character of the approved
development. Changes in the following constitute minor modifications
that may be approved by the Planning Director:
1. Modifications in building or structure placement, provided the
placement complies with the setbacks of the corresponding base
zoning, and does not decrease the setbacks agreed to and
approved during the conditional rezoning process by more than 10
percent;
2. Modifications in building, structure, or site configuration;
3. Increases to building or structure size and height the square footage
of a particular use category (e.g. residential, commercial) not to
exceed 10 percent provided all other applicable standards of this
Ordinance are met;
4. Increases to building or structure height not to exceed 10 percent
or 10 feet, whichever is less, provided all other applicable standards
of this Ordinance are met;
5. Modifications to structure floor plans;
6. Modifications to the driveway locations not exceeding 10 percent of
the length of the subject property line, or as required by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation;
7. Modifications to the proportion of housing type not to exceed 10
percent; and
8. Modifications of internal circulation patterns not impacting public
safety.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 5
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Updates
10.3.4 MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
C. Master Planned Development Procedure
8. Post-Decision Limitations and Actions
a. Minor Deviations
[05-03-2021]
Subsequent applications for development within a master planned
development district may include minor modifications from the
approved MPD Master Plan and MPD Terms and Conditions
document, provided such modifications do not result in a change in
permitted uses or density, specified conditions of approval, or and
otherwise have no material effect on the character of the approved
development. Changes in the following constitute minor modifications
that may be approved by the Planning Director:
1. Modifications in building or structure placement, provided the
placement does not decrease approved setbacks by more than 10
percent;
2. Modifications in building, structure, or site configuration;
3. Increases to building or structure size and height the square footage
of a particular use category (e.g. residential, commercial) not to
exceed 10 percent provided all other applicable standards of this
Ordinance are met;
4. Increases to building or structure height not to exceed 10 percent
or 10 feet, whichever is less, provided all other applicable standards
of this Ordinance are met;
5. Modifications to structure floor plans;
6. Modifications to the driveway locations not exceeding 10 percent of
the length of the subject property line, or as required by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation;
7. Modifications to the proportion of housing type not to exceed 10
percent; and
8. Modifications of internal circulation patterns not impacting public
safety.
10.3.5. SPECIAL USE PERMIT
C. Special Use Permit Procedure
7. Post-Decision Limitations and Actions
b. Minor Deviations
[05-03-2021]
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 6
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Updates
Subsequent applications for development pursuant to an approved
special use permit may include minor modifications from the approved
special use permit, provided such modifications do not result in a
change in permitted uses or density, specified conditions of approval,
or and otherwise have no material effect on the character of the
approved development. Changes in the following constitute minor
modifications that may be approved by the Planning Director.
1. Modifications in building or structure placement, provided the
placement complies with the setbacks of the corresponding base
zoning, and does not decrease the setbacks agreed to and
approved during the conditional rezoning process by more than
10;
2. Modifications in building, structure, or site configuration;
3. Increases to building or structure size and height the square
footage of a particular use category (e.g. residential, commercial)
not to exceed 10 percent provided all other applicable standards
of this Ordinance are met;
4. Increases to building or structure height not to exceed 10 percent
or 10 feet, whichever is less, provided all other applicable
standards of this Ordinance are met;
5. Modifications to structure floor plans;
6. Modifications to the driveway locations not exceeding 10 percent
of the length of the subject property line, or as required by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation;
7. Modifications to the proportion of housing type not to exceed 10
percent; and
8. Modifications of internal circulation patterns not impacting public
safety.
The Planning Director may approve minor deviations in the location and size of
structures of an approved special use permit if the applicant demonstrates that
the deviation is necessary and would not cause or contribute to any of the
following:
1. A change in the character of the development;
2. A change of design for, or an increase in the hazards to pedestrian and
vehicle circulation, or
3. A modification in the originally approved setbacks from roads or property
lines exceeding ten percent.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 7
2022-09 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment – Planning Board Public
Hearing Draft – Updates
10.3.9. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
A. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to provide a uniform mechanism for ensuring all
development complies with the standards in Section 5.3.4, Tree Retention
Standards.
B. Applicability
1. General
a. Unless a waiver, exemption, or exception applies in accordance with
subsection 2 below, no person, directly or indirectly, shall remove any
regulated tree identified in Section 5.3.4, Tree Retention Standards,
from public or private property without first obtaining a tree removal
permit in accordance with this section.
b. Unless a waiver, exemption, or exception applies in accordance with
subsection 2 below, tree removal permit authorizing approval is
required before any clearing, grading, or other authorizations are
issued under this Ordinance, including erosion and sedimentation
control permits (see Article 8: Erosion and Sedimentation Control) and
building permits. The portion of the tree removal permit approving the
required mitigation plan shall not be required until construction plan
approval.
c. An approved tree removal permit for new construction shall apply to the
entire site.
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 8
Public Comments
In Support 1
Neutral X
In Opposition 1
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 6 - 1
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 7 - 1
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 7 - 2
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 8 - 1
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 8 - 2
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 8 - 3
Planning Board - September 1, 2022
ITEM: 3 - 8 - 4