2022-08-04 PB MINUTES
1 | P a g e
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
August 4, 2022
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on August 4, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in the New
Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members Present Staff Present
Donna Girardot, Chair Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning
Jeff Petroff, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Colin Tarrant Robert Farrell, Senior Planner
Hanson Matthews Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
Jeffrey Stokley Jr.
Pete Avery
Absent Members
Clark Hipp
Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and excused the absence of the new Planning Board
Member Mr. Clark Hipp. Director of Planning, Rebekah Roth led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Election of Officers
Board Member Jeffrey Stokley Jr. made a MOTION to ELECT Donna Girardot as Planning Board Chair.
Motion to approve elected Chair carried 5-0
Board Member Donna Girardot made a MOTION to ELECT Jeff Petroff as Planning Board Vice Chair.
Motion to approve elected Vice Chair carried 5-0
Chair Donna Girardot read the New Hanover County Code of Ethics, welcomed the audience, and provided an
overview of the procedures of the meeting.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the June 2, 2022 Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or
amendments were identified. Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff to
approve the minutes as drafted.
Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0.
NEW BUSINESS
Transportation Projects Update - 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Ballot Initiative.
Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth introduced team members from New Hanover County, the City
of Wilmington, and Wave Transit who had been working together over the past several months to prepare a public
education campaign to explain what the ¼ cent sales tax proposed in the upcoming referendum would entail and
the types of projects it could potentially fund. She stated the team would be providing details that would be
communicated to the public over the coming weeks. Ms. Roth stated that she wanted the board to have the
opportunity to hear the information because some of what could be possible with this funding source may help
address some of the planning questions that the Planning Board deals with on a regular basis and may impact some
decisions moving forward.
2 | P a g e
Ms. Jessica Loeper, NHC Chief Communications Officer gave a general overview of what the sales tax was and
what it could be used for. She stated the sales tax would improve the quality of life in our community for the
county beaches, the City of Wilmington, as well as unincorporated areas and was intended to help increase
access and mobility across the entire county. She stated the referendum would appear as a Yes/NO vote on
the November 8 ballot whether to implement the sales tax or not and would then go to the Board of
Commissioners to potentially levy the tax around April of 2023.
Ms. Loeper stated that the tax would be 25 cents per every 100 dollars spent on eligible goods but would not
apply to groceries, fuel, and prescriptions. She stated the sales tax could bring in around $14 million dollars a
year based on current projections and provide a sustainable source of revenue. She stated the funds could
also be leveraged for state and federal funds for a larger investment in public infrastructure needed in the
community.
Ms. Loeper stated the funding framework was separated into three separate components; 1) 45% to Wave
Transit, 2) 39% to bicycle and pedestrian pathway improvements, and 3) 16% to the Rail Realignment Project
and was estimated over the first 10 years of the sales tax.
Ms. Abby Lorenzo, WMPO Deputy Director gave an overview of the bike/pedestrian priorities. She stated the
implementation of the sales tax would allow for a dedicated funding source to either design and build these
projects or use the revenues to leverage other funding sources such as federal grants.
Ms. Tara Duckworth, NHC Parks and Gardens Director, gave a brief overview of opportunities for trails,
sidewalks, bike paths, and crosswalk/intersection improvements. She stated that North College Road and
South College Road were where staff were concentrating for a design which would allow for north-south
movement, then east-west connections to Masonboro Loop Road and the downtown multi-use path. She stated
the sidewalks and intersections were being looked at collectively for areas that the county knows are being used
by the community and where safety needed to be improved.
Ms. Marie Parker, Wave Transit Executive Director, gave a brief overview of how Wave Transit would be able
to utilize the funding. She stated the changes would support more available, convenient, and consistent
service. Ms. Parker indicated that during the first five years their first task would be to expand hours. She
stated they would also expand the Micro Transit Service area, which was launched less than a year ago, and
currently served north and south New Hanover County with smaller vehicles and covering more area. She
stated the sales tax would cover additional vehicles and areas. Ms. Parker stated they would be able to
increase frequency on routes which were currently on 60-minute frequency which was not convenient. She
stated that the intent was to utilize the funds to expand the routes and add more 30- or 45-minute routes
making it more convenient and usable to the county citizens. She stated that they would also be able to invest
in passenger amenities such as new benches, new shelters, and purchase new technology so that passengers
could see real time arrival times, free passenger Wi-Fi on buses, and a mobile app where citizens could
purchase passes as well as track their bus. She stated that Wave Transit would be able to implement free
youth passes for all children younger than 18 years of age, which would help support transportation to school
or other events at no cost to the parents.
Ms. Lorenzo shared information provided by Mr. Aubrey Prisley, City of Wilmington’s Director of Economic
Development, about how the ¼ cent sales tax would be used to support the Rail Realignment Project. She
stated if approved by the voters, the sales tax would give the growing area the chance to invest in other areas
of transportation besides highways. She stated the funds could be used for the rail realignment that sought
to build a new railroad route to the port eliminating 32 at grade crossings in the county and city in the process.
She stated the funds could be used as important seed money for other state and federal grants and help by
applying local funds toward a more comprehensive project. She stated the hope was to leverage local funds
with state funds, and possibly federal funds for multi-model infrastructure.
3 | P a g e
In response to questions of the Board about who would be responsible for administration of the funds, Ms. Loeper
stated that based on the state statute, the interlocal agreement that established Wave was between the City of
Wilmington and New Hanover County. She stated the funding would go to those two entities to determine how the
funding would be utilized. She stated the plan that was discussed between the County Commissioners and staff,
was to develop a committee that was devoted to this that evaluated projects, determined timelines, and where the
funding would go, and then to the respective entities to approve.
In response to questions of the Board about the percentages provided, Ms. Loeper stated nothing was set in stone
at this point the framework described was recommended from staff and what the Board of Commissioners had
committed to for the first 10 years. She stated that it came about based on the priority projects, the needs in each
of those areas, knowing what WAVE needed to accomplish their priorities, and rail realignment. Ms. Loeper stated
that funding allocated to railroad realignment was less than for other funding categories, but the hope was that
funding would be leveraged.
In response to questions of the Board about educating the public, Ms. Loeper stated that staff were currently
building an education campaign. She stated that the first start was a website for the public to learn and get
information. She stated they were building upon that with flyers, postcards, and posters. She stated that they were
reaching out to different organizations, boards, and other businesses and organizations to educate them about the
sales tax. Ms. Loeper stated that there were plans in the fall to have community information sessions for persons
to learn from the subject matter experts.
Transportation Projects Update - Wilmington Metropolitan Transportation Organization (WMPO) Update.
Ms. Rebekah Roth stated that Ms. Abby Lorenzo would provide an update both on upcoming WMPO projects that
may influence planning conversations over the coming months and an update on the NCDOT projects that the
county heard about on a regular basis and were integral to decisions that must be made by the board.
Ms. Abby Lorenzo, WMPO Deputy Director, gave an overview of the WMPO’s congestion management
process and some of the major roadway projects scheduled for the unincorporated areas of New Hanover
County.
She stated the WMPO was a federally designated regional transportation planning organization and that
anytime an urbanized area reached 50,000 in population, it was a federal requirement that a metropolitan
planning organization be formed to provide regional transportation planning. She stated the current
population for the WMPO region was estimated at 280,000 people and under the federal requirement of
when a population reaches 200,000, it would be designated as a Transportation Management Area (TMA).
She stated the WMPO reached this designation after the 2010 census and in 2012 was designated TMA which
came along with additional requirements and the opportunity to receive federal funds directly from the
federal government.
Ms. Lorenzo stated that a Congestion Management Process (CMP) was a major federal requirement. She
stated that the CMP was a methodical, data-driven approach for managing congestion in the region, and that
the county adopted their original CMP in 2013.
She stated that WMPO’s process was established as a monitoring report that produced on a biennial basis.
She stated WMPO would look at congestion from a regional level and a corridor level analysis. She stated
congestion from a multimodal approach was also monitored and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian data was
collected.
She stated that WMPO worked closely with NCDOT, Cape Fear Public Transit Authority to collect information
for their reports; 1) Regional Evaluation, 2) Corridor Evaluation, 3) Mitigation Strategy Identification and 4)
National Performance Research Data Set (NPMRDS). Once all data is collected a Segment Snapshot would be
created that included the multimodal and travel time scores intended to measure congestion along the
4 | P a g e
corridor. She stated the CMP was a tool used to help inform their long-range transportation plan update that
was performed every five years and was known as the Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
Ms. Lorenzo provided the following 2020-2029 State/MPO Transportation Improvement Program projects in
the unincorporated areas of New Hanover County and gave a brief description of each:
▪ U-5402B College Road Access Management Improvements
▪ U-5790 Carolina Beach Road Widening and Intersection Improvements
▪ U-5881 College Road Upgrade
▪ U-6202 Gordon Road Widening
▪ U-4571 Military Cutoff Extension
▪ U-6202 Gordon Road Widening
▪ U-4751 Military Cutoff Extension
▪ U-5863 Castle Hayne Rd. Widening
▪ U-5954 NC 233 at B, 23rd Str. Roundabout
▪ R-3300A Hampstead Bypass
▪ U-5731 Isabel Holmes Bridge Trumpet Interchange
▪ U-4902D Market Street Access Management
Ms. Lorenzo stated that regarding the 2024-2033 draft STIP Development, which the state updated every four
years, due to revised project cost estimates and anticipated transportation revenues, no new projects would
be programmed. She stated that the draft STIP was anticipated for release in August/September of 2022 and
that NCDOT had worked through a process in determining which projects would remain within the document
and which would have to be resubmitted for potential funding. She stated WMPO would work with Division
3 to determine if there were opportunities to swap some of the projects. She stated that the final 2024-2033
STIP was anticipated to be adopted by summer May 2023.
In response to questions of the Board about congestion management, Ms. Lorenzo stated that the months selected
were to get an idea of what the average time looked like when travel would be typical, except for holidays and days
where travel would not be considered typical.
In response to questions of the Board about the increase in density to make Wave and other means of public
transportation more effective and efficient, Ms. Roth stated that the amount of funding that was available in this
area for transportation was limited. She stated that as an unincorporated area, the county did not have the same
reliance on other funding sources that may be available for an incorporated area. She stated that conversations
had been about looking at what other funding opportunities may be available to help address some of the common
questions received. She stated that a big consideration of the Planning Board in addition to transportation regarding
roadways, was the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. She stated if they did look at additional density and a mix
of uses, the county would also need to figure out a way to encourage that type of connectivity, and without some
sort of funding available to create the spines, it limited the county’s ability to require it piecemeal as new
developments came in. She stated if that were to pass staff could consider those type of linkages, leveraging both
the public and private investment in a different way that than that of the past.
She stated that one of the things less evident in regard to WAVE, is that another big consideration often seen was
Housing Affordability. She stated that one of the ways to guarantee affordability in a project, or for projects that
had the low-income housing tax credits were the projects specified and required to be in places where there were
public transportation options.
Discussion Item: Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Concepts.
Ms. Roth provided information pertaining to some potential Unified Development Ordinance text amendment
concepts. She stated that staff had been regularly putting forward maintenance housekeeping amendments since
the completion of the Unified Development Ordinance project in 2020 to make sure that the ordinance stays up to
5 | P a g e
date and remained effective at encouraging the type of development that we want to see in the unincorporated
county.
Ms. Roth provided concepts of the ongoing UDO Maintenance Amendments that would fall into three
categories; 1) new provisions to make sure that the ordinance remained modern, 2) clarifications so all
ordinance users understood the provisions in the same way, and 3) updates to tools so that they would
continue to work in the way they were intended. Ms. Roth stated that during the concept presentation, she
would be providing information on each potential amendment to determine whether the Board felt
comfortable with moving forward, if it needed additional consideration, or if it should not be on the table. She
stated that based on the Board’s feedback, staff would finalize amendment drafts that would be released for
public comment prior to a public hearing in front of the Planning Board and a final Board of Commissioner
public hearing and decision.
Ms. Roth stated that staff had identified five potential additions or modernizations to the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO):
1. The addition of the current county Stormwater Ordinance to the UDO document, a specific place,
Article 7 which was provided for these provisions when the UDO format was adopted in 2019,
2. To expand the ordinance’s provisions for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations,
3. Lighting fixture standards. She stated the proposed amendment would replicate language used in
several recent conditional rezoning requests, which limited the height of lighting structures adjacent
to single-family residential neighborhoods and required full cut-off fixtures to reduce the visual impact
on those adjacent properties,
4. A potential amendment intended to solve increased zoning complaints for properties in residential
neighborhoods being used for the non-commercial storage of multiple inoperative boats, and
5. Allowed encroachments into setbacks.
In response to questions for he Board, Mr. Galen Jamison, Chief County Engineer stated that the updated
Design Manual was scheduled to go before the Board of Commissioners in September 2022.
Planning Board Chair, Donna Girardot indicated she had heard concerns about challenges to industrial
development especially on Highway 421 related to current tree retention standards, and asked if staff could
also look into an amendment to address them. Ms. Roth stated that staff would look into this to see what
could be added as part of the maintenance amendment.
Ms. Roth stated that staff had identified several clarifications to the ordinance that were relatively small in
scope. She stated the first was regarding the freestanding sign standards for the O&I district. She stated they
were not included in the same table that outlined provisions for other districts, and some sign information
was included in the district-specific standards instead. She stated that the intent would be to provide all
freestanding sign standards in one table, so that it was clear to users what applied.
The next was to clarify that specimen tree standards were intended to apply to existing residential lots as well
as other lots in development projects. She stated this had been staff’s understanding of the amendment
adopted in 2019 that established specimen trees but had not always been clear for the code users because of
conflicting language.
She stated next would be language to clarify that zoning district height maximums were not intended to apply
to utility structures, such as power poles and water towers. She stated that when staff modified the definition
for “building” to align with the change to the state general statutes last year, it created some confusion for
some code users.
6 | P a g e
Ms. Roth stated that staff wanted to add a provision to make sure it was clear that Independent Living
Facilities, while not having use-specific standards of their own, should follow the use specific standards
required for the type of development, single family projects should comply with single family standards, multi-
family projects should comply with multi-family standards.
The next proposed amendment was to clarify that district specific provisions were eligible for variances. She
stated that there were development standards in multiple section of the ordinance and wanted to articulate
that no matter where the standard was located in the Unified Development Ordinance, it should be eligible
for a variance. She stated that this would not apply to conditions placed on conditional zoning districts but
could allow applicants to request variances for standards not subject to conditions the same as anyone else.
Ms. Roth stated that staff had received a request to clarify the height provisions for development in the airport
area and specify that FAA approval was a requirement for buildings to exceed the general height maximum
for the Airport Commerce zoning district. She stated that staff wanted to make sure that it was clear that the
minimum acreage required for a Planned Development was intended to be contiguous to allow for a
coordinated project.
Ms. Roth stated that staff wanted to clarify the building separation requirements for structures in
performance subdivisions. She stated now that the county’s ordinance used more terms other than single-
family and multi-family, staff wanted to make sure it was understood which separation requirement applied.
Ms. Roth stated that over the past several years, staff had recognized places where the ordinance may have
needed to be updated to make sure it remained as effective as possible. She stated that staff learned that the
current provisions for administrative approval of minor deviations may have needed to be tweaked. Under
the new state 160-D statutes, the situations where staff could approve minor deviations had been clarified to
include only the specific situations outlined in the code. She stated that last year, the county adopted a list of
instances where administrative modifications were possible for site plans associated with conditional zoning
districts, special use permits, or master planned developments. Any other modifications would require a
developer to go back through the rezoning or special use permit process in order to update the site plan.
She stated that staff had learned that current authorities may lead to changes greater than those anticipated
by the reviewing and approving boards or the outside stakeholders involved in the original process. She stated
in other situations, some of the county’s current authorities may not reflect the types of changes that occurred
as site plans moved through the engineering and technical permitting phases. She stated that it should be
noted that deviations to ordinance standards or specific conditions placed on an approval would not be
allowed. Ms. Roth stated that as a result, staff was recommending the following changes:
1. Expanding the current authority to allow deviations to building or structure placements that did not
violate setback standards or specific conditions by also allowing changes to building configurations
2. 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, for instance commercial or residential, not to exceed
10% and to limit increases in height to 10% or 10 ft, whichever was less to reduce potential impacts
now that taller buildings were allowed in the code.
3. Staff would recommend specifically allowing the ability to approve changes to internal circulation
patterns that didn’t impact public safety.
Ms. Roth stated that staff would like the board to consider an update to codify a change to the development
review process to adjust the review timing for tree removal permit related landscaping plans and lighting
plans. She stated that the current tree removal permit process required both the tree removal authorization
and mitigation plan be approved up-front as one step before a developer could receive an erosion &
sedimentation control permit. She stated now that there were incentives built into the ordinance that allowed
7 | P a g e
retention of existing trees to be used for mitigation and built into the project’s landscaping plan, staff had
found that those approved plans often had to be revised after stormwater and construction plan approvals
because the location of infrastructure and other sign design had shifted through the engineering process. She
stated that this often required staff to duplicate efforts and review mitigation plans multiple times and
required additional administration to adjust fees paid in lieu of plantings.
She stated as an alternative, staff would like to retain the existing tree removal authorization portion of the
permit as part of the initial approval, remove the mitigation plan requirement at that phase, and instead
finalize the mitigation/landscaping plan at the time of construction plan approval once all engineering had
taken place.
Ms. Roth stated that staff would also like to allow lighting plan submittal at the construction approval stage,
still prior to when the conduit for the lights was installed, in certain pre-approved instances. She stated lighting
design work had been taking longer in recent years, and this would allow developers to move forward with
parts of a project even if their lighting design were delayed.
She stated the next potential update was to increase the number of residents allowed in a Group Home from
6 to 8. She stated this was a use that had more stringent standards than other residential uses and was
intended to allow for safe living situations for residents with disabilities. The Board of Adjustment had
received 7 requests for reasonable accommodations, covered under the Federal Fair Housing Act, in the past
7 years regarding this item. She stated that in general, if the Board of Adjustment received and approved
multiple requests for the same action, it was usually better practice to amend the ordinance rather than de-
facto require a Board of Adjustment hearing.
Ms. Roth stated that the final proposed update would add domestic partnerships and civil unions but no longer
address domestic servants. She stated that like many jurisdictions with nearby colleges, the county currently
limited the number of unrelated members in a household to no more than 3, and this was not proposed to
change however, the parameters of what counted as a household would generally be expanded and be more
in line with what was commonly used in other jurisdictions.
Ms. Roth stated that based on the process staff had developed over the past several years, the next step was
to release drafts for public comment. She stated staff generally allowed at least 1 ½ weeks for public comment
and currently anticipated being able to release the drafts next week, which would allow staff to move forward
with a Planning Board public hearing in September. She stated that if the release were delayed, those meeting
dates would need to be adjusted, but staff wanted to make sure there was sufficient time for upfront vetting
of any draft language prior to a public hearing.
OTHER ITEMS
Ms. Roth provided an update of the Western Bank discussions that the Board of Commissioners had been having.
She stated the second work session had been scheduled for August 18 at 2:00 p.m. prior to the Commissioners’
agenda review. She stated prior to the meeting staff would be providing information on the spectrum of
development scenarios that the board requested be prepared for them: conservation, limited use, working
waterfront, small scale mixed-use, and urban scale mixed-use. Ms. Roth stated at the meeting they would provide
details on the different scenarios, trade-offs, how each aligned with current policy recommendations and would
identify what may be next steps moving forward. She stated staff had been working for the past several months
with a variety of stakeholders and would continue to have conversations that would be included as part of the
information in the presentation. She stated after discussions she would be able to let the board know in September
if they would have a presentation or if there would be another update. Ms. Roth stated the presentation would
take place at 230 Government Center Drive in the Lucy Harrell conference room and would also be streamed live
and recorded.
Chair Donna Girardot adjourned the meeting at 7:25 PM.
8 | P a g e
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.