Loading...
2022-09-01 PB MINUTES 1 | P a g e Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board September 1, 2022 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on September 1, 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 Julian Griffee, Current Planner Colin Tarrant Sarah Lipkin Sularz, Housing Planner Hanson Matthews Robert Farrell, Senior Planner Pete Avery Rachel LaCoe, Senior Long-Range Planner Clark Hipp Kenneth Vafier, Planning Manager Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Absent Members Jeffrey Stokley Jr. Chair Donna Girardot called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and excused the absence of Planning Board Member Mr. Jeff Stokley Jr. Director of Planning, Rebekah Roth, led the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the August 4, 2022, Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery, to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0. NEW BUSINESS 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. Current Planner Julian Griffee provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. Mr. Griffee stated that the proposal was to rezone one parcel totaling 7.11 acres from R-15 and B-2 to (CZD) R-7. He stated that the existing R-15 and B-2 zoning had been applied in 1971 when this portion of the county was first zoned and reflected the historic development pattern in the area, which was historically an African American beach resort community before beaches were desegregated in the 1960s. He stated that density had historically been limited in this area in part by no water and sewer services, as a typical 3-bedroom single-family dwelling would require a lot of approximately 13,000 square feet in size to support well and septic. He stated Aqua had lines nearby and had provided a letter of commitment to provide service for up to 50 single family units and 25 townhomes on these tracts if they were to be developed. Mr. Griffee stated that the site was undeveloped and heavily wooded. Mr. Griffee stated that the general vicinity of the subject site contained small to large single-family dwellings, small scale businesses such as boat storage and recreational activities, and a few buildings from the original 2 | P a g e Seabreeze community. He stated that most of the subject site was located with the AE flood zone in which the Unified Development Ordinance limited density of performance subdivisions to no more than 2.5 dwelling units per acre. He stated that, as a result, development on the subject parcel would have to be a conventional subdivision and must meet minimum lot size requirements. Mr. Griffee stated that for conventional subdivisions, new developments must meet minimum lot sizes and setbacks from property lines. He stated that a minimum of 10% open space was required as most land was part of single-family lots and individually owned by each property owner. He stated the county’s general residential districts were designed to allow single-family development for conventional lots and the proposed R-7 district required lots to be a minimum of 7,000 sf or about 1/6th of an acre. Mr. Griffee stated that the applicant’s proposed conceptual plan contained 30 single-family dwellings, with an overall density of 4.2 units per acre, and access by 40-foot private rights-of-way. He stated the required open space was required to be 10% and would amount to approximately 31,000 square feet for this proposal. He stated tht the applicant had proposed that stormwater management would be managed on each individual lot rather than the community stormwater management device typically used. Aqua had provided a non- binding commitment that they would provide water and sewer to the subject site. He stated that the parcel had direct access to Seabreeze Road which ran in a loop and connected directly to Carolina Beach Road. He stated there was a signalized intersection at River Road on the southern connection and that there was a right in/right out on the northern connection, just south of Myrtle Grove Road Seventh Day Adventist Church. Mr. Griffee indicated that as currently zoned, it was estimated that the site would generate 15 trips during the peak hour if developed at the permitted density. He stated that the proposed R-7 development would increase the estimated number of peak hours by approximately 13 trips. He stated the estimated trip generation for the project was under the 100 peak hour trip threshold that triggered the ordinance requirement for a traffic impact analysis. Mr. Griffee stated that development in the area had generally been lower density, with low intensity water- based businesses located closer to the Intracoastal Waterway. However, the long-term vision for development in this area had included a revitalization of the Seabreeze beach resort as outlined in the 1989 Seabreeze Small Area Plan. He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan incorporated this vision by designating this area as Community Mixed Use so that higher residential density and a mix of uses could be allowed. Mr. Griffee stated that the applicant had 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. He stated based on the recommendations of the Community Mixed Use place type and the density and form envisioned within the Seabreeze Small Area Plan for revitalization of the area, staff had recommended approval of the request, though a conditional request was preferred given the cultural heritage and historic context of the area. While the current conditional rezoning request sought to provide new residential opportunities that might foster a revitalization of the area as identified and envisioned within the adopted plans, the parcel contained significant environmental challenges pertaining to stormwater that the proposal did not adequately address. He stated that per engineering comments, the proposed method of stormwater management may not appropriately and sufficiently manage conveyance of stormwater for the proposed future development and that the concept plan did not clearly show how required open space would be met, so staff recommended denial of the request. Mr. Griffee stated that if the Board were to move forward with the request, staff would recommend the following 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 3 | P a g e configuration internal to the site may be modified to accommodate required open space. 2. The applicant shall delineate any wetlands 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 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 facilities must be provided to accommodate the maximum number of lots 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. In response to questions of the Board regarding issuance of 30 separate stormwater permits, Mr. Galen Jamison, County Engineer stated that the county had never issued this type of permit for 30 individual units, and that each permit would need to be submitted as one separate permit from the State of North Carolina. In response to questions of the Board regarding sidewalk installation, Mr. Jamar Johnson, WMPO stated he had recommended sidewalk installation at the June Planning Board meeting based on the concerns of residents of the community of not having areas to walk and the increase of traffic during peak hours. He stated as a safety concern, it was his suggestion to provide at least one area of sidewalk to the community and would apply to the portions of the property line that abutted Seabreeze Road. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr. Adam Shanks, Applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. He concurred with the information Mr. Griffee had presented. He stated that to address stormwater concerns, he was not able to get corrections submitted to the county in time to be presented to the Board but would get them to staff. He stated each lot would be capturing all stormwater as designed as required by the county’s Unified Development Code and that the proposal was a reasonable request. Mr. L. Scott Baggie, Surveyor, stated that each individual stormwater application for the infiltration system would cover the proposed impervious surfaces that would be designed for each individual lot. He stated that all 30 sites could be pre-empted with the impervious calculations and a system to be incorporated into the state’s requirements. He stated the individual infiltration systems would be guided by soils tests by engineers given by the mean highwater table the co-efficiency of the types of soils and the design would be per the New Hanover County guidance for 2 ½ inches over 24 hours. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Ms. Audra Moore, 804 Hatteras Court, expressed the concerns of the community with the rezoning. Ms. Moore stated that the community was not against development for the area, but only against the rezoning. Ms. Elise Freeman Mohammad, resident of Riegelwood, NC, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Mohammed stated that she was a descendant to the founders of the Seabreeze area and gave a brief presentation of its history. She expressed her concerns with preserving the cultural history of the Seabreeze area. Ms. Gabrielle Childs, 1017 Saltspray Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the traffic and safety. Kathy Tylee, 1056 S. Seabreeze Road, spoke in opposition to the rezoning and expressed her concern with increased stormwater and flooding in the ditches along with runoff. She stated that the property was already located in a 4 | P a g e flood zone and development would add increased flooding. She expressed her concerns about deforesting more land, displacing more water, and adding more impervious surfaces with a rezoned R-7. Chair Girardot opened the rebuttal period for the applicant. In rebuttal to public comments, Mr. Shanks stated that at staff’s request the plan was submitted to the Technical Review Committee. Mr. Griffee stated that the request was presented to the Technical Review Committee to get preliminary comments from the agencies to see if there were any warranted items that could significantly impact the applicant’s concept plan. He stated the applicant attended a high-level sketch plan review earlier in July by the TRC. Mr. Shanks stated he did not feel the development was unusual or too dense and did want to work with staff and the community and their concerns. In response to Mr. Shanks rebuttal, Ms. Audra Moore stated that rezoning could impact the entire community particularly because it was in a flood zone. With no further opposition or questions, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After extensive discussion from the Board regarding the stormwater plan and inconsistencies in the site plan, Mr. Shanks requested a continuance to the October 6 meeting. Board Member Colin Tarrant made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Peter Avery, to DENY CONTINUANCE of the proposed rezoning. The motion to deny a continuance of the rezoning request carried 6-0. After further discussion from the Board regarding safety enhancements and whether the proposal was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, Board Member Colin Tarrant made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Clark Hipp, to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed R-7 rezoning. While the Board found 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, the Board found RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the rezoning request was 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. The motion to recommend denial of proposed R-7 rezoning request carried 5-1. (Vote: Yes- Colin Tarrant, Jeff Petroff, Donna Girardot, Clark Hipp, Hansen Matthews. No- Pete Avery.) 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. Housing Planner Sarah Sularz provided background information as to the history of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in New Hanover County. She stated the America Planning Association consider an ADU to be a smaller, independent residential dwelling unit, which is located on the same lot as a stand-alone single-family home. She stated ADUs had the potential to increase housing affordability and create a wider range of housing options within the community, enable seniors to stay near family as they age, and facilitate better use of the existing housing fabric in established neighborhoods. She stated that in 2014, the county received a request for a text amendment to include Accessory Dwelling Units as an accessory use permitted by right in all zoning districts. At that time staff recommended approval of the text amendment with focus on residential zones and recommended text be added that would better differentiate ADUs from other accessory structures. She stated that in 2019 ADUs were added to the Unified Development Ordinance to be permitted by right in the R-5 and RMF districts. Ms. Sularz stated that in February 2022 the applicant of the proposed request purchased a home in the R-15 zoning district which was advertised with a pre-existing ADU. Although not permitted in the R-15 district, an approved accessory structure had been upfitted with a bathroom and kitchen, which created a habitable living space, which 5 | P a g e the applicant was under the impression was of permissible use. In order to bring the home into compliance, the applicant had requested that ADUs be allowed in all residential zoning districts. She stated the applicant’s intent was to bring the home into compliance with the county, better understand options they had in order to reduce the cost burden of their newly purchased home, and to utilize the existing ADU on their property. Ms. Sularz stated that based on zoning compliance staff’s increased call volume regarding ADUs over the past several years, the request was likely not unusual in the unincorporated area of New Hanover County. She stated residents’ questions had left staff to anticipate that some property owners may have inadvertently upfitted accessory structures into ADUs due to existing loopholes in the permitting process. She stated County staff had provided recommendations and standards for the proposed application that were to be included in the Unified Development Ordinance as a countywide initiative. Staff’s intent with these additional provisions was to avoid or mitigate any potential unanticipated negative impacts to residential communities, environmental health, stormwater, fire codes, emergency services, and other regulations that are more rigorous for residential uses. Ms. Sularz stated that the proposed text amendment included a revision to the existing definition of Accessory Dwelling Units, and both revisions and additions to the standards outlined in Section 4 of the UDO. She stated the definition in Section 2 of the UDO had been updated for consistency and clarity and that staff recommended detached accessory dwellings be permitted. She stated although the applicant had requested ADUs be allowed in all residential zoning districts, staff proposed that the text amendment would not include Airport Residential (AR) or R- 20S zoning districts. Ms. Sularz stated that in Section 4 of the UDO, staff proposed the following standards: 1. The allowance for only 1 ADU per lot, regulations for parking, and applicable requirements pertaining to utilities. 2. Standards regarding setbacks, spacing between structures on the lot, and to cap the ADU’s gross floor area at 1000 square feet. 3. Existing unit conversions would be allowed, floodplain regulations upheld, runoff from impervious surfaces would be held to state permitted allocations. 4. Site-specific drainage plans be required. 5. Mobile homes, manufactured homes or recreational vehicles would not be allowed to be used or put in place as ADUs. Ms. Sularz stated that staff’s goal for the text amendment was: 1. To clearly establish a method of regulating permit requirements, 2. To develop countywide cross-agency protocols and have permitting consistency, 3. To reduce loopholes, safety concerns, and liability issues, 4. To use code enforcement to differentiate between ADU and non-dwelling accessory structures, 5. To incrementally leverage the ADU housing stock potential to address regional housing demand. Ms. Sularz stated that based on the recommendations of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the Joint City/County Workforce Housing Advisory Committee, and in response to ongoing demand and compliance concerns, staff recommended approval of the requested amendment with the summarized edits. She stated that if this amendment were to be approved by the board, staff requested a 3-month delay in the effective date to verify all permitting processes were in place. Ms. Sularz clarified that this amendment would only be effective in the unincorporated county, and that HOA regulations or subdivision restrictions on ADUs would override this amendment. In response to questions of the Board about the definition of a manufactured home, Ms. Roth stated that the definition of a manufactured home was specifically outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance. She stated that 6 | P a g e these particular homes had a review process that tiny homes did not have, as tiny homes did not fall under the building code and did not have a HUD sticker indicating that they were built to certain standards. She stated that under the current ordinance, the county generally did not allow anything that has not been built to the building code or did not have the HUD sticker to be used as a permanent residential structure. In response to questions of the Board about why duplexes in R-20 and R-10 were required to have a special use permit, Ms. Roth stated that this standard was what had been in the Unified Development Ordinance historically and had not been adjusted as part of the UDO Project Update. She stated that she believed that part of the rationale was primarily because there were concerns back in the 1980s and 1990s that allowing duplexes in those districts would change the character of the areas. In response to questions of the Board about HOA covenants, Ms. Roth stated HOA covenants provided more stringency to the use of the land beyond zoning regulations, therefore the HOA would be able say no even if the county were to allow it. Ms. Roth stated that per the definitions of the Unified Development Ordinance ADUs were limited to being located behind detached single-family structures; however, additional clarification language may be necessary. In response to questions of the Board about the square foot limit of the ADU and adding an additional ADU, Ms. Sularz stated that if there was already an ADU and a resident wanted to convert a room over the garage, it would not be permissible because only one ADU is allowed per lot. Ms. Roth stated that staff did note that if there were existing ADUs that did not meet the current dimensional standards and were in existence prior to the effective date, they would be allowed. Ms. Roth stated that the stormwater compliance would have to be verified as part of the permitting process which is why the draft amendment outlined what would be required as part of an application submittal to ensure that there was no impact on a subdivision’s stormwater permit or any other regulatory requirements such as well and septic limitations. Ms. Roth stated that the UDO did not directly limit the number of cars allowed for an ADU but did require that at least one additional parking space be provided. In response to questions of the Board about finished rooms over a garage (FROGS), Ms. Roth stated that a property with an attached garage with a room above it would probably have to be considered a duplex. She stated that she had tried to administer codes that differentiate between duplexes and attached ADUs; however, it was very difficult to draw the line between how much space was too much as to when it was an ADU or when it was a separate dwelling unit. She stated that there could not be a duplex and an ADU if the provision was provided limiting ADUs to parcels with a single detached structure. Ms. Roth stated that in terms of the standards, this would be much more stringent than what the City of Wilmington had in place and that there were additional provisions necessary in the unincorporated county. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Christina Sheltra, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed text amendment. She concurred with the information Ms. Sularz had presented. Ms. Sheltra stated that in 2021 they purchase the subject property and that the advertisement for the property listed it with a guesthouse that could be used for short- or long-term rental purposes. She stated that after purchasing the home, affording the home was dependent upon utilizing the ADU. She stated that during the due diligence process they discovered that the back unit of the home had been used for a long-term rental for the last 10 years, the unit had separate meters, was permitted for all updates made by the seller, and that there were many existing secondary dwelling units around the area, with one in particular that was permitted and inspected as an ADU. She stated that after the due diligence period ended, the home appraisal explicitly stated the existence of a renovated ADU, which was a key factor to the home appraising at the given purchase price. She stated that all of those factors provided confidence that they could afford the house; however in May 2022 they received a letter and a visit from the county informing them that their ADU was in violation of the current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). She stated that they had poured thousands of dollars into furnishing 7 | P a g e the home and fixing it to make it a complete guesthouse. Ms. Sheltra stated that she would like to bring the guesthouse into compliance with the zoning laws; however, with the current UDO, it did not seem possible without the text amendment. She stated that she believed that the text amendment to allow ADUs in residential areas would help with affordable housing for both the homeowner and the possible tenants. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Dr. Robert Parr, Middle Sound Lookout, spoke in opposition to the text amendment and expressed his concern that the text amendment was not written clear enough and would affect the many residents in Middle Sound that were not aware of the text amendment request. Mr. Parr stated that he felt the applicant’s request would cause multiple problems in New Hanover County. With no further opposition or questions, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After discussion from the Board regarding the size of an accessory dwelling unit and stormwater requirements, community notification and whether to delay the text amendment to provide more community outreach, Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, 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 with two additional modifications: 1. That shipping container be added to the list of prohibited secondary dwelling options in Section 4 of the UDO proposed text amendment. 2. Specify that ADUs are to only be built on lots with single-family detached homes as principle units. The Board found 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. The Board also found 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. This would include the language to clarify that this was only available for detached single-family units as a principal unit and limited the use of shipping containers to be used as accessory dwelling units. The motion to recommend approval of the text amendment carried 6-0. 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. Ms. Roth stated that this item was part of staff’s ongoing efforts to make sure development regulations stayed up- to-date, were clearly understood by code users, and remained effective. She stated that since the Unified Development Ordinance Project was finalized in 2020, staff had continued to monitor the ordinance and provide regular maintenance when needed. Ms. Roth stated that the text amendments under consideration fell into three primary categories: additions or modernizations, clarifications of misunderstandings identified during the development review process, or concerns regarding compliance. She stated that staff presented these concepts to the Board at the August Planning Board meeting and then released the draft amendment language for public comment on August 12 for a 1 ½ week public comment period. Ms. Roth stated that the additions and modernization presented last month included: 1) Adding the current, Commissioner-approved and adopted Stormwater Ordinance to the Unified Development Ordinance. There were no changes intended to the current regulations as part of this move, 8 | P a g e and this proposed amendment did not include or impact the technical Design Manual that was currently being updated by Engineering. 2) New provisions for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations with the intent to support future retrofits of parking spaces in a way that was less expensive and was safe for users. She stated that as of now it could be expensive to retrofit parking lots if it was the desire of the property owner, charging station design was variable, and intended parking supply could be impacted. 3) Provisions for lighting fixtures to reduce the impact of nonresidential and multi-family developments on adjacent residential neighborhoods. 4) An extension of current limits on inoperative motor vehicles to boats in response to citizen complaints. 5) Provisions for how much different building features and appurtenances could encroach into required setbacks to provide clear administration of regulations and additional flexibility for property owners. She stated that at last month’s meeting, staff was requested to identify potential ways to adjust tree retention standards for the Hwy 421 corridor in response to concerns that current standards may have served as barriers that limited investment in this area that had been prioritized for new industrial operations. She stated that this was one of the amendments where staff received the most comments. She stated in addition to the additions and modernizations, the amendment concepts presented last month also included several clarification amendments that did not change current code interpretations and administration but sought to clarify provisions that had been shown to be interpreted differently from what was intended. 1) Inclusion of Office & Institutional district sign standards in same location as standards for signs in other districts. 2) Clarification of specimen tree standards applicability. 3) Specification that zoning district height maximums do not apply to utility structures. 4) 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. 5) Specification that development standards are eligible for variances regardless of their location in the ordinance. 6) 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. 7) Addition of requirement that minimum acreage for Planned Development and Urban Mixed Use zoning districts must be contiguous. 8) Refinement of building separation requirements for performance residential projects. Ms. Roth stated that staff had presented concepts for four update amendments last month and that these updates were intended to make the county’s current tools more effective and address technical and legal considerations more so than make policy changes. 1) Modification of when staff has the authority to approve minor deviations to site plans administratively. 2) Codification of development review process timing for tree removal permit related-landscaping plans and lighting designs. 3) Incorporation of a frequent reasonable accommodation request received by the Board of Adjustment to increase the number of residents with disabilities allowed in group homes from six to eight. 9 | P a g e 4) 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. Ms. Roth stated that during the official public comment period, staff received 2 public comments, both related to the requested amendment to the Hwy 421 tree retention. She stated that because the two comments directly conflicted, the public hearing draft for this amendment was the same as the public comment version. She stated that additional comments and feedback were provided regarding other amendment components after the agenda packet was finalized and as a result, revisions were not able to be incorporated into the public hearing draft amendment, but staff had worked with stakeholders to identify ways to address them. Ms. Roth stated that the draft amendment provided attempted to apply the most surgical way of reducing the potential barrier for the Hwy 421 corridor by removing only the mitigation requirements. This still required a lot of the developer because the tree survey was still required, significant trees were only to be removed for essential site improvements, specimen trees were still protected, and all landscaping requirements still must be met. She stated that these requirements had elicited concerns about whether this was really needed, about the potential impact on important habitat and tree resources, and regarding the aesthetics of the Hwy 421 corridor, since it was one of the gateways to Wilmington. Ms. Roth stated that one of the additions proposed last month, included the provision of a basic framework to support EV changing stations in the anticipation of future growth in the number of EV vehicles on the road. She stated that staff had received some feedback regarding drafted provisions for EV charging stations related to questions about what was meant by EV ready, whether some standards were likely to change as new technologies emerged, and whether accessibility requirements were necessary. Ms. Roth stated that staff had removed the EV standards that were likely to change as technologies improved but still retained the accessibility standards. She stated there were no ADA standards regarding charging stations, but it was a recommended best practice for local governments to require some provision of spaces that could be used by those with physical disabilities while the federal rules caught up. She stated that these were generally practices already common for new developments but articulating them in the ordinance could help make sure that those who may not be as experienced in the development process knew up-front what should be in place to prepare for the anticipated growth in the EV world and were not anticipated to impose a significant burden on property owners or developers. Ms. Roth stated that staff had also received questions and feedback regarding the proposed height standards in the Airport Commerce district. She stated that this amendment was proposed as the result of confusion around the height standards that applied for the Airport Commerce district itself, and the height restrictions and allowances outlined in the Airport Height Restriction standards. She stated that the airport had documentation that heights up to 35 ft. did not interfere with their operations, so the AC district had historically had a height limit of 35 ft. However, while it was not currently clear in the ordinance, the Airport Height Restrictions standards allowed taller heights in certain areas and that the draft amendment was intended to clarify that this was possible. She stated that because additional review would be necessary to ensure that taller structures did not interfere with airport operations, FAA review was required. Ms. Roth stated that last month, staff also presented a change to the review timing for lighting plans and based on subsequent stakeholder feedback, it was determined that lighting plan design was more appropriately reviewed later in the process, so the requirement that the applicant demonstrate it at TRC review had been removed. She stated that the time for review was still tied to the construction plan approval to make sure that the electrical conduit was not laid until the lighting plan approval was in place. She stated that similarly, last month, staff introduced an amendment that would move the review and approval of tree permit related mitigation plans to the construction plan approval stage; however, as noted by stakeholder feedback, depending on the type of development, namely larger subdivisions, this might be more appropriate later in the process, and the amendment language had been updated to reflect this. 10 | P a g e Ms. Roth indicated that earlier in the week, staff had also learned that the version of the Stormwater Ordinance that was included in the published amendment was not the current adopted stormwater provisions but was an earlier version before the Design Manual language had been updated and approved by the Commissioners in June 2021. She stated that staff provided updated language to ensure that the Stormwater Ordinance currently adopted was moved into the UDO document. She stated that if the board felt comfortable moving forward with making a recommendation, this amendment would be heard by the County Commissioners at their October meeting. Board Member Pete Avery requested to be recused from the Highway 421 Corridor Amendment discussion. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant, to recuse Mr. Avery. The motion carried 5-0. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those in support. Mr. Tyler Newman, Business Alliance for a Sound Economy, spoke in support of the text amendments. He requested that regarding the EV Charging stations that the county give more time to research the needs of the county and the EV companies that would complete the installations. He also expressed his support of the tree mitigation changes for Highway 421 and stated that intentionally it was targeted to the industrial growth corridor. He referenced the amount of money that New Hanover County had put into water and sewer growing up the corridor and also the partnership with Pender County on the other side of the county line. Mr. Cameron Moore, Executive Officer, Wilmington Homebuilders Association spoke in support of the text amendment. He did reference a clerical error that he noticed in the Stormwater Ordinance revisions and indicated it could either be moved forward as amended by staff or delayed and expressed ongoing questions in regard to EV charging stations. He expressed support to the amendment that outlined encroachments into setbacks and the tree mitigation for Highway 421 corridor component. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those in opposition. Ms. Priss Endo, 7414 Lucky Fish Lane, on behalf of Connie Parker, President, Alliance for Cape Fear Trees, spoke in opposition to the tree mitigation amendment and expressed her concern about the need for protecting trees and the natural environment in a very large fragile area located between two rivers that already has problems. Mr. Bill Jayne, 3610 Rosewood Landing Drive, spoke in opposition to the tree mitigation amendment. He expressed his concern with destroying trees and eliminating vegetative life. He encouraged the Board to consider design solutions that could enhance the value of an industrial development by preserving and using the trees and make use of resources. Mr. Andy Wood, P.O. Box 1008, Hampstead, spoke in opposition to the tree mitigation amendment and expressed his concern with protecting the trees along the Highway 421 corridor and stated that Long Leaf Pines located in the corridor were federally protected within the half-mile partition. He stated that the trees were needed to mitigate climate change and that development in this area would not be beneficial to our next generation. Dr. Robert Parr, 6706 Falcon Point, spoke in opposition to the tree mitigation amendment and expressed his concern with climate change. With no further opposition or questions, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. Board Member Pete Avery expressed his concern with the Stormwater Ordinance and suggested that there were a few areas that he felt could be updated. 11 | P a g e After further discussion from the Board regarding the staff proposed changes and clarification to the Stormwater Ordinance and recommended changes, and the future of EV charging stations, Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, except for the Highway 421 tree related component as it was CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provided up-to-date zoning tools that promote business success, provide for a range of housing opportunities, and support a mixture of uses. The Board also found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it provided for clear and effective ordinance standards. The motion carried 6-0. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the portion of the proposed Tree Mitigation Standards along Highway 421 corridor discussion with the recommended changes to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance that included additional standards for street yard landscaping along the Highway 421 corridor that required an additional 10 feet streetyard width for the planting of native species: 1) In addition to the landscaping required for the streetyard by the UDO, the property owner shall provide, within the first 10 feet of land adjacent to parallel to the right of way, one deciduous or evergreen native tree a minimum of three inches caliper in size at time of planning, planted along every 40 feet of road frontage on average. Plantings may be moved outside this area if it is determined that overhead power lines would interfere with the trees’ natural growth. The motion carried 5-0 OTHER ITEMS Ms. Roth stated that since the last meeting there was a second work session on the Western Bank area with the Board of Commissioners and that they had directed staff to move forward with additional studies to better determine the flood risk and the potential implications for development of that area. She stated that the Board of Commissioners had requested that the RUMXZ text amendment placed on an upcoming agenda which was anticipated to be the October Board of Commissioners agenda. Chair Donna Girardot adjourned the meeting at 9:11 PM. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.