Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-2023 PB MINUTES1 | Page Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board January 5, 2023 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on January 5, 2023, at 5:00 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 Robert Farrell, Senior Current Planner Jeff Petroff, Vice Chair Zachary, Dickerson, Current Planner Hansen Matthews Julian Griffee, Current Planner Clark Hipp Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Kevin Hine Pete Avery Colin Tarrant Chair Donna Girardot called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Senior Planner Robert Farrell led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Girardot announced that the minutes from the December 1, 2022, meeting would be considered at the February meeting. Chair Girardot presented the 2023 Planning Board Meeting calendar amending the scheduled Planning Board meetings from 6:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Matthews, to approve the 5:00 p.m. Planning Board Meeting time. The motion to approve the Planning Board Meeting time to 5:00 p.m. carried 7-0 NEW BUSINESS Rezoning Request (Z22-23) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of 6844 Bayat Land, LLC, property owner, to rezone two parcels totaling approximately 3.83 acres of land located at 6830 and 6844 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential to 2.00 acres of (CZD) B-1, Conditional Neighborhood Business for a convenience store and 1.83 acres to (CZD) R-5, Conditional Moderate-High Density Residential for 12 single-family attached dwellings. Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney stated that she wanted to bring to the attention of the Board and the public that staff was recommending that this item be continued to the February Planning Board Meeting in order for additional information to be obtained so that the public hearing could be more meaningful and complete. In response to questions of the Board, Current Planner Zachary Dickerson stated that NCDOT had indicated concern with the location of the driveway as shown on the site plan and there were additional concerns with the proposed stormwater as well, which the applicant would address in their presentation. In response to comments from the Board, Senior Current Planner Robert Farrell stated that while not required for the Planning Board during the hearing process, the Traffic Impact Analysis had not yet been approved by WMPO and that there may potentially be outstanding questions related to traffic. He stated that there was the question about driveway access potentially being located too close to an existing access easement that served an adjacent residential area, and some stormwater questions about how potential changes may impact site design. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Farrell stated that if the item were to be continued to the February meeting, the item would be posted on the development activity page so that the information would be available to the public. Chair Girardot recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, agreed to continue to the February Planning Board Meeting. Ms. Wolf gave information regarding the proposal and stated that the TIA had been completed for over a month and was waiting for signature. She stated that in regard to the driveway, there was some issues that had since been remedied with extending the turn lane 2 | Page for safety purposes. She stated that for stormwater management, while the project exhibit presented to the community showed ponds, and relocation of trees, the applicant had conducted soil testing to justify under pavement infiltration. Board discussion focused on additional information to be obtained regarding traffic and stormwater management. Board Member Colin Tarrant made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery, for CONTINUANCE to the February Planning Board Meeting. The motion to recommend a continuance to the February Planning Board Meeting carried 6-1. (Vote: Yes – Colin Tarrant, Clark Hipp, Pete Avery, Jeff Petroff, Kevin Hine, Donna Girardot. No – Hansen Matthews.) Rezoning Request (Z22-25) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Willie Moore, Jr. and Joyce Ruffin, property owners, to rezone two parcels totaling approximately 4.65 acres of land located at 2700 and 2707 Old Wrightsboro Road from AR, Airport Residential, to (CZD) AC, Conditional Airport Commerce for an office and warehouses. Current Planner Zachary Dickerson provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. Mr. Dickerson stated that the request was to rezone two parcels totaling 4.65 acres from AR to (CZD) AC. He stated that the applicant was proposing to construct three buildings, one flex space and two self-storage facilities. He stated that the concept plan included a fenced buffer where the site was adjacent to residential zoning. He stated that under the proposed Airport Commerce zoning district, buildings may be no higher than 35 feet without an FAA determination of “no hazard” and that the buildings shown on the concept plan were a maximum height of one story at 18 feet. Mr. Dickerson stated that the applicant had proposed a condition that would limit the potential uses for the flex space to the following: Animal Grooming, Mini Warehousing, General Office, Personal Services, Business Services, Contractor Office (with no outdoor storage), Instructional Studios, Retail Sales and that no boat or RV storage would be allowed. He stated that access to the subject property was proposed from Old Wrightsboro Road, an NCDOT maintained secondary street and that there would be full access movement for ingress and egress. Mr. Dickerson stated that the estimated traffic generated from the site was under the 100 per peak hour threshold that triggered the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis. He provided information indicating that the existing development trip generation was 1 AM and 1 PM peak hour trip and that the proposed development of 10,000 square feet flex space would generate 16 AM peak hour trips and 15 PM peak hour trips and 52,900 square foot self-storage would generate 7 AM and 14 PM peak hour trips. He stated that the WMPO provided trip generation numbers for some of the uses outlined in the application for flex space; 10,000 square foot Specialty Trade Contractor – 17 AM and 19 PM peak hour trips; 10,000 square foot Strip Retail Plaza – 26 AM and 66 PM peak hour trips. Mr. Dickerson stated that while much of the area to the east and south was residential, many of the surrounding properties to the north and west were used for commercial purposes and were zoned AC. He stated that the site was also located near the Wrightsboro Commercial Node. He stated that the applicant had proposed a condition that would limit the permitted uses of the commercial development to be compatible with the existing surrounding uses. Mr. Dickerson stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified this area as Employment Center. He stated that staff recommended approval of the (CZD) AC request because the proposed rezoning was consistent with the purpose and intent of 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it was in an area designated as Employment Center and provided for the types of uses recommended for that place type. He stated that it was also reasonable and in the public interest because the project would provide area serving commercial development that was compatible with its proximity to a commercial node and the Wilmington International Airport. Mr. Dickerson stated that the following conditions were proposed for approval: 3 | Page 1. In addition to acknowledging all of the prescribed standards for the Airport Commerce (AC) district, addressing access, lighting, radio and electronic devices, and visual hazards, the developer would limit the proposed uses to: a. Animal Grooming b. Mini-Warehousing c. General Office d. Personal Services e. Business Services f. Contractor Office (with no outdoor storage) g. Instructional Studios h. Retail Sales 2. No outdoor RV or boat trailer storage would be permitted. Mr. Dickerson stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to Technical Review Committee and Zoning Compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. In response to questions of the Board regarding the source of water and sewer, Mr. Dickerson stated that water services were not available through CFPUA, and that a private well would be required subject to New Hanover County Health Department approval, but sanitary sewer was available. In response to questions of the Board regarding conducting a tree survey to identify the types on trees on the property, Mr. Dickerson stated that this would take place during the TRC process. In response to questions of the Board regarding if the building height of the project should be conditioned, Mr. Dickerson stated that he believed the Unified Development Ordinance did not allow for minor deviations from the concept plan for building height but would allow for small layout changes but he would need to confirm that. Mr. Farrell stated that if the board found this to be a specific point that needed to be codified, the applicant could be asked to add this as an additional condition. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. She stated that the proposal was a combination of flex and two single-story climate-controlled, interior only, storage facility. She stated that the adjacent tract was vacant and would serve as a buffer between the two sites. She stated that in regard to storm water, the applicant proposed a condition to add a public drainage easement along the southern property boundary. She stated a tree survey was completed and that there were no specimen trees but there were large Magnolias that would need to be mitigated if they were in the footprint of essential site improvements. She stated that although sewer was not available, a private well would be optional, but the applicant had already been in conversations with CFPUA. Ms. Wolf stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the parcel as Employment Center and that the proposed plan would provide area-serving services that are compatible with the tract’s proximity to the commercial corridors of Kerr Avenue, Castle Hayne Road, and Wilmington Airport. She stated that the proposal would improve the form and function of an under-utilized site, maximized desired land use efficiency, and was an excellent opportunity for good economic development for an increased tax base. Ms. Emily Fisher, 1108 East Boulevard, Charlotte, NC stated that her intention was to bring a second location of her public accounting firm to the area. She stated that she would be occupying about one third to a half of the building. She stated that they were still developing a concept but was something she was looking to grow into and occupy as more space was needed. In response to questions of the Board regarding the placement of the fence, Ms. Wolf stated that the fence would be extended between the pond and the property line and that there was still a buffer between the pond and the residential property to the rear, otherwise there would be gates in the fence for maintenance in which there was a 10-foot maintenance easement. 4 | Page In response to questions of the Board about the 30-foot drainage easement that also served as the buffer between the existing residential area, Ms. Wolf stated that if there was reason for the entire 30-foot buffer to be cleared, the fencing would be the buffer. She stated that there was room in the buffer along with a 35-foot setback that would allow for a solid screening fence. She stated that you could claim existing opacity as the drainage easement as it could be cleared, but if it were cleared after the fact, the applicant would be in violation of the landscape plan to provide opacity and would have to replant whatever was removed. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Mr. Richard Nixon, 2612 Old Wrightsboro Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal and expressed his concerns with water drainage, old water systems, and property values. Ms. Diane Hampton, 2449 Acorn Branch Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal and questioned the reasoning behind rezoning this particular property to commercial if there were already existing commercial with several businesses in the area. Mr. Eli Boney, 2432 Acorn Branch Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal and expressed his concern with the rezoning of the property and felt that the residents were being penalized. He stated he understood if it were eminent domain, but it was private enterprise taking over the neighborhood, and that the request did not fit the area. Mr. Kerwin Holmes, 2443 Acorn Branch Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal and expressed his concern with flooding, the proposal being too close to private properties, and the type of people that would access the area with the construction of the storage facility. He stated that he felt there should be more residential developed instead of commercial. Mr. Billy Prentiss, 2120 Cornelius Moore Avenue, Wrightsboro, spoke in opposition to the proposal and expressed his concern with drainage issues and flooding, keeping the area residential and sustaining their neighborhood. In rebuttal to the opposition, Ms. Wolf stated that part of the stormwater permitting was to guarantee that there was adequate outlet and that all facilities were maintained in perpetuity. She stated that they would commit to public traverse because they have to allow any offsite water that goes through the site to pass by unblocked. She stated that the proposal was specific and detailed how the adjacent properties would be mitigated. She referred to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and stated that the place type was appropriate for this area. In rebuttal to the applicant, Mr. Holmes stated that the ditches behind the subject property would add to the extensive flooding as well as the overflow of the retention ponds. In rebuttal to the applicant, Mr. Prentiss stated that the residents were told by the county engineering that the ditches would be maintained by the county for an annual fee but has not occurred. He stated that the ditches cannot sustain the water and the residents suffer. Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. Mr. Galen Jamison, County Engineer, stated that in the Acorn Branch area there were some culverts and other areas that the county had been looking into studying and master planning. He stated that if the proposal were to go to the next phase of TRC, as part of the Unified Development Ordinance requirement, there would be a downstream analysis. He stated that there was a culvert under Acorn Branch that he had a concern with and that the existing ditch in the southeast corner of the parcel stops where he suspected the pipe was undersized. He stated that currently when areas are developed it was under the 25-year storm event, however when the ditches and the airport was built that was not a requirement. He stated that the county was looking at upgrading the system as they continue to develop the land. He stated that in terms of the pond, it was intended to be a place where the drainage water would go with a small drain on the bottom that would allow the pond to slowly drain at the same flowrate that it drained when it was all woods and grass. He stated that should this project move forward; stormwater would be sized for a 25-year storm event at the same flowrate it currently has. He stated to address the stormwater services, during hurricane Florence, the county received emergency watershed protection funding that stipulated that the only cleanup was to be along those ditches. He stated in 2019, the County Commissioners started the Stormwater Services that would go out and maintain the ditches that go outside of the NCDOT right of way. He stated that for many years the ditch along the southern properties were to be maintained by the 5 | Page owners, however currently Stormwater Services was available, and the county was working to open those channels for maximum flow capacity of water for the area. In response to questions of the board about the parcel having to be rezoned, Mr. Farrell stated that the applicant felt that this was a project they wanted to pursue and submitted an application to rezone. Chair Girardot elaborated that the parcel was currently residential and in order for the applicant to put a commercial structure on the site, it would need to be rezoned to commercial. After extensive discussion about stormwater requirements, commercial growth in the airport area, and the impact to the residential neighborhood, Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant, to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) AC, Airport Commerce District. While the Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it is located in an area designated as Employment Center and provided for the types of uses recommended by that place type, the Board also found RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because it is not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community and will adversely impact the adjacent neighborhood. The MOTION to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed (CZD) RMF-M rezoning request did not carry 2-5. Vote: Yes – Colin Tarrant, Clark Hipp; No – Jeff Petroff, Donna Girardot, Hansen Matthews, Kevin Hine, Pete Avery. Chair Girardot opened the floor for another motion. Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) AC, Airport Commerce District with the following conditions: 1. In addition to acknowledging all of the prescribed standards for the Airport Commerce (AC) district, addressing access, lighting, radio and electronic devices, and visual hazards, the developer would limit the proposed uses to: a. Animal Grooming b. Mini-Warehousing c. General Office d. Personal Services e. Business Services f. Contractor Office (with no outdoor storage) g. Instructional Studios h. Retail Sales 2. No outdoor RV or boat trailer storage would be permitted. 3. No roll-up exterior doors as a site design. 4. To codify the 18’ maximum height. The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it was located in an area designated as Employment Center and provided for the types of uses recommended by that place type. The Board also found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request to be reasonable and in the public interest because the project would provide area-serving commercial development that were compatible with its proximity to a commercial node and the Wilmington International Airport. The MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed (CZD) RMF-M rezoning request carried 5-2. Vote: Yes - Jeff Petroff, Donna Girardot, Hansen Matthews, Kevin Hine, Pete Avery; No – Colin Tarrant, Clark Hipp Rezoning Request (Z22-26) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Paul and Jane Chaucer, property owners, to rezone one parcel totaling 0.362 acres of land located at 2626 Castle Hayne Road from R-20, Residential to CZD CB, Community Business to convert an existing single-family home for retail and office use. 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. 6 | Page Mr. Griffee stated that the proposal was to rezone 0.36 acres from R-20 to CZD CB to renovate a vacant single- family dwelling into a retail and office space. He stated that the applicant proposed to limit future uses to Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities, Personal Services (General, excluding Tattoo Parlor), Instructional Services & Studios, and Retail Sales (General). He stated that the applicant had delineated bufferyards from the existing structure and the abutting residential uses. He stated that the existing 550 square foot structure at the rear of the property was currently considered an accessory structure; however, if the structure was used for any of the proposed uses, it would no longer be considered an accessory structure, and therefore, would be subject to underlying zoning setback provisions and would require a variance. Mr. Griffee stated that currently zoned, the proposal generated 1 AM and PM peak hour trip and provided information indicating trip generation for the proposed uses and their estimated peak hour trips. He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the property as Community Mixed Use, which recommended a mixture of uses that included low to moderate intensity retail and services that could support nearby neighborhoods. He stated that the subject site was located on Castle Hayne Road between established residential uses and the Wrightsboro commercial node, where transitional commercial uses could be appropriate. He stated that the proposal was in line with the uses recommended within the Community Mixed Use place type. He stated that staff found the proposal was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and was in the public interest and recommended approval with the following proposed conditions: 1. Restricting the uses allowed within the district to allow for Business and Professional Offices, Instructional Services and Studios, Personal Services (General, excluding Tattoo Parlor), and Retail Sales (General). 2. The existing access drive to Castle Hayne Road will be upgraded to a commercial driveway with permitting by NCDOT. 3. Plantings will be installed along Castle Hayne Road frontage to meet current “street yard” landscape requirements. 4. Any free-standing sign(s) on the site shall be monument style with landscaping around the base of the sign. No pole signs shall be permitted. 5. Exterior lighting shall be controlled so that light spillage & glare is not directed at adjacent properties, neighboring areas, or motorists. Mr. Griffee stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to Technical Review Committee and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. She agreed with the information provided by Mr. Griffee. Ms. Wolf stated that the proposal was consistent with the Community Mixed Use place type and the zoning along Castle Hayne Road. She stated the proposal was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and concurred with the conditions proposed by staff. She stated the applicant believed it provided an orderly transition between Castle Hayne Road and was a unique opportunity for rehabilitation of an existing building. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. With no one signed up to speak in opposition or with questions, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. Board member discussion focused on adaptive reuse of an existing structure, Board Member Colin Tarrant made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed (CZD) CB district with the following conditions: 1. Restricting the uses allowed within the district to allow for Business and Professional Offices, Instructional Services and Studios, Personal Services (General, excluding Tattoo Parlor), and Retail Sales (General). 7 | Page 2. The existing access drive to Castle Hayne Road will be upgraded to a commercial driveway with permitting by NCDOT. 3. Plantings will be installed along Castle Hayne Road frontage to meet current “street yard” landscape requirements. 4. Any free-standing sign(s) on the site shall be monument style with landscaping around the base of the sign. No pole signs shall be permitted. 5. Exterior lighting shall be controlled so that light spillage & glare is not directed at adjacent properties, neighboring areas, or motorists. The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provided for the types and mixture of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal allows service-oriented uses that could serve as an appropriate transition between existing residential uses and the Wrightsboro commercial node, and the proposed use types allow for services that are relatively low traffic generators and the proposal seeks to reduce traffic. The motion to recommend approval of the proposed (CZD) R-5 rezoning request carried 7-0 Preliminary Forum Special Use Permit Request (S22-03) - Request by Thomas Johnson with Skyway Towers, applicant, on behalf of Kenneth and Eloise Parker, property owners, for a Special Use Permit for a Wireless Support Structure to be located on an approximately 4.28-acre parcel east of the intersection of Plantation Road and Military Cutoff Extension which is currently zoned R-15, Residential. Senior Planner Robert Farrell stated that this was a Preliminary Forum for a Special Use Permit request for a wireless support structure, also commonly referred to as a wireless or cell tower. He stated that neither the Planning Board or staff would be making a recommendation to this request, but that the purpose of the Preliminary Forum was for the Board, public and applicant to discuss and consider the matter before it moved to the Board of Commissioners for a quasi-judicial hearing. Mr. Farrell provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, 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. Farrell stated that the site was located on an unaddressed parcel on Plantation Road adjacent to a ramp that served the new Military Cutoff Extension currently under construction and was originally zoned R-15 in the 1970’s. At the time the purpose of the district was to ensure housing densities remained lower due to the need for private wells and septic systems. He stated that the proposed site was vacant, and the surrounding area was wooded. He stated that wireless support structures were allowed in the R-15 district with a Special Use Permit and in addition support structures were also required to demonstrate compliance with use-specific standards. He stated that while there were several things local governments could regulate regarding wireless towers, the FCC and North Carolina General Statutes prohibit local governments from regulating or restricting towers based on radio frequency emissions. He stated that the site had direct access onto Plantation Road, a private unimproved road and that access full access with future access onto Military Cutoff immediately west of the site. He provided information that indicated the proposed location of the equipment compound and tower, a driveway easement from Plantation Road, setbacks that exceeded the proposed tower height, and the location of existing environmental features including wetlands and a pond identified on site. He stated that the proposed equipment compound included a 50 by 50 fenced compound landscaped buffer that surrounded the tower. He stated that the tower was proposed at 195 feet tall with a 4-foot lightening rod for a total of 199 feet. He stated that the tower was designed to accommodate 4 wireless carriers and would be employing concealment methods that would give the tower the appearance of a pine tree, which was commonly found in the surrounding area. 8 | Page Mr. Farrell stated that as a reminder the Unified Development Ordinance outlined the purpose and intent of preliminary forums, which was to allow the Planning Board, public, applicant, and staff to review and discuss a proposed project before it reached the Board of Commissioners for a quasi-judicial hearing and that the Planning Board and Planning staff did not make recommendations on Special Use Permits at preliminary forums. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr. Tom Johnson Attorney, Williams Mullen, 301 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, NC, provided a summary description of the proposed project and agreed with the information provided by Mr. Farrell. He stated that the area was adjacent to the Military Cutoff Extension and adjacent to an exit ramp. He stated that the initial carrier for the site would be T-Mobile and provided information indicating the location of the proposed tower where there was a gap in service in comparison to current tower locations. He stated that part of the Unified Development Ordinance was to have a balloon test completed which was to provide photo simulations of what the tower would look like. He stated that because this was an R-15 zoning district, it was required that the tower be camouflaged as a tree as required by the Unified Development Code. He provided depictions of the towers indicating that they were not visible from the road and blended in with the tree line. He stated that the general conditions and the specific FAA and FCC requirements documents have been submitted that would need to be provided to the Commissioners as meeting the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Vice Chair Petroff stated that there was one public complaint received by email and indicated that he wanted to elaborate further. Mr. Farrell stated that Ms. Donna Grady, resident, spoke against the proposal and expressed her concern that the proposal did not satisfy the four findings of fact required to be met or to approve a special use permit. She stated that an adjoining parcel of land owned by the same owner would constitute a conflict of interest. In rebuttal to the opposition, Mr. Farrell stated that owning property adjacent to another property would not constitute a conflict of interest in a special use permit request. Deputy Attorney Sharon Huffman stated that she could not see where the application moving forward would constitute as a conflict of interest. Board Member Pete Avery commented that he was not in agreement with the proposed camouflage of the poles and felt that it should be changed. Deputy Attorney Sharon Huffman stated that the process was required by the Ordinance and if he would like to see a change, that would be something he would have to suggest to the Commissioners. Mr. Farrell stated that Ms. Grady asked if Mr. Ray King was notified of this request. Mr. Farrell stated that stated that Mr. Ray and Viola King, 7403 Plantation Road, were within 500 feet of the subject site and notification was provided to them on or around Thursday, January 15, 2023. Mr. Farrell stated that Ms. Grady asked why the county assigned addresses in this area. Mr. Farrell stated addresses were assigned possibly as far back as 1967 when the lots were initially platted. He stated that approximately half of the lots in the Greenview Ranches area were addressed and could be from the process of issuing addresses when final plats were recorded similar to the process currently in place. Mr. Farrell stated that Ms. Grady stated that the lot number on the application material was incorrect. Mr. Farrell stated that she was correct and that there was a typographical error and would be corrected. Mr. Farrell stated that Ms. Grady stated she was previously told that the area was not classified as wetlands. Mr. Farrell provided information to identify the wetland areas and stated that there were some areas on the property that were delineated on the site plan when it was submitted. and that the Army Corps of Engineer was working with the applicant through the permit process to get permits to do some fill in the wetlands on this site. Mr. Farrell sated that Ms. Grady stated that New Hanover County hired focus groups for land studies that did not include Greenview Ranches. Mr. Farrell stated that staff was not familiar with what land use studies she may be referring to or the time frame at which these were conducted; however, the applicant did provide an analysis of the impacts on property values that was included as part of the application. 9 | Page Mr. Farrell stated that Ms. Grady asked why there was development in other areas of the county such as Sidbury Road and areas to the west and north of the subject site. Mr. Farrell stated those were areas of the county where there was currently infrastructure to support development or where infrastructure has been extended though the developers or in cooperation with CFPUA or utility providers to make areas viable for higher densities. Mr. Farrell stated that Ms. Grady asked why Plantation Road had not been paved. Mr. Farrell stated that Plantation Road is a private road and would be up to the property owners in that area to band together, or for one individual property owner to fund and pave the road and have it turned over to NCDOT. Mr. Farrell stated that Ms. Grady asked who paved Crooked Pine Road and the Murrayville Road Extension. Mr. Farrell stated Crooked Pine Road was out of the development area and would remain unpaved. Mr. Farrell stated that following the Preliminary Forum this evening, staff would prepare the staff report and materials to be submitted for the Monday, February 6th meeting of the Board of Commissioners. He stated that the Board of Commissioners would hold a quasi-judicial hearing, an evidence-based procedure requiring sworn testimony and expert witnesses. He stated that the hearing would be advertised again including mailed notice and legal notice in the newspaper. Mr. Farrell stated that there were four (4) principal findings of fact the Board of Commissioners must answer in the affirmative in order to approve a Special Use Permit and that following the public hearing the Board of Commissioners would consider a motion on the request. With no further comments or question, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing. OTHER ITEMS No other items. Chair Donna Girardot adjourned the meeting at 9:01 PM. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.