2023-05-01 Regular Meeting
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 737
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met May 1, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. in Regular Session in the
Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members present: Chair Bill Rivenbark; Vice-Chair LeAnn Pierce; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.;
Commissioner Dane R. Scalise; and Commissioner Rob Zapple.
Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board
Kymberleigh G. Crowell.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Pastor Gayle Tabor, SALT Inclusive Methodist Community, provided the invocation and Chair Rivenbark led
the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Rivenbark requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the items on the Consent
Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes – Governing Body
The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Regular Meeting held on April 17, 2023.
Approval of Revised 2023 Appointments of County Commissioners to Various Boards and Committees
The Commissioners approved the revised 2023 appointments list of County Commissioners to various
boards and committees.
A copy of the revised 2023 appointments of County Commissioners to various boards and committees is
hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLIX, Page 9.1.
REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS
CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESILIENT AND THRIVING COMMUNITIES WEEK PROCLAMATION
Chair Rivenbark read the proclamation into the record, recognizing April 29 - May 6, 2023 as "Resilient and
Thriving Communities Week" in New Hanover County.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to adopt the proclamation recognizing
April 29 - May 6, 2023 as "Resilient and Thriving Communities Week" in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Tina L. Pearson, Director, New Hanover County Resiliency Task Force, c/o Communities in Schools of Cape
Fear expressed appreciation to the Board for adopting the proclamation.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book
XLIX, Page 9.2.
CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION
Commissioner Zapple read the proclamation into the record, recognizing May 14, 2023 (Mother’s Day)
through June 18, 2023 (Father’s Day) as Elder Abuse Awareness Month in New Hanover County.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to adopt the proclamation recognizing
May 14, 2023 (Mother’s Day) through June 18, 2023 (Father’s Day) as Elder Abuse Awareness Month in New Hanover
County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Health and Human Services (HHS) - Social Services Director Tonya Jackson expressed appreciation to the
Board for adopting the proclamation.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book
XLIX, Page 9.3.
CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF FOSTER CARE AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION
Commissioner Scalise read the proclamation into the record, recognizing May 2023 as “Foster Care
Awareness Month” in New Hanover County.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 738
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to adopt the proclamation recognizing May
2023 as “Foster Care Awareness Month” in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Jackson expressed appreciation to the Board for adopting the proclamation.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book
XLIX, Page 9.4.
CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION
Vice-Chair Pierce read the proclamation into the record, recognizing May 2023 as “Mental Health
Awareness Month” in New Hanover County.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Vice-Chair Pierce MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to adopt the proclamation recognizing May
2023 as “Mental Health Awareness Month” in New Hanover County. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
HHS - Clinical Therapy Services Manager Jodi Walker expressed appreciation to the Board for adopting the
proclamation.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book
XLIX, Page 9.5.
CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF WOMEN'S HEALTH MONTH PROCLAMATION
Commissioner Barfield read the proclamation into the record, recognizing May 2023 as “Women’s Health
Month” and May 14-20, 2023 as “Women’s Health Week” in New Hanover County.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise to adopt the proclamation recognizing
May 2023 as “Women’s Health Month” and May 14-20, 2023 as “Women’s Health Week” in New Hanover County.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
HHS - Health Director Jonathan Campbell expressed appreciation to the Board for adopting the
proclamation.
A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book
XLIX, Page 9.6.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE BLUE CLAY ROAD BUSINESS PARK INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT AWARD TO WELLS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION AND ADOPTION OF BUDGET AMENDMENT 23-063
Facilities Management Project Manager Kevin Caison stated that the request of the Board is to approve the
award of the construction contract to Wells Brothers Construction for the Blue Clay Road Business Park
infrastructure project which consists of roadways, sanitary sewer, stormwater system, and domestic water
distribution system. The request also includes an ask to increase the budget. The original budget was $3.6 million
and once bids were received and certified, the cost was over that budget. The low bidder was $7,081,083.39.
Mr. Caison explained in response to questions that the funds for the business park would be spent on water,
sewer, and drainage infrastructure, which would later be handed over to Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA).
The goal is to also have the roadways transferred to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
Regarding the recapture timeframe of the County's investments, County Manager Coudriet stated that initial lot
prices were based on costs at the time, but future projects would require adjustments and collaboration with
Wilmington Business Development (WBD) and other buyers to determine future purchase prices per acre.
Mr. Caison further explained that the project started in 2017 and the final report was submitted in June
2020. The construction market was impacted by the pandemic about a year and a half later, leading to significant
supply chain and labor changes. The original budget for construction costs was $2.4 million, but the overall project
budget was adjusted to $3.6 million due to design and testing services. The bids were pulled and rebid, resulting in
cost savings ranging from $460,000 to $1 million. The market changes were unforeseen and had a substantial impact
on the industry. He confirmed that all three lots sold in the business park would require water and sewer installation.
He cited past instances where similar cost shifts occurred, such as the Emergency Management storage facilities and
the ELC project, which came in over twice the original budget. He highlighted the significance of timing in securing
purchase orders to prevent further cost escalation.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 739
Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise to award the construction contract to
Wells Brothers Construction for the Blue Clay Road Business Park Infrastructure in the amount of $7,081,083.39 and
adopt Budget Amendment 23-063 increasing the project budget by $3,919,800 from $3,600,000 to the new
projected total cost of $7,519,800, which includes design costs. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the budget amendment is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit
Book XLIX, Page 9.7.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED $25,000,000 FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ADOPTION OF
THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER, NORTH CAROLINA,
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AN INSTALLMENT FINANCING CONTRACT AND DELIVERY THEREOF AND
PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN OTHER RELATED MATTERS
Chief Financial Officer Eric Credle stated that on March 20, 2023, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing
the negotiation of an amendment to an installment financing contract, directing the publication of notice with
respect thereto, declaring the intent of the County to reimburse itself for capital expenditures from proceeds
thereof, and providing for certain other related matters thereto. He then provided an overview of the projects that
were reviewed during the March 20, 2023 meeting:
Mr. Credle further stated that since the March 20, 2023 meeting staff has been working on the required
paperwork and other steps needed to issue the debt. The request of the Board is to hold a public hearing and
consider adopting the final resolution which is consistent with the initial resolution adopted on March 20, 2023.
Chair Rivenbark asked for a motion to open the public hearing on the proposed $25,000,000 financing of
improvement projects.
MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to open the public hearing. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Rivenbark stated that no one signed up to speak on the matter, closed the public hearing, and asked
if there was a motion to adopt the resolution.
MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to adopt the Resolution of the Board
of Commissioners of the County of New Hanover, North Carolina, Approving an Amendment to an Installment
Financing Contract and Delivery Thereof and Providing for Certain Other Related Matters. Upon vote, the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLIX,
Page 9.8.
PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL AND CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENTS
FOR NCDOT REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS TO A PORTION OF BEDROCK COURT AND STONEYBROOK ROAD FOR
INCLUSION INTO NCDOT ROAD MAINTENANCE SYSTEM
Senior Planner Rachel LaCoe presented the following information on the matter:
Benefitted Properties:
The owners of property on Bedrock Court and Stoneybrook Road petitioned the New Hanover
County Board of Commissioners to undertake a project to improve Bedrock Court and a portion of
Stoneybrook Road, to bring it up to the standards of NCDOT so that it would become a part of the
state maintained system.
As highlighted on the map, the subject roads are in the Stoneybrook Subdivision off Middle Sound
Loop Road. All 23 benefited properties on bedrock court and the portion of Stoneybrook Road
from Anchors Bend Way to Hervey Lane signed the petition:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 740
Ms. LaCoe stated that state statutes allow counties to finance the roadway improvements needed to get a
roadway turned over to NCDOT. Based on a process developed last year, the County was responsible for bidding the
project, providing oversight of the improvements, and assessing the benefited parties for the cost of improvements.
Last month, following the completion of the required work, as well as stormwater improvements made by the
County Engineering department, NCDOT confirmed the deficiencies were addressed and asked the Board allow the
request to be submitted for addition to NCDOT’s secondary road system.
Project Cost:
Timeline:
Property Assessment Terms:
Pay in full: Interest free if paid on or before June 30, 2023
Pay up to five (5) annual installments:
Bears interest at 5.5%
First installment with interest is due on July 1, 2023 and each successive year
Minimum installment (principle) is $310.68, plus interest
The County has authority to accelerate payments and/or foreclose on delinquent/unpaid
assessments
Assessments stay with the land when the property transfers.
Summary:
Pursuant to the NC General Statutes (NCGS):
All property owners were notified of today's public hearing
The Preliminary Assessment Roll has been filed in the Clerk to the Board's office for public
inspection
Upon confirmation of the assessment roll by the Board, each property owner will be notified
of their property assessment and payment options
A brief discussion ensued about how counties in this state do not own the roads. If residents in the
community have failing roads that need to be fixed to NCDOT standards, they/their neighborhood can petition the
County. If a minimum of 75% of the neighborhood signs a petition, the County would agree to move forward with
partnering with NCDOT to provide the necessary infrastructure to bring the road up to NCDOT standards to then
turn the road(s) over to NCDOT. Each property owner will be assessed their pro rata share, allowing everyone to
have safe and decent roads instead of failing roads. It is a very good benefit to this community.
Chair Rivenbark opened the public hearing on the Bedrock Court and Stoneybrook Road assessment roll
and stated that no one signed up to speak on the matter. There being no public comments, Chair Rivenbark asked
for a motion to close the public hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to close the public hearing. Upon
vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked if there was a motion to adopt the preliminary
assessment roll and confirmation of assessments document.
MOTION: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to adopt the preliminary assessment
roll and confirmation of assessments document. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 741
A copy of the preliminary assessment roll and confirmation of assessments document is hereby
incorporated as part of the minutes and contained in Exhibit Book XLIX, Page 9.9.
PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST Z23-03 BY JAMES YOPP WITH RIVER ROAD CONSTRUCTION,
LLC AND HOOSIER DADDY, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE 29 PARCELS TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 42.10 ACRES OF LAND, INCLUDING 5741 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD AND 18 UNADDRESSED
PARCELS ON SHILOH DRIVE NORTH OF MANASSAS DRIVE, FROM R-15, RESIDENTIAL TO (CZD) R-5, RESIDENTIAL
MODERATE HIGH DENSITY FOR 10 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 327 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES WITH
ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE AND AMENITY CENTER
Senior Planner Robert Farrell presented the rezoning request stating that the applicant is requesting to
rezone approximately 42.10 acres from the R-15, Residential district to a Conditional R-5, Residential Moderate-High
Density zoning district. The rezoning request was continued from the April 3, 2023 meeting and as the application is
for a conditional rezoning, conditions can be applied to the request in agreement with the applicant. The site is
located at 5741 Carolina Beach Road and was originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s. 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. Since
that time public water and sewer services have become available in the area.
Mr. Farrell presented aerial photos of the site, showing different angles of the property and examples of
development in the R-15 district, including attached or townhome structures. The overall concept plan consists of
10 single-family lots and 327 attached dwellings, such as quadruplexes, triplexes, and duplexes. To address concerns
about the density of the plan, it can be divided into two interconnected sections. The southern portion, situated at
Shiloh Drive and Manassas Drive, encompasses a total of 104 dwelling units, consisting of triplexes and quadruplexes.
This area will connect with existing road stubs at Sweet Gum Drive, Sand Ridge Avenue, and Black Ash Run in the
Tarin Woods subdivision, allowing multiple access points throughout the development. There is also a proposal to
extend Shiloh Drive northward to connect with an adjacent commercially zoned parcel on Carolina Beach Road
owned by the applicant. Although the commercial services on the adjoining parcel are not part of the rezoning
consideration, they would be accessible through the connection. The concept plan also includes a design where the
attached single-family units are positioned perpendicular to the rear of existing houses, reducing potential visual
impacts as a condition of the project. For the northern portion of the project, there are 10 single-family residential
lots transitioning from Tarin Woods to a combination of quadruplexes and triplexes, totaling 224 residential units. A
new access road is proposed to provide a continuous connection from Carolina Beach Road, through the
development and Tarin Woods, to Manassas Drive and back to Carolina Beach Road. Additionally, there will be an
additional access route east to Myrtle Grove Road. The placement of the proposed attached housing along the
Ironwood Drive extension aims to minimize individual driveways and establish the road as a connector between
Carolina Beach Road and Tarin Woods. The proposed development falls under the R-5 zoning district, which
mandates sidewalks on both sides of the roads within the development.
Access is proposed at Manassas Drive, an NCDOT maintained secondary road from Carolina Beach Road, an
NCDOT maintained urban principal arterial highway, and a new proposed access road into the northern portion of
the site parallel to Rosa Parks Lane. Access at Manassas Drive is right-in/right-out onto Carolina Beach Road with
light-controlled left turn access onto Manassas Drive from Carolina Beach Road. The newly proposed access to the
north of the site will also be right-in/right-out. The proposed northern access road is currently under review by
NCDOT and would increase internal circulation for existing developments and help mitigate additional traffic on
Carolina Beach Road between The Kings Highway and Manassas Drive. As to trip generation for the site, the proposed
development would generate approximately 170 AM and 200 PM peak hour trips. New developments that are
anticipated to generate more than 100 trips during any peak hour are required to submit a Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) as part of their rezoning application. The approved TIA analysis was for more dwelling units and more peak
hour trips than the development under consideration as it reduces the peak hour trips by 33 AM and 54 PM. While
the intensity of the proposed development is less than what was analyzed by the TIA, the applicant has included a
condition guaranteeing the construction of all roadway improvements required by the TIA. The proposed
development will be built over three phases with several roadway improvements including a new access road, turn
lanes, and a U-turn lane on Carolina Beach Road. The TIA also requires the developer to construct a future third
access into the site meeting NCDOT roadway standards. Currently, that access is anticipated to consist of a
connection to adjacent commercially zoned property. While this improvement is not fully included as part of the
conditional rezoning application the applicant has included a condition requiring the future construction in
accordance with the TIA.
There are three approved subdivisions, three approved TIAs, and two State Transportation Improvement
(STIP) projects in the nearby area. Project U-5702-B focuses on access management and travel time improvements
along College Road between Shipyard Boulevard and Carolina Beach Road, with right-of-way acquisition and utilities
scheduled for 2025. Project U-5790 aims to widen Carolina Beach Road from College Road to Sanders Road, including
intersection improvements at the Monkey Junction Intersection, with right-of-way acquisition and utilities planned
for 2029. The proposed project is situated on a major arterial highway that is currently experiencing overcapacity,
and the Monkey Junction intersection improvement project has faced delays. The applicant has obtained TIA
approval from the NCDOT and Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO), which mandates various
roadway improvements. These improvements include constructing a new paved access road to Carolina Beach Road
and establishing a connection to a commercial parcel along Carolina Beach Road. The development will have internal
connections with other neighborhoods, allowing for access to Myrtle Grove Road via Lt. Congleton Road, but it does
not connect to the commercial service node southeast of the Monkey Junction intersection. Considering the current
general student generation rate, the proposed development is expected to result in approximately 51 additional
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 742
students compared to the number generated under the current zoning. This generation rate is annually updated
using actual student numbers provided by the school system and provides an overview of the likely number of
students each new residential unit would yield countywide. It considers that most new residential units in the County
do not accommodate a large number of school-age children.
The proposed attached housing type serves to increase housing diversity in the area while acting as a
suitable transition between the commercially zoned Carolina Beach Road corridor and the lower-density Tarin
Woods subdivision. This subdivision, in turn, acts as a buffer for even lower-density residential development towards
Myrtle Grove Road. The property is situated south of the Myrtle Grove shopping center and Monkey Junction
commercial node, providing access to various services, amenities, and educational and employment opportunities.
The proposed concept plan includes a new site access road that would serve as an internal connector for existing
and proposed residential developments in the vicinity. The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comprehensive
Plan) designates the property as General Residential and Urban Mixed Use, recognizing that sites near the
boundaries between place types can be appropriately developed based on site-specific features and evolving
development patterns in the surrounding area. The subject parcels are located between existing lower-density
residential neighborhoods to the east and the Carolina Beach Road commercial corridor to the west, which is
envisioned for more intensive Urban Mixed Use development. The proposed attached housing type contributes to
housing diversity, acts as a suitable transition between existing commercial and residential areas and provides infill
development that can support the existing Monkey Junction commercial node. The proposed roadway additions and
improvements enhance connectivity and offer opportunities for vehicles to exit Carolina Beach Road earlier to reach
their destinations.
Mr. Farrell concluded the staff presentation stating that the Planning Board considered this application at
its March 2, 2023 meeting and recommended denial (7 – 0) of the proposed rezoning, finding it consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan however finding denial appropriate due to inconsistency with the desired character of the
surrounding community and potential for adverse impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. Staff found the request
generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval because the proposed density, housing
type, and increased interconnectivity are in line with the recommendations of both the General Residential and
Urban Mixed Use place types and the proposed development acts as an appropriate transition between existing
commercial and residential use in the area based on the policy guidance of the Comprehensive Plan, zoning
considerations, and technical review. The applicant has agreed to four additional conditions related to reducing
visual impacts on adjacent properties, roadway improvements, access, and stormwater. Staff have received several
additional comments regarding the application which were provided to the Board earlier today. If approved, the
project would be subject to review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and zoning compliance review to
ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements.
Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth responded to questions concerning the difference of opinion
between the Planning Board and Planning and Land Use staff on submitted applications. Staff review of an
application is primarily based on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and ensuring that all technical
considerations are met. Unless the Board of Commissioners has adopted a specific policy, staff does not consider
issues beyond that scope. As a recommendation body, the Planning Board does consider a broader scope of
information including public hearing speakers in favor or in opposition to an application. As such what the Planning
Board considers is different as staff is tied to the established policy. Planning Board member Jeff Petroff responded
that the Planning Board normally does side with the staff recommendation. However, the staff recommendation is
made before the public hearing is held. During the public hearing, the Planning Board sees information from the
applicant and/or from their experts that has not yet been presented to staff. The Planning Board has seen the subject
property several times. The applicant has made some changes and improvements but there was still some hesitation
mainly due to the density and a future development tract as shown in the master plan that is not accounted for that
could bring additional unknown densities. As to whether the Planning Board tells an applicant what needs to be
changed to receive an approval recommendation, Mr. Petroff explained that the applicant is given the opportunity
to withdraw or table after hearing the discussion before there is a vote.
Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Farrell for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks.
James Yopp, representing River Road Construction, LLC and Hoosier Daddy, LLC, provided an overview of
the submittal process and stated that the presentation being made to the Board of Commissioners is the same as
the one made to the Planning Board. The initial lots in Tarin Woods were sold in 2013, and his company privately
made infrastructure improvements such as water, sewer, stormwater, and roads from Autumn Care on Carolina
Beach Road through Battle Park to the Deer Crossing and Sentry Oaks subdivisions. The improvements led to the
development of Covington and Congleton Farms subdivisions, emphasizing the intention to connect commercial and
retail services while offering diverse housing options through transitional growth. There have been numerous
changes to improve the proposed rezoning project based on public interest recommendations. This is the second
time the specific site has been brought forward to the Board of Commissioners, and the current proposal features
lower density, increased means of ingress and egress, proximity to pedestrian commercial services, enhanced open
space and buffers, strategic building placements to minimize the impact on neighboring properties, minimal
driveways on collector roads, community amenity packages, reduced construction traffic impacting current
residents, availability of natural gas, and improved high-speed internet services. He provided an overview of the
Tarin Woods location relative to the Monkey Junction growth node, school locations, and different traffic patterns
for accessing the schools through multiple routes. He compared the original proposed site in 2019, which was almost
75 acres, to the current proposed site, which is 42 acres, highlighting its proximity to various transitional zoning
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 743
districts along Carolina Beach Road. The original plan in 2019 had higher density and received a recommendation
for approval from the Planning Board but was later denied by the Board of Commissioners with a 3 to 2 vote. He
discussed the means of ingress, egress, and connectivity in the current proposed project, along with the
improvements made on Manassas Drive and connections to the development's commercial services. He described
the completed improvements on Manassas Drive, including dual rights going out, the new exit being the third exit
and ingress to the commercial site just south of the zoo, and the location of the main ingress and egress as shown
on the new plan. He also addressed the thoroughfare and traffic improvements on Carolina Beach Road at the
intersection with Manassas Drive, highlighting the deceleration lane that also turns into Shiloh Road. He proceeded
to discuss the traffic studies conducted in 2019, and 2022, and the conditional studies for the 2023, 2024, and 2026
build-out phases. New site-specific study locations were completed in the TIA to determine new means of ingress
and egress while considering existing conditions. He then requested Don Bennett to provide information on the
traffic studies.
Don Bennett, Senior Transportation Engineer with Davenport, stated that the subject site has undergone
multiple studies, and the previous updates highlighted the need for dual rights coming out of Manassas Drive and
the installation of turn lanes, including a new left turn into the Beau Rivage shopping center. These improvements
were designed and approved to accommodate a higher intensity of development than what is currently being
presented. If the by-right traffic is built, access to Carolina Beach Road would likely not be included. He noted that
the by-right trips solely using Manassas Drive would result in increased traffic on Manassas Drive compared to the
proposed site plan. Additionally, there were concerns about the timing of the traffic counts conducted in the study.
To address this, new data was collected in December 2021, which is typically a lighter month for the area. However,
a count taken at Carolina Beach Road and Sanders Road on September 2, 2021, during the scoping process was
provided. In the TIA, counts taken on different days are balanced, meaning that the traffic leaving one location is
adjusted to match the highest traffic count location in the corridor. The current TIA considered two critical factors.
nd
First, morning counts were taken on September 2 when school was in session, representing Carolina Beach Road
during school drop-off and pick-up times. The volumes were balanced away from Carolina Beach Road and Sanders
nd
Road to capture the traffic of parents driving to and from schools before continuing to work. Second, September 2
was the Thursday before Labor Day, and the PM counts likely captured the increased traffic of people heading to the
beach for a four-day weekend. These PM counts were balanced up to the Sanders Road intersection to represent a
worst-case scenario of seasonal or tourist traffic counts. Considering all these factors, additional improvements
focused on enhancing and providing the necessary infrastructure to accommodate access to and from the proposed
new access north of Rosa Parks Lane. A TIA was conducted, approved, and the approval letter reflecting the
recommended improvements has been included in the meeting packet.
Howard Resnik, Engineer with CSD Engineering, provided an overview of the new northern connection
(north of Rosa Parks Lane) providing access to the site and the stormwater management design with three
stormwater ponds designed to meet the state and local requirements. The total estimated combined cost associated
with the improvements approaches $4 million. It demonstrates the investment Mr. Yopp is willing to make to serve
the site as well as any future construction. Again, the design intent is to provide additional access to the site
associated with the rezoning as well as meet stormwater management requirements.
Mr. Yopp provided an overview of the proposed rezoning and how it meets the Comprehensive Plan. He
also reviewed the proposed housing diversity for the project, the commercial district, and connectivity with
pedestrian traffic, non-vehicular traffic needs, and walking distances to coffee shops, pizza, and other potential
businesses. He reviewed the existing Tarin Woods amenities and what is being planned, if approved, for future
amenities. An additional meeting was held after the Planning Board meeting to answer any questions or concerns
received from the Tarin Woods residents. He stated that what he is presenting is how through private investment
the County can improve the current situation and conditions. The County is the economic engine of southeast North
Carolina and in return takes on impacts from surrounding counties and visitors. He feels others should be provided
with the opportunity and affordability to live in the County. Great strides have been made to meet those demands
of water, sewer, stormwater, roads, education, and economics. Many of these investments come from the private
sector. While not perfect, this community is a place all choose to live, visit, and enjoy life.
Chair Rivenbark announced that six people signed up to speak in favor and eight people signed up to speak
in opposition to the request. He stated that the opposition speakers would have a total of 15 minutes to speak.
Chass Hood, a resident of Liberty Landing Way, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request stating
that Mr. Yopp did not change his plans after hearing from the Planning Board that he needed to reduce the density
of his building and instead filed his application with the same plan for consideration by this Board and refuses to
change it. Even though he installed two turn lanes, Manassas Drive cannot be enlarged, which is one of the issues.
The other is the overcrowding at the schools and the schools cannot manage any additional students at this time.
She also noted the increased traffic and how there is a lack of infrastructure that has never caught up with
development. She asked that the Board deny the rezoning request.
Vivian Radecsky, a resident of Appomattox Drive, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request stating
that the traffic count was taken during covid and is not accurate. She claimed that her home value has decreased
due to the Tarin Woods development. She expressed concerns about the project’s density, the removal of vegetation
for the Tarin Woods projects, and the traffic congestion since the subdivision has been built. She asked the Board to
deny the rezoning request.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 744
Lena Boykin, resident of Rosa Parks Lane, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request stating that
there has been a change in the landscape since the Tarin Woods development started being built. She now has water
in her yard, the moisture level is higher, and there is now an issue with rats. She asked the Board to take into
consideration the people that live in the surrounding neighborhoods. While she knows progress cannot be fought
but if members of the Board have been around for a long time, invested in their property and invested in the
community as she has, then they should give some consideration to others.
Shawn Bunge, resident of Tarin Road, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request stating that the
school student ratio is false. There are currently 350 homes in the subdivision with 390 students per New Hanover
County Schools (NHCS) transportation department. That equates to seven buses in the morning and seven buses in
the afternoon. If the proposal is to build another 337 homes at one student per home, the NHCS transportation
department is also saying that there will be an additional four buses in the afternoon and four buses in the AM for a
total of 11 buses coming in and out of the community. In addition to his safety concerns, it has been shown that two
traffic studies were inconsistent with the timeframes of the traffic itself. His safety concerns revolve around
emergency evacuations, and he provided an overview of the 2014 study on evacuation routes in the County. He
expressed concerns about the current infrastructure not being able to support the rezoning request. There are a lot
of issues hampering the project such as the nearby school that will not allow access to The Kings Highway which
prohibits the building of walking trails or anything else because that is preventing the Comprehensive Plan’s support
for interconnectivity. Although it is only 42 acres, he expressed concerns about Mr. Yopp’s plan for the other 30
acres if the current rezoning request is approved and the density is already over the maximum amount.
Michelle O’Brien, a resident of Appomattox Drive, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request in
terms of the safety of human life for the infrastructure. The TIA data being used is from December 9, 2021 during
the height of the pandemic, and that December and January are the lowest traffic months in the year. Since that
time there have been hundreds of new buildings added in the area. The same TIA does not include seasonal traffic
counts. Her understanding is that a TIA must be completed and included with the application. The current TIA on
the website is an unsealed draft, while the letter from the WMPO dated July 27, 2022 references a sealed draft of
June 9, 2022. It is unclear if this is the same TIA or if there are changes in the final sealed version. Failure to provide
clear access to the information the Planning Board and Commissioners are relying on in making its decision also
deprives the public of the information needed to understand the impact of this proposal. She expressed concerns
about being able to evacuate during a hurricane efficiently and safely. She commented on the over 200 opposition
comments that were submitted about the rezoning request. She concluded her comments stating that skipping past
the work to give a developer whatever they want, even if it appears to be a compromise is an insult to those who
work on the Board and the many citizens who participate in the project.
Gayle Tabor, resident of Shiloh Drive, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request stating that the
development of Tarin Woods has impacted how the stormwater flows through her property. The Tarin Woods
subdivision has impacted the way that water is flowing through her neighborhood and issues with it backing up. That
is something the Board should take into consideration as well as the issues created when trying to drive from Shiloh
Road to Manassas Drive and then onto Carolina Beach Road. She should like to know who makes the decisions for
the infrastructure in the County as it appears it is not the Planning Board nor the Board of Commissioners. She
concluded by stating that the developer has been quick to say he can get anything approved by the County
Commissioners that he puts before them because he has them in his pocket, which is concerning to her.
Chair Rivenbark stated that the applicant and opposition speakers had each used their 15 minutes for
presentations and both would each have five minutes to provide rebuttal remarks.
In applicant rebuttal, Kevin Carter, resident of Ovates Lane, Wilmington, NC stated that he has lived in Tarin
Woods for nine years. Mr. Yopp has always kept him, and his wife informed about what was occurring in the
neighborhood. While they do not always like the growth, they would much rather have Mr. Yopp continue as the
developer of Tarin Woods. Eventually, it will all be developed, and they prefer Mr. Yopp continue doing the good job
he has with the neighborhood.
In applicant rebuttal, Mr. Yopp stated that he and his partners are investing privately and committing to
providing improvements to amenities, utilities, connections to commercial and retail services, and traffic
improvements. He emphasized that their private investment would meet the conditions of the UDO and the
Comprehensive Plan. They questioned the lack of professional studies or contradicting opinions against rezoning. He
urged the Board not to dismiss the opportunity to meet the housing diversity and affordability needs of current and
future residents. He highlighted the importance of connectivity, referenced previous Planning Board decisions, and
questioned the notion of limiting others' opportunities based on personal interests. As to the deficit in housing and
diversity, he asked how the Board intended to provide a solution. He noted the proposed project’s ability to improve
current conditions, provide housing for the workforce and retired residents, promote the County for business and
tourism, and support infrastructure expansion. He also offered specific conditions for his proposal, including a
landscape buffer, an engineering study for stormwater improvements, and how a new northern road will be
st
completed before issuing certificates of occupancy for the 51 home site.
In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Hood stated that workforce housing, firemen, teachers, and police officers
cannot afford Mr. Yopp’s homes. There are no homes in the subdivision that would qualify for people who do not
make a lot of money. Infrastructure, which includes health, has not been addressed. She asked that the Board deny
the rezoning request.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 745
In opposition rebuttal, Ms. O’Brien stated that while Mr. Yopp mentions housing affordability many times,
there are no commitments from the applicant for HUD, subsidized housing, or to a pricing level that would be
considered affordable included in the application. While he should not solely be blamed for the lack of infrastructure
to accommodate the recent growth, he is requesting additional density, which contributes to the strain on existing
infrastructure.
In opposition rebuttal, Mr. Bunge disputed the claim that the proposal aligns with the Comprehensive Plan,
stating that interconnectivity is not solely within the community but also provides access to growth nodes. He
emphasized the existence of supporting data, citing the hurricane evacuation plan and information from the NHCS
transportation department as examples.
In opposition rebuttal, Barbara Garrow, a resident of Liberty Landing Way, Wilmington, NC expressed
concerns about the lack of infrastructure in the area, particularly regarding road access and flooding issues. There
are five subdivisions that rely on Manassas Drive and Myrtle Grove Road, which are already congested. She
expressed opposition to the proposed development, stating that while she supports growth, she believes it is not
suitable for the current location without necessary infrastructure improvements. Ms. Garrow stated that she has a
planning background and expressed her view that the neighborhood would be negatively impacted by the proposed
development.
In opposition rebuttal, Jess Anderson, a resident of Ontario Road, Wilmington, NC provided an overview of
the email she has previously sent to the Board about the school district counts and being overcrowded. She stated
that she has spoken to several school board members and there are no improvements planned to address the issues
except for mobile classrooms being acquired for Porters Neck elementary school in 2025.
Chair Rivenbark closed the public hearing and opened the floor to Board discussion.
County Manager Coudriet asked for a technical consideration of the Board as the applicant proposed
additional conditions. If the Board is interested in hearing those conditions identified, it might help the Board have
a more informed debate. Chair Rivenbark invited Mr. Yopp to explain the additional conditions.
Mr. Yopp stated his willingness to address concerns and provide conditions in the public's best interest. He
proposed several specific measures, including creating a landscape buffer for residents along Rosa Parks Lane as well
as conducting an engineering study to improve stormwater conditions for the residents, completing a new northern
road before issuing a certificate of occupancy for the 51st home site, preserving open space for school pickup at
Sweet Gum Drive and Appomattox Drive, making a capital contribution for any home annexed into the Tarin Woods
POA of $300 each for roadway improvements as well as a committed bond with Tarin Woods towards another pool
and amenity, and a reduction in density by 10%.
County Manager Coudriet stated that those items would be additional conditions to what is in the agenda
packet.
Mr. Yopp responded to questions about why he did not offer the conditions he just listed during the
Planning Board meeting or prior to this meeting. He stated that he does not agree with Mr. Petroff’s earlier
statements as he did not see any recommendations or conditions prior to the closing of the Planning Board’s public
hearing. All such discussions took place after the Planning Board’s vote. He has held four community meetings on
the project and has tried to address all the concerns and the conditions are ones he feels are adequate, appropriate,
and in harmony with the public’s best interests.
Mr. Petroff responded to questions stating that the first time the Planning Board heard the presentation,
Mr. Yopp heard the discussion and concerns that were expressed. Prior to a vote being taken, Mr. Yopp was asked
if he wanted the Planning Board to proceed with a vote and he asked for a continuance. When Mr. Yopp returned
the next month, it was with the same information. He does feel there was a period where Mr. Yopp could have made
changes. Mr. Petroff felt the Planning Board made it clear that the density was the main issue, but he cannot speak
to if Mr. Yopp felt it was clear to him. The conditions Mr. Yopp shared tonight were not presented during the first
appearance before the Planning Board because it turned into a continuance, therefore no conditions offered. The
second time was a denial by the Planning Board, so no conditions were implemented.
Ms. Roth responded to questions stating that in any type of long-range planning document, especially one
like the Comprehensive Plan where there are no site specific lines drawn between densities, intensities, or
recommendations, there is always a bit of judgment that comes into play especially when you are weighing
competing values. She believes that is the situation that is before the Board. Over the past seven years, staff have
looked at the density in a General Residential area as allowing up to potentially eight units per acre, so that level of
density is consistent. To address that, it is generally recommended to applicants there be a transition between
higher-intensity areas and lower-intensity areas. The County is in a situation where pretty much every piece of
undeveloped land in the unincorporated county is zoned R-20 or R-15, so to get to any level of moderate density
there is going to be a jump. What that looks like, she thinks, is one of the reasons why there are more conditional
rezoning requests being seen. There is that value call, of does this desire of the plan outweigh this particular desire
and there are seldom 100% perfect projects. That is why they are considered generally consistent and not that they
are perfectly consistent, because that does not really exist.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 746
Mr. Petroff responded to questions stating that this rezoning request was a tough project for the Planning
Board. There are people in favor and in opposition to the project. He thinks Mr. Yopp is a quality developer and has
a good design team. The issues are going to be recurring in terms of densities, infrastructure, and the capacity issues
with Carolina Beach Road. It is known Mr. Yopp can improve items such as the water and sewer infrastructure and
storm drainage as he can control those items. However, the road system is managed on a reactionary basis by NCDOT
as the problem must be there, in a large sense, before they will look at it. Those constraints are what caused the
Planning Board’s hesitation. He cannot speak for the Planning Board on the conditions Mr. Yopp offered earlier as
the Planning Board did not see them during its meeting and as such could not consider them, although he thinks
they are ones the Board should consider. The subject tract will need to be developed and it can be done today at 2.5
units per acre. As to if that is the right development, the Planning Board does not think so and thinks it should be
higher but will not state what the number is. The message the Planning Board intended to relay was that it thought
eight units per acre was too high. He thinks that the final decision falls to the Board of Commissioners as to where
the breakpoint is, but again it was a tough debate for the Planning Board.
Ms. Roth responded to questions stating that at the Planning Board meeting, Chair Girardot had
conversations with the WMPO staff and requested updated traffic count numbers at the peak. She thinks that is the
updated study referenced by one of the speakers and it was not for a new TIA. TIAs are guarded by an NCDOT
required process. NCDOT is who determines what the scope is, and what the requirements are, so it is beyond what
staff can do and she believes that is what the WMPO is able to do. Again, what was requested were additional traffic
counts in that area with the seasonal high points.
WMPO Transportation Planning Engineer Scott James responded to questions stating that there will not be
a requirement to provide a revised TIA. The request as the WMPO understood from the Planning Board was to collect
traffic counts both during the summer months during peak tourist season and during the school year at the same
locations so the WMPO will be able to speak to the difference that takes place at a given location between summer
traffic and winter traffic. As to the date of the data collection and the dates of the traffic analysis, the data that was
collected in September and December 2021 was presented to the review committee of the TIA and was accepted as
valid. It was then applied to the analysis which was reviewed and approved. The sealed analysis is dated June 30,
2022. There was an extensive discussion on whether the data would be used and applied and then there was an
extensive review before it was approved by both the NCDOT, County staff, and the WMPO.
Commissioner Barfield expressed his concerns about the NCDOT not considering future developments until
they have permits. He referred to a previous case where approved apartments were not counted alongside other
planned units. He emphasized the need for a comprehensive assessment of all upcoming developments. He
acknowledged the current rules and policies but called for process improvements to better understand the overall
picture. There have been past instances of NCDOT's delayed response to traffic issues and he emphasized the need
for proactive measures. He also commented on the importance of Mr. Yopp providing a clear and solid plan to
address uncertainty and provide comfort to the community. Mr. Yopp responded stating that the tract of land that
is next to Coastal Christian High School is not part of the rezoning request before the Board. As that site is zoned
today it would have to go before the staff, the Planning Board, and the Board of Commissioners. If there was a
change to any increased density another traffic study would be required but at this time, there are no plans to
develop that tract of land. The request before the Board is a substantial project for him to undertake at this point
with a northern means of ingress and egress to alleviate and improve traffic concerns along with improvements on
Carolina Beach Road. Those are ready to be approved and permitted by NCDOT but are conditioned upon the
rezoning request receiving Board approval.
Mr. Farrell responded to questions by confirming that there is a stubbed connection shown on the plan that
connects to an adjacent property that is zoned commercial. Currently, that connection does not go through the
vacant commercial site to Carolina Beach Road, but in the future by 2026, that third connection would have to be
established. Again, while not shown on the plan connecting to Carolina Beach Road through the adjacent property,
it is stubbed to the adjacent property. He provided an overview of where the proposed connection is as shown on
the site plan and confirmed it was part of the first presentation.
County Engineer Jim Iannucci responded to questions stating new developments would have stormwater
management systems to control runoff. The Stormwater Services group is conducting a study in the area, including
the subject area and Battle Park, to identify long-term offsite water improvements. The improvements would not
only benefit new developments but also address existing issues. He stressed the importance of taking a watershed
approach and considering drainage needs. He also noted the requirement for downstream analysis and provided a
brief overview of the ongoing study in progress. In terms of what would be looked at for roads such as Rosa Parks
Lane, which is a dirt road, the group would look to see what existing conveyances are there and if they need to be
improved, upsized, or if additional ones need to be created to provide alternate paths. He does not know of anything
specifically that has been looked at to address it. New developments are required to meet state water quality
standards. He noted the importance of monitoring downstream conditions and having inspectors assess any flooding
or water-related issues. He explained that the inspectors gather information that can be incorporated into studies
to plan for maintenance and long-term capital projects aimed at increasing capacity and addressing the need for
improvements. He reiterated the commitment to ongoing assessment and the consideration of groundwater and
current conditions in the area. Capacity issues need to be addressed if they become evident. For the interim, it would
be about being responsive to observations made by residents and taking immediate action, such as conducting
maintenance to improve the situation in the short term while longer-term solutions are being implemented. For any
new subdivision, if there is a road added it must be part of the impervious design and must go to the stormwater
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 747
system. That would be captured in the plan and as part of the road going in, what would be looked at are the
upstream and downstream culvert sizes to ensure there is capacity. Runoff from the road that would have to be
included in the permitted system would not fall to Stormwater Services.
Mr. Farrell responded to questions stating that the staff does not have information on the specific acreage
that has been cleared in the subject area. He showed on the site plan that the area to the north has been
predominantly cleared based on past site visits. Mr. Yopp provided an overview of a discussion with a resident who
has the lowest lot on Rosa Parks Lane regarding drainage issues in that area. He observed corroded and broken pipes
that are part of the Rosa Parks subdivision that need to be repaired and mentioned his willingness to address the
culverts and drainage ditches upstream and downstream of the area. He stated his commitment to conducting an
analysis and working with his civil engineer and County Engineering to ensure that the adjacent property owners
and neighbors are not affected by stormwater issues caused by the development. The stormwater management
approach would be different from the past, resulting in improved stormwater conditions. An evaluation needs to be
conducted to assess the existing culverts and their capacity to manage water flow. He reiterated his intention to
work with County Engineering and Stormwater Services to determine the necessary upgrades and funding for the
culverts. He acknowledged the large area that Stormwater Services must cover in terms of maintenance and
expressed his willingness to contribute funding towards the upgrades, although the specific financial commitment
is not yet determined. He also stated that the requested project density was 338 units, and he is willing to reduce
the density by 10% which equates to 34 units.
Commissioner Scalise expressed appreciation for Mr. Yopp's willingness to make compromises but raised
concerns about the timing of presenting the conditions without prior staff review. The lack of information puts the
County Commissioners in a challenging position, as he does not have a clear understanding of what a 10% reduction
and other conditions entail. He also expressed uncertainty about being able to evaluate these conditions thoroughly
and deliberatively during the meeting. He acknowledged that such situations make projects difficult, as compromises
are a common aspect, but emphasized the need for a better understanding of the proposed conditions based on the
available materials.
Mr. Yopp stated that there is a need for flexibility as there is a lot of future design that must move forward
with stormwater improvements. The future design will determine where the reduction in density is better served as
well as determining the best proximity for open space for the community. It would all be a part of the TRC review,
not necessarily the Board’s review.
Commissioner Zapple stated that this is not a negotiating session and as this matter continues it feels more
like that. The applicant and other people attending have followed the rules for a public hearing. As the discussion
has progressed, he has a sense of fairness that he believes has been overstepped.
Mr. James responded to questions reconfirming that the traffic counts were collected in September and
December 2021 and the analysis was completed in June 2022. The engineer of record seals the document once the
analysis is completed.
Mr. Iannucci responded to questions stating that the stormwater pond design capacity that is being
proposed would meet the County’s current regulations and pre-and-post to the 25-year storm using the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14-point precipitation data. For a 25-year storm that is
between eight and nine inches of rain in a 24-hour period and is location based.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked Mr. Yopp, if based on the Board discussion and items
presented during the public hearing, whether he would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Mr.
Yopp responded that he wanted to proceed with the vote. Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board.
MOTION: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chair Pierce to deny the proposed rezoning as the
Board finds it to be consistent with some of the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
proposed density, housing type, and increased interconnectivity are in line with some of the recommendations of
both the General Residential and Urban Mixed Use place types and the proposed development acts as an
appropriate transition between existing commercial and residential uses in the area. However, the future NCDOT
improvements at the Monkey Junction intersection were delayed for construction after the Comprehensive Plan
recommendations for this area were adopted. The Board finds denial of the rezoning request is reasonable and in
the public interest because the scale of the project increases traffic on a major arterial corridor and is not consistent
with the desired character of the surrounding community due to potential impacts to visual aesthetics and others
from the different housing types and internal traffic on adjacent neighborhood roadways. Upon vote, the MOTION
PASSED 4 TO 1. Chair Rivenbark dissenting.
BREAK: Chair Rivenbark called for a break from 6:30 p.m. to 6:48 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF REZONING REQUEST (Z23-07) BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS,
APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF ERNEST FAISON II, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.96 ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED AT 6505 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD FROM R-15, RESIDENTIAL TO (CZD) B-2, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO
CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME FOR A CONTRACTOR’S OFFICE WITH AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
AND OUTSIDE STORAGE AND OTHER LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 748
Current Planner Julian Griffee presented the rezoning request, which was continued from the April 3, 2023
Board meeting. The subject property is located along Carolina Beach Road, categorized as an urban principal arterial
roadway. The immediate surrounding area consists of B-2 zoning to the north and across Carolina Beach Road to the
west, and R-15 zoning to the south and east. The property currently includes one single-family dwelling facing
Carolina Beach Road and the proposed conceptual site plan includes said dwelling and a structure situated behind
it. The applicant has indicated that the intended use is for a plumbing contractor’s office but has also requested
approval for additional uses as part of the rezoning request. The proposed future uses, if approved, would be limited
to business services, business and professional offices, instructional services and studios, and personal services.
Buffer yards have been delineated to separate the existing structure from adjacent residential uses. The plan also
includes associated parking and a stormwater basin. The project has obtained a variance from the Board of
Adjustment (BOA), with the condition that the rezoning request for the existing structure in relation to the side
interior setback is approved.
The site will have a right-in, right-out driveway connecting to Carolina Beach Road. Carolina Beach Road
itself is a limited access roadway with existing U-turns near the proposed site. In the general vicinity of the project,
there are two other developments, and there are no STIPs nearby. The proposed development is expected to result
in a slight increase in the number of trips compared to the current use of the site. The number of trips generated
will depend on the type of use developed for the parcel. Mr. Griffee provided an overview of the requested uses and
estimated peak hour trips for each, considering the approximate size of the existing single-family dwelling. Although
the proposed project is located along a major arterial highway that is currently experiencing overcapacity, the
anticipated increase in the number of trips is only slight. The peak hour traffic of the proposed project falls below
the threshold of 100 peak hour trips, which typically requires a TIA. However, NCDOT will review the project during
the driveway permitting process.
Regarding compatibility, the subject site is in the general vicinity of both residential and commercial zoning.
The surrounding area consists of established residential uses to the south and east, while commercial properties are
present to the north and across the roadway to the west. The proposed development has the potential to serve as
a transition between these different zoning areas. It is anticipated that there will be a gradual conversion of
residential properties into commercial areas along the Carolina Beach Road corridor. The Comprehensive Plan
classifies the area as Community Mixed Use, which recommends a mixture of uses that includes low to moderate-
intensity retail and services that can support nearby neighborhoods. The subject site is located between established
residential uses and commercial establishments where transitional commercial uses could be appropriate. The
proposal is in line with the uses recommended within the Community Mixed Use place type. The item was presented
before the Planning Board at its March 2, 2023 meeting and recommended approval (7-0) of the rezoning with the
applicant’s proposed condition, finding the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and approval is
reasonable and in the public interest. Staff concurs with the Planning Board’s recommendation for approval based
on the information within the staff report and guidance from the Comprehensive Plan, with the following proposed
conditions:
1. Permitted uses of the site are limited to business services, business and professional offices,
instructional services and studios, and personal services.
2. The existing access drive to Carolina Beach Road will be upgraded to a commercial driveway with
permitting by NCDOT.
3. Streetyard landscaping will be installed along Carolina Beach Road to meet current 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, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged, or shielded so as not to cast
illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to
the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that
light spillage and glares are not directed to adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas, or motorists.
Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet.
Mr. Griffee concluded the staff presentation noting that two comments in opposition to the rezoning
request had been received and provided to the Board. If approved, the project would be subject to the TRC and
zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements.
Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Griffee for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks.
Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions representing the property owner, Ernest Faison II, stated that the
proposed project is a unique opportunity for adaptive rehabilitation. The subject site is located just south of the
business node around Heathcliff Road. The house on the property has been fully gutted and is currently vacant. The
adjacent business, Stones by Earth, has a similar residential look to what is being described for the proposed project.
She provided an overview of the site plan, noting that all the trees on the property have been located and there are
no plans to remove any of the protected trees. The accessory building at the back of the property will serve as a
buffer for the neighboring residential unit to the south and will fulfill all the necessary permitting requirements and
design elements for the project, including the driveway permit. The aim is to keep the impervious surface low-key
and avoid the need for further permits, aligning with the adaptive reuse concept. She and her client believe that the
rezoning request is consistent, reasonable, and in the public interest. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject
area along Carolina Beach Road as appropriate for these types of uses. In this case, the adaptive reuse and
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 749
rehabilitation of an existing building allow for redevelopment options that enhance the area's character while
complying with building codes and ordinances. The proposal ensures an orderly and acceptable transition between
the busy corridor and the properties beyond the roadway without significantly altering the neighborhood's
appearance.
Ms. Wolf responded to questions explaining that the planned business use is a plumbing supply company
and the storage area in the back will be screened by a screening fence to the south as part of the buffer yard
requirements and otherwise just protected by a chain link fence for security purposes. As to the storage area, the
garage doors for the enclosed storage building are interior to the area so it will not be a total storage area as there
will need to be maneuverability for trucks and after hour parking for company trucks. There would be outside storage
in the laydown area and an enclosed area for use by the business. She has spoken to the owners of the adjacent
residence, which is a rental. She noted the business district goes all the way down to the opposite end of the
Heathcliff Road property. There would be no boat storage included in the proposed uses and that use would be
nonconforming with what the approval would provide.
Ms. Wolf confirmed that opacity requirements for the buffer yard can be met through various depths. She
discussed different options to meet the requirements, explaining that in the front section of the property where the
oak tree is located, the client intends to plant evergreen shrubs that will grow to a height of six feet, providing 100%
visual coverage. For the area where the building and laydown yard are situated, a solid wood screening fence that is
six or eight feet tall would be combined with plantings inside the fence. The fence has been set back 15-feet to
accommodate existing trees and offset the buffer. The encroachment of the house into the 30-foot wide interior
setback was addressed at the May 9, 2023 BOA meeting. The house received conditional approval for a variance,
contingent upon the approval of the rezoning request.
Chair Rivenbark announced that no one signed up to speak in favor and two people signed up to speak in
opposition to the request. He invited the opposition speakers to make their remarks.
Chass Hood, resident of 777 Liberty Landing Way, Wilmington, NC declined to make remarks.
Leslie Wilkinson, resident of 8621 Morgan Run Court, Charlotte, NC and owner of 6905 Carolina Beach Road,
Wilmington, NC stated he is not definite he is in opposition to the proposed rezoning but expressed his concerns
about the potential noise levels day in and day out next to his rental property.
Ms. Wolf explained that business hours would be what are normal for contractors, which is basically 6:30
a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and not until daylight, depending on the season, and finish 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the evening,
again, depending on the season.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked Ms. Wolf if, based on the Board discussion and items
presented during the public hearing, whether she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Ms.
Wolf responded that she wanted to proceed with the vote. Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Scalise MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Barfield to approve the proposed rezoning to
a (CZD) B-2 district. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
because the project provides for the types of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board
also finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal allows
service-oriented uses that could serve as an appropriate transition between the residential uses and the commercial
uses along the heavily traveled roadway, the proposed use types allow for services that are relatively low traffic
generators, with the following conditions:
1. Permitted uses of the site are limited to business services, business and professional offices,
instructional services and studios, and personal services.
2. The existing access drive to Carolina Beach Road will be upgraded to a commercial driveway with
permitting by NCDOT.
3. Streetyard landscaping will be installed along Carolina Beach Road to meet current 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, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged, or shielded so as not to cast
illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to
the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that
light spillage and glares are not directed to adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas, or motorists.
Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 4 OF
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED April 7, 1971 is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes
and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section 4, Page 125.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 750
PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF A REZONING REQUEST (Z23-06) BY CINDEE WOLF WITH DESIGN SOLUTIONS,
APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF GIOVANNI IPPOLITO AND TANYA VLACANCICH, PROPERTY OWNERS, TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 4.65 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 6634 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD FROM R-15, RESIDENTIAL TO
(CZD) RMF-M, RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY – MODERATE DENSITY FOR A MAXIMUM 64-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT.
Senior Planner Robert Farrell presented the conditional rezoning request stating the applicant is requesting
to rezone approximately 4.56 acres from the R-15, Residential district to the RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family –
Moderate Density district. The site is located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road and was originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s.
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. Since then, public water and sewer services have become available in the area.
Mr. Farrell presented an overview of the site using aerial photos, highlighting its surrounding area. The
subject site is bordered by single-family residential development to the east, west, and south. To the north, there is
a religious institution, and across Carolina Beach Road, there are two more religious institutions (Lighthouse Shining
Ministries to the north, Myrtle Grove Holiness to the northeast, and Sanctuary of Wilmington to the southeast). He
discussed examples of development in an R-15 district and multi-family developments. The proposed conceptual
plan consists of four three-story, 12-unit multi-family structures and two two-story, eight-unit structures located at
the rear of the site, allowing for a maximum of 64 units. The plan includes an amenity center, recreation area, open
space, stormwater management, and the voluntary addition of a right turn lane off Carolina Beach Road. The multi-
family structures and amenity center are arranged in a circular formation towards the center of the parcel. A parking
area with a sidewalk encircles the buildings, providing a spatial buffer between the multi-family units and
neighboring residential properties. There is one subdivision and three TIAs in the immediate vicinity of the site.
The site provides direct access to Carolina Beach Road, which is an urban principal arterial highway
maintained by NCDOT. Access to the site is limited to right-in/right-out, with an existing U-turn available for
northbound movement approximately 1,800-feet south of the site. The developer proposes adding a voluntary right-
turn lane extending south to the entrance of Glenarthur Drive, subject to NCDOT requirements and permitting. The
estimated peak hour trips generated by the proposed development are 43 AM and 48 PM. The traffic estimates fall
below the threshold of 100 peak hour trips, which triggers the requirement for a TIA according to the ordinance.
However, it is important to note that the proposed project is located along a major arterial highway that is nearing
capacity. There are no ongoing STIP projects in the immediate area addressing the current conditions. While several
other projects are under review in the general area, their respective TIAs did not include this specific project.
However, all the projects were developed to address the overall traffic growth in the area. Based on the current
general student generation rate, the proposed development is expected to result in approximately 10 additional
students compared to the number generated under the current zoning. The student generation rate is updated
annually using actual student numbers provided by the school system and offers a countywide perspective on the
likely number of students produced by each new residential unit, considering that most new residential units in the
County do not accommodate a large number of school-age children.
In terms of compatibility, the size of the property and its access to Carolina Beach Road make it less suitable
for lower density detached single-family housing. The proposed maximum density of 14 dwelling units per acre
(du/ac) aligns with the density recommendation for the designated place type. Various site features such as
landscape buffers, parking areas, and stormwater management at the project boundaries contribute to a smooth
transition between the proposed development and adjacent residential uses. The applicant has included an
additional condition for the project, stipulating that 10% of the units or a minimum of seven units, whichever is
greater, be designated for workforce housing. This condition will remain in effect for a minimum of 15 years.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Mixed Use which is intended to promote
a mix of retail, office, and residential development at moderate densities of up to 15 units per acre and a building
height range of one to three stories. The RMF-M district is intended to function as a transitional district between
residential and commercial development. The proposed project would provide a buffer between the highway and
single-family development. Site design and additional conditions assist in mitigating potential impacts to adjacent
land uses and function as a transition between the highway and lower-density residential to the west, while the
project itself increases housing diversity in the area.
The Planning Board considered the request at its March 20, 2023 meeting and voted to recommend
approval of the petition (6 – 0) with an additional condition proposed by the applicant following the board discussion
that limited the project to a maximum of 64 units and the two westernmost multi-family structures to two stories.
The Planning Board also found the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public
interest. At the meeting, several members of the public spoke in opposition to the request citing concerns with
increased traffic, traffic safety, and the density of the project. Based on the policy guidance of the Comprehensive
Plan, zoning considerations, technical review, and the recommended uses and residential density for the Community
Mixed Use place type, staff concurs with the Planning Board’s recommendation with the following conditions:
1. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged, or shielded so as not to cast
illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to
the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that
light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent property, neighboring areas, or motorists. Light
posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 751
2. The proposed right turn lane must be approved and permitted by NCDOT. Changes to the concept plan
to meet NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved administratively by county staff.
3. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and grading along a
minimum 15-foot offset from the edge of the outer drive. No disturbance of existing vegetation of
grading will be permitted. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, a minimum 8-foot-tall solid wood
screening fence shall be installed along a 3-foot offset from the driveway pavement.
4. The project will include a minimum of 10% of the units or seven (7) total units, whichever is greater, as
workforce housing units that will be made available for a period of no less than 15 years with rental
limits based upon HUD HIGH HOME standards. An agreement between the developer and county will
be required before the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The agreement shall
specify:
• The number of affordable units provided;
• The income limits;
• Rent limits are subject to annual change;
• The period of time workforce housing units must remain affordable;
• Any other criteria necessary for compliance and monitoring;
• An established timeframe for annual reporting from the developer or owner of the development
to New Hanover County. Annual reports shall provide the following minimum information:
• Unit number, bedroom number, household size, tenant income, and rent rate
• The developer or owner of the development shall report any mid-year lease changes to workforce
housing units to New Hanover County to ensure lease changes remain compliant with the
agreement.
If the total number of workforce housing units falls below the minimum of 10% of the units or seven
(7) total units whichever is greater before the expiration of the minimum 15-year period of affordability
the development will be subject to enforcement measures found in Article 12 Violations and
Enforcement of the Unified Development Ordinance.
5. The project is limited to a maximum of 64 units and the two westernmost multi-family structures shall
be limited to two stories.
Mr. Farrell concluded the staff presentation stating that the staff has received several additional comments
regarding this application which were provided to the Board earlier today. Finally, should the rezoning be approved,
the development of the site will be subject to additional development review through the County’s TRC to ensure
all land use regulations are met.
Chair Rivenbark thanked Mr. Farrell for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks.
Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of the property owners, Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya
Vlacancich stated that the petition is a new proposal for the 4.56-acre tract along Carolina Beach Road. She and her
clients strongly support the approval of the current conditional zoning district, as staff and the Planning Board have
also agreed. She emphasized the importance of the Comprehensive Plan as a guiding document for economic
development and sustainable stewardship of the entire County. The plan encourages safe and affordable housing
for all citizens, including a diversity of housing types beyond the traditional single-family lot model that has
dominated the suburbs in the past. The subject site, designated within the appropriate place type, promotes higher
densities of development for a reason. Lower-density single-family development is no longer suitable or attractive
along busy road corridors in the County. Rezoning the site for multi-family residential development aligns with the
concept of transitioning uses and infilling vacant parcels where utilities are readily available and urban services exist.
There is a documented shortage of housing opportunities in the County, including owned and rented single-family,
attached, and multi-family units. The lack of supply and increasing demand have driven up housing costs. Multi-
family rental housing can serve as a temporary solution while transitioning to home buying and ownership, but it
also represents a housing preference for versatility. A mix of housing types creates a diverse and vibrant community,
with no single style dominating. The housing shortage spans a wide range of income levels, and despite new projects
coming online, the deficit remains extensive. Although the housing needs report is expected to be updated soon, no
significant change is anticipated in the documentation of future housing needs.
Ms. Wolf stated that the previous proposal for the subject site included a higher-density development with
enclosed parking, reduced surface coverage for more open space, and a different housing style that the owner
believed would benefit the community. However, concerns were raised about the density, mass, and height of a
single building. She and her client have taken those comments into account, made amendments to the plan, and are
now presenting a revised proposal. The current proposal includes 64 units, with four three-story buildings and two
two-story units at the rear to provide a transition. The footprints of these buildings are approximately double the
size of a typical home in the Lords Creek area, so they are not considered massive structures. The two rear buildings
closest to neighboring residents were reduced to two stories to enhance the transition. Parking is not provided along
the side of the drive aisle adjacent to the rear boundary. Complexes of this size typically have on-site management
during daily hours and 24/7 contact availability. The proposed amenity building will include a small office for the
manager, facilities for pool users, and common spaces for the residents. The owners still intend to incorporate a
Mediterranean architectural style into the design.
Ms. Wolf stated that some trees within the buffer exceed 30 feet in height and the site plan accurately
depicts a 30-foot tall tree line, which would still obstruct the view of the two-story buildings at the rear. The
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 752
maximum building height is 40-feet, which is consistent with the height allowance for any other residential structure
in the County. The two-story buildings in the back do not reach the full 40-foot height, as the three-story buildings
in front do. The ordinance requires a rear setback of 30-feet, but the design provides a minimum setback of 73-feet
from the property line. The buildings are internalized, and the parking is intentionally arranged to create an
additional setback beyond the required buffer. The tree symbols shown on the site plan represent the actual
regulated trees identified in the field survey. Instead of a solid screening fence along the common property line, Ms.
Wolf and her client are committed to installing tree protection fencing along a 15-foot offset prior to clearing and
grading. No disturbance to the existing vegetation in the area will be allowed. Upon completion of construction, an
eight-foot high solid screening fence will be installed on a five-foot offset from the pavement edge, rather than
directly on the property line.
Access to the complex is provided directly from Carolina Beach Road, and a right turn lane is expected to
be added as part of the driveway permitting process with NCDOT. Preliminary discussions with NCDOT suggest
extending the access and turn lane from the subject site to the turn onto Glenarthur Drive. The increase in peak hour
trip generation from the different housing types is minimal compared to the overall traffic volume on the major
arterial road. While new projects in the area contribute to cumulative traffic effects, there is available capacity
according to NCDOT's traffic volume data. Ms. Wolf acknowledged that traffic calculations are estimates based on
various factors, including demographics and seasonal variations. However, the level of service on Carolina Beach
Road does not indicate significant congestion or safety concerns. It may require a few extra seconds for entering or
making turning movements, and drivers should exercise responsible habits. Drainage and stormwater management
for the project are straightforward. An adequate area has been allocated for a retention pond, taking advantage of
the site's natural grade. The existing stream that carries drainage from under Carolina Beach Road will continue to
manage the offsite flow and provide overflow for the pond. The wetlands along the stream border have been
delineated and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the project adheres to state stream buffer and
county conservation overlay setback requirements. There are no proposed impacts to the wetlands, and the project
is located well upstream of the 100-year floodplain. With 64 units, the project density is now 14 units per acre less
than the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the Community Mixed Use place type. Nevertheless, the
applicant is committed to dedicating seven units as workforce housing for at least 15 years. Rent limits for these
units will be based on HUD's fair market rent, providing an opportunity for lower-income residents earning less than
$23 per hour (full-time) to access affordable housing.
Ms. Wolf concluded the applicant's presentation by highlighting that opposition to change often questions
why the land cannot be developed as originally zoned. However, New Hanover County is a dynamic community, and
conditions change over time. Conditional zoning districts provide oversight to address any adverse effects while
ensuring consistency with the County's plans and policies. The revised plan for this project has reduced density,
addressed setbacks, buffering, and visibility concerns, and incorporated affordable housing strategies. She expressed
hope that the Board would agree with the staff recommendation and the Planning Board's support, considering the
project's consistency and positive outlook for the County.
Chair Rivenbark announced that no one signed up to speak in favor and seven people signed up to speak in
opposition to the request. He invited the opposition speakers to make their remarks.
Craig Malone, a resident of Champlain Drive, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request stating he
is the president of the Woodlake subdivision homeowner's association (HOA), and voiced concerns about various
housing projects in the County. His primary concerns revolved around overcrowded schools, deteriorating
infrastructure systems, and specifically, the wastewater system. Mr. Malone stated that he works for CFPUA and
emphasized that he was not speaking on behalf of CFPUA. He mentioned the challenges faced by CFPUA due to
limited funding, which makes it difficult to maintain equipment, perform repairs, and send employees to required
licensure and certificate schools. He also highlighted that CFPUA employees are among the lowest paid in the
industry in North Carolina, making it challenging to attract and retain competent staff. He expressed concerns about
the lack of maintenance on NCDOT roads and the proposed project's impact on the already stressed wastewater
system. He also found it concerning that the Planning Board recommended approval for the project when they
opposed the installation of speed humps in the Woodlake neighborhood. Mr. Malone argued that responsible
growth should prioritize properly funded and dependable infrastructure. He stated that the proposed project was
not a reasonable plan and urged the County to focus on responsible development.
Chass Hood, a resident of Liberty Landing Way, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request stating
that she has spoken of high-density and the lack of infrastructure because of the schools, traffic, evacuation needs,
and health. She asked that the Board not approve the request and to let the people that live in the single-family
homes surrounding it keep the integrity of the community.
Beth Burgin, a resident of Glenarthur Drive, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request stating that
she believed that the TIA likely represents traffic at its maximum capacity. She expressed concern about the
additional traffic generated by the proposed development, which, when combined with existing issues, would create
a nightmare for many people. She mentioned the recent denial of the Tarin Woods request, which had a lower-
density than the current proposal of 14 du/ac. She asked if the Board would consider reducing the units per acre to
10, even though the area is zoned R-15, which would result in a significant increase of 2.5 units per acre. She
highlighted the flooding issues experienced by residents of Lords Creek subdivision in the past, which required them
to bear the cost of repairs. She emphasized the need for attention to infrastructure for all residents, rather than just
focusing on developers and those advocating for high-density in areas lacking sidewalks and mass transit. She
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 753
pointed out that the subject area could only be accessed by car, and introducing high-density housing would
exacerbate the existing traffic problems.
Nancy Steele, a resident of Mackay Court, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request stating that
she disagreed with the Planning Board's assessment that the development met all the criteria for Community Mixed
Use, stating that it did not serve the best interests of the community. She highlighted that close to 200 residents in
the community of the subject area shared this viewpoint. She expressed concerns about safety, quality of life,
support for schools and students, and environmental issues, all of which were related to the density of the
surrounding developments. She mentioned previous rezoning requests, noting that approved applications were
primarily for apartments with lower units per acre than the current request of 14 units per acre. She disputed the
claim that there was a need for more apartments south of Monkey Junction, citing several high-density apartment
complexes with vacancies and offering discounts on rent. She expressed concerns about the traffic situation on
Carolina Beach Road and the developer's proposal to extend the right-turning lane to accommodate the new
complex. She questioned the traffic statistics, pointing out inconsistencies in the reported traffic volumes as she
would argue that the traffic studies did not accurately reflect the real-world situation, mentioning the use of
alternate routes such as Glenarthur Drive during traffic backups on Carolina Beach Road.
Chair Rivenbark stated that the applicant and opposition speakers would each have five minutes to provide
rebuttal remarks.
In applicant rebuttal, Ms. Wolf addressed several points raised by the opposition. She emphasized that
developers often provide infrastructure extensions, such as sewer and water lines, lift stations, and other
improvements. Without these contributions, the only alternative would be increased taxes, which is generally
undesirable. Projects like the proposed project contribute to the tax base and provide additional revenue. North
Carolina counties do not build or maintain roads, and developers are responsible for traffic improvements, such as
turn lanes and other mitigations. She refuted claims about negative impacts on schools, stating that feedback from
the school system indicated minimal impacts, as residents of multi-family apartments are less likely to have school-
aged children. Ms. Wolf explained the importance of interconnectivity for public safety and traffic flow. She stated
that the proposed project would not adversely impact the aesthetics of Glenarthur Drive or the entrance to Lords
Creek, as it was designed to screen the development from those areas. She argued that there is no documentation
showing adverse effects on property values along busy road corridors due to commercial and single-family
development. Ms. Wolf stated that postponing actions and investments to address the housing crisis would
undermine the community's well-being, long-term economic viability, and workforce development.
In opposition rebuttal, Jess Anderson, resident of Ontario Road, Wilmington, NC referred to an email she
had sent, which contained evidence supporting claims of school overcrowding and being overcapacity. The
information was sourced from the school district's comprehensive book from June 2022, with an updated version
scheduled for release in June 2023. She expressed concerns about the proposed deceleration lane also being an
acceleration lane, noting that there were no other lanes like this in the subject area. She deemed it highly dangerous,
given the history of accidents in the area. If approved, the lane would create a situation where vehicles would
compete to decelerate and accelerate within the same lane. She stated that there are inconsistencies in the traffic
studies and requested that the Board further investigate the issue.
In opposition rebuttal, Tom Toby, a resident of Oliver Court, Wilmington, NC expressed his concerns about
the proposed project. As a lifelong resident and retired firefighter, he reported witnessing emergency responders
having to navigate oncoming and opposing traffic on Carolina Beach Road to respond to emergencies. He
emphasized the level of risk involved and the impact of those actions on crew members and the public. He noted
that the subject property was purchased by the current owner with the knowledge that it was zoned R-15. If
developed within the existing zoning, there would be no opposition from the residents. Their concern lies with the
rezoning to another high-density apartment complex in an area traditionally occupied by single-family homes. He
argued against further density and the disruption of traditional residential neighborhoods. Being one of the smallest
counties in the state, he highlighted the importance of maintaining R-20 zoning for limited growth. He questioned
the affordability of the proposed workforce housing for seasonal employees and whether it was reasonable to
prioritize the desires of wealthier residents in certain neighborhoods over others. He noted that there was no
genuine need for this type of housing project, citing the recent approval of over 2,000 apartment units in the City of
Wilmington with better amenities and access to public transportation. He believed that the proposed project was
driven by an out-of-state developer seeking profits without considering the impact on the local community. Mr. Toby
urged the Board to deny the rezoning request.
Chair Rivenbark stated that the opposition rebuttal time had been exhausted, closed the public hearing,
and opened the floor to Board discussion.
Commissioner Scalise expressed his view on rezoning requests, emphasizing the importance of considering
each case individually. He noted that the facts and outcomes vary in different situations, and community input is
crucial. He acknowledged the significance of having diverse and sufficient housing options in the community. While
he recognized the presence of 272 single-family neighborhoods in the area, he stated that not everyone can afford
or require a single-family home. He believed that opportunities like the proposed rezoning are appropriate in many
instances, including the current one. Commissioner Scalise observed that the proposed project appeared to align
closely with the Comprehensive Plan and had undergone multiple compromises. He commended the thoughtful
consideration given by the Planning Board and stated that he leaned towards considering supporting the project.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 754
In response to questions, Ms. Wolf provided clarification on the criteria for affordable housing in relation
to workforce housing. She explained the 80% to 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) range is determined based
on Census and HUD calculations, which are updated annually. She included the 2022 numbers in her presentation.
Ms. Wolf stated that the commitment to affordable housing in this case would apply to seven units for a period of
15 years. The staff, like the City of Wilmington, will establish a system where the owner of the development must
provide yearly documentation of the residents in those seven units, ensuring their income falls within a specified
cap and the units are rented at a designated rental amount. She clarified that the seven units are not predetermined
but will go through the process of qualifying as workforce housing units while still being designed and built the same
as the market-rate units. Ms. Wolf provided examples of the rental prices, stating that 80% AMI equates to $1,164
for a two-bedroom unit, $988 for a one-bedroom unit, and $814 for a one-bedroom efficiency unit. Regular market-
rate rentals for a two-bedroom unit typically range from $1,200 to $1,400, depending on the location within the
County.
Commissioner Barfield emphasized that each project the Board considers should be evaluated on its own
merits. He cautioned against confusing the current project with a previous one on Carolina Beach Road, as they are
distinct projects with different characteristics, outcomes, sizes, and impacts in different areas. The discussion
highlighted the importance of having a diverse range of housing types to ensure affordability and accessibility for
everyone in the community. While many people are attracted to the area due to its high quality of life, Commissioner
Barfield stressed the need for a variety of housing options, including apartments, to maintain diversity in the
community. He expressed his inclination to support the project at the appropriate time.
Mr. James addressed questions regarding combination deceleration and acceleration lanes. While he could
not provide a definitive explanation for accidents in such lanes, he acknowledged the challenge posed by the
continuous turn lane that serves both ingress and egress, as well as deceleration and acceleration. The designer must
decide whether to provide a turn lane for entering the site without one for exiting, or to have a continuous lane
allowing overlapping vehicle movements. The challenge arises when considering a lane solely for deceleration, as it
would hinder vehicles exiting the site from using it for acceleration. This presents a difficulty for drivers who need
to merge into fast-flowing traffic without an acceleration lane. On the other hand, implementing a continuous right
turn lane raises concerns about potential conflicts between vehicles entering and exiting the site. In this case, the
entering vehicle has the right of way, and the exiting vehicle should yield. If a collision occurs, one or both parties
may be at fault. However, the rules of the road dictate that the entering and accelerating vehicles must yield until
the lane is clear for safe merging. He stated that he is aware of at least three other proposed continuous right-turn
lanes as part of developments to allow for the overlapping maneuver as well as for opportunities for safe egress
because accelerating to join 50 miles per hour traffic is a greater challenge than decelerating from 50 miles per hour
traffic to turn. There are several active existing continuous right-turn lane conditions on the major facilities that are
also accelerations lanes.
Mr. James addressed questions about the difference in traffic counts stating that he had the same questions
and the NCDOT response, while unsatisfactory, was statistics. Apparently, the 43,000, 44,000, and 45,000 numbers
are consistent as those were generated using the annual average daily calculations as was the 33,000. The WMPO
does not have an explanation as to why there is an 8,000 daily vehicle discrepancy even though they came from the
same source. However, those are not counts; they are statistical derivations of continuous count stations. It is
unknown why there is such a difference.
Ms. Roth addressed questions about the student data explaining that the numbers that staff obtain each
year from the school system are the number of public school students who are in attendance. A determination is
made based on the number of residential units there are in the County, and how many students on average are
generated in each residential unit. It is understood that the overall average may look different depending on where
one is in the County and the housing type. The student yield study helped identify the number of students in
particular areas of the County and in particular types of residential units. Those numbers are not perfect due to the
pandemic numbers still having an effect. The preference was to use pre-pandemic numbers, but that was before
Porters Neck elementary school was put into place so it was not something that could be used. As such, staff only
have the 2021 numbers for the time being and hope to get those updated. For the subject area, it does show that
generally residential units will generate a slightly larger number of students than in the areas overall. She believes it
is .339 students per residential unit in the subject area are generated per unit, but the number is much lower for
multi-family. Those only generate .11 students per unit. While staff does not have specific numbers based on price
points, there is the possibility that more affordable units are more likely to generate a larger number of students per
unit. There probably will be a bit of a cap because these are one and two bedroom apartments, they are not three
bedrooms, which is probably where student generation is higher.
Mr. Farrell addressed questions about enforcement of the seven units that are designated as workforce
housing stating that the information is reported to the County on an annual basis. If it is ever found the condition
was not being met it would fall under the County’s zoning compliance process. The seven units/10% is a voluntary
condition by the applicant.
Vice-Chair Pierce acknowledged that the applicant had made changes based on feedback from the Planning
Board and the community. However, she raised concerns when residents who purchased property in a single-family
neighborhood find that a neighboring property, which was purchased within the last two years, is being developed
with a significantly higher density. She believed this was unfair to the surrounding neighbors who had chosen their
homes based on the expectation of a single-family neighborhood. She noted that when someone purchases a
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 755
property with the condition of rezoning, it is a different situation. However, if the property were already purchased
and then a rezoning request is made, she would consider it unfair to the existing citizens of the community. While
she recognized the need for housing diversity, she noted that the traffic in the subject area is already congested. She
called for a better understanding of the number of projects in the queue and expressed concerns about the number
of high-density projects being proposed without proper accounting for the cumulative impact on the area.
Commissioner Barfield stated that the information provided by the WMPO staff is derived from NCDOT,
which governs roads in the counties, and it is challenging for the Planning and Land Use staff to interpret NCDOT's
perspective accurately. State regulations allow property owners to request a rezoning of their property regardless
of their ownership duration. He provided an example of Sidbury Road, where the current property status is rural but
suggested that it would not be the right approach to maintain it as such. The community is behind in housing needs
by 8,000 to 10,000 units, and housing affordability is essential for economic development. He stressed the
importance of affordable housing to attract businesses and help residents live in the same area where they work.
There are County employees commuting from Columbus County due to the lack of affordable housing in this
community. With an influx of over 30,000 people expected soon, Commissioner Barfield stressed the need for
housing diversity, as not everyone can afford to buy a home. He cited the average first-time homebuyer price point
in the County is over $400,000 and stated that many residents cannot afford to rent or buy in the community. He
acknowledged the opposition to the project but noted the necessity of providing decent and affordable housing for
those in need. Commissioner Barfield highlighted the work of the County-City Workforce Housing Advisory
Committee and expressed his commitment to listening to the advice of experts in addressing housing affordability,
as it has been a longstanding issue for the County.
Commissioner Zapple stated that there are multiple ways through planning and zoning that can be
employed to satisfy a lot of the concerns by decreasing the amount of density as well as providing services and goods
for those people who live there so there are fewer cars coming off it rather than trying to use the maximum density
on a piece of property. He agrees that there needs to be a diversity of housing types as there is an affordable housing
problem. In this case and on Carolina Beach Road the infrastructure issues are known and NCDOT has pushed out
improvements that would help to beyond 2029 so that solution is not going to help. He feels affordable housing
should be built with the proper density where the infrastructure exists or there is a chance of getting the
infrastructure installed.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked Ms. Wolf if, based on the Board discussion and items
presented during the public hearing, whether she would like to withdraw the petition or proceed with the vote. Ms.
Wolf responded that she wanted to proceed with the vote. Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise to approve the proposed rezoning as
the Board finds it to be generally consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
development scale is in line with the plan's recommendation and the project would provide additional housing
diversity in the area. The Board finds approval of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because it provides an alternative housing type that acts as a buffer for lower-density residential, contributing to the
kind of transitional development desired along highway corridors. An additional voluntary condition by the applicant
also ensures workforce housing affordability for 10 percent of the units, or seven total units, whichever is greater
for a period of 15 years. The following proposed conditions are included as part of the approval:
1. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged, or shielded so as not to cast
illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to
the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that
light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent property, neighboring areas, or motorists. Light
posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet.
2. The proposed right turn lane must be approved and permitted by NCDOT. Changes to the concept plan
to meet NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved administratively by county staff.
3. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and grading along a
minimum 15-foot offset from the edge of the outer drive. No disturbance of existing vegetation of
grading will be permitted. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, a minimum 8-foot-tall solid wood
screening fence shall be installed along a 3-foot offset from the driveway pavement.
4. The project will include a minimum of 10% of the units or seven (7) total units, whichever is greater, as
workforce housing units that will be made available for a period of no less than 15 years with rental
limits based upon HUD HIGH HOME standards. An agreement between the developer and county will
be required before the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The agreement shall
specify:
The number of affordable units provided;
The income limits;
Rent limits subject to annual change;
The period of time workforce housing units must remain affordable;
Any other criteria necessary for compliance and monitoring;
An established timeframe for annual reporting from the developer or owner of the development
to New Hanover County. Annual reports shall provide the following minimum information:
Unit number, bedroom number, household size, tenant income, and rent rate
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 756
The developer or owner of the development shall report any mid-year lease changes to workforce
housing units to New Hanover County to ensure lease changes remain compliant with the
agreement.
If the total number of workforce housing units falls below the minimum of 10% of the units or seven
(7) total units whichever is greater before the expiration of the minimum 15-year period of affordability
the development will be subject to enforcement measures found in Article 12 Violations and
Enforcement of the Unified Development Ordinance.
5. The project is limited to a maximum of 64 units and the two westernmost multi-family structures shall
be limited to two stories.
Upon vote, the MOTION FAILED 3 TO 2; Chair Rivenbark, Vice-Chair Pierce, and Commissioner Zapple voted to deny
and Commissioners Barfield and Scalise voted to approve.
PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST (TA23-01) BY NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING AND LAND USE TO AMEND SECTION 5.7 CONSERVATION RESOURCES TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY
OF PROVISIONS
Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth presented the staff-initiated development request to clarify
the applicability of conservation resource standards to new developments. The standards, originally established in
1984, include setbacks, concentration environments, and additional stormwater requirements for specific
conservation resources. With the conversion of the zoning ordinance into the UDO, the standards were reorganized
as general development standards. Questions have arisen regarding the application of these provisions to newer
laws. To ensure clarity, the proposed text amendment confirms that the standards apply to all lots created through
December 1, 1984, unless specific exceptions outlined in the ordinance are met. Exceptions include the development
of one single-family home, the residential location of two mobile homes on a parcel of record, and nonresidential
development on a parcel of record existing prior to December 1, 1984. The Planning Board at its March 30, 2023
meeting recommended approval (6-0) of the text amendment, and the staff agrees with the recommendation.
Chair Rivenbark announced that no one signed up to speak in favor or in opposition of the request, closed
the public hearing, and opened the floor to Board discussion.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for direction from the Board.
Motion: Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Scalise to approve the proposed amendment
to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to clarify that the County's conservation resource
standards apply to development on all properties, excluding specific exceptions for parcels of record on December
1, 1984, the original effective date of the provisions. The Board finds it to be consistent with the purpose and intent
of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it continues efforts to conserve and enhance our unique sense of place,
promote environmentally responsible growth, and conserve environmentally sensitive areas. The Board also finds
approval of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it clarifies current conservation
resource standards applicability for stakeholders and code users. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 3, 2020 and is hereby
incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIX, Page 9.10.
QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST (S23-01) BY JOSEPH KASS
WITH GRAYCLIFF CAPITAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LLC, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF THOMAS BURRISS, SR, PHILLIP
BURRISS, AND DANNEN PROPERTIES, LLC, PROPERTY OWNERS, FOR AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING ALLOWANCE TO
INCREASE THE ALLOWED DENSITY UP TO 10.2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR FOUR (4) PARCELS TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 6.24 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 633, 635, 641, AND 649 PINER ROAD CURRENTLY ZONED R-
15, RESIDENTIAL AND O&I, OFFICE & INSTITUTIONAL
Chair Rivenbark opened the public hearing and announced that the special use process requires a quasi-
judicial hearing and therefore, the clerk to the board must swear in any person wishing to testify. He requested all
persons who signed up to speak or who want to present testimony to step forward to be sworn in.
Amy Doss Joseph Kass Gail Collier
Rebekah Roth Matt Nichols Kevin Harp
Scott James John Tunstall
Jeff Petroff Don Bennett
Jim Iannucci Cal Morgan
Chair Rivenbark further stated that a presentation will be heard from staff, then the applicant group and
the opponent’s group will each be allowed fifteen minutes for presentations and an additional five minutes, if
necessary, for rebuttal. He asked Current Planner Amy Doss to start the presentation.
Ms. Doss presented the special use permit (SUP) request for additional dwelling units on four parcels
located on Piner Road near the intersection of Carolina Beach Road and College Road. The base density for the area
is 2.5 du/ac, but the request seeks to allow up to 10.2 du/ac. One of the parcels was previously rezoned to an Office
and Institutional (O&I) district in 2005 but remained undeveloped. The purpose of the residential zoning district was
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 757
to maintain lower housing densities due to the use of private wells and septic systems. The site consists of three
existing single-family homes and one vacant lot surrounded by wooded areas. Ms. Doss provided aerial photographs
and images of the property and its surroundings, including nearby developments and the intersection of Carolina
Beach and College Road. The additional dwelling unit allowance is a request to increase the density in specific zoning
districts. The current density for R-15 and O&I districts is 2.5 du/acre, allowing for 16 units on the site. The additional
dwelling allowance permits up to 10.2 du/acre, potentially allowing up to 64 units. However, the applicant is
requesting a maximum density of 9.6 du/acre, or 60 dwelling units. They have also proposed a condition to limit the
buildings to three stories. The allowance comes with additional development standards such as increased setbacks,
open space requirements, proximity to higher-density growth areas, and access to public infrastructure.
The site has direct full access onto Piner Road, an NCDOT maintained minor arterial road. The intersection
of Carolina Beach and College Road is located just to the west. The proposed development would increase traffic by
approximately 13 AM and 19 PM peak hour trips. Ms. Doss provided an overview of the applicant’s concept plan
noting the proposed driveway access from Piner Road, the location of the three multi-family buildings and proposed
amenities, the proposed location of the stormwater pond and wooded area, and the site setbacks. There are two
TIAs and two subdivisions in the general vicinity. The proposed development is expected to increase trips by
approximately 20 trips per peak hour. The proposed project is located along an NCDOT minor arterial road that is
currently at capacity; however, the Monkey Junction interchange project will begin after 2029 and is anticipated to
decrease congestion in the area. Several other projects are currently under review or development in the vicinity
and while their TIAs did not take this proposal into account, all were developed to consider general traffic growth in
the area. The proposed project’s peak hour traffic is below the 100 peak hour threshold requiring a TIA, but NCDOT
will review the project through the driveway permitting process. The proposed development would yield an
estimated increase of nine students.
The site is in the Urban Mixed Use place type which focuses on development that is a mix of residential,
office, and retail uses at higher densities. The intent is to provide a transition between lower-density housing and
higher-intensity development in areas adjacent to the City of Wilmington. The proposed project places multi-family
housing near the commercial corridor along Carolina Beach Road, and adjacent to existing multi-family housing and
single-family housing. The proposed development would also assist with providing affordable housing opportunities
near employment opportunities for residents.
The staff has created preliminary findings of fact for each of the four conclusions required to be reached to
approve an SUP. These preliminary findings and conclusions are based solely on the information provided to date,
prior to any information or testimony in support of or opposition to the request:
1. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed
according to the plan as submitted and approved.
Conclusion: the preliminary staff findings generally address utilities, fire protection, access,
environmental features, and traffic
2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Conclusion: the findings address compliance with various ordinance requirements for an additional
dwelling allowance which include density, place type, open space, impervious surface, setbacks, and
additional standards such as signage and parking
3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a
public necessity.
Conclusion: the findings address existing site conditions and land uses in the vicinity
4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved
will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County.
Conclusion: addresses compatibility with the surrounding area and compatibility with the
Comprehensive Plan
Ms. Doss concluded the staff presentation stating that as noted in the staff report, the conditions include
the following:
1. Density not to exceed 60 total units (9.6 units per acre). The current conceptual site plan shows 54 total
residential units at 8.7 units per acre. The site plan shows a mixture of three-story and two-story
buildings. If an additional six units are added to the shown 54 units, the two-story building portions
would be raised to three stories without altering building footprints.
2. Proposed development must be awarded LIHTC housing tax credits through the North Carolina Housing
Finance Agency.
3. Restricted to residential uses only, no commercial uses.
4. Buildings not to exceed three stories in height.
5. Site plan to retain undisturbed tree saving area within the area labeled as a 50-foot buffer easement in
the northeast corner of the property adjacent to single-family homeowners.
Chair Rivenbark thanked Ms. Doss for the presentation and invited the applicant to make remarks.
In response to Board questions, Ms. Doss stated that she does not believe the subject property is connected
to Bennett Village or has the same ownership. She also confirmed that there would be nine additional students
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 758
based on the estimated student yield for current zoning. For the proposed development it would be an approximate
total of 12 students.
Matt Nichols with Matthew Nichols Law Firm stated he was representing the applicant and with him to
make the presentation were the applicant’s representative and Project Manager Joseph Kass, Don Bennett,
Transportation Engineer with Davenport, Cal Morgan, Licensed Real Estate Appraiser with JC Morgan, and John
Tunstall, Civil Engineer with Norris and Tunstall. He then asked Joseph Kass to continue the presentation.
Joseph Kass stated he was the development manager with NHE, Inc. and attending on behalf of Graycliff
Capital Affordable Housing, LLC. Both companies are in Greenville, South Carolina. He stated that he manages about
8,000 apartment units across North and South Carolina, about half of those are affordable and half of those are
market rate conventional properties. NHE and Graycliff Capital have developed a dozen affordable properties and
dozens of market rate properties across the Carolinas in the last several years and are an experienced team. They
have been hearing stories about the need for affordable housing in New Hanover County, the growing population,
and the need for workforce housing. When they searched for sites, they learned the subject property was in a growth
node identified in the Comprehensive Plan, it calls for moderate density, a mix of retail, commercial, residential, and
specifically some apartments. In looking further into the Comprehensive Plan, the more it was felt the project was a
great fit for the subject area to address affordable housing. The proposed project will consist of garden style
apartments, the subject site will not be maxed out, and there is a generous area at the back and front of the site
where the trees will remain. They commissioned a tree survey to identify great trees. The community will be called
The Woods at Masonboro and in keeping with the name, the goal was to keep as much of the woods as possible. As
mentioned by staff, they would like to request up to 60 units and the current financing plan calls for 54 units and
that is what the intention is to build. However, over the next year of development, due to mortgage rates and
financing plans, some flexibility would be good, so they want up to 60 units, but 54 is the current plan. The difference
between 54 and 60 units is the six units would be a difference between some of the sections would be two stories,
some would be three. If it were 60 units, there would not be the need to enlarge the building footprints, rather some
of the two-story sections would be moved to three stories. As mentioned, one of the conditions of the SUP is that
they must be approved for the tax credits, which are federal tax credits. All the units will be affordable housing,
averaging 60% AMI. The units will be comprised of some at 30%, 50%, 60%, and 70% AMI. They are utilizing an
average income but again, all the units on the property will be affordable housing. Again, it is a condition of the SUP
that the tax credits must be awarded that makes that possible. As to who enforces the affordable housing
requirement, it is a state agency that monitors it and manages compliance. There was no requirement to hold a
community meeting as part of the SUP, but they have a good neighbor policy approach. As such, mailers were sent
out and a community meeting took place. He would characterize the community meeting as being generally positive.
The main concerns expressed by the residents of the neighborhood are screening and buffering. To address those
concerns, one approach was to create an undisturbed 50-foot tree safe buffer. There will probably be additional tree
safe buffer(s) beyond that, but certainly a defined 50-foot buffer between the subject property and the single-family
residential home. The other topic that the neighborhood was interested in discussing was traffic. A traffic study was
not required as the proposed project did not trigger the threshold from a preliminary trip generation memo, but a
professional engineer was asked to review potential traffic impacts. It is also affordable housing, which tends to
produce a lower trip generation, and some of the site is zoned O&I so there are alternative uses that could certainly
generate a lot more traffic than a 54-unit housing development.
Mr. Kass then provided an overview of where the two-story versus three-story sections are located and
how that would be the difference between 54 and 60 units. He then provided an overview of the proposed rendering,
noting that the project is still in the preliminary process as well as an example of a completed project. He noted how
the companies like to use good materials for construction such as bricks and HardiePlank siding. There are good
onsite amenities, and the units are a mixture of one, two, and three-bedroom types. NHE and Graycliff Capital can
provide for a variety of households, retirees, and workforce housing. He is willing to respond to any questions on
affordability. There will be units as inexpensive as $400, all the way up to $1,400, and with price points in between
that serve households at 30%, 50%, 60%, and 70% AMI and would cover retirees, firefighters, police officers, and
teachers. The state will conduct the monitoring and to qualify for the tax credits, NHE and Graycliff Capital must own
the property for at least 15 years, and they are also the property manager and involved for the long haul. At the 15-
year mark likely, they will just refinance and continue to own it for another 15 years. It will be a multimillion-dollar
asset that they would like to take good care of. He then turned the presentation over to Cal Morgan to speak about
the effect of neighboring property values.
Cal Morgan stated that he is a North Carolina certified general real estate appraiser with JC Morgan
Company. The applicant recently engaged him to perform research and analysis that will enable him to conclude an
opinion as to item 6-3 of the applicant’s SUP application. Item 6-3 states the use will not substantially injure the
value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity. To develop an opinion for this
requirement, he took several steps. Initially, he performed a cursory review of numerous comparable multi-family
properties in the market area to determine the impact, if any, these properties had on adjacent property values.
During this research, he found no indication that the properties abutting the adjacent projects had a negative
impact on value. In some cases, adjacent properties demonstrated an increased value. Second, he researched,
in more depth, three comparable situations. An analysis of each was performed where properties that are
adjacent to comparable multi-family uses were compared to similar properties that are not adjacent to multi-
family uses. The data indicates that the proposed multi-family project would have no negative impact on the
values of the adjoining or abutting properties. Finally, the property that is the subject of this application is located
adjacent to a comparable multi-family property. The adjacent multi-family's impact on the prices of nearby
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 759
properties was reviewed. Based on sales data relevant to the analysis, the project appeared to have no
noticeable impact on the surrounding property values. In conclusion, it is determined the proposed project will
not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property.
Don Bennett with Davenport Engineering stated that although no TIA was required for the subject site, one
was conducted using the general rules of preparation and the rules of analysis from the NCDOT congestion
management guidelines. The subject site was looked at for both site ingress and egress assuming that most of the
traffic will leave the site and head towards the Monkey Junction intersection, specifically for the evening left turn
return which would be the critical movement. It was shown that the site performs adequately accessing Piner Road
and that there is sufficient distance between the driveways to the Home Depot shopping center to accommodate
both queues, if NCDOT elects to repurpose the left turn lane, for the western Home Depot driveway. Ultimately, the
final location of the driveway and the required turn lanes will be the purview of the NCDOT through their driveway
permitting process.
Mr. Bennett responded to questions confirming that egress from the site would require a right hand turn,
although when studied, it was not assumed that all vehicles would turn right and approximately 10% of the site
traffic was sent to the east back towards Myrtle Grove Road. As to concerns about the amount of traffic coming off
the Monkey Junction intersection and then the accordion of vehicles that will be created by the vehicles waiting for
oncoming traffic to make a left to enter the site, the existing left turn lane turning into the Home Depot shopping
center starts at the back driveway and proceeds westward to the western driveway that is a little closer to J.
Michael's. That is the current configuration, and the proposed mitigation is to repurpose the lane as a two-way left
turn lane and provide the additional required storage for the site for what was assumed as a heavy left turn return
so that the left turn queue would possibly be overestimated. The left turn queue for the site driveway and the Home
Depot was counted and modeled, and compared to the proposed back driveway which was also counted and
modeled and there is sufficient distance between those two driveways to accommodate both queues and some
transition area between them. Again, this would be the proposed mitigation as identified by the study. However, it
is ultimately NCDOT’s determination of what improvements are necessary to accommodate the access. NCDOT will
require a driveway permit for any site accessing an NCDOT facility. NCDOT might look at the study that was
conducted to consider it but what will be required is ultimately up to NCDOT to provide safe and reasonable access
to the site.
Mr. Nichols commented that John Tunstall is present and is who prepared the site plan and he would be
glad to answer any questions the Board may have about the design, including stormwater management, which
would be required. For the record, he would like to respectfully, in addition to the testimony that the Board has
heard, ask that the staff report and accompanying materials be submitted into the record, along with the SUP
application and the site plan, and the property value impact report that Mr. Morgan prepared. He does have a copy
of Mr. Bennett's traffic study and understands it has been submitted previously to the County staff, but he would
also like to submit that for the record. In conclusion, he would respectfully contend that based upon the substantial,
competent, and material evidence that is in the application materials and that has been presented to the Board that
all the SUP criteria have been satisfied and that the permit should be granted. In addition to all the ordinance
requirements, he would respectfully contend this is a great project and it is 100% affordable housing which is known
to be much needed in New Hanover County. He concluded the applicant presentation stating he is proud to be part
of a project that is being proposed for the Board’s consideration to provide 100% affordable housing and the team
appreciates the opportunity to make the request.
Mr. Kass responded to questions stating that regarding the picture of the units built in Simpsonville, South
Carolina the design is like what is being proposed for the project, but it is still in the preliminary architectural design
phase. It is the same architect, and it is likely that would be who is used. It is a requirement of the State of North
Carolina to use high quality materials to qualify for the tax credit even though NHE and Graycliff Capital would use
them regardless, but it is another safety measure to ensure the project meets the highest standards. He reconfirmed
that brick will be used and there will be an onsite manager, a clubhouse that has a kitchenette, an office suite for
the onsite manager as well as various other amenities. He reiterated that the NHE and Graycliff Capital team have
developed about a dozen affordable housing developments over the last 10 years, most being in the last six years as
they have ramped up. The larger team has developed dozens of conventional market rate apartments as well, so the
team does both affordable and conventional apartments. The first affordable housing project was developed in 2009
but he would state that the company has been in existence for 50 years and has been managing affordable housing
since the 1980s. It is primarily a property management company that has gotten into development over the last 10
to 15 years. NHE has over 300 employees and Graycliff Capital has 25 employees, and both are sister companies that
combined teams to have a strong brain trust.
Commissioner Scalise stated that he thinks it is well demonstrated in the applicant’s approach to this
process that they have taken on measures that they were not necessarily required to do such as seeking public
comment and performing due diligence like traffic studies. He would encourage other applicants to do the same as
he thinks it is good practice.
Chair Rivenbark announced that no one signed up to speak in favor and two people signed up to speak in
opposition to the request. He invited the opposition speakers to make their remarks.
Gail Collier, resident of 5641 Brown Pelican Lane, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request stating
she understands the need for more affordable and accessible housing in North Carolina. She and her husband moved
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 760
here about five or six years ago and live in Kaylies Cove off Piner Road. She expressed concerns about the excessive
amount of building/construction in the area, particularly along Piner Road. Piner Road, being one of the shortest
roads in New Hanover County, has experienced heavy traffic, resulting in difficult maneuverability for residents of
the Kaylies Cove community. Numerous accidents have occurred in the past five years, involving emergency vehicles
due to the significant volume of traffic from various directions, including the use of Piner Road as a cut-through to
Carolina Beach Road. While she acknowledged the need for affordable housing, she questioned the decision to
develop another apartment complex near an existing one on Piner Road. She stressed the necessity for traffic
calming measures, such as a stoplight and a children's crosswalk connecting Kaylies Cove to Myrtle Grove Middle
School. Currently, only a stop sign is present at the intersection of Piner Road and Grissom Road, and a nearby four-
acre piece of land is up for sale. She expressed concerns about the potential impact of increased traffic resulting
from the new apartment complex, the Home Depot shopping center, and the upcoming Target store. She urged the
Board to address the issue and evaluate traffic patterns, traffic signals, and overall traffic management throughout
New Hanover County to ensure the safety and well-being of residents.
Kevin Harp, resident of 5637 Brown Pelican Lane, Wilmington, NC spoke in opposition to the request stating
that he is also a resident of Kaylies Cove and is coming to the Board as a concerned resident of that community. His
daughter attends the middle school directly across the street and is not able to walk to the school due to the amount
of traffic. The walk to school would be two football fields in length but would be a suicide mission for her to cross
the street. Piner Road is not prepared for an additional multi-dwelling unit, it already has one. Target is proposed to
put a facility in the Home Depot shopping center which will increase traffic. Piner Road is a two-lane road with a
concrete median that goes in the middle of it. The main reason for him wanting to attend the meeting is just to
express his concerns. Pine Road is not ready for another multi-dwelling unit, and he asked the Board to vote in
opposition to the project.
Commissioner Zapple provided a brief explanation of the quasi-judicial system and its implications for the
County's SUP process. He emphasized that while the Board is allowed to hear public comments, those comments do
not factor into the Board's final deliberations. State law mandates that the Board must consider four elements as
findings of fact, which must be clearly stated on the record. The elements are: 1) whether the project will materially
endanger public health or safety, 2) whether the project meets all required conditions and specifications of the UDO,
3) whether the project will substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, and 4) whether the project
will be in harmony with the area and in conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County.
The staff has prepared a draft supporting each element based on the application. The Board must clearly articulate
reasons for any findings that the application does not meet these elements and should reference the staff reports
for clarity. If the evidence does not support any one of the elements, the Board can deny the application. It is not
necessary for all four elements to be unsupported for denial. The Board's decision should be based solely on
competent and material evidence presented during the public hearing, assessed in relation to the four elements.
Court decisions have provided guidance around what cannot be considered to support the required conclusions.
These include expert testimony regarding traffic, stormwater, property values versus resident, non-expert opinion,
and consideration of the standing of folks providing testimony. By default, a request for a SUP is considered in
harmony with the area if the SUP is provided for in the code, therefore the focus should be on if the request is in
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. The Board has the authority to add conditions to a SUP, if those conditions
are related to meeting one of the findings of fact. For example, requiring a specific stormwater facility design based
on the need identified in the testimony is acceptable, but mandating a particular building color for aesthetic reasons
is not. Commissioner Zapple stressed that understanding these rules and considerations is essential when evaluating
a SUP request.
Chair Rivenbark stated that he passes Kaylies Cove six or eight times a day and is surprised that the
developer built a development across the street from a middle school. He agrees that there needs to be a stoplight
there but the only time it is bad is in the morning, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., and in the afternoon when
school is letting out. He would just about bet that the folks that are going to live in the proposed development are
going to go towards College Road as there is nothing for them to go back towards Kaylies Cove.
In response to Board questions, County Attorney Copley stated that the Board has no authority to attach a
condition for the requirement of the developer to receive the approval of the left-hand turn lane from NCDOT.
Chair Rivenbark stated that the applicant and opposition speaker would each have five minutes to provide
rebuttal remarks.
In applicant rebuttal, Mr. Nichols stated that Mr. Bennett is present to answer any questions about traffic.
He pointed out that the statute that governs the review of these is very specific on what is competent evidence. For
the record, he and his clients would respectfully contend that the comments from the folks in opposition under the
statute simply do not rise to the definition of substantial, competent, and material evidence about traffic analysis.
The applicant does have a licensed transportation engineer present that can speak to the study on that item. He also
noted that the one other item is that the case law is clear that where the land use is permitted by a special use, the
cases in the School of Government will indicate that that is a use that the governing body (this board) has already
determined in a legislative setting is an appropriate use if all the requirements in the ordinance are met and he
would respectfully contend that all the requirements in the ordinance have been met. Again, Mr. Bennett is here to
answer any questions the Board may have as well as Mr. Tunstall.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 761
Commissioner Barfield emphasized the importance of expert testimony in the quasi-judicial setting, stating
that the Board can listen to and accept evidence from certified appraisers or professionals like Mr. Bennett,
presenting a traffic impact analyst. He highlighted the need for citizens to bring forth experts who can provide
intelligent testimony on their behalf, as general statements about property values without expert appraisal cannot
be considered by the Board. The statement about Target coming to the community has not been confirmed, and the
Planning and Land Use staff have not received any information regarding Target's arrival. He explained that without
expert testimony or evidence, the Board cannot consider such claims. The Board has previously approved tax credit
properties in the Monkey Junction area by the same developer, those properties being Bennett Village and Lockwood
Village. The developments adhere to criteria related to rental prices for prospective tenants. The developer is also
constructing units off Gordon Road to address the housing needs of individuals with lower income levels, which he
views as a positive contribution. The SUP request aligns with the goal of housing affordability and diversity, providing
an opportunity for individuals with limited financial resources to live in a quality community. He expressed support
for the request, referencing the appearance and quality of housing provided by Lockwood Village and Bennett Village
as examples.
Mr. Kass responded to questions confirming his understanding of Commissioner Zapple’s concerns about
the left hand turn lane. The team recently completed a successful affordable housing development in Charlotte, NC.
It was a 2019 award that was finished in 2021. It required NCDOT and Charlotte Department of Transportation
(CDOT) road improvements, in that case, to create a turning lane on one road and on the other road create a concrete
median for a right in, right out only entrance. NHE and Graycliff Capital paid for and completed those requirements
of CDOT and NCDOT. They followed the requirements and are hopefully breaking ground next week on a second
affordable housing development in Charlotte. Again, the project is in a similar situation where CDOT owns one road,
it is also at a corner and NCDOT has the other road. NHE and Graycliff Capital are creating a widened turn lane/slip
lane to turn in and creating a concrete median on one side while on the other side, he believes they are doing another
concrete medium for a right in, right out. All that to say NHE and Graycliff Capital are very much in the habit of
whatever NCDOT recommends and whatever their professional studies recommend. They follow that advice and
pay for that work as part of the project.
Chair Rivenbark stated that he sees every day that when people turn off College Road onto Piner Road and
it is two lanes. One is supposed to turn right into Home Depot but that is not what people use it for. Currently, they
try to outrun the car that is in the left lane and then suddenly, it folds into one lane, and it is whoever can get there
first. While he supports the request, what is going to happen is somebody is going to be right there stopped to make
a U-turn or pull into the proposed project place and the other cars are flying by and somebody has stopped behind
the car trying to turn into the proposed development and there are about five cars going by at 60 miles per hour.
That is what Commissioner Zapple is talking about. Mr. Kass responded that for the record, the team will defer to
the traffic engineer, and they are very aware of that concern. The exact scenario was brought up by a resident at the
community meeting. His team took that very seriously and that is part of what informed the dedicated turn lane.
Commissioner Barfield stated that as County Attorney Copley responded earlier, ultimately it will be NCDOT
that will determine what is going to happen. The Board has no authority to make any demands upon NCDOT. NCDOT
will determine based on their studies what they want to happen at those intersections. The Board can ask for a
stoplight and NCDOT can state that the information does not warrant that, and he does not want to put pressure on
the applicant to say they will do something that is outside of their ability to do because they cannot. He does not
want the applicant to trip themselves up saying they are going to do x, y, and z when, again, neither the Board nor
the WMPO have any authority over NCDOT.
Commissioner Scalise stated that he agrees with Commissioner Barfield’s comments and will say that what
is within their ability to do is to provide rent from approximately $400 to $1,435 per month. That is extremely
meaningful in the community as it is very hard for a lot of folks in the community to afford a place to live. This is
going to help mitigate against that and in this project, he is in favor and intends to vote in favor of it.
Chair Rivenbark asked the opposition speakers if they would like to provide rebuttal comments. Mr. Harp
stated that it was irrelevant.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark closed the public hearing and asked the applicant whether
he agrees with the staff findings. Mr. Kass stated that he agreed with the staff findings. Chair Rivenbark asked for
the Board’s direction on the request.
Vice-Chair Pierce stated regarding earlier Board discussion about selecting projects based on their merits,
she believes this project is less dense and provides 100% affordable housing, which is an urgent need. She
encouraged the applicant in discussions with NCDOT and the neighbors to look at that area in terms of what needs
to happen in the form of a possible traffic signal. She knows the applicant will be as interested in that as the neighbors
will be with all that is taking place in the subject area. She expressed appreciation for the applicant’s attention to
tree preservation and stated that she is inclined to support the project.
Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the Special Use Permit as
the Board finds that the application for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the
findings of fact included in the staff report with the following conditions to be included as part of the approval:
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 35
REGULAR MEETING, MAY 1, 2023 PAGE 762
1. Density not to exceed 60 total units (9.6 units per acre). The current conceptual site plan shows 54 total
residential units at 8.7 units per acre. The site plan shows a mixture of three-story and two-story
buildings. If an additional six units are added to the shown 54 units, the two-story building portions
would be raised to three stories without altering building footprints.
2. Proposed development must be awarded LIHTC housing tax credits through the North Carolina Housing
Finance Agency.
3. Restricted to residential uses only, no commercial uses.
4. Buildings not to exceed three stories in height.
5. Site plan to retain undisturbed tree saving area within the area labeled as a 50-foot buffer easement in
the northeast corner of property adjacent to single-family homeowners.
Hearing no further discussion, Chair Rivenbark asked for a vote on the motion on the floor. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A copy of an order granting a Special Use Permit and listing the findings of facts is contained in SUP Book
IV, Page 94. Also, a copy of the evidence submitted by the petitioner’s attorney is hereby incorporated as part of
the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XLIX, Page 9.11.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Chair Rivenbark stated that no one signed up to speak under public comment.
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS
There were no additional items of business.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Rivenbark adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kymberleigh G. Crowell
Clerk to the Board
Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
meeting. The entire proceedings are available online at www.nhcgov.com.