01-04-2024 PB Minutes1 | P a g e
Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board
January 4, 2024
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on January 4, 2024, at
6:00PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in
Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members Present
Jeff Petroff, Chair
Pete Avery
Kevin Hine
Clark Hipp
Hansen Matthews
Cameron Moore
Staff Present
Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use
Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor
Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor
Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner
Amy Doss, Associate Planner
Love Ott, Associate Planner
Lisa Maes, Administration Coordinator
Members Absent
Colin Tarrant
Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience.
After the welcome remarks, Planning and Land Use Operations Supervisor Ken Vafier led the
Pledge of Allegiance, and Chair Petroff provided an overview of the meeting procedures and read
the Code of Ethics.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the August 3, 2023, Planning Board meeting were considered by the board members.
No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION,
SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery, to approve the minutes as drafted.
The motion to approve the August 3, 2023, Planning Board meeting minutes passed 6-0.
Chair Petroff announced that there was a request for an amendment to the agenda. A continuance
was requested by the applicant for item 4 on the agenda, item S23-05, a request for a Special Use
Permit to build a sand mine on approximately 144 acres on a 586-acre parcel located at the 5700
block of Highway 421 N, currently zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial.
Scott Holmes and Joe Taylor of Murchison, Taylor, & Gibson appeared on behalf of the applicant
421 Sand Mine, LLC, and requested a continuance so they could discuss several issues internally
before presenting their proposal at the February 7th Planning Board meeting. Board Member Pete
Avery made a MOTION to approve the continuance of the item, which was SECONDED by Board
Member Cameron Moore.
The motion to approve the continuance of item S23-05 passed 6-0.
2 | P a g e
New Business
Rezoning Request (Z23-23) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant to
rezone 9 parcels totaling approximately 7.28 acres of land located at the 7600 block of
Carolina Beach Road between North and South Seabreeze Roads from R-15, Residential to
(CZD) CB, Community Business for a commercial business park consisting of 28,300
maximum square feet of general retail, restaurant, convenience store with fuel pumps, and
other limited uses.
Senior Planner Zachary Dickerson provided an overview of the rezoning request. The subject
property was located at 7611 Carolina Beach Road and was zoned R-15 in 1971 to ensure that
housing on private well and septic systems be kept at low density, but private water and sewer
services were now provided to the area through the utility service Aqua. A condition the staff
recommended for this project was for it to be connected to the Aqua system.
Mr. Dickerson then stated that the parcel was located in the historic Seabreeze district that was
established in the 1920s as a prime vacation area for the African American population of
southeastern North Carolina. He displayed aerial photography showing that the site was
surrounded by residential areas on all sides, including on the opposite side of Carolina Beach Road.
The concept map of the proposal, provided by the applicant, was then shown. The site could
possibly house a convenience store with a gas station, a restaurant with a drive-through, medical
and retail offices, and an anticipated fast casual restaurant. A stormwater pond would be on-site as
well as a public access easement on Carolina Beach Road and sidewalks on both North and South
Seabreeze Road. While the previously listed businesses were anticipated to be on the site, the
applicant had requested for the site to be eligible for all uses allowed in a Community Business
District aside from those prohibited in the proposed conditions.
Mr. Dickerson stated that the primary access points would be located on North and South
Seabreeze Road, with most traffic coming from the signalized intersection of Carolina Beach Road
and South Seabreeze Road. The North Seabreeze Road access point would allow traffic to go north
on Carolina Beach Road. There were currently four other projects in a one-mile radius of the
proposed project.
He presented that there would be an estimated increase of 376 AM trips and 264 PM trips if the
property were developed, which required that the applicant complete a Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA). The TIA required a dedicated Westbound left turn lane onto Carolina Beach Road from
South Seabreeze Road, a dedicated left turn lane into the site on South Seabreeze Road, stop signs
located at both the North and South access point, and to construct both access points with 100 feet
of internal protected stems.
Mr. Dickerson then discussed the compatibility of the project with the surrounding area. He stated
that a location adjacent to Carolina Beach Road was more suitable to commercial development
than residential development. It was in close proximity to proposed high density townhomes to the
south and the Snow’s Cut Bridge on a highly travelled corridor. To make the project more
compatible with the surrounding area, the applicant had proposed a condition to limit some of the
uses of the site, which excluded electronic gaming, outdoor recreation, a commercial parking lot,
car wash, vehicle rentals, a minor vehicle service station, artisan manufacturing, and commercial
recycling. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified this area as Community Mixed Use, which
this project was generally consistent with, as the project would serve as a commercial node for the
Seabreeze community and surrounding area.
3 | P a g e
He then stated the proposed conditions for the project, which included the excluded uses for the
site, exterior lighting requirements that would restrict any excess light at adjacent properties or
motorists, the required connection to the Aqua utility network, and that any fuel stations must be
adjacent to Carolina Beach Road. He stated that if these conditions were agreed to then staff
recommended approval of this project, but it would still be subject to technical and zoning
compliance reviews.
Mr. Dickerson then introduced Galen Jamison of County Engineering and Jamar Johnson of the
Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization to answer any questions, as well as Cindee Wolf,
the applicant.
In response to questions of the Board regarding if artisan manufacturing includes breweries or
distilleries, Mr. Dickerson then replied that he believed they were separate classifications.
In response to questions of the Board regarding dog kennels on the property, Mr. Dickerson
responded that they are allowed in the CB district.
In response to questions of the Board regarding the proposed left hand turn lane, Mr. Johnson
responded that it would be delineated by pavement markings.
Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for their presentation.
Cindee Wolf, Design Solutions and representative of the applicant, reiterated some of the points
Mr. Dickerson made and expanded on the history of the parcel, which housed Snows Cut
Convenience Store until 2008. She described that the 1988 Seabreeze Neighborhood Plan allowed
for the convenience store and the possibility of future business development in the community.
Ms. Wolf stated that her client had removed the previous fuel tanks from the property and had
addressed various environmental issues on the land, as well as cooperated with Aqua to provide
easements for utilities that would benefit the entire area. She believed that the project would be
primarily used by residents of the area or individuals that already commute past the area, with an
expected 10 to 15 seconds of traffic delay at peak time.
In response to questions of the Board regarding the location of the proposed drive-thru restaurant
and the corresponding buffer, Ms. Wolf replied that this was just a concept map and that buffers
would be installed if need be.
In response to questions of the Board regarding additional limited uses, Ms. Wolf replied she was
agreeable to further discussion.
In response to questions of the Board regarding business agreements, Ms. Wolf replied that
obtaining zoning permission was the first step before reaching any business deals.
In response to questions of the Board regarding consideration of height limits for the buildings on
the east side of the parcel, Ms. Wolf replied she was agreeable to limiting the building on the
southeast corner to one story as it was near already existing homes, but the northeast corner was a
prime location for a two-story mixed commercial and office space, height that was allowed by
right in the area.
In response to questions of the Board regarding the stormwater pond, Howard Resnick of CSD
Engineering replied that there were already considerable roadside swales on both Seabreeze Road
North and South that drained east towards the waterway that were anticipated to be able to handle
any additional stormwater from the project. He additionally stated that the pond would have to
meet any of New Hanover Counties stormwater requirements.
4 | P a g e
In response to questions of the Board regarding environmental considerations in relation to having
a stormwater pond near a fuel station, Mr. Resnick replied that there were emergency protocols for
any leak at the fuel station, and they would consult the county Health Department for any
recommendations. In addition, he stated the fuel station was outside the radius of any existing
wells or water features.
In response to questions of the Board regarding any design changes that were a result of the
community meeting on the project, Ms. Wolf replied that there were no designs changes based on
feedback. She stated that the only concerns expressed were about increased traffic, and everything
about the plan was conceptual other than the convenience store with a fuel station.
In response to questions of the Board regarding the proposed multi-use path along Carolina Beach
Road, Ms. Wolf replied that it would be an easement and that the sidewalk on Seabreeze Road
South would stop at the stormwater pond but have the possibility to continue down the road.
Board Member Kevin Hine stated that anything over two stories would give him cause for concern.
Chair Petroff then opened the floor to opposition.
Chuck Holden, 809 Seabreeze Rd. N, a 40-year resident of Seabreeze Road, had concerns about
the impacts of community togetherness and the safety of children being able to play in the
community with the increased traffic from the project.
Richard Pearson, 747 Grand Banks Rd, had concerns about the impact of the proposed project on
the community and how it would affect the ability of the residents on the west side of Carolina
Beach Roads to perform U-turns to be able to head north into Wilmington in the morning to go to
work.
Rob Giacomelli, 743 Grand Banks Rd, echoed Mr. Pearson’s concerns about traffic issues affecting
individuals’ ability to commute to and from work.
Sandra Ross, 7763 Carolina Beach Road, voiced her concerns about how this project would impact
the area on top of the several high-density development projects that were in progress.
With no further opposition comments, Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for rebuttal.
Cameron Zurbruegg, representative of the property owner, stated that this proposal had been in
process of over five years and that the applicant had already improved the community by cleaning
up the site in various ways, such as working with Aqua to extend utilities to neighbors of the
property.
Mr. Zurbruegg stated that the developers did care about the potential impact on the community
and had taken the process slow to address any issues the residents had.
He stated that some individuals had used their property for commercial use in the past, that the U-
turn issue is not something they created, and that they have had conversations with the Department
of Transportation on possible remedies for the issue.
He stated that he originally spoke to around 40 residents and that many of them now understood
the scope and impact of the project.
With no further rebuttal, Chair Petroff reopened the floor to opposition.
5 | P a g e
Mr. Giacomelli stated that he believed there was not a need for this project for the area as there
were already similar offerings nearby in either direction of Carolina Beach Road.
Mr. Pearson asked if it was possible to get a more concrete explanation of what businesses would
be at the site.
Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to board discussion.
Board Member Clark Hipp asked the applicants to return to discuss the questions the board had
previously posed.
Ms. Wolf agreed to add kennels/animal shelters, hotels/motels, event centers, and micro-
breweries/distilleries to the conditioned list of uses that will not be allowed on the site but had
concern about disallowing indoor recreation centers.
Mr. Dickerson then explained what kind of businesses an indoor recreation center entailed, such
as a bowling alley or skating rink.
In response to questions of the Board regarding the highest and lowest intensity of use for indoor
recreation activities, Mr. Dickerson replied bowling alleys may be one of the most intensive, but
he was not sure as he was not a traffic engineer.
Ms. Wolf agreed to include the Board’s list of further excluded uses and to limit all buildings on
the eastern side of the property to being two stories tall.
Board Member Hipp thanked the applicant for working with the board and agreeing to their
recommendations and addressing neighborhood concerns, such as a broad two-story building
height limit, but he echoed his concerns about allowing micro-breweries as they would further
increase traffic in the area.
Board Member Moore then expressed his concerns about the transition from residential to
commercial use for the project, as well as extending sidewalks all around Seabreeze Road to
increase the walkability of the area. Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth clarified that
the request for an easement was based on Board of Commissioners direction because there were
projects in the works to extend pedestrian infrastructure from Monkey Junction down to Snows
Cut.
Board Member Hansen Matthews stated that he was also concerned about allowing micro-
breweries on the property as they could stay open late, and that he would like the restaurant on the
property to be limited to being located on Carolina Beach Road.
Board Member Kevin Hine stated that he felt for the residents concerned about development, but
he believed that the plan minimized the impact on the community.
Board Member Pete Avery, to address public comments that had been submitted, stated that it
would be difficult to build residential on the property because of the location on Carolina Beach
Road and the density of housing allowed under current zoning.
Mr. Zurbruegg addressed the board’s concerns by agreeing to limit micro-breweries on the
property, to add an additional five feet of buffer on the south-east corner near existing homes, if
the highway marker honoring the Seabreeze community were approved by the State and placed on
the property frontage, the applicant would provide landscaping and walking access to it.
6 | P a g e
Board Member Clark Hipp then made a MOTION to approve Rezoning Request (Z23-23) from
R-15, Residential to (CZD) CB, as it was in accordance with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and
the community mixed use place type, and that it would serve as a community business node to the
Seabreeze community and surrounding, with the following conditions.
1. The uses specifically excluded are electronic gaming, outdoor recreation, commercial
parking lot, carwash, vehicle rentals, vehicle service station, artisan manufacturing,
commercial recycling, animal shelter/kennel, hotel/motel, event center, indoor
recreation center, micro-breweries/micro-distilleries, and funeral services.
2. Exterior lighting including luminaries and security lights shall be arranged or shielded
so as not to cast illumination above an imaginary line parallel to the ground, fixtures
shall be numbered to provide adequate lighting but to limit light pollution to the
surrounding community.
3. Connections to a public or private utility service will be provided. Private wells or
septic systems will not be provided.
4. If a convenience store with a fuel station is constructed, it must be built adjacent to
Carolina Beach Road. Other uses not specifically excluded may be built adjacent to
Carolina Beach Road or to the east of the property.
5. Buildings on the eastern section of the property must be limited to two stories or 35
feet tall.
6. Sidewalks be extended around the entire property, on both Seabreeze Road South and
Seabreeze Road North.
7. An additional five feet of vegetative buffer be added to the south-east property line.
Board Member Kevin Hine SECONDED the MOTION.
The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z23-23) with conditions passed 6-0.
Rezoning Request (Z23-24) Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, to
rezone approximately 0.44 acres zoned B-2, Regional Business located at 1132 Seabreeze
Road to (CZD) R-7, Residential for a maximum of two single-family detached residen9al
dwelling units.
Mr. Dickerson gave an overview of the rezoning request. He stated that site was zoned B-2 in 1971
to encourage business development in the area, the Aqua service line did not extend onto the
property, and the site was bordered to the south by an existing bed and breakfast and was on the
intercoastal waterway.
7 | P a g e
Mr. Dickerson then stated that if approved, it was recommended for the two lots to have a shared
driveway. The proposed development was estimated to generate seven fewer AM trips and 20
fewer PM trips in comparison to current zoning and was under the 100 peak hour trip threshold to
require a TIA. The area was part of the 1989 Seabreeze Small Area Plan to revitalize the waterfront,
however the need for private wells and septic systems or the extension of private utilities had
hindered this plan. He added the area was located within the VE Coastal High Hazard Area.
He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as a Community Mixed Use place
type and this proposal was generally consistent with those guidelines; however, because of the
existing conditions of the parcel, such as having live oak trees and being in a flood prone area,
staff recommended denial of the proposal. Mr. Dickerson then stated that if the board did approve
the proposal, it was recommended that both live oak trees on the property be preserved, that no
accessory dwelling units be permitted on the lots, and that they share one driveway cut across both
lots.
In response to questions from the Board regarding how the recommended lot width of 50 feet
would be measured, Mr. Dickerson responded that it would be an average measurement of the
distance from the north property line to the south property line.
In response to questions from the Board regarding the bed and breakfast property to the south, Mr.
Dickerson responded that it would most likely not be allowed today, and that the property was
granted a special use permit in 2004 to operate as a bed and breakfast.
In response to questions from the Board regarding whether duplexes were allowed to be built in
R-7 zoned areas, Mr. Dickerson responded that they are allowed.
In response to questions of the Board regarding if the lots would meet zoning ordinance
requirements for lot width and street frontage, Mr. Dickerson responded each lot would meet the
requirement to have 34 feet of street frontage.
In response to questions from the Board regarding whether the applicant would be allowed to apply
to the Board of Adjustment to get a variance to remove the live oak trees if the project were
approved, Mr. Dickerson responded that they would not be able to as it would violate the conditions
of the approval and that the applicant has agreed to these conditions.
Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant for their presentation.
Ms. Wolf gave a brief overview of the proposal. She stated that residents of the community
generally did not like the businesses that had been attracted to the area, such as trailer storage, as
it did not add to the historic nature of the community.
Chair Petroff expressed his concern about the impact of putting a residential area between two B-
2 zoned parcels, as it would create extra setback requirements and extra burdens on the businesses.
Board Member Clark Hipp expressed his concern about building residential units in a flood prone
area.
Board Member Hansen Matthews stated that he believed that the current use of B-2 did not fit with
the historic nature of the area, that there would most likely be less flood damage to a residential
home that was raised from the ground, and that he was generally in support of the project.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that he was against the proposal because of the negative effects
that it would have on the surrounding properties.
8 | P a g e
Board Member Kevin Hine stated that he believed that homes built in VE zones were generally
built to very high standards and that he supported approval.
Chair Petroff then called the applicant and asked if they would like to proceed with a vote on the
application, to which Ms. Wolf replied that she would like to proceed with a vote with the condition
that it is noted on the deed that the future property owner is not able to protest any business use of
the adjacent properties.
Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION to APPROVE the rezoning request Z23-24 as
it was in line with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and would benefit the community by providing
more housing options, with the following conditions.
1. The preservation of the existing live oak trees on the property.
2. No accessory dwelling units will be constructed on the lots.
3. There will be one driveway cut for both lots.
4. The deed will be noted that future owners will not protest any variances for the adjacent
business properties.
Board Member Pete Avery SECONDED the MOTION.
The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z23-24) passed 5-1, with Board Member
Clark Hipp dissenting.
Rezoning Request (Z23-25) Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, to
rezone approximately 10.95 acres zoned R-20, Residential and (CZD) R-5, Residential
Moderate-High Density located at the 3100 block of Blue Clay Road to (CZD) RMF-M,
Residential Multi-Family Moderate Density for a maximum of 180 dwelling units.
Associate Planner Love Ott gave a brief overview of the proposal. She stated the R-20 parcel was
originally zoned in 1984 and a portion was rezoned R-5 in 2022 to allow a 68-unit development.
She presented that the area was bordered by single family residential to the north and south and by
the New Beginnings Christian Church and the Covenant I Senior Housing Development to the
west.
Ms. Ott explained the concept plan for the currently approved (CZD) R-5 designation, stating it
would include 17 quadraplex buildings to house 68 multi-family units, an expansion of the existing
storm-water pond, and on-site parking.
She then provided an overview of the new concept plan, consisting of 16 multi-family dwelling
units, an expansion of the stormwater pond, a 30-foot-wide drainage easement along the northern
boundary, and a community club house along the southern boundary with the private drive. She
stated the property currently had full primary access to Blue Clay Road, secondary access to New
Beginning Dr, and emergency only gated access to the Rachel’s Place community. She explained
that there were currently two approved TIAs, several other subdivisions under construction, and
the state transportation project U-5863 in a one-mile radius of the subject site. The proposal was
9 | P a g e
estimated to create approximately 90 AM and 83 PM peak hour trips in the area, which was under
the 100-trip threshold to require a TIA.
She then stated that while the lack of public transportation access in the area was a concern because
of the affordable housing aspect, WAVE transit had started a micro-transit program to provide point
to point transportation throughout the county. She explained that the proposed rezoning would be
expected to create an additional 38 students for the area. Ms. Ott then explained the project’s
compatibility with the surrounding area, noting that it was denser than the nearby neighborhoods,
with a density of 16 units per acre and would have a building height of three stories.
She then stated that staff recommended denial of the application, as the proposal was not consistent
with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the Community Mixed Use place type, as the density of
the proposal was over the recommended density of Community Mixed Use, and that the property
would not be consistent with other development in the area. If approved there would be a proposed
condition that 100% of the units would be workforce housing units that would have rental limits
for no fewer than 15 years and must be in accordance with HUD HIGH HOME standards.
In response to questions of the Board regarding how the county would manage the affordable
housing standards for the units, Rebekah Roth responded that the department’s housing team had
developed a methodology to ensure compliance, that the condition had been used on previous
similar projects, and that there were additional requirements if the developer received tax credits
to ensure affordability.
Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant for their presentation.
Ms. Wolf gave a brief overview of the project. She stated that New Hanover County had a critical
lack of affordable housing in the area, reiterating the details that Ms. Ott provided. She then
requested to amend the petition to enforce a maximum height of two stories for all the buildings
on the lot to reduce the number of units down to 120, lowering the density to under 11 units per
acre, meeting the density recommendations of the comprehensive plan, and bringing the project in
line with the existing building of the area.
In response to questions of the Board regarding why the applicant was averse to building a fence
on the north and south of the property, Ms. Wolf responded that there was plenty of vegetation
already in place that could be supplemented if need be.
In response to questions of the Board regarding if there were any open space requirements for 120
units, Ms. Wolf responded that the plan met the 30% requirements.
Board Member Clark Hipp expressed concern that the public had not had the opportunity to review
the substantial changes that had been made to the existing plan and asked if the item should be
continued in order for the public to be given proper notice on these changes, to which Ms. Roth
responded that staff recommended the Board continue the item as staff had not had the chance to
analyze the changes and to give the public the chance to do the same.
Chair Petroff then opened the floor for opposition.
Linda Shaw, 3105 Leona Court, expressed her concern about the added burden on the school
district and if the new students would make the school a Title I school which had different
requirements than a normal public school. She also expressed her concern over the increased
traffic.
10 | P a g e
Micheal Bradley, 3209 Galloway Road, expressed his concerns over flooding in the area and how
the new development would affect it.
John Howell, 2142 Blue Bonnett Court, expressed his concern about the effects affordable housing
would have on the local crime rates, and asked if there would be any additional tax burden and
how the local police force would handle the possibility of increased crime.
Scott Gallagher, 2132 Blue Bonnett Court, expressed his concerns of increasing the plot from 68
to 120 units and how this would fit in with the surrounding area.
Joan Farrell, 2124 Blue Bonnett Circle, expressed her concern about the safety of the community
with the increased population and asked for the board to go and look at how close the development
would be to the existing homes.
Thersea Rodriguez, 3205 Woolwitch Court, expressed her concerns about how increased
development would affect the water system and the reduction of vegetation. She stated she
appreciated that the buildings would be two stories instead of three stories.
With no further opposition comments, Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for rebuttal.
Ms. Wolf stated that this development would not be publicly subsidized, that rent would be based
on income levels, and that individuals would still need to be employed to live there. She explained
that the main purpose of this development was to provide housing that was not disproportionately
expensive in comparison to income.
She explained that to meet the landscape requirements for the project, the new vegetation would
be higher quality and quantity than what was currently present as it was cleared several years ago.
She stated that there would not be an increased tax burden because there would be an increased
tax base for the area.
Pastor Robert Campbell of New Beginning Christian Church explained that the increased density
from the initial plan was to secure funding, and that he believed the residents would be workforce
individuals such as firemen and teachers that could not afford to buy a home. He stated that he was
open to a continuance of the application.
With no further rebuttal, Chair Petroff reopened the floor to opposition.
Mr. Howell expressed his concern about replacing the vegetation that was there and encouraged
the board to visit the site themselves.
Chair Petroff then asked the applicant if they were receptive to a continuance to which Ms. Wolf
agreed.
Board Member Kevin Hine then asked if it was possible for the project to be reviewed and to
instead have several three-story buildings to increase the area for green space and stated that he
would prefer resubmittal of the project.
Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION to CONTINUE the item to the February 1, 2024
meeting, SECONDED by Board Member Cameron Moore.
The motion for the continuance of Rezoning Request (Z23-25) passed 6-0.
Chair Petroff then asked if there was any other business before the board, which there was none.
11 | P a g e
Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting, SECONDED by Board
Member Clark Hipp.
The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:06 PM.