Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-2024 PB Minutes1 | P a g e Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board February 1, 2024 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on February 1, 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   Colin Tarrant, Vice Chair Clark Hipp   Hansen Matthews  Cameron Moore Kevin Hine  Pete Avery Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use  Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor  Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor   Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney  Amy Doss, Associate Planner  Love Ott, Associate Planner  Lisa Maes, Administrative Coordinator Damion Fulford, Administrative Specialist 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. New Business 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 128 dwelling units. Item (Z23- 25)was continued from the January 2, 2024, regular meeting. Associate Planner Love Ott reminded the Board that this rezoning request was a continuance from the January Board meeting to allow the applicant to change their concept plan to reduce the number of dwelling units. She gave a brief overview of the proposal. She stated the site was located at the 3100 block of Blue Clay Road and was originally zoned R-20 in 1974, and that a portion was rezoned Conditional R- 5 in 2022 to allow for a 68-unit development. She explained that the site 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. 2 | P a g e 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 reminded the Board of the 180-unit concept plan that was shown at the January Board Meeting. Ms. Ott then provided an overview of the applicant’s new concept plan, consisting of 128 dwelling units in 14 two- and three-story tall buildings, an expansion of the stormwater pond, a 30-foot- wide drainage easement along the northern boundary, and a community clubhouse along the southern boundary with the private drive. She explained the property had full primary access to Blue Clay Road, secondary access to New Beginning Drive, 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 estimated to create approximately 64 AM and 59 PM peak hour trips in the area, which was under the 100-trip threshold to require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). She stated that there would be an estimated 27 additional public-school students generated. She then stated that while the lack of public transportation access in the area had been 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 13 public-school students than would be generated under the current zoning. She explained the project’s compatibility with the surrounding area, she stated that the proposed density of 14 dwelling units per acre is higher than the adjacent residential areas zoned R-10, with a density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Ott then explained that staff recommended approval of the application, as it was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the Community Mixed Use place type. The density of the proposal was within the recommended range for the place type, and approval was in the public interest because it provided a variety of housing options and additional affordable housing units for the county. She then stated the conditions for approval included street trees along the boundary with Rachel’s Place, the connection to Rachel’s Place shall be gated and limited to emergency vehicle access, and existing trees along the northern drainage shall be maintained outside of the necessary clearing for stormwater conveyance and maintenance. She added that the applicant requested the condition for a fenced buffer along the northern and southern boundaries be removed. Additionally, 100% of the units would be dedicated to workforce housing for a period no less than 15 years. She then concluded her presentation and stated that development of the site would be subject to additional development review, then introduced Jamar Johnson of the WMPO and Galen Jameson of County Engineering, who were available to answer any questions. In response to questions of the board regarding a nearby commercial node, Ms. Ott replied that the Wrightsboro commercial node was close enough to be considered in the vicinity. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant for their presentation. Cindee Wolf, of Design Solutions, gave a brief overview of the application. She stated that the community has a great need for affordable housing. She then explained the changes from the last concept plan, that the number of units had been decreased from 180 to 128 which decreased the 3 | P a g e density to 11.8 units per acre, that the parking area had been decreased, that the height of buildings 1-7 and 10-12 had been decreased from 3 stories to 2 stories, and that the amount of open space had been increased. She stated that even though the expected traffic impact was below the requirement for a TIA, the applicant had done a traffic impact study and that the potential traffic impact would be mitigated by the proposed recommendations. She stated that no existing vegetation along the northern drainage buffer would be removed aside from what is necessary for proper drainage, and no fencing should be required to be installed, as Rachel’s Place residents already had fences installed. She explained that by leaving some buildings three stories, there would be an increase in the diversity of buildings and no three-story buildings would be along the Rachel’s Place boundary. She explained that the footprint would not be increased from the current R-5 concept plan but there would be double the number of affordable units. In response to questions from the board regarding the number of units in a two story-building, Ms. Wolf responded that there would be 8 units. In response to questions of the board regarding building height limits, Ms. Wolf responded that the two-story buildings were expected to be between 22 and 25 feet tall. Board Member Pete Avery stated that Rachel’s Place contained a mix of one- and two-story homes. Chair Petroff then opened the floor for opposition. Joan Ferrell, 2124 Blue Bonnet Circle, expressed her concerns about making Rachel’s Place different from the typical subdivision, her ability to sell her home in the future, and how different this development would be from the existing neighborhoods. Christina Stephens, 3200 Sky Court, expressed her concerns about the height of the buildings and how that would affect her privacy, how it would affect her property value, the possibility of increased crime, the amount of units on the property, how emergency services will be able to cope with the new residents, the effects on the school system, and the impact development will have on the animal population. Scott Gallagher, 2132 Blue Bonnet, voiced his support for the previous 68-unit application as he believed it was a better fit with existing development, and that he believed that this development should wait till the new Comprehensive Plan is established. Jennifer Dorton, 115 Longleaf Drive, expressed her concern about stormwater drainage and the impact of traffic. Susan Perry, 2146 Blue Bonnet Circle, expressed her concerns about drainage issues, the amount of open space vs impervious surface, and the impact on area traffic. With no further opposition comments, Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for rebuttal. Ms. Wolf stated that there is no evidence of decreased property values and that property values tended to increase because of the attractiveness of living in Wilmington. She explained that all stormwater would be directed to the on-site ponds to mitigate the impact on neighboring developments. 4 | P a g e She explained that open space included all non-impervious surfaces, such as parking spaces, and did not include small strips of land that are not being actively used, and that open space would be over 33% of the area. She stated that all opposition was about perceived possibilities and they have been addressed by professional studies and expert testimony. With no further rebuttal, Chair Petroff reopened the floor to opposition. Mr. Gallagher restated his concerns about stormwater drainage, privacy issues for residents in existing homes with taller buildings across the street, that the property should be studied as a wetland, and the impact of development on wildlife. Ms. Dorton reiterated her concerns about drainage. Ms. Perry stated that the entire Rachel’s Place community had drainage issues that would only be exacerbated by this project. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to board discussion. In response to questions from the Board regarding the drainage issues in Rachel’s Place, Galen Jameson of County Engineering responded that the county was aware of drainage deficiencies for certain lots within Rachel’s Place subdivision, though those issues were associated with a permitted stormwater facility and outside the scope of the County’s Stormwater Services program. He added that the proposed development would not be expected to affect Rachel’s Place as it would be built to newer guidelines and directed to the stormwater pond and drainage easement to the northwest. In response to questions from the board regarding Rachel’s Place drainage, Mr. Jameson explained that Rachel’s Place was built before the county’s rainfall intensity standards had been updated. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that the church should be commended for their efforts to address affordable housing but had concerns about the density of the site in comparison to the neighborhoods and the services available to the community. He stated that he believed the 68-unit proposal was more reasonable. He expressed his support for the new county guidelines for drainage. In response to questions from the board regarding funding, Ms. Wolf responded that proper zoning was needed before obtaining funding. In response to questions from the board regarding ownership of the development, Robert Campbell, Pastor of New Beginning Christian Church, responded that it would be owned by New Beginning Christian Church and that the application needed proper zoning before applying for funding, such as HUD funding and low-income tax credits. Board Member Hansen Matthews expressed his concerns about the availability of services in the area with the lack of public transit. Mr. Campbell explained the guidelines for receiving low-income tax credits. He stated that the Church bought the land from Rachel before Rachel’s Place was built. He explained that the housing was not intended for low-income individuals, but for workforce individuals that met the requirements to live there. He stated that if not here, then where should affordable housing be built. 5 | P a g e Chair Petroff stated his appreciation for Mr. Campbell’s efforts and Ms. Wolf’s presentation and expressed his concerns for the high density. Vice Chair Tarrant acknowledged the need for affordable housing and expressed his concerns about the high density and the impact on the neighboring property. Board Member Kevin Hine stated he agreed with the other members’ statements, and that he was supportive of the 68-unit proposal as it is more in line with the area. Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Wolf affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the rezoning request Z23-25 because that while consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the Community Mixed Use place type, it was in the public interest to recommend denial because the proposed project was of more intensive use and not consistent with neighboring development. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to recommend denial of rezoning request (Z23-25) passed 7-0. Rezoning Request (Z24-01) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant to rezone approximately 7.95 acres zoned (CZD) R-10 Residential and R-20, Residential located at 1728 Rockhill Road to (CZD) R-10 Residential for a maximum 24 dwelling units. Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell gave an overview of the rezoning request. He explained that this application would look familiar as it had been approved by the Board in November of last year, but a misunderstanding about the fencing condition at the Board of Commissioners meeting led to the lapse of the rezoning approval and resubmittal. He stated that the site was zoned R-20 in the 1970s to keep density low due to the need for private wells and septic systems, however public utility services had become available in the area. He explained that the southern portion of the site had been rezoned Conditional R-10 in 2021 for Phase 1 of Legacy Landing and that the request was to rezone the remaining R-20 section to be added to Legacy Landing. He added that staff recommended inclusion of the condition for a fence, in line with the Commissioner’s approval. He displayed a photograph of a home built during Phase 1 and compared it to a nearby home. He then provided an example of attached single family dwellings, similar to what could be built in Phase 2. Mr. Farrell then explained the applicant’s concept plan. He stated that Phase 1 of Legacy Landing was intended to be a 10-lot subdivision on Dorsey Lane, with areas for stormwater, and a road stub to the north for future development. The proposed Phase 2 would add 2.7 acres to Legacy Landing and consist of seven attached dwellings that would total 14 units, would extend Dorsey Lane north to connect to Rockhill Road, an additional area for stormwater management, and an open space along Rockhill Road between the single family and attached housing units. He stated the site had full access onto Reminisce Road, that the extension of Dorsey Lane would create full access to Rockhill Road, and that Castle Hayne could be accessed from Rockhill Road or Oakley Road. 6 | P a g e He stated that there were four other developments, and an approved TIA in a one-mile radius of the proposed site. He explained that there would be an estimated 14 AM and 17 PM peak hour trips generated and that the expected trip generation was under the 100 peak hour requirement for a TIA. He added that neither the NCDOT nor WMPO had traffic data related to Rockhill Road or Reminisce Road as there was not heavy enough traffic to warrant monitoring. He stated the estimated traffic generation would be minimal and would be subject to the NCDOT driveway permitting process. He added that there would be an estimated five additional public-school students generated. Mr. Farrell described the compatibility of the proposed project with the existing community. He stated that the property is centrally located along Rockhill Road, approximately midway between Castle Hayne Road and higher density residential west of the I-140 corridor, the Wrightsboro community to the North, and the GE employment center to the south. He added that comparably zoned neighborhoods had been in existence since the initial zoning for the area and that future additional residential growth was anticipated in this area with the extension of public utilities. He stated that the proposed project was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the General Residential place type as the density of 3.1 dwelling units per acre and the proposed housing types were in line with the recommendations for the place type, and that it was in the public interest as it would act as an appropriate transition from the road to existing residential development. He explained that if approved staff recommended the following conditions: 1. A six-foot-tall solid wood privacy fence shall be installed along the eastern boundary of 1716 Rockhill Road, also identified as New Hanover County Tax Parcel ID R02500-003- 102-000. 2. The permitted density range is 0 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 3.1 dwellings units per acre. Planning staff is authorized to administratively approve reductions in density within the permitted range. 3. The housing types in the development shall be limited to detached single-family dwellings and dual unit attached dwellings as defined in Section 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Mr. Farrell concluded his presentation and stated that development of the site would be subject to additional development review, and that Mr. Johnson of the WMPO and Mr. Jameson of County Engineering were available to answer any questions. Chair Petroff invited the applicant for their presentation. Ms. Wolf, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity, gave a brief overview of the application. She stated that the purpose of the rezoning application was to allow annexation of the proposed site into the existing Legacy Landing community and to allow the construction of 14 additional units. She stated that the neighbor at 1716 Rockhill Road had expressed a preference about having a tree line instead of a fence between the boundaries of the properties as. She explained that there would be a 20-foot vegetative buffer as well as a buffer yard between the properties, and that a fence would be cost prohibitive and add expense to the new homeowners. Chair Petroff then opened the floor for opposition. 7 | P a g e Helena Kamil, 323 Cottonwood Lane, had signed up to speak in opposition but had intended to sign up for another item and did not provide comments. In response to questions from the board regarding the future availability of the units, Ms. Wolf responded that they would be for sale. In response to questions of the board regarding a possible homeowner’s association, Ms. Wolf responded that there would be an HOA. In response to questions from the board regarding the price of fencing, Ms. Wolf responded that at $50 per foot, the 200 feet fence would be over $10,000, and that the request of the fence was a misunderstanding. In response to questions from the board regarding the fence condition, Ms. Wolf responded that only one commissioner requested the fence and that she had understood she was agreeing to a fence of a shorter length. In response to questions of the board regarding the buffer, Mr. Farrell responded that it would be a type A opaque buffer. Mr. Hine stated that he believed they should approve what they had already approved. Mr. Hipp stated that they should approve the proposal as it was originally submitted and should allow the Board of Commissioners request the fence condition as they see fit. Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Wolf affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote. Board Member Colin Tarrant made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL rezoning request Z24-01 as the proposal was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the proposed density and housing type is within the recommendations of General Residential place, and it was in the public interest as it provided additional diversity of housing in the area, with the following conditions. 1. The permitted density range is 0 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 3.1 dwellings units per acre. Planning staff is authorized to administratively approve reductions in density within the permitted range. 2. The housing types in the development shall be limited to detached single-family dwellings and dual unit attached dwellings as defined in Section 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance. SECONDED by Board Member Clark Hipp. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z24-01) passed 7-0. Rezoning Request (24-02) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant to rezone approximately 2.81 acres zoned R-20, Residential located at 1540 Rockhill Road to (CZD) R-10, Residential for a maximum 9 dwelling units. 8 | P a g e Associate Planner Amy Doss gave a brief overview of the rezoning request. She explained that the location at 1540 Rockhill Road was originally zoned R-20 in 1974 and was undeveloped. She stated that the proposed site was bordered by single family residential developments zoned R-10, R-15, and Conditional R-10. She displayed photographs of typical homes in the area. The concept map of the proposal, provided by the applicant, was then shown. The site would have nine single family units, a stormwater pond in the middle of the site, open space to the north and south, and an existing 45-foot easement that was part of a larger easement to allow access to Cottonwood Lane. She explained that the site would have primary full access to Rockhill Road, and that Ervin’s Place Drive was dedicated as a public right-of-way but had not been accepted into the NCDOT system. She explained that there was one approved TIA, several development projects and one State transportation improvement project nearby. She presented that there would be an estimated increase of six AM and eight PM peak hour traffic trips and was under the 100 peak hour trip threshold to require a TIA. She stated that it was estimated to create one additional student in comparison to current zoning. Ms. Doss then discussed the compatibility of the project with the surrounding area. She stated that there were already several other comparable neighborhoods in the area and that the proposed density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre is below the maximum outlined for the General Residential place type. She explained that while staff would have preferred for Ervin’s Place Drive to had already been adopted by the NCDOT prior to additional development, staff recommended approval of the rezoning request as it was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning considerations, and technical review and was in the public interest at it provided housing diversity to the area. She stated the proposed conditions for the project included: 1. The permitted density range was zero to 3.2 dwelling units per acre and Planning staff is authorized to administratively approve reductions in density within the permitted range, 2. Housing type shall be limited to detached single-family dwellings as defined in Section 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance, 3. Accessory dwelling units shall be prohibited, 4. Open space above the minimum required by the Unified Development Ordinance shall be permanently retained as open space, 5. Units under common ownership used as rentals shall include a minimum of 100% of the units as workforce housing units within the range of 80% to 120% AMI and an agreement between the county and developer would be required. Ms. Doss concluded her presentation and stated that development of the site would be subject to additional development review, and that Mr. Johnson of the WMPO and Mr. Jameson of County Engineering were available to answer any questions. Chair Petroff invited the applicant for their presentation. 9 | P a g e Ms. Wolf gave a brief overview of the proposal. She stated that Ervin’s Place Drive had applied to be adopted by the NCDOT in 2018 but necessary improvements were not completed before the application expired, however the owner and another neighbor had attempted to convince the other residents to make the needed improvements. She explained that the homes were oriented in a way to preserve as much existing vegetation as possible. She stated that due to setbacks the buildable would be 34 feet by 70 feet wide. Chair Petroff then opened the floor for opposition. Helena Kamil, 323 Cottonwood Lane, expressed her concerns about losing privacy and inquired whether the lots would be sold or rented. Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth specified the location of and vicinity of Ms. Kamil’s property to the proposed site. With no further opposition comments, Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for rebuttal. Ms. Wolf stated that the home would be initially for sale and then it would be up to the discretion of the owner to rent them. In response to questions from the Board regarding housing affordability, Ms. Wolf replied that any sale or rental agreement would meet HUD guidelines and there would be a deed restriction. Ms. Roth clarified that staff was not able to enforce affordability conditions if the units were for- sale so the proposed condition would only apply if the development was a rental project. With no further rebuttal, Chair Petroff reopened the floor to opposition. Ms. Kamil expressed her doubt about the need for the development. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to board discussion. Board Member Kevin Hine acknowledged the difficulty of developing this site due to limited building space and did not support adding density as the property was already challenging to develop. Vice Chair Colin Tarrant echoed Mr. Hine’s points. Board Member Clark Hipp expressed his concern about the affordability aspect of the proposal, acknowledged the difficulty of developing the site, and stated that he was in favor of the idea but not how it was currently being presented. Board Member Hansen Matthews expressed his concern about the density of the proposal and stated that he supported the spirit of the proposal but not the current concept plan. Board Member Cameron Moore also acknowledged the difficulty of building the lot and stated that while he felt the design could be improved, he was in favor of the proposal. Board Member Pete Avery echoed Mr. Moore’s points. Mr. Tarrant expressed his concern about the compatibility of the proposal with existing development and stated that all land does not need to be developed. Mr. Avery voiced his support for the proposal. 10 | P a g e Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Wolf affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote. Board Member Kevin Hine made a MOTION to RECOMMEND DENIAL of rezoning request Z24-02 because while it is consistent with the intent and purpose of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the General Residential place type, it was in public interest to recommend denial because Erving’s Place Drive was not State maintained. SECONDED by Board Member Clark Hipp The motion to recommend denial of rezoning request (Z24-02) passed 5-2, with Board Members Pete Avery and Cameron Moore dissenting. Special Use Permit Request (S23-05) – Request by Joseph Taylor, Jr. with Murchison, Taylor, & Gibson, PLLC, applicant, on behalf of 421 Sand Mine, LLC, property owner for the use of High Intensity Mining and Quarrying on approximately 144 acres of an approximately 586-acre parcel located at the 5700 block of Highway 421 N, zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial. This item was continued from the January 4, 2024 regular meeting. Robert Farrell gave a brief overview of the special use permit request and that the purpose of a preliminary forum was to allow the Planning Board the ability to provide advisory review comments, and suggestions to the applicant and public on potentially relevant material evidence, findings of fact, and issues or areas that the Board of Commissioners may need more information on to reach a required conclusion. He also stated that the Planning Board and Planning Staff do not make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners for Special Use Permits. He stated that the necessary conclusions for approval were: 1. The use would not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and approved, 2. The use met all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), 3. The use would not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or the use was a public necessity, 4. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved would 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. Mr. Farrell explained that the proposed site at the 5700 Block of Highway 421 would be limited to 144 acres of the approximately 586-acre parcel. An aerial photograph of the area was shown, that illustrated that the proposed site was bordered by the existing sand mine to the south, a mix of industrial development to the east that included the County Landfill, the Pender Commerce Park under development to the north, and the Cape Fear River to the west. He stated that the proposed parcel would not have access to Highway 421 as an existing NCDOT easement prohibiting access ran along the highway, so the applicant proposed to construct a road to connect to the existing sand mine driveway to the south. Because of an existing utility easement, the applicant had proposed a 11 | P a g e condition to design and construct an easement crossing in conjunction with the CFPUA and the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority. He stated that the parcels were originally zoned I-2 in the 1970s to provide an area for commercial and industrial development, and since then the area had seen additional infrastructure development from the county which led to continued industrial growth. He then explained that High Intensity Mines and Quarries were only permitted in the I-2 district and must receive an Intensive Industry Special Use Permit which required a Community Information Meeting prior to application. Additionally High Intensity Mines and Quarries were subject to supplemental standards of the UDO regarding lot size, operational provisions, and CAMA land classification restrictions when applicable. Mr. Farrell displayed the concept plan for the site, provided by the applicant. The proposed site would connect to the existing driveway to the south, a 50- foot project buffer around the entire site with an additional 25-foot vegetative buffer along Highway 421 and the border with Pender Commerce Park. He then reiterated the objective of the preliminary forum and explained that Board comments should provide feedback on how to improve their presentation and advise parties speaking in opposition on how to prepare for the Board of Commissioners meetings. provide feedback on how to improve their presentation and advise parties speaking in opposition on how to prepare for the Board of Commissioners meetings. Mr. Farrell concluded his presentation and stated that development of the site would be subject to additional development review, and that Mr. Johnson of the WMPO and Mr. Jameson of County Engineering were available to answer any questions. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant for their presentation. Joesph Taylor of Murchison, Taylor & Gibson, on behalf of 421 Sand Mine LLC, gave a brief overview of the proposal. He stated that the existing sand mine had been operating for over 20 years and that the expansion was a needed addition. He explained that the existing 75-foot utility easement was proposed to expand to almost 300 feet. He expressed the importance of the proposed site, as it would be a one-of-a-kind wash plant facility, that dredged the sand instead of traditional mining techniques before sending it to the main facility to be graded. He explained that grading sand was important as each grade served different purposes. He then stated the importance of the sand the mine produced, as it served many municipalities including New Hanover County who had just purchased 16 truckloads of specialty sand for the land fill, and many local beaches used the sand for renourishment. However, the existing mine was about to run out of sand, necessitating the new mine. Mr. Taylor explained that if approved operations could be easily moved from the existing site to the new site. He stated that there would not be increased traffic as the volume of shipping was not expected to increase. He explained that at the community information meeting representatives of CFPUA and the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority expressed concerns about the waterline that ran across the property and having a proper crossover for the easement. To address those concerns the applicant proposed to increase the easement buffer to 275 feet to accommodate a proposed new water line and to build a mutually agreed upon crossover. 12 | P a g e A topographical map of the site was then shown, displaying a proposed site that would hold any water used in the process and the major excavation would be almost 1000 feet from the waterline. He then provided a covenant agreement forged between the applicant, CFPUA, and the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority, outlining proposed conditions that required the applicant to obtain a geotechnical study to examine the effects of severe weather conditions on the site and the extended easement zone. In response to questions from the Board regarding the function of a specific location on the site, Mr. Taylor responded that a previous business had left a large amount of salt on the property and that the site would be excluded from excavation. In response to questions from the Board regarding water runoff from the site, Mr. Taylor responded that the site was not expected to create any additional water and the site would be engineered to mitigate any potential severe weather conditions like a hurricane. In response to questions from the Board the land use after the lifespan of the new mine, Mr. Taylor responded that the mine would have a lifespan of less than 20 years and that envisioned the area being used for recreation or a park in the future. Board Member Hansen Matthews acknowledged the need for the expansion of the existing operations and that there were not any neighbors to be bothered by the operations. With no further questions, Chair Petroff asked for the Staff overview. Mr. Farrell explained the next steps for the special use permit application process, the application would then go to the March 18th Board of Commissioners meeting for a quasi-judicial hearing where any public comments must be presented in person, and the staff report will be sent to the Board of Commissioners and posted to the county website’s development activity page. Chair Petroff closed the preliminary forum. Other Items TA24-01 Supportive Housing Amendment Concept Presentation Planning Operations Supervisor Ken Vafier provided an overview of a potential amendment concept that would introduce a new supportive housing use into the Unified Development Ordinance. He explained that Supportive Housing would be a new land use classification to describe a community or campus that would combine residential dwelling with supportive services for residents that needed increased assistance or specialized services on a regular basis. He stated that there was not yet an industry standard for this type of land use classification. He explained that this concept may be intended for individuals recovering from substance abuse, victims of domestic abuse, or individuals with developmental disabilities that need some level of assistance with day-to-day care. He stated it was not the staff’s intent to define an individual’s eligibility to reside in one of these communities, but only to remove barriers to care. He added that units may be similar to group homes or assisted living facilities that provide a spectrum of care based on individual need. 13 | P a g e Mr. Vafier explained that this concept was a result of recent inquiries about proposals for group homes on the same property or abutting properties that do not meet the 2,000-foot separation requirement of the UDO. These situations were unique enough to warrant their own land use classification. He noted that this lack of specific land use in the UDO was identified as a possible barrier to service, as presented to the Board of Commissioners in the Mental Health & Substance Abuse Strategic Plan, and that desired outcomes from the 2024-2028 County Strategic Plan support this type of housing. He then explained how Supportive Housing did not fit into any of the four existing UDO Dwelling Categories: Household Living, Group Living, Health Care Facilities, and Lodging. He stated that Household Living was not an appropriate fit because it typically did not provide support services, Group living was a close match but did not allow for a community setting because of separation requirements, Health Care Facilities was not appropriate as it did not provide permanent or interim housing, and Lodging was not appropriate as it was typically used for temporary and recreational purposes. Mr. Vafier then provided potential amendment options and standards, which included approval by right in low density residential or Office and Institutional if base density is not exceeded, Conditional Rezoning for additional density may be requested, and a “unit” may not be used by more than two unrelated persons. He stated that any potential amendment components would include: 1. Drafting and adopting definitions for use in UDO Section 2.3 2. Articulated permissions for use in the Principal Use Table 3. Outlined standards for use in applicable section(s) of the UDO. a. Density/Lot Size b. A clear definition of what constitutes a “unit.” c. Open Space d. Landscaping/Buffering In response to questions of the Board regarding possible stakeholders, Mr. Vafier replied that Lower Cape Fear Hospice, Delaney Radiology, A Safe Space, Oxford House, among others, were potential stakeholders. He explained that the intended next steps included for staff to consult with stakeholders to develop an amendment draft by March 7th, to then release the draft for a public comment period ranging from March 7th to 8AM March 22nd, for staff to then revise the draft based on public comment before holding a public hearing at the April 4th Planning Board meeting, and finally holding a public hearing at the May 2nd Board of Commissioners meeting. In response to questions from the Board regarding how to prevent clustering of Supportive Housing, Mr. Vafier replied that staff was considering a separation requirement. In response to questions from the Board regarding accessory uses such as cafeterias, Mr. Vafier replied that the current thought would be that they could be included as long as density requirements were met. 14 | P a g e In response to questions from the Board regarding a food service component, Mr. Vafier replied that there could be two separate definitions depending on the level of commercial services available. In response to questions from the Board regarding Supportive Housing in proximity to existing Group Homes, Mr. Vafier replied that there could be separation requirements or other supplemental standards to address proximity issues. Comprehensive Plan Project- Status Update Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth gave a status update on the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update Project. She stated that while the Comprehensive Plan is expected to be finished by late 2025, there were several amendments that could be incorporated into the current Comprehensive Plan over the next six months. She stated that the amendments would be divided into Track 1 amendments which were considered immediate impact updates and Track 2 amendments which were considered full comprehensive plan updates. She explained that the Track 1 amendments were intended to have a concept presentation by March 7th, and included updated Western Bank guidelines, a Bicycle & Pedestrian Priories Plan, and Residential Densities & Infill Policy Guidelines. Track 2 amendments would include updated Public Engagement & Outreach policies based on community feedback, focus groups, stakeholder interviews, and public comments. Ms. Roth then requested feedback on a member request to provide technical presentations to the Board such as water and sewer project updates from the CFPUA, at their agenda review meetings. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that it would be useful for information on stormwater management. Chair Petroff stated that it would be helpful for information on the CFPUA and the school system. Board Member Kevin Hine added that additional information on school enrollment was needed. In response to questions from the Board regarding the new stormwater management program, Ms. Roth replied that it had been operating for two full years, but some components had not been included for that full period due to deferred fees the first year. Board Member Cameron Moore stated that it would be helpful to have a comprehensive list of areas with drainage issues. In response to questions from the Board regarding public comments at the Planning Board agenda review, Ms. Roth replied that the agenda review meetings would likely become more formal and allow for more opportunities for the public to learn about the presentations in person or online. In response to questions from the Board regarding the location of the March Planning Board meeting, Ms. Roth replied that the March Planning Board meeting would be held at the Government Center due to renovations being done at the Historic Courthouse. In response to questions from the Board regarding the location of the March Board of Commissioners meeting, Ms. Roth replied that it would be held at the Historic Courthouse. 15 | P a g e Chair Petroff then asked if there was any other business before the board, to which there was none. Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting, SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:58 PM.