03-07-2024 PB Meeting Minutes1 | P a g e
Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board
March 7, 2024
A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on March 7, 2024, at 6:00
PM in the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Room 139
in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members Present
Jeff Petroff, Chair
Colin Tarrant, Vice Chair
Pete Avery
Kevin Hine
Clark Hipp
Cameron Moore
Members Absent
Hansen Matthews
Staff Present
Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use
Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor
Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor
Katia Boykin, Community Planning Supervisor
Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney
Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner
Amy Doss, Associate Planner
Karlene Ellis-Vitalis, Associate Planner
Dylan McDonnell Associate Planner
Lisa Maes, Administrative Coordinator
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
TA24-01 Supportive Housing Text Amendment – Staff Presentation- Public Comment Draft
Release
Planning Operations Supervisor Ken Vafier gave a brief update on the Supportive Housing text
amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, stating that an initial draft had been prepared
and would be released for public comment the next day. He explained that over the past month
staff had met with various stakeholders on the subject, such as the Collaborative Opioid and Mental
Health Planning and Strategy Sessions (COMPASS) and The Good Shepard Center. He reiterated
that the need for the amendment came from receiving proposals for supportive housing models
that did not fit directly into a land use classification in the UDO, the need was noted in a Mental
Health & Substance Use Disorder Strategy presented to the Board of Commissioners which found
that a lack of a specific land use in the UDO may be a barrier to providing service, and multiple
community outcomes in the 2024 Strategic Plan that supported these objectives.
He explained that the intent of the amendment was to create a new use and definition for
Supportive Housing Community to accommodate an identified organizational and community
need that would remove barriers to development of such uses in the County, reduce subjectivity in
the interpretation of the Principal Land Use Table and provide direct processes for development of
this use, assign zoning district permissions for the use in the Principal Use Table, and include
2 | P a g e
supplemental standards consistent with those of a residential subdivision or community living
facility.
Mr. Vafier stated that the initial draft of the amendment contained a definition for the use found in
Section 2.3 of the UDO, by-right permissions for the use in Table 4.2.1, supplemental standards
such as separation requirements and community design found in UDO Section 4.3.2, and parking
standards found in Table 5.1.2.A. He explained that a public comment period would be open from
March 15th to 8 AM on March 22nd and public comments could be submitted via a link on the
Development Activity Page or emailed directly to him to help prepare staff for the April Planning
Board Meeting.
In response to questions from the Board regarding how the City of Wilmington regulated group
homes and whether it could be used as a reference, Mr. Vafier replied that the city had different
tiers of group homes. He explained that staff elected to create a separate classification for
Supportive Housing because the group home definition was tied closely to standards in the Fair
Housing Act, so staff believed it was beneficial to have separate classifications.
In response to questions from the Board regarding how additional services would be provided on
location, Mr. Vafier replied that any support services such as amenity centers and landscaping
would follow general development standards identified in Article 5 of the UDO so that Supportive
Housing developments would not be treated any differently than a traditional residential
development.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that the County definition of Supportive Housing incorporated
development standards into the guidelines in a more effective way than the City. Mr. Vafier added
that while Supportive Housing is slightly different than traditional residential it was important to
have them follow the same standards.
In response to questions from the Board regarding how the restriction on not having another
supportive housing community within 2000 feet of another could provide a barrier to growth, Mr.
Vafier replied that support services were intended to be tied to that community and that if multiple
communities wanted to share support services that could be an obstacle. He added that the support
services were supposed to be there to serve the residents of that specific community and not the
community at large.
In response to questions from the Board regarding who would manage the supportive housing, Mr.
Vafier replied that they were typically professionally managed. He added that the City of Raleigh
had a provision that required the establishment to be licensed or funded by a grant, but staff did
not include it in the initial draft of the amendment because they found that there was not a licensing
requirement for establishments and this provision could serve as a barrier for development.
In response to questions from the Board regarding if the units would be owned by the individuals
receiving services or rented from a management group, Mr. Vafier replied that they were typically
rented.
In response to questions from the Board regarding if the stakeholders agreed with the amendment,
Mr. Vafier replied that they were all generally in agreement and endorsed the amendment.
Comprehensive Plan Update Project – Track 1 Amendment Concepts Introduction
3 | P a g e
Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth explained that Western Bank, Bicycle and
Pedestrian Priorities, and Residential Density & Infill Guidelines Comprehensive Plan
Amendments had been fast tracked because they did not require the same comprehensive analysis
as the rest of the comprehensive plan update. She explained that the Comprehensive Plan informed
decisions about regulations, staff’s recommendations for rezoning requests, and how County
resources were utilized such as how staff’s time was prioritized. She explained that the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Priorities amendment was primarily intended to be used in the WMPO plan to
receive funding, the Residential Densities amendment would clarify what densities are appropriate
given what is in the Comprehensive Plan and to be used by the Board when they make their
decisions on rezoning requests, and the Western Bank amendment would include all aspects. She
added that there was time to discuss the amendments, but the Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities
amendment needed to be completed soon to be included in the WMPO plan.
Western Bank Comprehensive Plan Amendment- Concept Presentation
Ms. Roth explained that discussion about the Western Bank was focused on nine land parcel and
one underwater parcel that were all west of the Thomas Rhodes Bridge but there were 11
Community Mixed Use place type parcels that fronted the river between the Cape Fear Memorial
Bridge and the Isabel Holmes Bridge. She explained that the Western Bank had been a part of
community discussions for several years including a proposed project called Battleship Point in
2021, several work sessions with the Board of Commissioners in 2022, and a study in 2023 that
informed this amendment.
She explained that the first work session with the Board of Commissioners in March 2022 was
requested after they had tabled a text amendment that would have added a Riverfront Urban
Mixed-Use district to the UDO in order to learn more regarding information that had come up
during the public hearing process. As a result, staff compiled a 40+ page document that outlined
the current conditions, history, flooding concerns, infrastructure, and regulatory concerns for the
area. She added that there were technical experts at the meeting to answer questions from the
Board, such as Director Dr. Rob Young from the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines,
staff from the State Department of Natural Resources to speak about CAMA requirements, as well
as a variety of other experts. She explained that as a result of those conversations the Board
requested that staff outline possible scenarios for what development in the area could be.
Ms. Roth explained that staff provided the Board of Commissioners with five possible scenarios
and the pros and cons that came with each one, at the August 2022 work session. She stated that
at the end of work session it was requested that staff continued with a technical study to gather
additional information to inform land use policies for the area, but after discussion with experts it
was determined that any discrete technical study that could be conducted by the County was
unlikely to provide information any more precise than what was already available.
She stated that staff moved forward with a planning study to figure out how to best frame policies
and regulations based on the information that was already available and that led to the Western
Bank study that was presented to the Board of Commissioners in October and to the Planning
Board in December. She added that the study and documents related to it were available on the
Planning and Land Use department website. She explained that the takeaways from the study
included recommendations for an update to the Comprehensive Plan and a subsequent amendment
4 | P a g e
to the UDO and that the Board of Commissioners had provided permission to move forward with
those recommendations with this presentation to the Planning Board being the next step. She stated
that the presentation would focus on the proposed update to the Comprehensive Plan and that the
concept provided was one possible way to implement the amendment.
Ms. Roth explained that sections of the Comprehensive Plan where the amendment might be
placed were the place type description section, the place type cut sheet section, and the goals and
implementation section, or they could be added as an appendix that would mirror the format of the
rest of the document. She stated that the first step of identifying the substance of the amendment
was to review the identified goals of the Comprehensive Plan as they were the basis for the place
type designations and implementation plan, however there were no goals that related to flood risk
even though there were several related to the environment. She explained that the existing tidal
flooding seen at Eagle’s Island and the Northern Bank were not representative of the worst case
scenario as the pictures were taken during the day and the highest tides occurred at night. She
added that the areas of the Western Bank that experienced nuisance flooding as described by
NOAA were amongst the worst in the county which could make some roadways flooded and
impassable unless new development constructed raised roads.
She explained that if new utilities were extended to the area, CFPUA would authorize utility
services to proposed developments in the Western Bank, but the developers would be responsible
for the costs and would have to follow various state, county and CFPUA regulations. She added
that the purposes of the amendment were focused on avoiding and mitigating known risk as based
on the County’s resiliency study, however the future of the area is unknown as flooding appeared
to be getting worse. She explained that the main current Comprehensive Plan goals that applied to
the amendment:
1. To support business success.
2. To promote fiscally responsible growth.
3. To conserve and enhance our unique sense of place to attract individuals, companies, and
organizations.
4. To promote place-based economic development in the region that is tied to our natural
resources.
5. To promote environmentally responsible growth.
6. To conserve environmentally critical areas.
Ms. Roth explained that the goals were used to identify the implementation strategies for the staff
actions of the amendment. She explained that potential implementation guidelines for each
respective goal included:
5 | P a g e
1. Consider a riverfront-specific zoning district or districts for the Western Bank area that will
allow for commercial uses that would be less disrupted by frequent flooding and ensure
any structures are resilient to existing hazards.
2. Coordinate with CFPUA to ensure cost burden is shifted from public to private sector as
much as possible in areas such as the Western Bank where utilities are not currently in
place and flood risk is increasing and to consider long-term public infrastructure
maintenance costs as well as installation costs when making decisions regarding new
development.
3. Consider a riverfront-specific zoning district or districts for the Western Bank area that will
support public spaces and establish building design requirements to complement
downtown Wilmington’s historic district and the Battleship.
4. Consider investing in greenways, blueways, and trails along the Western Bank.
5. Explore establishing a brownfields program to reduce the impacts of past industrial uses
on the Western Bank to water quality due to more frequent instances of flooding.
6. Consider a riverfront-specific zoning district or districts for the Western Bank area that will
limit the need for both septic systems and public sewer and that limits the potential for
residential uses and to initiate a study to monitor water and salinity levels on the Western
Bank to inform when adjustments to policies and standards should be made.
In response to questions from the Board regarding limiting building residential uses on the Western
Bank, Ms. Roth replied that there were concerns about isolating individuals due to flooded
roadways and the impact of saltwater flooding on infrastructure.
In response to questions from the Board regarding if the NCDOT had shown any intention of
addressing the roadway flooding issues, Ms. Roth replied that they had been involved in
discussions regarding the plan for the area but she was not aware of any plans they might have to
improve the roads.
In response to questions from the Board regarding allowing residential development if the
developer makes all the necessary improvements, Ms. Roth replied that staff wanted to allow
individuals to develop their property and if the Board wanted it could be added that if the roads
were elevated residential development could be a possibility.
Chair Petroff added that flooded roadways would also be a fire safety issue.
Board Member Cameron Moore stated that he would like language added regarding if developers
take all steps necessary to mitigate the possible impacts that allowed them to construct residential
units.
In response to questions from the Board regarding what kind of commercial uses would be allowed,
Ms. Roth stated that it had not been decided yet, but they would be determined by what costs would
be placed on the public and what infrastructure was in place.
6 | P a g e
In response to questions from the Board regarding what public infrastructure was being referenced,
Ms. Roth replied that it was utilities but also roads.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that his primary concerns were the cost that the public would be
responsible for and the danger of putting citizens in one of the most flood-prone areas in the county.
Board Member Pete Avery stated that homes were already being built in flood zones and he did
not see any inherent risk in building in an area where the road flooded occasionally.
Mr. Roth stated that the intent of the new place type was to complement downtown Wilmington,
to activate the space, to reduce public risk while protecting natural resources, and to allow owners
to use their private property. She stated that the envisioned uses for the area were Civic &
Institutional, Commercial, possibly Industrial, and bona fide farms would be allowed but she was
not sure if it could be used for that purpose.
In response to questions from the Board regarding how many acres were available for development
in the Western Bank area, Ms. Roth replied that she would have to get that information to them,
but it was a small number and could be found in the briefing of the first work session with the
Board of Commissioners.
Board Member Pete Avery stated that he did not want to add additional restrictions to an area that
already had many restrictions.
Ms. Roth explained that the Comprehensive Plan stated that the county wanted intensive
development and developers bring plans that meet the standards of the Comprehensive Plan so it
was important articulate for the Comprehensive Plan to clearly articulate what the community
wanted to see.
Ms. Roth then displayed zoning maps that compared the areas that were Urban Mixed Use and a
possible map that showed what areas could be designated for the new Downtown Riverfront
zoning district. She stated that the areas that touched the water could be zoned Downtown
Riverfront and there was a small parcel north of the Isabel Holmes bridge that had a gas station
that could potentially serve as an Employment Center place type. She added that the proposed
zoning districts might not be the best designation for a certain parcel but that would be worked
out.
In response to questions from the Board regarding the possible intensity of possible development,
Ms. Roth replied that projects in the Urban Mixed Use place type did not have a limit on residential
density.
Ms. Roth then stated that the intention of the allowed development form was to mirror the City of
Wilmington side of the river in building height, to allow for taller buildings that had resiliency
features built into the building, and to have less impervious surfaces. She explained that the
properties on Eagles Island zoned B-2 can be built 100 feet tall and the properties across the river
can be 36-60 feet. Across from the northern bank, buildings can be 150 feet tall. She then displayed
photographs taken from the downtown Wilmington side of the river to illustrate how varying
heights of buildings in areas like Eagles Island and Point Peter would affect the skyline.
7 | P a g e
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that the buildings in downtown Wilmington were built to be
taller farther north because of the residential development to the south so he did not see a need to
mimic the height restrictions on the Western Bank. He added that the design of the building was
more important than building height restrictions.
Board Member Cameron Moore echoed Mr. Hipp’s points. He added that the price to create tall
buildings would act as a regulator for building height.
In response to questions from the Board regarding the rationale for the proposed building height
limit, Ms. Roth replied that staff did not want to create a situation that would limit building
resiliency by having a height restriction but there were concerns about maintaining the character
of the area. She added that there were conversations about possibly having the Battleship be the
tallest point in the area, which was around 120 feet tall.
Chair Petroff stated that structured parking should be incentivized but there were some uses for
the area that would be eliminated from consideration if it was required.
Ms. Roth stated that there were limits on staff’s ability to add requirements to the building code
without it being a condition in a rezoning approval or special use permit. She then reiterated the
goals of the amendment and asked the Board if they seemed appropriate.
Board Member Cameron Moore stated that he thought the amendment was close to being where
he thought it needed to be but thought that limiting residential use diminished the marketability of
the area.
Ms. Roth explained that creating cut sheets for the Comprehensive Plan could be challenging
because of the need for pictures of representative development without a mixed-use component.
She stated that there were not many low-lying new structures built in areas like the Western Bank.
Board Member Kevin Hine stated that he did not see the viability of developing the area without
a mixed-use component.
Ms. Roth asked the Board for their thoughts on allowing standalone residential versus mixed-use.
Board Member Cameron Moore stated that he did not envision a developer constructing a single-
family subdivision in the area. He added that he could see a condo type building along the water
with a commercial element behind.
Vice Chair Tarrant stated that he agreed with most of what was said and that he thought it would
be hard to decide on the mix of uses for the area until a project is actually built. He added that the
City of Wilmington prioritized mixed-use projects along the waterfront.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that the city allowed increased density when mixed with a
commercial use and did not define what the mix was.
Board Member Pete Avery stated that the city required a certain square footage of commercial
space before allowing unlimited residential density.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that he did not think if a developer included a commercial use
such as a small coffee shop, they should be allowed unlimited residential density.
8 | P a g e
Board Member Pete Avery stated that he did not envision a highly dense building on such a small
tract of land.
In response to questions from the Board regarding what level of detail the feedback should be, Ms.
Roth replied that in-depth detail was not needed at the time, but it was helpful in considering what
the guidelines should be. She added that any additional feedback would be helpful.
Board Member Cameron Moore stated that the first item for development would be cleaning the
area, and the price of that could be a barrier, so allowing a broader scope of uses may encourage
initial development.
Ms. Roth asked the Board what they thought was the correct format for the amendment when it
was added to the Comprehensive Plan.
To address the board’s previous question, Mr. Vafier stated that based on a quick calculation the
West Bank area was about 1,000 acres but the area being discussed was about 200 acres. He added
that a large amount of the 1000 acres appeared to be marshy area.
Ms. Roth reiterated her question asking what the best way would be to convey the information of
the amendment, such as a cut sheet.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that he believed the current format of the Comprehensive Plan
worked well, but it might need some additional items due to the uniqueness of the amendment.
Ms. Roth asked the Board their thoughts on the current anticipated timeline of preparing a public
comment draft for the next Planning Board meeting and then having a public hearing at the next
meeting after that.
Chair Petroff stated that he had concerns about the possible impacts of adding regulations on the
exiting landowners of the West Bank parcels and how it could lead to the further industrialization
of the area.
In response to questions from the Board regarding how the area would be rezoned, Ms. Roth stated
that it could be applied to the land or require the property owner to apply but that had not been
decided yet.
In response to questions from the Board regarding the timeline for the implementation of the
amendment, Ms. Roth replied that the Board of Commissioners had not provided a timeline, but it
was a fast tracked amendment to be completed before the main Comprehensive Plan update. She
added that if the amendment required a more comprehensive look, it may not be fast tracked and
be worked on as part of the main update.
Board Member Cameron Moore stated that he would like to have a longer timeline between
releasing a public comment draft and having a public hearing.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that he shared Mr. Moore’s concern and thought that the Board
provided many comments that could take a longer time to address.
Ms. Roth stated that staff would attempt to have a draft ready by the next meeting, but if the Board
approved a longer timeframe, it could be helpful.
9 | P a g e
Board Member Cameron Moore stated that staff should take as much time as needed to create the
amendment.
In response to questions from the Board regarding when the subject could be addressed again, Ms.
Roth stated that it could be amended during the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update.
In response to questions from the Board regarding if the staff could provide a draft for the Board
to review before releasing it for public comment, Ms. Roth replied that while that was not how it
had been done in the past, a new draft of the amendment could be created for the Board to provide
additional comments on before the public comment period started.
Chair Petroff and Board Member Cameron Moore agreed that would be a good path forward.
Ms. Roth concluded her presentation.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Concept Presentation
Associate Planner Dylan McDonnell gave a brief concept presentation of the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Priorities amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that in order for the
county’s bicycle and pedestrian projects to be eligible for state and federal funding there needed
to be an adopted plan with priority projects. He added that there could be a more comprehensive
bicycle and pedestrian plan in the future, but the initial priority projects needed to be established.
He explained that the list of projects were identified in the Capital Improvement Plan, the ¼ cent
Sales Tax Project list, and additional projects from other county initiatives.
He explained that the amendment was needed because the county had been more proactive in
creating a more walkable and bikeable community in the past several years by acquiring easements
during the development review process, but there was not a written policy in place for guidance
on where the facilities needed to be included. He added that building the infrastructure could be
very expensive, such as acquiring the right of way or moving utilities, and New Hanover County
did not have the ability to build or maintain roads, so coordination with the NCDOT was necessary
if the infrastructure would be in their right of way. He explained that priority projects would be
included in the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Metropolitan Transportation
Plan (MTP), which was a long-range transportation plan where projects incorporated into it could
be eligible for funding from the State. He added that this effort supported the goals of the 2024-
2028 Strategic Plan under the Community Safety & Well-Being goal by providing opportunities
for recreation and physical activity and the Sustainable Land Use & Environmental Stewardship
goal by providing for additional access for residents to their basic amenities and other activities.
Mr. McDonnell explained that the plan would consist of a map with all the priority projects and
any additional policy guidelines that would be added to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that
while the Comprehensive Plan had many goals and strategies that encouraged bicycle
infrastructure it did not specify priority plans or specific policy direction. A map of the northern
section of the county illustrating projected priority projects, existing paths, and projects currently
underway was then shown. He asked the Board for feedback pertaining to other projects that should
be a priority.
10 | P a g e
In response to questions from the Board regarding the policy to include non-vehicular easements
along Carolina Beach Road, Ms. Roth replied that it was a direction from the Board of
Commissioners adding it to the plan would formalize the process.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that ensuring connectivity of the paths to existing infrastructure
should be a high priority.
In response to questions from the Board regarding who would maintain the multi-use paths, Mr.
McDonnell replied that the Parks department currently maintained them. He stated that he
expected that anything outside of the roadway would be maintained by the county and if it was a
bike lane on the road DOT would be responsible for maintenance.
Board Member Pete Avery added that the entirety of Blue Clay Road should be added to the list of
priority projects.
Vice Chair Tarrant added that there appeared to be a gap between Porters Neck Road to Sidbury
Road along Hwy 17 that should be filled in to increase connectivity.
Mr. McDonnell explained that the more comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan would include
more areas of the county for pedestrian infrastructure and not every area would need a multi-use
path. He noted that some could be satisfied with a sidewalk or some other kind of safety
infrastructure such as a crosswalk.
Chair Petroff stated that there are other stakeholder groups that could provide additional feedback.
Board Member Cameron Moore pointed out that the area near the airport and Murrayville could
use more pedestrian infrastructure.
Mr. McDonnell stated that prioritizing major arterial roadways such as North Kerr would connect
multi-use paths to the existing network.
Board Member Cameron Moore stated that the northern portion of the county lacked east to west
connections like the southern portion.
A map of the southern section of the county illustrating projected priority projects, existing paths,
and projects currently underway was then shown.
Mr. McDonell explained that any policy guidance would be clear to readers of the Comprehensive
Plan. He reiterated that projects could continue to be included in the County Capital Improvement
plan and could be eligible for state funding through the MTP. He explained that approval of the
amendment was time sensitive so that the identified projects could be included in the MTP. He
outlined a potential timeline for the amendment which would include the release of a public
comment in April, a Planning Board public hearing in May, and a Board of Commissioners public
hearing in June for final approval and adoption. He concluded his presentation and asked the Board
for any additional feedback or possible priority projects.
In response to questions from the Board regarding the lack of prioritization crosswalks in the
northern portion of the county, Mr. McDonnell replied that crosswalks along Carolina Beach Road
had been identified previously but there was a need for more crosswalks in the northern portion
such as Market Street.
11 | P a g e
In response to questions from the Board regarding what was considered a prioritized crosswalk
that is depicted on the map, Mr. McDonnell replied that the crosswalks shown were ones that were
had been specifically identified but that when projects were submitted to the WMPO for
prioritization that would generally be incorporated into the parameters for the adjoining bicycle
and pedestrian trail project.
In response to questions from the Board regarding which stakeholders had been involved so far,
Mr. McDonnell replied that it had been primarily internal discussions, but he anticipated more
public input during the public comment period and stakeholder groups would be consulted during
the larger Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Ms. Roth added that the WMPO had done a public survey, and all of the comments were provided
to staff.
Residential Density & Infill Guidelines Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Concept
Presentation
Associate Planner Amy Doss gave a brief presentation on the Residential Density & Infill
Guidelines Comprehensive Plan amendment. She explained that the goal of the amendment was
to provide a tool for rezoning requests and special use permits as the Comprehensive Plan was
being updated. She stated that this amendment would support the Workforce & Economic
Development and the Sustainable Land Use & Environmental Stewardship goals of the Strategic
Plan. She explained that when staff review a proposal for consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan they examine the property in relation to many variables such as adjacency to roadways and
commercial nodes to determine if it meets the intent of the place type. She added that when a
proposed project is presented the density of existing development around the proposed project is
considered to make sure that appropriate development is permitted in the county.
A table representing the allowed residential density per acre of the existing place types was then
shown, Ms. Doss explained that typically density increased as a project moved from Rural
Residential up to Urban Mixed Use. She stated that various factors determine when lower density
was appropriate such as site conditions and what the character of the established community was,
and what factors made higher density appropriate such as an affordability aspect or proximity to
commercial centers and communal goods. She then provided examples of appropriate infill
development such as Parkside at Mayfaire which served as a higher density transition between a
commercial node and lower density residential. She explained that greater density developments
should be placed closer to vehicular corridors.
Ms. Doss explained that the increased need for more housing and housing variety had created
many development challenges such as developing suburban areas into more dense neighborhoods
without drastically altering the character of the area and ensuring pedestrian connectivity. She
stated that design features such as pedestrian access and vehicular circulation could be added to
create an aesthetically pleasing design and to lessen the impact on existing development. She then
provided examples of infill development that maintain appropriate infill densities such as
Wrightsboro Commons and Whiskey Branch, which provided a variety of home types and varying
density throughout to match the character of the existing residential areas surrounding them. She
stated that landscaping elements could provide visual interest and appropriate buffers.
12 | P a g e
She explained that the amendment would include guidelines for alternative housing, transitions,
and transitional elements such as open space and buffering. She reiterated that this amendment
was to create a tool to use during rezoning and special use permit applications and not to add new
standards to the Comprehensive Plan. She then asked the Board for additional stakeholder groups
to contact for feedback.
In response to questions from the Board regarding the intent of the amendment, Ms. Doss replied
that it was intended to serve as a tool for the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners to use.
In response to questions from the Board regarding whether it would be used by applicants to ensure
that they provided adequate information during their application, Ms. Doss replied that it was
mainly intended as a tool for the boards.
Board Member Cameron Moore stated that it could be useful for certain applicants as they do not
always provide enough information during their presentations.
Chair Petroff stated that when implemented the amendment could be pointed to as the aspects that
the Board looks for.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that the visual examples provided in the amendment could be
beneficial for the Board and applicants.
Vice Chair Tarrant stated that if he was representing an applicant, he would reference the document
during his presentation to ensure that all parties were on the same page.
Board Member Kevin Hine stated that mirroring the character of existing communities when they
were built when homes needed space for private wells and septic systems could be a barrier to
developing additional density and he was not in favor of having that in writing. He added the
importance of transitions between different districts and place types.
Chair Petroff seconded Mr. Hines’ statement.
Comprehensive Plan Update Project – Public Engagement Plan Presentation
Community Planning Supervisor Katia Boykin gave a brief presentation on staff’s plan for public
engagement during the Comprehensive Plan update. She explained that staff were considering the
project timeline, staff capacity, budget, and consultant analysis when creating this plan. She stated
that the public engagement plan meets the goals of three of the four pillars of the Strategic Plan,
specifically Community Safety and Well Being, Sustainable Land Use & Environmental
Stewardship, and Good Governance.
She explained that the Customer Engagement plan would include:
1. A public engagement forum,
2. A website that would provide updates on the process and to allow for community input,
3. Mobile meetings throughout the county to engage communities typically left out of the
planning process such as Scotts Hill,
13 | P a g e
4. Ambassadors who could serve as the point of contact for their neighborhood or
community,
5. Engagement interviews with various groups, leaders, and other stakeholders, including,
a. NHC Hispanic- Latino Commission
b. Waccamaw Siouan Tribal Council
c. NHC Schools
d. Business Community Representatives
e. Environmental Advocates
f. Soil and Water
g. NAACP
6. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of subject matter experts who would assist in
developing solutions and providing solutions and reports when needed.
Ms. Boykin explained that the components of the plan would be implemented gradually with all
components being completed or in progress by the summer. She stated that the next steps would
be to establish action items with the primary team, to complete the engagement website, to develop
a Pulse Survey, and to draft and assemble a Scope of Work for the TAC.
In response to questions from the Board regarding whether schools would be consulted, Ms.
Boykin replied that they would be engaged during the engagement interviews.
In response to questions from the Board regarding what a Pulse Survey was, Ms. Boykin replied
that they would be short surveys sent out every two weeks to measure how the community felt.
Board Member Clark Hipp stated that he believed there should be more engagement surveys
because of the population of the community.
Ms. Boykin explained that the public forums were intended to be large meetings with many
community members while the mobile meetings would be smaller and multiple could be held in
the same community to engage as many residents as possible.
Ms. Boykin concluded her presentation and the Board had no further comments.
Ms. Roth reminded the Board that there would be technical presentations at agenda review
meetings starting in April, with Stormwater Services being the first. She added that the
presentations would be recorded for the public.
In response to questions from the Board regarding whether there would be a public comment
period during the presentation, Ms. Roth replied that there would not be a public comment period.
Chair Petroff made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting, SECONDED by Board Member Pete
Avery.
The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:06 PM.