Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-2023 PB Minutes1 | P a g e Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board September 7, 2023 A regular board meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on September 7, 2023, at 6:00 PM 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 Kevin Hine Clark Hipp Hansen Matthews Cameron Moore Absent Member Pete Avery Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Zachary Dickerson, Senior Planner Wendell Biddle, Development Review Planner Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Karlene Ellis-Vitalis, Long Range Planner Jamar Johnson, WMPO Transportation Planning Galen Jamison, Chief Project Engineer Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience. After the welcome remarks, Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor, led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Petroff confirmed that the Planning Board representative for the Board of Commissioners meeting on October 2, 2023, would be Board Member Kevin Hine. He informed the Board that Board Member Pete Avery had an excused absence. Chair Petroff provided an overview of the meeting procedures and read the Code of Ethics. Approval of Minutes Chair Petroff presented the minutes of the May 2, 2023, Agenda Review meeting for adoption. Board Member Matthew Hansen made a MOTION to adopt the minutes of May 2, 2023, Agenda Review. However, since there were several Minutes for Adoption, Chair Petroff requested clarification if it would be appropriate to adopt all the minutes together or individually. Ms. Roth confirmed that all the Minutes could be adopted if a Board Member made a motion to do so. Board Member Hansen Matthews amended his MOTION to adopt the minutes of May 2, 2023, Agenda Review; May 4, 2023, Regular Planning Board; July 6, 2023, Regular Planning Board, and August 2, 2023, Agenda Review. SECONDED by Board Member Cameron Moore. The motion passed 6-0. New Business 2 | P a g e Rezoning Request (Z23-17) - Request by Adam Sosne with MHMJ, LLC, applicant, to rezone approximately 12.68 acres zoned B-2, Regional Business and R-15, Residential located at 5322 Carolina Beach Road to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family - Moderate Density for a maximum 200-unit multi-family and townhouse development. Senior Planner Zachary Dickerson began his staff presentation and stated that the item was continued from the August 3, 2023, meeting. Mr. Dickerson presented a zoning map showing the subject properties which were zoned R-15 and B-2 and located adjacent to a car wash. He stated that the proposed site was located on the southwestern side of Carolina Beach Road, west of the Monkey Junction intersection. He stated that the surrounding area towards Carolina Beach Road was primarily commercial while other boundaries along the northern and southwestern extremities towards the rear of the property were bordered by residential development. The property to the northwest was zoned (CZD) RMF-M, and Grove Park Mobile Home Parks was located to the southeast of the subject site. He informed the Board that R-15 property was zoned in 1971, and the B-2 parcel was designated after rezoning in 1988 for the purposes of compatibility with the Monkey Junction commercial area and provided photographs of the subject site. Mr. Dickerson provided an overview of the proposed concept plan, which included a maximum of 200 residential units, which consisted of 35 townhome units in 8 quadruplex buildings and 1 triplex building, and 165 multi-family units in 5 apartment buildings. The overall proposed density of the proposal was 15.8 dwelling units per acre. He stated that the concept plan also included two stormwater ponds, an amenity area, and proposed connections to The Townes at Park Place townhome development, which was currently being reviewed by the Technical Review Committee (TRC). Mr. Dickerson stated that the primary access to the site was via a service road that ran parallel to Carolina Beach Road. The road provided connections to the Monkey Junction intersection with a right turn only to the south, at the signalized intersection. He stated that the proposed connections via The Townes at Park Place would allow access onto Carolina Beach Road via Antoinette Drive, at a fully signalized intersection. Mr. Dickerson explained that there were three projects with Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA) in the vicinity and that NCDOT had planned improvements to the Monkey Junction area over the next few years. He indicated that the proposed development would generate approximately 12 more AM and 78 fewer PM peak hour trips than under its current R-15 zoning designation. Mr. Dickerson stated that the project’s TIA approval letter included several improvements at US 421/Antoinette Drive, comprising the construction of a 200 feet storage, northbound, left turn lane on Antoinette Drive, the construction of an appropriate full-width deceleration and taper, the provision of a four-section flashing yellow arrow for the northbound and southbound left turn lanes, and the modification of the signal plan to accommodate the proposed improvements. A new site access that would connect to the existing car wash service road and improvements to the access point with Antoinette Drive would also be required. Mr. Dickerson stated that according to the student generation rates, the proposal would generate approximately 39 more students than under its current R-15 zoning designation. 3 | P a g e To illustrate development typically be found in the R-15 and B-2 designations; Mr. Dickerson showed current examples of R-15 development, and a B-2 shopping plaza in the Monkey Junction area and in contrast, representative, comparable multi-family, and single-family attached buildings. Mr. Dickerson provided an overview of surrounding development and compatibility considerations with the proposal. He stated that the subject parcels were located along the Carolina Beach Road corridor, adjacent to the Monkey Junction intersection which was identified in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan as one of the highest growth nodes in the County. He added that since the project could be accessed in multiple ways, including via the townhome development, taller buildings were proposed on the internal portions of the site to reduce the visual impact of the development on adjacent uses. He stated that townhouses were proposed adjacent to existing single-family residential properties while others were proposed closer to the service road access point. He acknowledged that traffic was an issue at the Monkey Junction area and although NCDOT’s right-of-way acquisition for the planned improvements under the Traffic Improvement Project (TIP) was projected to begin in 2029, it was anticipated that the planned improvements would alleviate some of the issues. Mr. Dickerson referenced the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and stated that the area was classified as General Residential and Urban Mixed Use and therefore the project was generally consistent with the recommendations for the Urban Mixed Use place type. He noted that the overall project density of 15.8 dwelling units per acre was between the recommended densities of General Residential which was 10 dwelling units per acre and Urban Mixed Use which was 25 units per acre. Mr. Dickerson stated that staff recommended approval of the proposed (CZD) RMF-M district with the condition that maximum building height would be three stories. He reminded the meeting that if approved, all development on-site would be subjected to TRC and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. He concluded his presentation and introduced Galen Jamison from NHC Engineering & Stormwater and Jamar Johnson from WMPO, who were present and prepared to respond to questions. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing for questions from the Board. In response to questions from the Board regarding the proposed traffic improvements at Antoinette Dr., Mr. Johnson confirmed that the roadway would serve as both an entrance and an exit, and the protected stem would be for westbound movements. In response to questions from the Board regarding the TIA recommendations, the NCDOT planned improvements at the Monkey Junction intersection, and the driveway permit process, Mr. Johnson replied that the required improvements from the TIA included a dedicated left turn lane at the signalized intersection of Antoinette Dr. and Carolina Beach Road and that the NCDOT improvement project, programmed for 2027-2029, included fly overs among other designs to improve the management of traffic congestion at that intersection. Mr. Johnson also indicated that an unfunded NCDOT project was earmarked for S. Collage Road in the vicinity which would complement the funded Monkey Junction intersection project. He stated that that typically, the project design would provide Reduced Conflict Intersections (RCI’s) together with other attendant traffic management features. For the purposes of clarity, Chair Petroff stated that Mr. Johnson was a representative of the WMPO, which provided the County with traffic expertise, while the applicants had their traffic personnel who would present on their behalf. 4 | P a g e In response to questions from the Board regarding if a fly over meant a bridge, Mr. Johnson replied that it did. With no further questions for staff, Chair Petroff invited the applicant to make their presentation. Amy Schaefer, applicant representative, distributed hard copies of her presentation to the Board members due to technical issues with her presentation slides. She then introduced the rest of the applicant team, Grady Gordon and Don Bennett. To illustrate the typical housing product built by the applicant, Ms. Schaefer showed examples of the single-family and multi-family developments located in New Hanover County. She then described the location, zoning, and existing land uses within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Ms. Schaefer highlighted the features of the proposed concept plan and referenced the location of a stormwater pond located on an adjacent property which would be next to the proposed development. She showed pictures of the quality of the developer’s typical garbage disposal treatment in other projects. She addressed the concern regarding the proximity of the development to existing single family homes and stated that the distance of properties on Brewster Lane to the proposed stormwater pond would be approximately 83 feet and over 100 feet from most of the proposed buildings and indicated that sizable setbacks would be included. She addressed the questions regarding the existence of Pocosin and wetlands on the property and confirmed that there were small pockets of wetlands on the site as shown on the GIS overlay and stated that those environmental features were taken into consideration for the concept plan design. Ms. Schaefer described the proposed interconnectivity points between The Townes at Park Place, which would facilitate an alternative access onto Carolina Beach Road via the development. She showed a diagrammatic impression which illustrated the signalized points of access to Hwy. 421 to north and Carolina Beach Road on the southeast. Ms. Schaefer stated that according to the Housing Needs Assessment commissioned by New Hanover County, there was a housing gap in all the spectrums of the housing market. She added that although multiple housing permits had since been issued and numerous rezonings were approved and many might perceive that they would address the gap, the most recent update of the Housing Needs Assessment showed that the gap had grown. Ms. Schaefer showed images of the developer’s housing product with sidewalks, landscaping, connectivity which would be part of the of the proposed townhome units, quadruplex and triplex buildings. According to Ms. Schaefer, the rezoning proposal was appropriate and consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, since it would revitalize the commercial corridors and blighted areas, provide an appropriate transition between commercial and residential, provide housing opportunities close to services and create a greater variety of housing opportunities in Monkey Junction growth node. She added that the proposed density for the proposal was lower than the average density of the General Residential and Urban Mixed Use zoning designations and provided a mix of housing types. Ms. Schaefer added that the current zoning designations were established prior to the availability of public utilities, the maximum density for the RMF-M was 17 units per acre compared to the proposed density of 15.8 units per acre, the property along the northern boundary was recently rezoned to RMF- M and the project would serve as a transition between the surrounding residential development and the Monkey Junction growth node. 5 | P a g e Ms. Schaefer requested the approval of the rezoning, citing that it was consistent with the County’s policies for growth and development as described in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, that the density requested zoning was consistent with the property’s designation as Urban Mixed Use according to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed zoning would serve the public interest and would allow more housing types in a high growth node area close to public transit and other services. Ms. Schaefer concluded her presentation and informed the Board that the applicant’s team was available to provide additional information and respond to questions. Chair Petroff opened the meeting for questions from the Board. Mr. Hipp requested a hard copy of the presentation and Ms. Schaefer distributed copies to all the Board members. Chair Petroff stated that although they were in receipt of the documents pertaining to traffic, it would be helpful to provide a summary of the proposed traffic improvements. He stated that although the proposal would generate less traffic, additional traffic would be generated. He asked if the recommendations in the TIA were driven by movement delays or capacity. Mr. Bennett explained that the delays and the performance at the intersection were necessarily linked since the delays determined the level of service (LOS) at the intersection, which were measured in ranges from A-D, where the range for signalized junctions began at ‘D” which would be equal to 40 seconds delay per vehicle. He stated that the NCDOT design level for the proposal would be “D” to ensure that the intersection would perform acceptably in the future. He stated that for individual projects with a defined impact on an intersection, the standards of the TIA preparation would indicate that if a proposal exceeded the future no build delay for any given movement by more than 25 %, from to 40 to 50 seconds, mitigation measures would be required to return the intersection to acceptable levels of impact. Mr. Bennett explained the TIA process from the WMPO’s scoping of the study in coordination with his firm to the improvements that were recommended in the TIA. He stated that a supplemental analysis was added to the TIA which included recommended improvements. In response to questions from the Board regarding what stage would the recommended improvements be constructed, Mr. Bennett replied that for fee simple developments, the improvements would be required prior to the recording of the final plat, however for multifamily and commercial projects the Certificate of Completion would the threshold point since the installation of the improvements would be required to be inspected and accepted by the DOT before a Certificate of Occupancy could be issued for the first unit. In response to questions from the Board regarding if there was a recommendation to change the signalization timing, Mr. Bennett replied that whenever new movements were introduced at an intersection the signal would be retimed. In response to questions from the Board regarding the image included in Ms. Schaefer’s presentation showing the connection to The Townes at Park Place, Ms. Schaefer indicated that the image showed a discrepancy between the two projects, possibly due to modifications to The Townes site plan. Board Member Cameron Moore asked if there were opportunities for the connections to be made and Ms. Schaefer confirmed that there would be. Mr. Bennett offered that there was a parcel in the configuration of a stem which was designed for the expressed purpose for connectivity to Antoinette Dr. Chair Petroff recalled that when The Townes development was proposed there were concerns regarding the outlet for the stormwater system. He stated that the outlet for The Townes was the same location 6 | P a g e which was identified in the proposal. He stated that at the time, the County engineering did not have a funded stormwater program and were concerned about stormwater management. Mr. Gorden explained that the proposed stormwater ponds adjacent to the ditch would be channeled to Motts Creek and the Cape Fear River. He noted that the plans were not fully engineered and could not define the performance of the proposed infrastructure. Chair Petroff reiterated that stormwater management was an important component of the concept plan given the cumulative impact of multiple projects. Ms. Schaefer stated that the concept only started the design process, and it would be modified as it progressed through the permitting process with County engineering to determine the final layout of the drainage system. Chair Petroff requested further clarification from Mr. Galan Jamison on the County’s stormwater management input within the project area. Mr. Jamison stated that the designs for the site would closely resemble the site to the north which included two ponds adjacent to the low-lying area, which would be channeled into a 72-inch pipe through a DOT maintained 36-inch culvert at Antoinette Dr. He stated that it was found that the 36-inch culvert would be inadequate; however, modifications would require the input of and approval from the NCDOT. He informed the Board that as the project went through TRC other downstream analyses would be required to complete the plan. Chair Petroff opened the meeting for opposition. Sharon Alford, 902 Dunhill Lane, stated that she was an original property owner in Citrus Cove, which bordered the proposed development. She stated that the number one concern was drainage. She recounted the issues with getting a permit for a pool and a shed at her residence and speculated how the developers were able to process the proposed development when she could not process hers. She outlined concerns regarding the impact of adding of 200 units in the area, the capacity of emergency and fire services to adequately respond, the capacity of the overcrowded school system to accommodate additional students which would be generated from the development, the capacity of the service road to accommodate the additional traffic from potentially 400 cars, the additional delays for commuting from her home and additional delays in the to commute on the school buses. She urged the Board to deny the proposal in its current form and appealed to the developers to downsize their concept for the development of the 12 acres of land. Ms. Alford requested the Board’s cooperation with the community to protect their quality of life and asked the Board’s consideration of their concerns. Levi Houston, 5220 Carolina Beach Road, explained that Fred Spike, 925 Dunhill Lane, deferred his time and that he represented Mike Powell, 5220 Carolina Beach Road, and would speak on behalf of others in his community. Mr. Houston asked the Board to deny the request for a rezoning as the proposed conditional rezoning was not needed since the existing zoning designations permitted residential development. He stated that the purpose of Section 10.3.3 of the UDO, was to provide a uniform means of amending the official zoning map to establish a conditional zoning district in cases where the standards of a general use zoning district were inadequate to ensure that development would be allowed in the district would conform to the County’s adoptive plans or to appropriately address impacts to be generated by the development. He stated that based on his review of the staff report and the developers’ concept plan, the proposal did not meet the requirements which were set out in Section 10.3.3 of the UDO. Mr. 7 | P a g e Houston distributed copies of the Permitted Use Table and stated that R-15 allowed multifamily in a variety of forms which required Special Use Permits (SUP) with applied specific use standards. He opined that that instead of meeting the standards put in the UDO the developers opted to seek a rezoning to circumvent the standards. He argued that impact on the existing neighborhoods went against the purposes of the established districts, there was no justification for the rezoning and requested that the Board deny the application for the rezoning. With no further opposition, Chair Petroff reopened the floor to rebuttal. Ms. Schaefer reiterated that the rezoning was necessary per the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and stated that the potential traffic generation would be less than under the current zoning designation. In response to Ms. Alford’s comments regarding obtaining a pool permit, Ms. Schaefer stated that generally there were issues with drainage as it pertains to drainage easements on the applicant’s private property. In response to the lack of capacity of the emergency and fire services Ms. Schaefer stated that the River Lights Fire Station was approved and recently started construction. She noted that although the station was located in the City of Wilmington, the city and the County shared a mutual agreement for fire and emergency operations. She referred to the student generation rates from the staff report which suggested that more students were generated from single-family homes compared to multifamily developments. With no further rebuttal, Chair Petroff reopened the floor to opposition. George King, 902 Dunhill Lane, stated that he resided in Citrus Cove for over 16 years. He recalled being told that no houses would be built on the land adjacent to the pond and that swimming pools would not be allowed in the backyards. He outlined the difficulties with the changes to the traffic route to Carolina Beach Road. He stated that although he had a good driving record, he had concerns about navigating the traffic that would be generated by an additional 400 cars. He recalled observing wild turkeys, deer, and foxes near the pond and expressed his concerns regarding where they would go when the development took place. He expressed concerns about traffic delays, which would be exacerbated during the holiday season, and the capacity of the emergency and fire services. He remarked that anything short of the truth was a lie and questioned how many lies were told for the proposal to be approved, despite the inconveniences which would be caused. Timothy Wells, 707 Brewster Lane, stated that traffic would be a nightmare and that he concurred with his neighbors’ concerns. Craig Ahneman, 808 Brewster Lane, requested that before the approval of additional projects, the infrastructure should be upgraded. He stated that he resided in the community for 10 years and the only highway that was built was I-140, and despite the approval and construction of numerous projects within the community, the infrastructure was not upgraded. He stated that the County was called Tree City USA, however, the trees have disappeared. He commented that although there was traffic from tourism which supported the economy, the proposal would result in an unlivable community due to the increase in the traffic and population. He voiced his dissatisfaction with Ms. Schaefer’s presentation, citing that the community was not adequately provided with the required information. He also concurred with his neighbors on the issues and requested a denial of the rezoning. Ralph Sizemore, 914 Kiwi Lane, stated that he was in opposition to the rezoning for a variety of reasons. He stated that it was unacceptable not to address the drainage issues beforehand instead of a wait and see approach. He explained that he was five minutes late to the public hearing due to traffic. He stated that the intersections were dangerous and with multiple accidents reported, would worsen with the 8 | P a g e addition of the 200 units. He speculated that when the NCDOT Planned Improvements commenced the conditions would deteriorate. He suggested that the developers reconsider rescheduling the project after the completion of the improvements. He stated that he understood the rights of a property owner to develop their property and he too exercised his due diligence when he identified his property which took 5 years. He described his neighborhood as a quiet residential property unlike a multifamily, condo complex. He also concurred with his neighbors’ concerns and commented that given the attention to the technicalities and the interest shown by the Board he was heartened that they took their responsibilities seriously and were attentive to their concerns. He concluded that the project was not a good one. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing but re-opened to allow an opposition speaker the opportunity to speak having recognized a misunderstanding that speaker had deferred his time. Fred Spike, 925 Dunhill Lane, recognized issues covered by other neighbors and stated that his main concern was the capacity of fire and emergency services to adequately respond to the community, citing his personal experience with accessing the service. He stated that the fire station was not full-service and functioned as a crash station with 2 pumper trucks which were not equipped to fight fire other than having a hose and a few gallons of water. He recalled working with the County and Citrus Grove to manage stormwater and stated that shortly after he moved in, 22 inches of rain were recorded during the passage of a hurricane. He stated that the intersection at Antoinette Dr. was dangerous and described the difficulties when navigating traffic in the general area. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for Board discussion. In response to questions from the Board regarding fire mitigation for the proposed multifamily units, Gary Pape, GSP Consulting, replied that all the multifamily units would be fully sprinklered from the municipal water supply inside and outside of the units with or without the presence of the fire department’s intervention. In response to questions from the Board regarding if there were additional requirements or conditions placed on The Townes development in for connectivity to the proposal, Ms. Roth indicated that staff would look up that information. In response to questions from the Board regarding the dual zoning designation of the subject property and the requirements for development at the current zoning, Ms. Roth stated that for properties which were adjacent to major roadways and relatively deep, higher intensity zoning was applied toward the roadway while lower density zoning would be applied farther away from the roadway. She added that generally that would be as a result of a rezoning request in the commercial component. Ms. Roth explained that in the subject area of the County, many of the properties were originally zoned R-15 and much of the current commercial zoning was a result of rezoning requests. She stated that permissible uses under the current zoning would not be in the same form as the proposal and the density in the residential component would be limited to 2.5 units per acre and could be multifamily, single-family attached or detached. She stated that residential use could be allowed in the commercial component through an SUP to allow a mixed-use product. She stated that since there were no density limits on the residential component, it would be difficult to estimate the level of residential development as part of an SUP. She referenced a project which was located at the intersection of Lendire Road and Market St. that went through an SUP process for primarily residential with the necessary commercial components. In response to Board questions about the rationale for staff’s recommendation of approval, Ms. Roth stated that the proposal was consistent with the recommendations of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan for 9 | P a g e residential density and type. She also stated that The Townes development which was adjacent to the proposal was factored into the recommendation. She explained that the frequency of conditional zoning requests technically and procedurally allowed an applicant to present a proposal which they considered to be beneficial, and condition it. Ms. Roth stated that the process facilitated the preparation and presentation of a concept plan which detailed what was proposed to the adjacent neighbors, boards, and commissioners; by contrast, under the current R-15 zoning there were no requirements for a board or public review of the developer’s proposal. She added that for the residential component of the mixed-use zoning designation, the applicant would be required to request an SUP which was a quasi-judicial process which was not subjective and required evidence to be presented as it would in a court. She stated that the conditional rezoning process provided the most opportunity for the adjacent residents’ participation and for the boards to consider their feedback. Ms. Roth provided the information requested earlier by Mr. Moore regarding additional conditions placed on The Townes development. She explained that the conditions were for the aeriation of the stormwater ponds, building heights would be limited to two stories and the buffer yards would be opaque. She explained that the condition for the buffer yard preceded the update to the standards and that condition would be a requirement for all multifamily or attached dwelling, adjacent to a single- family residential neighborhood. In response to questions from the Board regarding whether opacity was required on the boundary of the property, Ms. Roth confirmed that it would. In response to questions from the Board regarding the form of opacity requirement, Ms. Roth replied that a proposed buffer would meet 100% capacity within a defined timeframe and that the opacity could be achieved by a 20-foot vegetative buffer or a 10-foot buffer with a fence. She stated that Mr. Dickerson could provide the form which was recommended for the proposed project. Mr. Dickerson stated that the project had not progressed to TRC, and the form of the buffer would be determined thereafter; however, the developer would have options, provided that the opacity was achieved within a year. Ms. Roth added that if the Board considered it necessary, they could condition the form of the buffer, in agreement with the applicant. In response to questions from the Board as to whether commercial uses generally generated more traffic than residential uses, Mr. Johnson replied that the intensity of the development would be a driver and that even within the same class of use there could be differences in traffic generation between specific developments. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that he had concerns regarding the proposed density within the multifamily zoning. He explained that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the location as Mixed Use and General Residential; however, there were no mix of uses included in the proposal that would reduce the need to commute out of the neighborhoods for goods and services. He stated that he had difficulty in supporting the proposal. Board Member Hansen Matthews acknowledged the concerns expressed by Mr. Hipp and the public providing comments but indicated the project was designed to mitigate concerns and was aligned with planning goals for the area. Vice Chair Tarrant concurred with Mr. Matthews’s comments and referenced Ms. Roth’s explanations on the merits of conditional rezoning which procedurally included the opportunity for public engagement in the process. He acknowledged the concerns regarding traffic and the challenges with 10 | P a g e alleviating their impacts but stated higher density projects were encouraged in higher intensity areas such as Monkey Junction in the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Kevin Hine stated that he concurred with the comments made by Mr. Matthews and Vice Chair Tarrant and reiterated that R-15 zoning was not the future for the area based on policy and the demands of a growing population. He indicated that improved stormwater on the site should improve drainage in the area, though counterintuitive, and added that the traffic issues were seriously regarded hence their attention to the details and multiple requests for clarification. He expressed understanding of the community’s response but that he believed the developer had taken their concerns into consideration when designing the project. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and asked the applicant if, based on the board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, they like to withdraw their petition, request a continuance, or have the Board proceed with the vote. Ms. Schaefer requested that the Board proceed with the vote. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to recommend APPROVAL of rezoning request Z23- 17, finding it consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the district was more in line with the densities recommended for Urban Mixed-Use areas, especially in growth nodes, than the existing residential zoning. He also found that recommending approval of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the development would provide a mix of housing types and an appropriate transition from the commercial node to the single-family residences to the south and west. With the condition that: 1. Buildings would have a maximum height of three stories. Mr. Hipp requested the amendment of the Motion for the addition of a condition to define the type and form of the proposed performance buffer and requested clarification from staff. Mr. Dickerson confirmed that a Type A Vegetative buffer was an ordinance requirement with the choice of a berm or vegetation with or without fencing. Chair Petroff requested clarification from the applicant. Ms. Schaefer confirmed that the applicant did not propose a fence and had not considered a berm primarily because there were many trees, and it was their intention to retain over 300 trees which included oaks, maples, and gums. She stated that committing to a fence could possibly interfere with tree retention. Mr. Hipp agreed that if information was included in the presentation there was no necessity to amend the motion to add the condition. SECONDED by Board Member Kevin Hine. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request Z23-17 passed 6-0 TA23-03 - Staff Presentation - Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Standards - Public Comment Draft Release Mr. Dickerson presented revised amendment concepts to incorporate electric vehicles (EV) parking requirements. He stated that some of the concepts were presented to the Board in 2022 as part of a Unified Development Ordinance maintenance amendment. He stated that the Board requested that 11 | P a g e staff solicit additional comments and refine the draft language. Mr. Dickerson reported that staff consulted with stakeholders and the draft language was revised. He explained that there were executive orders at the state and federal levels regarding EV goals as the market share for EV was on the rise, leading to growing demand for charging facilities. He added that New Hanover County had no design standards for the provision of EV parking/charging facilities. Mr. Dickerson stated that the intent of the amendment was to create clear standards which were understood by the public; allowed easy, less expensive modifications for the installation of the charging stations; avoided burdens on developers and excessive modifications for installation by future owners of charging stations; and considered the needs of citizens that were not met by the market. He stated that according to the US Department of Energy Guidelines, the private market in New Hanover County was keeping up the demand for EV charging stations for residents with EVs; however, the area’s tourism industry, placed increased seasonal demand for EV charging. He stated that the cost of laying conduit in preparation for charging stations would be less expensive than excavating parking lots to retrofit for EV charging stations. He explained that consultations with stakeholders resulted in the revision of the original draft and insight into their experiences with other jurisdictions’ regulations. He informed the Board that the objectives of the amendment were to expand the existing definition to differentiate between the differences between types of EV charging stations and charging levels; outline standards for EV-ready Parking spaces; require minimum electric capacity and conduit provisions for potential charging stations; and the create a baseline to ensure future developments were prepared for conversion. Mr. Dickerson stated that the amendment would be released at 5 PM on Friday September 22, 2023 for public comment, interested parties could visit the count’s development activity to submit their comments, and a public hearing was scheduled for the planning board meeting at 5 PM on Thursday October 5, 2023. In response to questions from the Board regarding whether the draft would be made available to the Board, Ms. Roth confirmed that it would be sent to the members of the Board when it was released to the public. In response to questions from the Board regarding if there were any actions required by the Board, Ms. Roth confirmed that no action was required. TA23-05 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell explained that the purpose of the item was to get the Board’s feedback on potential text amendment concepts as part of the regular maintenance of the UDO to ensure that the UDO remained up to date with current practices within the unincorporated areas of the NHC. Mr. Farrell stated the proposed concepts for consideration were technical updates which would ensure that the UDO would be current with the needs of NCDOT. He informed the Board that he would provide an overview of the concepts and, based on their feedback, the amendment drafts would be finalized and released for public comment. Following the public comment, updated drafts would be presented to the Board for consideration. 12 | P a g e He stated that staff identified two modernizations for updates to the UDO which included the final plat certificates for private roads. The current language indicated a process for converting a private road to a public road for adoption by the NCDOT that was not aligned with NCDOT requirements. He informed the Board that staff in conjunction with the NCDOT would clarify the correct language so that it would be clear to developers, NCDOT, and the public. Additionally, staff would include an additional certificate in the Appendix of the UDO related to impervious surfaces limits. He stated that the certificate was an existing certificate which was attached to plats and required by County engineering, but it was not listed in the lists for certificates in the UDO. Mr. Farrell stated that the second update was the revision of the ordinance requirements for landscape bonds. He informed the Board that historically the Board of Commissioners delegated the authority to County staff to review and accept bonds for landscaping. The intent of the amendment would be to clarify the language for staff’s assigned role in the process. Mr. Farrel indicated that the draft release of the public comment would be in October 2023 for a period of one to two weeks. The Board provided feedback requesting staff ensure that applicants currently preparing plats were aware of the potential changes to the certificates and when they would become effective. Chair Petroff made a MOTION to ADJOURN the meeting. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 6-0 The meeting adjourned at 7:57 PM.