Loading...
04-04-24 PB Minutes1 | Page Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board April 4, 2024 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on April 4, 2024, 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  Pete Avery Kevin Hine Hansen Matthews Cameron Moore Members Absent Colin Tarrant, Vice Chair Clark Hipp   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 Dylan McDonnell 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. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the January 2, 2024, Agenda Review; January 30, 2024, Agenda Review; March 5,2024, Agenda Review; September 7, 2023, Regular Meeting; October 5, 2023, Regular Meeting; November 2, 2023, Regular Meeting; December 7, 2023, Regular Meeting; January 4, 2024, Regular Meeting; February 1, 2024, Regular Meeting; and the March 7, 2024, Regular Meeting were considered by the Board. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes as drafted. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to approve the January 2, 2024, Agenda Review; January 30, 2024, Agenda Review; March 5,2024, Agenda Review; September 7, 2023, Regular Meeting; October 5, 2023, Regular Meeting; November 2, 2023, Regular Meeting; December 7, 2023, Regular Meeting; January 4, 2024, Regular Meeting; February 1, 2024, Regular Meeting; and the March 7, 2024, Regular Meeting minutes passed 5-0. Chair Petroff requested to amend the meeting agenda to remove the third item, Staff Presentation –Residential Density and Infill Guidelines Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Public Comment Draft Release, as Associate Planner Amy Doss had a family emergency and could not attend the meeting. Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION to AMEND the agenda, SECONDED by Board Member Cameron Moore. 2 | Page The motion to amend the agenda passed 5-0. New Business Text Amendment Request (TA24-01) Supportive Housing – Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend Articles 2, 4, and 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in order to provide for a definition, permissions, and supplemental standards for Supportive Housing Communities. Planning Operations Supervisor Ken Vafier gave a brief overview of text amendment TA24-01 Supportive Housing. 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 Unified Development Ordinance (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 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 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. The proposed amendment would also assign zoning district permissions for the use in the Principal Use Table and include supplemental standards consistent with those of a residential subdivision or community living facility. He stated that the definition of the new use would be found in UDO Section 2.3, permissions would be found in Principal Use Table 4.2.1, standards would be found in UDO Section 4.3.2, and parking standards would be found in Table 5.1.2.A. He explained that all land uses in the UDO were defined to avoid subjectivity. He stated that the definition used in the amendment was intended to make the land use type available to all possible residents and not just as a protected class or individuals with disabilities as defined in the Fair Housing Act or Americans with Disabilities Act. He added that the definition allowed for flexibility in housing products and site design while recognizing the need for support services or personnel on site. He then explained that the use was proposed to be allowed in RA, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, and O&I zoning districts. He added that by-right development of Supportive Housing in those 3 | Page districts would be generally similar to existing densities. He explained that this amendment was not the result of a specific project and would not set aside properties for the use. It was intended for new development. He then outlined the proposed supplemental standards for the use to mitigate the impact on surrounding properties, which included a 2,000-foot separation requirement, defining a unit as an independent dwelling space or shared room for the purposes of density, and design requirements similar to the underlying district. Mr. Vafier explained that the next steps would include deliberation from the Board at this meeting before a public hearing before the Board of Commissioners. He added that during the public comment period staff received some questions and the stakeholder group was sent information directly, but staff did not receive any feedback for additional edits. He then concluded his presentation. In response to questions from the Board regarding the different separation requirements for Group Living and Supportive Housing, Mr. Vafier responded that a group home was typically a single unit, and the separation requirement would usually prohibit the development of several units on a single parcel while the separation requirement for Supportive Housing would apply to the entire campus and allow for multiple buildings. In response to questions from the Board regarding whether a campus could be located on both sides of a public right of way, Mr. Vafier responded that the current definition did not allow for that. Board Member Cameron Moore stated that Supportive Housing could be a sub-section of Group Living instead of a standalone In response to question from the Board regarding if Supportive Housing could be built on vacant lots in an existing development, Mr. Vafier responded that there currently not a prohibition on that scenario, but language could be added, such as it could only be new development or not be located in a previously platted subdivision. In response to question from the Board regarding the decision to exclude ADA requirements from the definition, Mr. Vafier responded that some individuals who would benefit from supportive housing would not qualify as having a disability or being a protected class, such as victims of domestic violence or abuse. He added that there were supportive housing models that were tied directly to a disability or protected class. Board Member Cameron Moore stated that he had concerns about building supportive housing in R-20, R-15, and R-10 districts due to the lack of other services typically available in those areas. Chair Petroff expressed his concern about the lack of public transportation in some areas where Supportive Housing could be built. Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth explained that in recent years WAVE had instituted a micro-transit program that would allow for individuals located in areas that were not served by a regular bus route to call for pickup by a smaller vehicle that would take them to the nearest bus stop. 4 | Page In response to questions from the Board regarding the service area of the micro-transit program, Ms. Roth replied that it did not service the whole county and there were some limitations on where the micro-transit would take the rider. She added that it was possible for it to take an extended amount of time for the rider to get to their destination. In response to question from the Board regarding how many inquiries for proposals of different supportive housing models, Mr. Vafier replied that he was aware of two, one for multiple group homes on the same parcel and another that would be a series of group homes on contiguous parcels, but the separation requirements limited the ability to do projects like that. He added that strategic initiatives from the County were also a driving factor in the text amendment. Board Member Hansen Matthews stated that he had received phone calls speaking against the amendment and that the impact of different groups served by supportive housing would vary so a one-size-fits-all approach might not be the best. He added that he was uncertain about straying from the ADA definition as it created many possibilities that could have negative impacts. Chair Petroff stated that amendment was needed but he had concerns about the potential impact on existing neighborhoods. Board Member Cameron Moore stated that he believed that the amendment should be tabled to allow for staff to address the issues posed by the Board. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to TABLE Text Amendment 24-01 to an undecided date to allow for staff to further review the contents, SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to table TA24-01 passed 5-0. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Staff Presentation – Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities Plan – Public Comment Draft Release Associate Planner Dylan McDonnell gave a brief presentation of the public comment draft of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities Plan amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the public comment period would start the next day. He reminded the Board that he had presented the concept of the plan at their previous meeting and would be going over the components of the public comment draft. He explained that the intent of the plan was to improve the planning and installation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in New Hanover County by identifying where and what type of facilities were desired. He stated that by facility he meant a path or trail in the form of a sidewalk, bike lane, or multi-use path like the one along Miliary Cutoff by Mayfair. He add that multi-use paths were preferred. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan was the appropriate place to identify the community’s wants and needs for bicycle and pedestrian paths. Mr. McDonnell stated that all projects in this plan were identified in previous initiatives such as the Capital Improvement Plan and the ¼ cent Sales Tax Project list and other recommended projects from stakeholders such as the Planning Board. He explained that the identified projects would extend and connect the existing network while formalizing any policy direction from the 5 | Page Planning Board or Board of Commissioners. He added that a more comprehensive list of projects and priorities would be created in the future and that this plan would identify the current priority projects. A map illustrating the existing network and priority projects in the northern portion of the County was then shown. He explained that since the Board last saw the map four segments were added at Blue Clay Road, North Kerr, Market Street/Hwy 17, and Northchase Parkway West. A similar map of the southern portion of the county was then shown. He explained that a multi-use path along College Road was included in the 2022-2026 Capital Improvement Plan but was added to this list so that it would be eligible for additional funding. Mr. McDonnell asked that any submitted comments related to linear paths and concerns about crosswalks would be addressed during a future plan. He explained that had drafted language to add to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically Chapter 5: Building the Future, Goals IV and VIII. He stated that the intent of language was to clarify where bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure was desired and to better position the county when identifying capital improvement projects and to receive additional funding. He explained that the timeline for the amendment was time sensitive due to the timeline for the WMPO Metropolitan Plan. He added that staff anticipated having a public hearing at the May Planning Board meeting before a final hearing at the Board of Commissioners June meeting. He concluded his presentation by explaining that the public comment period was open from April 5th to April 22nd and any comments could be submitted by emailing him. Chair Petroff thanked staff for incorporating their feedback into the plan. Mr. McDonnell confirmed that this was just a presentation, and the Board did not need to act further. Other Items Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to ADJOURN the meeting, SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Matthews. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 PM.