06-06-24 Planning Board Agenda PacketNEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA
Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse
24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC 28401
Members of the Board
Jeffrey P Petroff, Chair |Donna Girardot, Vice-Chair
Paul Boney|Hansen Ma'hews |Jeffrey Stokley Jr. | H. Allen Pope |Colin J. Tarrant
Rebekah Roth, Director| Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
JUNE 6, 2024 5:00 PM
Mee5ng Called To Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of Minutes
REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The Planning Board may consider substanal changes in these peons as a result of objecons, debate,
and discussion at the meeng, including rezoning to other classificaons.
1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Western Bank - Ini5al Public Comment Dra9 Release
2 Public Hearing
Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend the New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate guidelines for residen5al densi5es and infill development.
3 Public Hearing
Request by Samuel Franck with Ward and Smith, P.A., applicant, to amend Ar5cle 4 of the Unified
Development Ordinance to change the use of Senior Living: Independent Living Re5rement
Community from requiring a Special Use Permit to permi?ed-by-right in the RA, Rural
Agricultural district.
4 Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z24-05) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solu5ons, applicant, on behalf
of Paul E. & Deanne Meadows, property owners, to rezone approximately 0.93 acres zoned RA,
Rural Agricultural located at 4737 Castle Hayne Road to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business, for two
commercial structures totaling 8,700 square feet for the use of General Retail for a 5re store and
other limited uses.
5 Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z24-06) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solu5ons, applicant, on behalf
of LaLuLi Investments, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 0.86 acres zoned R-15,
Residen5al located at 501 and 505 Manassas Drive to (CZD) O&I, Office and Ins5tu5onal for one
commercial structure totaling 8,000 square feet for the use of Medical and Dental Office and
Clinic and other limited uses.
6 Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z24-08) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solu5ons, applicant, on behalf
of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlacancich, property owners, to rezone approximately 4.65 acres
of land located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residen5al to (CZD) RMF-M, Residen5al
Mul5-Family – Moderate Density for a maximum 64-unit mul5-family development.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
7 Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z24-09) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solu5ons, applicant, on behalf
of Walter Wayne Winner, property owner, to rezone approximately 0.25 acres zoned R-15,
Residen5al located at 802 S. Seabreeze Road to (CZD) CB, Community Business, for 1,800 square
feet of General Retail Sales and other limited uses.
8 Public Hearing
Request by Ma?son Wiksell with Hoyt & Berenyi, applicant, on behalf of Southeastern Freight
Lines, INC, property owner, to rezone approximately 3.73 acres of a 4.24 acre parcel zoned B-2,
Regional Business located at 2824 N. 23rd Street to (CZD) AC, Airport Commercial for the use of
Motor Freight Transporta5on Warehousing to expand the exis5ng Southeastern Freight Lines
facility.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2024
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Amy Doss, Associate Planner
CONTACT(S): Amy Doss; Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan
to incorporate guidelines for residen8al densi8es and infill development.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Planning staff has begun work on an update to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, but that update is not an'cipated to be
complete un'l the end of 2025.
The Residen'al Density and Infill Policy Guidelines project is intended to ar'culate and clarify exis'ng policies and
provide staff, the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners with a tool they can use when considering rezoning and
special use permit amendments right away while the 2016 Comprehensive Plan is being updated.
This amendment will include recommenda'ons for when lower and higher densi'es for each place type are
appropriate, including the factors that should be considered when evalua'ng a proposed project for density. Details as
to how the factors should be weighed are also discussed in detail.
Infill development guidelines are also provided to assist in the review of appropriate transi'onal elements to ensure
compa'bility with the character of the exis'ng community. A list of sample transi'onal elements has been provided
along with explana'ons as to how and when they are required or recommended, along with visuals to illustrate the
elements.
Implementa'on of the amendment is an'cipated as an addi'on to the exis'ng Comprehensive Plan as an appendix
that will include specific guidelines for infill development. This appendix will provide guidance on evalua'ng the
proposed densi'es of condi'onal rezoning and special use permit applica'ons.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip'on
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2
PB Script
PB Staff Report
PB Res Densities Amendment
Public Comments (within comment period)
Public Comments (after comment period)
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2
SCRIPT for Comprehensive Plan Update
Residential Densities and Infill Public Hearing
Request by New Hanover County to amend the New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan to
incorporate an appendix for residential densities and infill development policies.
1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes for
rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Supporter’s Presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Staff’s response to questions and concerns (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
3. Close the public hearing.
4. Board discussion
5. Vote on amendment. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or is not,
consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the text amendment request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Example Motion for Approval:
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County
2016 Comprehensive Plan to provide guidelines for the evaluation of residential densities and
clearly articulated recommended infill development elements. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the
purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provides a tool intended to enhance the
ability to evaluate appropriate residential densities and suitability. I also find RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it
provides recommendations to be used as guidance for infill development and can assist in the
public review and process for rezoning and special use permit applications.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to [Approve/Deny] the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County 2016
Comprehensive Plan. I find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan because [insert reasons]
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
I also find [Approval/Denial] of the proposed amendment is reasonable and in the public interest
because [insert reasons]
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1
STAFF REPORT FOR
TEXT AMENDMENT
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Name: Residential Density and Infill Development Guidelines
Request:
To amend the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate guidelines for residential
densities and infill development
Applicant: Subject Document:
New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan
Purpose & Intent:
This amendment updates the 2016 Comprehensive Plan by adding an appendix that will
articulate and clarify existing policy interpretations and recommendations around residential
density.
BACKGROUND
When New Hanover County initially established zoning and development regulations in the late
1960s and 1970s, public water and sewer utilities were not available in much of the unincorporated
county, and low-density (2.5 units per acre or less) residential patterns were established. Since that
time, public water and sewer facilities have been extended throughout a large portion of the
County. As public water and sewer has become available, areas historically zoned for low-density
development have seen rezoning requests for more dense residential development. In keeping with
this trend, the 2016 Comprehensive Plan envisions a more efficient use of land resources by not
pushing the development out to surrounding counties and simultaneously meeting the growing
demand for housing in the area. However, this means infill projects may have a different density
than existing land use patterns. To support the new plan, new zoning designations were created in
2019, and as a result the number of rezoning requests for higher density residential projects
increased significantly.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies all properties in the unincorporated county by place type,
a designation that outlines the recommended uses, densities, and development patterns for those
properties. The recommended densities for each place type are quite broad. For instance, the
General Residential place type, which was applied to most existing neighborhoods, recommends
densities of 0-8 units per acre. The Community Mixed Use place type, which is common along
roadway corridors and is also applied to the Sidbury area, recommends densities of 7-15 units per
acre, and the Urban Mixed Use place type has no recommended density maximum. As the County
experiences rapid growth and developable land becomes more scarce, it has become more
common for higher densities to be requested for new development, and community conversations
over the past several years have centered on how to maintain community character and mitigate
impacts on nearby neighborhoods. These conversations and heightened awareness of the growth
have brought increased concerns from neighboring residents. Although the 2016 Comprehensive
plan outlines specific density ranges for each place type, it does not provide guidance around those
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 1
specific density ranges, how to evaluate projects for the appropriate density, or how infill projects
should be designed.
The request for this amendment is a result of growth challenges the County is experiencing in
suburban communities and concerns brought from neighboring residents regarding the impacts of
these infill developments. It is the goal of this text amendment to create and adopt an appendix
that will provide tools for staff, the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners to more effectively
evaluate rezoning requests while the 2016 Comprehensive Plan is being updated. This text
amendment aims to articulate existing policy guidance provided by staff and board members
during the rezoning review process but is not intended to change the existing policy
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
Residential Densities
This section reviews the current density ranges recommended for each place type in the 2016
Comprehensive Plan along with factors that should be evaluated to determine the appropriate level
of density for a proposed project. Appropriate densities are tied to site specific constraints and
community infrastructure and explained in this portion. Included is a chart reviewing existing density
ranges recommended for each place type and a graphic showing when lower density or higher
density is more appropriate. Factors that should be considered during the planning for and review
of rezoning requests have been outlined, including the weight those factors should play, based on
other policy guidance in the plan.
Recommended Transitional Elements
The demand for more density coupled with the limited amount of developable land has placed
more focus on infill development in the County. This is when site design and transitional elements
become more important. When adjacent land uses differ in form or function, design features called
transitional elements can be used between the adjacent parcels to provide a smooth transition or
soften edges between a new development and an existing development. Transitional elements,
described here and accompanied by visuals, explain how and when it is recommended they be
incorporated into a site plan for a proposed infill development. The County’s Unified Development
Ordinance contains additional requirements for some of these transitional elements, as referenced
in this portion.
PLANNING BOARD CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION
The Planning Board was presented the concept for this amendment at their May 2, 2024 meeting.
At that meeting, two Planning Board members questioned the efficacy of the amendment while
others spoke generally in support and suggested consideration of the transitional elements and how
they will be implemented, and consideration of public input as the amendment is being drafted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
During the comment period, staff received numerous phone calls and emails regarding widespread
concerns with overdevelopment, high density, apartment buildings next to single-family homes,
building heights, and not enough regulatory action being taken. In addition, several environmental
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 2
concerns were raised over the effects of clearcutting on flooding and sensitive environmental areas
such as wetlands being impacted. A complete set of comments has been provided with the packet.
To address these concerns, staff revised the amendment to include a larger explanation of the
reasoning for the project and its focus on providing greater clarity on existing policy and its
purpose. Now included as part of the amendment is a chart of existing policy recommendations for
density in each place type, and an explanation of how each identified factor affects density
recommendations. Specific examples are provided that explain how to use these recommendations
when reviewing a development proposal.
To address comments regarding the lack of specificity in the infill guidelines, staff provided more
context on existing regulations and how additional features should be included or would be
encouraged for specific projects depending on specific situations and site characteristics. Specific
examples are provided as to the intent of these elements, when they are required, and when they
are recommended.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the attached amendment and suggests the following motion:
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover
County 2016 Comprehensive Plan to provide guidelines for the evaluation of residential
densities and clearly articulated recommended infill development elements. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provides a
tool intended to enhance the ability to evaluate appropriate residential densities and
suitability. I also find RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed amendment
reasonable and in the public interest because it provides recommendations to be used as
guidance for infill development and can assist in the public review and process for rezoning
and special use permit applications.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 2 - 3
Residential Density and Infill Draft Amendment
2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Location in Plan
Appendix
Purpose
· To address the concerns of residents regarding the impacts of infill
developments
· To provide tools for staff, the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners
to use in the review and evaluation of rezoning requests while the 2016
Comprehensive Plan is being updated.
· To articulate and clarify existing policy interpretations and
recommendations around residential density.
· To outline recommended transitional design elements between higher
intensity and density uses and existing neighborhoods.
Components
Residential Densities: This section reviews the current density ranges
recommended for each place type in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
along with factors that should be evaluated to determine the appropriate
level of density for a proposed project. Appropriate densities are tied to
site specific constraints and community infrastructure and explained in
this portion. This component of the amendment includes:
· A graphic outlining site components to aid in identifying the
appropriate density along the scale outlined for a place type.
· A narrative outlining how and when the recommendations are
intended to be implied.
Recommended Transitional Elements: The demand for more density
coupled with the limited amount of developable land has placed more
focus on infill development in the County. This is when site design and
transitional elements become more important. When adjacent land uses
differ in form or function, design features called transitional elements
can be used between the adjacent parcels to provide a smooth transition
or soften edges between a new development and an existing
development. This component describes recommend transitional
elements and includes:
· A chart explaining transitional elements with graphics to assist in
identifying the needs and appropriateness for varying situations and how
they may be incorporated into infill design projects.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 1
Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Residential Density & Infill Guidelines – 2024-06 Planning
Board Public Hearing Draft
Residential Density & Infill Development Guidelines
Residential Density Development Guidelines
In recent years, New Hanover County has continued to see a growing
population. The increased need for more housing and housing options
within the County is posing many challenges for development in our
existing suburban communities. An increased demand for housing along
with rising construction costs have contributed to challenges with housing
affordability and desire for more density. As a result, the number of
rezonings over the past several years for higher densities has increased
and brought more concerns from neighboring residents. The purpose for
this amendment is to assist the Boards in evaluating projects for
compatibility with existing communities. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan
contains guidelines for residential density which have been summarized
in this amendment.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan outlines a recommended range of
densities for each place type, and the purpose of this amendment is to
provide additional guidance on when densities within that range would
be appropriate since the entire spectrum of densities may not be
suitable for every property or project. Appropriate densities are tied to
specific site constraints and community infrastructure, as outlined in the
diagram below.
Much of New Hanover County’s existing development pattern is low
density and makes less efficient use of land resources, as it was
developed at a time when water and sewer utilities were not available.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan envisions a more efficient development
pattern, which means that the density of new infill projects may be
different from the development pattern of the surrounding community. A
greater mix of uses is also encouraged in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan,
so higher intensity mixed-use and commercial developments that may
have longer hours or more noise may be located in closer proximity to
existing neighborhoods than may have been anticipated when those
communities were designed.
The chart on the right details the densities recommended for each place
type, as outlined in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. However, as the
County experiences rapid growth and developable land becomes more
scarce, the density ranges recommended for each place type should be
evaluated. In some instances, the higher density for a specific place type
might be more appropriate or vice versa.
2016 Comprehensive
Plan Place Type Density
Recommendations
(units per acre)
Rural Residential:
All Residential – Up to 3
General Residential:
All Residential – Up to 8
Employment Center:
Single Family – Up to 8
Multi-Family – Up to 15
Community Mixed Use:
Single Family – +/- 8
Multi-Family – Up to 15
Urban Mixed Use:
No maximum
See Chapter 4: Visualizing the
Future for more information
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 2
Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Residential Density & Infill Guidelines – 2024-06 Planning
Board Public Hearing Draft
Factors that should be considered when evaluating a proposed project for density are outlined
below.
Public Water and Sewer Availability: While public water and sewer are being extended to many
areas of the unincorporated County, they are still not available in many places. Lower densities
should be in areas where water and sewer are unavailable and not in the vicinity of the
proposed development. Higher densities may be more appropriate if water and sewer is
available or if higher densities are required to ensure that water/sewer infrastructure is used
efficiently.
Vehicular Access: The roadway network within the county has limited connectivity due to natural
barriers and how it has developed over time since counties don’t have the authority to own or
build roads. In these areas, densities in the lower end of the range allocated for the place type
may be more appropriate, though the size of the parcel may impact the number of trips that
result from the project. Higher densities in the place type range would be appropriate for
projects located in areas with more roadway capacity or connectivity, and those that improve
connectivity for the community.
Proximity to Public Transit: Mixed-use place types place an emphasis on transit and multimodal
transportation through the requirement of sidewalks on all non-local streets, crosswalks at all
intersections, dedicated bicycle lanes or wide outside lanes, and bus access. Features, such as
those described, may support densities at the higher end of the range recommended for a place
type but would not necessarily override the other considerations.
· Water & Sewer unavailable or
not planned
· Limited Vehicular Access
· Flood Plain Hazards in close
proximity
· Sensitive Environmental Features
Present
· Affordability – up to 120% of
AMI, minimum of 20%
· Proximity to Commercial Centers
· Proximity to Public Transit
· Proximity to Public Spaces
· New or Planned Water or Sewer
· New or Planned Roadway
Improvements
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 3
Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Residential Density & Infill Guidelines – 2024-06 Planning
Board Public Hearing Draft
Proximity to Public Spaces: Lower densities along the outlined range would be recommended for
areas that lack public space, such as parks, trails, or pathways that connect to or through adjacent
properties. Projects may provide open space beyond minimum requirements to support higher
densities.
Proximity to Commercial Features: Parcels that abut or are connected to commercial centers
through sidewalks, etc. could support densities on the higher end of the range. There may be
places where future commercial is planned, like Sidbury Rd., where moderate to higher densities
could be appropriate because of the future commercial services envisioned for the area.
Flood Plain Hazards: When a parcel is located in a flood zone, less density is recommended,
whereas when flood risks are located nearby, moderate density development is recommended. A
density on the higher range is recommended for parcels with no flood risk. The county’s Unified
Development Ordinance restricts the density in certain zoning districts within flood zones to 2.5
dwelling units per acre; however, current Comprehensive Plan guidance is less clear for parcels
completely in the flood zone that are classified as a place type supporting higher densities.
Sensitive Environmental Features: Developments should avoid impacts to features such as wetlands,
identified natural heritage areas, and stands of old growth trees. Higher density in close
proximity to these features may be less appropriate unless the project includes site design
features that would limit the impact on the identified features.
Affordability: Higher densities, even given other considerations regarding density, could be
appropriate given the lack of housing supply affordable to the workforce in the county. Projects
would need at least the 20% affordable of up to 120 AMI, but projects with additional
affordability or for people 80% AMI and below would be given additional consideration. It
should be noted that the infill development guidelines would still be expected to guide
development of affordable projects.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 4
Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Residential Density & Infill Guidelines – 2024-06 Planning
Board Public Hearing Draft
Infill Development Guidelines
Infill development occurs when a parcel of land is surrounded, either by adjacent properties or
nearby parcels, of already developed land. When infill development is proposed, site design of
projects becomes more important and transitional elements should be included to ensure
compatibility with the character of the existing community. This also includes cases where higher
densities are recommended or necessary to achieve the plan’s goals for housing affordability and
clustering of development to reduce the impact on sensitive natural resources. Some common
options for transitional elements are outlined in the charts on the following pages and are
recommended to be incorporated into site design when higher density and intensity uses are
proposed in close proximity to existing lower density and intensity development patterns. Some
elements are suggested or recommended for every project, and some are preferred based on
individual projects and existing conditions.
Sample Transitional Elements
Land Use
While adjacent land uses may not always be similar
in form or function, transitions in land use are
recommended for projects with a mix of uses or
housing forms. The intent of this is to locate higher
intensity uses closer to existing higher intensity areas,
such as major roadway corridors, and locate lower
intensity uses closer to existing lower density and
intensity development. Land use types similar to
existing adjacent land use types are encouraged in
instances where no change in adjacent land use is
anticipated.
In areas where development patterns are changing
and redevelopment of nearby land is expected to
occur, the anticipated intensity of future neighboring
development should be considered. When new
development is occurring in an area of anticipated
redevelopment, the intensity of use may not match the
existing intensity of use on adjacent parcels.
Transitions between these intensities of land use will
look different as opposed to when development
patterns are not expected to change.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 5
Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Residential Density & Infill Guidelines – 2024-06 Planning
Board Public Hearing Draft
Building Height
Height must be considered when new structures are
placed adjacent to existing residential development
given that new residential and commercial
construction is likely to be taller than historic
development in the unincorporated county due to
market demands, more efficient use of land, and
advances in building techniques.
Currently, the County’s Unified Development
Ordinance requires transitional buffers when new
attached and commercial development is located
next to existing residential properties. Additional
buffering or retention of existing, taller trees should
be used in situations where new structures are taller
than what is possible on the adjacent residential
properties or when adjacent structures are smaller in
scale to reduce impacts on the adjacent properties.
Additionally, transitional elements such as
landscaping and retention of existing tree buffers
are recommended, especially on the border between
place types with different recommendations for
building height.
Trees can provide a scaled approach to soften the
additional height of a new development. This is less
of a consideration when the same heights are
possible on the abutting properties. While
transitional buffers are required when new, attached,
and commercial development is located next to
existing residential properties, additional buffering
or retention of existing, taller trees should be used in
situations where new structures are taller than what is
possible on the adjacent residential properties or
when adjacent structures are smaller in scale to
reduce impacts on the adjacent properties.
Housing diversity is recommended to add visual
interest and a scaled approach to incorporating a
new development into an existing development.
Housing types within surrounding residential
developments should be evaluated for
characteristics such as height, orientation, setbacks,
and scale.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 6
Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Residential Density & Infill Guidelines – 2024-06 Planning
Board Public Hearing Draft
Connectivity
Multi-modal connectivity between common open
space both provides a transition between higher
intensity and lower intensity areas, and allows for
larger contiguous and connected green spaces which
serve as an environmental benefit. Street connectivity
is required if a connection is available and the streets
are public or of the same HOA, by the Unified
Development Ordinance, while cul-de-sacs and
gated communities that impede connectivity and
emergency response are discouraged. It is
recommended that if at all possible, the design
include additional connections beyond required
street connections. An example would be an added
connection to an adjacent park or trail to the park.
Pathways that enhance the pedestrian experience by
providing interconnectivity between different land
uses are recommended. The scale, location, and
spatial relationship should be evaluated for aesthetic
appeal and functionality.
Stormwater and Green
Infrastructure Features
Stormwater ponds are recommended as a
transitional buffer between different land uses,
adding visual interest and the opportunity for passive
recreation if a trail or walkway is also incorporated
in the design. The Unified Development Ordinance
considers stormwater ponds as open space if passive
recreation is included in the design. Stormwater
features would only be considered transitional if
these amenities were provided or if the features
supported environmental aspects of the property
such as wildlife habitat or incorporated native plants.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 7
Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Residential Density & Infill Guidelines – 2024-06 Planning
Board Public Hearing Draft
Roadways and Private Drives
The layout and design of roadways adjacent to a
proposed development should be considered as a
transition piece particularly when a more intense use
is proposed adjacent to an existing, less intense
land use. Service drives, for example, would not be
recommended to be located close to an adjacent
property owner’s backyard. It would be suggested
the service drive was located where any potential
noise impact would be reduced. A roadway could
be used as a transition between different uses
within the infill development.
Pedestrian and bicycle circulation is encouraged to
be considered when roadways and private drives
are designed.
Accessory Landscape Elements
The County’s Unified Development Ordinance
includes provisions for minimum standards for
landscaping of parking lots, around buildings, and
in the area along the road right-of-way, the
streetyard, along with minimum buffering standards.
However, there are not minimum standards in place
for accessory landscape elements that can assist in
ensuring new development is consistent with existing
community character.
Benches, lighting, and other accessory landscape
elements are recommended to provide a pedestrian
oriented scale in a transitional space that might
occur between a building and roadway or between
buildings.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 8
Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Residential Density & Infill Guidelines – 2024-06 Planning
Board Public Hearing Draft
Landscaping
Landscaping features that are inviting and provide
visual interest to pedestrians or soften corridors along
roads and buildings should be in place. Additional
landscaping components are recommended and can
assist with providing a pedestrian-oriented scale
along roadways and between buildings. For projects
of greater intensity than other development in the
area, landscaping elements, such as additional
canopy trees, native species, etc. should be provided
to ensure the overall project’s compatibility with the
character of the surrounding area.
Hard Barriers
Barriers, such as fencing or walls, are encouraged in
cases when higher intensity uses abut lower intensity
uses without a spatial buffer or transitional space.
The scale of existing versus proposed development
should be considered.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 3 - 9
Public Comments
(Submitted during the public comment period)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 1
1
Doss, Amy
From:Julie Hurley <jhurley@equationresearch.com>
Sent:Monday, May 27, 2024 5:31 AM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:NHC residential infill amendment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
To whom it may concern,
I am writing with feedback regarding the New Hanover County residential info and density.
There was not enough time to give comment for this amendment as it was not available until May 15.
Additionally, the public comment due date was the Monday of memorial weekend, May 26. How many
people are really working on submitting a public comment on Friday Saturday, Sunday, or Monday of a
holiday weekend; essentially another 4 day loss.
While I understand the use of industry language, asking the public to decipher some of the terminology,
makes it hard for the public to actually comment.
To the amendment itself. If indeed it is simply an internal "tool" for the commissioners to use, why does it
need to be an amendment form?
I am concerned that although it states the intent is to "clarify/articulate", it looks as if it justifies and
solidifies high density. The comprehensive plan itself seems to lean towards high density.
This is causing much destruction, clearing huge lots, leaving tree-less ugly neighborhoods and concrete
buildings that are not to scale. Something is not working and planning board/county commissioners are
responsible for ruining our area.
The 2016 NHC Comprehensive Plan says it was created with citizen input. I participated in the plan. In
reality people connected to the development industry actually decided the final version. That leads us to
where we are now, working from a plan that's premise is high density and high intensity.
Since planning and commissioner are not holding current development projects accountable, we can't
count on these "recommended"/guidelines in the amendment to offer more than the low bar that already
exists.
That said, the transitional elements are the bare minimum and will not serve to make a neighborhood or
area keep its appeal. A hard scape like a fence/road is not enough when you are going from a quiet
typically tree-filled existing neighborhood to concrete/lights/loud high intensity. You need something that
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 2
2
would absorb sound and visual (deep tree buffers?) more than a roadway or a path or small insufficient
landscaping or don't so it at all.
Some reasons the Wilmington area keeps ranking as number one place to move to or live, include its
natural beauty and small down feel. Why then are you all approving so much large-scale denuded
development projects?
There's a huge disconnect between what people in our community want and what decisions are being
made by the commissioners and planning board/staff.
This amendment does have enough specific and detail to help us do better. The NHC plan makes ILM a
"developer's dream" (so many from out of town the last few years) but it's a nightmare for our citizens
watching and feeling the large-scale loss.
There are so many cities that are doing this so well. NHC could too.
Thank you,
Julie Hurley
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 3
3
Doss, Amy
From:Marion Kreh <katzenfrau2000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 26, 2024 4:51 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Residential Densities Project
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Dear Miss Doss,
In regard to the Residential Densities Project, I first ask: Why is it needed and who brought it forth? The
term residential density appears to be developer speak… Was it rewritten for developers’ benefit?
The guidelines of your Residential Densities Project are vague without being specific. There is no
numerical value on what higher density and lower density means.
It appears that this will give developers more leeway to develop denser/congested projects near already
established neighborhoods. The guidelines state, “a greater mix of uses is also encouraged, so higher
density mixed – use and commercial developments that may have longer hours or more noise may be
located in closer proximity to existing neighborhoods..” - this is a loss of quality of life for those in the
existing neighborhoods!
It is very disheartening to see New Hanover county’s reckless development, the destruction of our green
space, our wetlands (everyone knows how important those are when hurricanes hit our area), our wildlife
habitats, our old growth forests, and not having the infrastructure (roads and schools) to support all
these developments. This rampant growth is unsustainable.
What is the Planning Board’s and County Commissioners’ vision for our beautiful County in the future?
Thoughtful or reckless growth? Greenscape or Gray scape? Protection or eradication?
It is time for the Planning Board and the County Commissioners to look out for its citizens, not the
developers. Bad decisions for our community directly affect our environment, density, traffic, and health
of its citizens.
When is ENOUGH, ENOUGH?
Marion Kreh
Castle Hayne, NC
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 4
4
Doss, Amy
From:Mike Reed <mikereedauto@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 26, 2024 4:15 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Residential density guidelines
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Sent from my iPhone
Dear Amy Voss,
As to the upcoming residential density & infill development guidelines, I would like to put my two cents in to the board,
leaning in the direction of the environment, and for our quality of life – less is more.
Overbuilding an area has a way of slowly creeping in until you find yourself living in a very compacted, frustrating place.
Please keep in mind that places like Los Angeles and Miami did not get that way overnight and their early growth
seemed like a good idea, but was never rained in to keep them from becoming overcrowded under funded miserable
places to live.
Thank you, Mike Reed - Castle Hayne.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 5
5
Doss, Amy
From:Bill Jayne <jayne.bill@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 26, 2024 3:42 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Residential Densities and Infill Policy Guidelines
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Ms. Doss,
I wish to object to the Residential Densities and Infill Policy Guidelines that are being brought before the
county “Planning Board,” and ultimately the county commissioners. I wish to note that the following
comments represent my personal opinions, however, I also wish to note that I have a long history of
attempting to contribute to healthy growth in Wilmington and New Hanover County. I was a member of
the Wilmington Tree Commission for many years and served as its chair and vice chair at different
times. I am also a founder of the Alliance for Cape Fear Trees and a current board member of that not-
for-profit organization which has done so much to preserve and protect our tree canopy. I was also a
member of the Responsible Regionalism theme committee for the Plan NHC 2016 iteration of a county
“comprehensive plan.”
The county’s website states: "The purpose of the Residential Density and Infill Policy Guidelines project
is to articulate and clarify existing policies on residential densities and infill development, while also
providing our boards with a tool they can use when considering rezoning and special use amendments.
"This project will not change existing guidelines surrounding residential development, but will further
clarify when specific densities and infill development may or may not be appropriate. This is intended to
be used while the 2050 Comprehensive Plan is being updated.”
This gets right to the crux of my objections to the proposed policy. Local governments, especially here in
fast-growing southeastern North Carolina, have exhibited almost no willingness to be guided by the
painstakingly prepared comprehensive plans and development ordinances that have been
adopted. Reading through the elementary guidelines proposed, it seems that the primary purpose of the
change is to facilitate piecemeal development driven primarily by commercial interests.
The New Hanover County Soil and Water Conservation District has endorsed a report published in March
2023 titled "Island Creek Basin Ecosystems: An Imperiled Biodiversity Hotspot.” The report states:
“Northern New Hanover County is currently a focal area for growth. The Island Creek Basin Ecosystem
White Paper describes the characteristics and ecosystem services provided by the biodiverse
ecosystems in the Sidbury Road Area and the Island Creek Watershed. Though development is
inevitable in some of these locations, it is important to determine the ability of these areas to meet both
stormwater and floodwater concerns, as well as to meet infrastructure needs for our citizens and for the
County. The Island creek Area is predominantly composed of hydric soils, which are soils that form
under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop
anaerobic conditions in the upper part and that supports flora adapted to these wet conditions; they are
poorly to very poorly draining soils. These wet soils, and the significant plant and animal communities in
Island Creek, should be fully assessed for their value and limitations for construction prior to any
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 6
6
development.” If such an assessment is part of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan process, why not wait
until the plan is done?
There seems to be a lack of candor about the need for this hasty action. What’s driving the need for
haste? The amendment may be expected to be applied piecemeal throughout the northern tier now
being opened up for development by the Military Cutoff Extension and the Hampstead Bypass. It’s been
known for decades that this area has very challenging soil conditions that may easily lead to localized
flooding if the county fails to take a comprehensive approach to development. The relative lack of
roadways, parks, educational facilities, public safety facilities, etc., offers the opportunity to develop a
coherent plan that will avoid problems down the road and provide the people of the county with an area
we can all be proud of. The area cries out for master planning, not an ad hoc, piecemeal approach.
Ad hoc, piecemeal approaches driven by “development” interests have given the people of New Hanover
County intensified traffic problems, widespread flooding problems, tremendous destruction of the tree
cover that cools the air, retards stormwater runoff and contributes so much to the beauty and
attractiveness of the area.
The proposed guidelines state that “Higher Density is Appropriate” when several bulleted conditions
exist such as “Proximity to Commercial Centers.” It seems that these conditions are simply discrete
examples of when high-density development is “appropriate.” If that’s the case, then it seems that these
six bullets cover just about any conditions. In the currently less built-up northern tier of the county, for
example, the entire region is near “new or planned water or sewer,” and “new or planned roadway
improvements.” I am of the opinion that high-density development is not appropriate anywhere in the
Island Creek Ecosystem or the “northern tier,” if you will, without comprehensive master planning.
The county says the amendment won’t change any existing policies. That’s not good news since the
recent track record is that virtually no project has shown the slightest sensitivity to tree protection or
environmental stewardship in general. The guidelines seem to mention trees just once and then only
when discussing “transitional elements.” The guidelines state that if increased building height is desired
by the builder next to existing lower height structures, then “This may require additional transitional
elements, such as landscaping and retention of existing tree buffers.” Recent projects, along Castle
Hayne Road, for example, have seen absolutely no retention of trees. Sites are first reduced to a desert
where no green thing is allowed to exist, something like a coal surface mine, and then structures, roads,
etc., are installed. Simply saying that building high-density structures next to lower-density structures
“may” require retention of existing tree buffers is not likely to result in retention of many mature trees. I
don’t believe the word “tree” appears anywhere else in the proposed guidelines.
Finally, it is my emphatic opinion that this proposed guideline will simply open the door to increased, ad-
hoc, piecemeal development—especially in the northern tier of the county--that does not serve the long-
term public interest of the citizens of New Hanover County. Existing guidelines based on the recent UDO
document are capable of guiding growth if the commissioners provide county planners with the support
needed to guide construction activities. Moreover, work is already underway to produce a new
comprehensive plan to, hopefully, guide growth through 2050. Piecemeal building will contribute to a
situation where the new comprehensive plan will be irrelevant by the time it’s approved.
It’s time to guide growth for the public interest of all those in the county and not just facilitate
construction whenever, wherever and however development interests want to see it happen.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 7
7
Bill Jayne
3610 Rosewood Landing Drive
Castle Hayne, NC 28429
910.386.9203
jayne.bill@gmail.com
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 8
8
Doss, Amy
From:Margee Herring <margeeherring@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 26, 2024 12:47 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Comment on Residential Density and Infill Draft Amendment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Hello, Ms. Doss
I am writing with regard to the Residential Density and Infill Draft Amendment and hope my voice is one
of many expressing concern for the rushed pace at which this amendment is being considered.
While I recognize the continued growth of our community seems to know no limits, it is concerning that
our government appears eager to accommodate the will of developers to the great degradation of our
green space, biodiversity, tree canopy and the shared benefits of such environmental attributes.
After years of seeing an incredible tolerance for wide swaths of clear-cutting, it is hard to reconcile
that our planners and commissioners see little reason for change. Can anyone really drive past David
Swaim's project along Eastwood Road and Military Cutoff without wincing? How about driving down
Castle Hayne Rd where developer after developer just cuts it all down.
And yet, here we go again.
This amendment is written with tangential consideration of natural spaces – indeed only as “buffers”
between old and new, high-density and low. And, even then, guidelines seem to consider only aesthetics
– not their value to stormwater, urban heat island, wildlife corridors, etc.
Examples:
“Pathways that enhance the pedestrian experience by providing interconnectivity between different land
uses are encouraged. The scale, location, and spatial relationship should be evaluated for aesthetic
appeal and functionality.” Presumably “functionality” is as a pathway for humans only.
“Landscaping features that are inviting and provide visual interest to pedestrians or soften corridors
along roads and buildings are encouraged.”
“Benches, lighting, and other accessory landscape elements are encouraged to provide a pedestrian
oriented scale in a transitional space that might occur between a building and roadway or between
buildings.” Perhaps creating spaces where people would actually want to sit, rather than simply
providing a suggestion of scale.
Regarding Stormwater and Green Infrastructure: It is disingenuous to use Lumina Station’s stormwater
pond as your illustration. It is hardly representative of what most developers do for stormwater. Rather,
consider requiring solutions that are accessible to wildlife, encourage biodiversity and contribute to
wildlife corridors. Develop your guidelines in concert with wildlife and biodiversity, rather than in
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 9
9
conflict. The flood plain restoration of Clear Run Branch is an excellent example of what can be achieved
with consideration, grant funds and commitment to preserving a higher quality of life for all residents.
Other thoughts:
A need to better define: Sensitive Environmental Features, as used to govern Low vs High density.
"Sensitive Environmental Features" could not be more vague.
Retention of existing tree buffers: Are actually less of a consideration when same heights are possible
between old and new, high density and low? Why??
I implore the planning department to delay its ruling on this amendment until more citizens have been
informed and have time to comment.
It is alarming that we seem unable to learn from our sprawl.
Margee Herring
209 Colonial Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 10
10
Doss, Amy
From:Duane Truscott <duanetruscott@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 26, 2024 4:38 AM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Residential Density and Infill Developement Guidelines
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Good day to you Ms Doss I am, Duane Truscott, and I'm sending you notice that I am not in favor of the
current use of the guidelines. I will be attending and participating in all meetings and workshops
pertaining to the use of the guidelines. See you soon, Duane Truscott.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 11
11
Doss, Amy
From:Diane Travis <dtravis10562@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 25, 2024 4:43 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Fast Track of Amendment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
We need to look at this amendment more thoroughly. We do not need higher density in our neighborhoods that will
have a terrible impact on our community Sent from my iPhone
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 12
12
Doss, Amy
From:Rick Wilson <wilsonrick@protonmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 25, 2024 8:05 AM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Admendment reguarding residential density
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Why is it that the people that have already made an investment in New Hanover County are ignored when future
development is being considered? I am not against development as long as the new development does not
negatively impact the people that are already here.
With the flooding problems that already exist in this county, why is greater density even being considered? We now
have to pay an extra/new tax to address storm water runoff and not very many of the current problems have been
addressed even with this new funding. I flood even with just heavy rains, not even a storm, and get shot down when
asking for the situation to be addressed/fixed. So, I get to pay an additional tax so the county can store the excess
water in my back yard, home, and out buildings. They affix this new tax to your property taxes so they can claim you
are not paying your property taxes even if you pay everything except the storm water portion of the bill. The county
gets to store the water on my property and I also have to pay the county to do this. My home was built in 1967 and
the flooding has drastically increased over the years because of new development.
It would be extremely helpful and make sense to address and find solutions to all of the counties current problems
before adding more variables like increased density to the mix. Common sense needs override greed and uncaring
people that only consider their bottom line. The current problems of flooding, traffic, etc. need to be solved before
worrying about making it easier for developers to add to the problems.
Rick Wilson
Castle Hayne
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 13
13
Doss, Amy
From:crychak@gmail.com
Sent:Friday, May 24, 2024 10:20 AM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Public Comments on Residential Densities Project
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Good morning Amy,
Below are my comments on the subject. I also saw there is a draft of the bike/pedestrian plan. When did
that go to public comment, or is it still getting worked?
Thanks,
Charity Delaney
Comments
General comment: none of this appendix has teeth for enforcement, unlike some recent changes to the
ped/bike appendix. I’d like to see more “must” and “required” than “recommended”, as you can see
from all the construction on the county not much “extra” is being done by developers at their own
volition. Please explain why there aren’t more requirements.
Transitional elements: this is very vague and I’ve seen landscaping that does not provide adequate buffer
(think row of bushes or trees, or trees planted and left to die). Recommend adding reference to specific
setback requirements, as well as require mediation with adjacent community (ies) to ensure good
neighbor relationships.
Connectivity: connecting developments to existing residential developments leads to higher road
demand on private roads, which the state may not be responsible for (or have the funding to address in a
timely manner), and the new development will not be responsible for paying for repairs. In addition , this
leads to an increase in “cut through” traffic in residential neighborhoods. Recommend adding
stipulations that should new developments be connected to existing residential neighborhoods, traffic
control measures, such as speed bumps, digital speed signs, or funds to replace/repave existing roads
to meet future higher traffic demands, are included in the approvals and with adjoining community
consent.
Connectivity: this section implies sidewalks are encouraged; however, I was told sidewalks are not a
requirement and are determined during the TRC. This issue should be clarified. My neighborhood is a
prime example of one where we had sidewalks but they were removed when NCDOT took over our road
maintenance (because they would not maintain them).
Recommend the county mandate sidewalks for new development, particularly if the parcel is in a direct
route from residential areas to schools (within 1.5 miles) or other commercial areas where residents can
be encouraged to walk or ride bikes to shop or work.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 14
14
Landscaping: it seems the standard protocol for new development is to clearcut and plant all new
vegetation instead of preserving native, existing vegetation. there are several projects in the Ogden area
specifically where projects with old growth live oaks and cypress were either cut down or left but are now
dying due to stress from the new development (or in the case of the cypress, has died due to lack of
water as the wetland was filled). This is unacceptable and frankly makes Wilmington look terrible.
Recommend the county evaluate and develop policy to require maintaining existing natural vegetation,
specifically trees, and increasing penalty if trees die within a certain number of years. (ie, restrict ability
to pull future permits, not just fine them).
Hard Barriers: when are they required? There are sections along the new Military Cutoff that have them
and sections that don’t.
Recommend adding references to specific DOT guidance on when these are required.
Other comments: there is no discussion on taking into consideration impact on existing school
systems. Recommend adding that for new residential areas, impact to existing schools should be
looked at, along with all other proposed developments for the same school zone. This will require the
county to have a running list of proposed developments that have been approved (whether under
construction or not). Also recommend with residential communities, the county also look at proximity
and availability to public parks and swimming facilities. No new parks are currently proposed, and only
so many people can use the existing ones. There also isn’t a public swimming pool facility in the north or
northeast portion of the county. Considering we are a coastal community, this is a sport we should be
encouraging for safety and other reasons.
Also, open burn of vegetation needs to be re-evaluated in our county and State, especially with looking at
future development on remaining land parcels surrounded by existing development. NCDEQ does not
have the teeth to enforce what should be enforced, even though they receive numerous complains of ash
and smoke in residential communities, roadways, and schools!!! Recommend discussing issue with
NCDEQ air permitting officials to develop updated policy. This should be part of a project approval, as
well (what will be done with existing vegetation-mulched or open burn)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 15
15
Doss, Amy
From:Kim Swinny <kim@localdailymedia.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2024 4:26 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Residential Development and Infill Amendment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Dear Ms. Doss,
In short, this amendment seems to leave many grave concerns unclear, unaddressed and unresolved. I
don’t believe it’s any secret how upset much of our community is with the recent years of development,
clear cutting what few trees we have left that are essential to cleaning the air we breathe, absorbing
floodwaters & keeping us cooler, for example.
Traffic congestion is another huge & worsening issue here that high density development will certainly
not help. It’s hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that we seem to be moving in exactly the
opposite direction we need to be given current & forecasted climate conditions. Honestly, how the entire
globe isn’t focused on saving our collective home and habitat as a top priority is completely beyond my
comprehension.
What other species on the planet destroys their own habitat? But there is always one answer to these
conundrums and that is the almighty $$.
Of course development can be good and is surely inevitable but responsible development is what
seems to be missing from many decisions being made here in our community. There is absolutely an
overwhelming impression that developers get what they want $$ at the expense of the greater
community as a whole. We won’t even have a community here if we don’t start doing things differently.
And amendments that make it easier for irresponsible, profit-focused developers will only fast track our
demise. Does everything have to be developed?? Effective land use can certainly mean leaving land,
ecosystems, etc. as it is.
And sometimes I wonder if the left hand here even knows what the right hand is doing, aesthetically
speaking as much as practically. The onslaught of storage units, car washes & apartments does little to
preserve the dwindling charm & character once so present here. Some apartments along Oleander might
as well be in the actual road.
Despite the concerns I have voiced, I am a supporter of RESPONSIBLE development and moving us into
the future. I feel sure there are other communities we can learn from who develop AND preserve/protect
simultaneously. That would seem to me to really be the future. And very clear, explicit amendments
would seem to be a baseline necessity to protect what we all love so much about calling Wilmington
home.
At the very least, I would like to request an extension for comments. This draft amendment was
inaccessible to the public for 6 days (May 9-14) due to a glitch in your system and, at a minimum, 6 days
should be added to the comment period.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 16
16
Doss, Amy
From:B Jones <foodjones@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2024 4:54 AM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:High density
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Dear Ms Hoss,
WE DONT WANT YOUR OVERDEVELOPMENT PLAN. GRANT THE EXTENSION FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND STOP SELLING
EVERY INCH OF THIS TOWN.
A tax paying 30 year resident and property owner.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 17
17
Doss, Amy
From:gwen behen <mgbehen@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2024 3:08 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:NHC Residential Density and Infill Draft
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Hello Ms.Doss:
I am writing as a county resident and requesting that there be a extension of the Density and Infill Draft. I
have only learned about this in the last two days, and request more time in trying to understand what
exactly is being requested.
Thank you for considering this.
Sincerely,
Gwen Behen
6237 Trowbridge St, Wilmington, NC 28403
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 18
18
Doss, Amy
From:Lori Harvey <lpharvey922@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2024 6:38 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:New Prosposal for development
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
I am writing to express my concerns for the new planning and development for higher density housing in New Hanover
County.
There are concerns about traffic congestion, overcrowding at schools, wildlife displacement, strain on the infrastructure.
Please consider scaling back when designing communities. Apartments and homes right on top of each other is not the
direction New Hanover County should be going in.
Thank you.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 19
19
Doss, Amy
From:David Branton <david@eccrenc.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2024 3:08 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Residential Density & Infill Draft Amendment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Good Afternoon Ms. Doss,
I want to thank you and staff for clarifying existing policy to the public as it is already interpreted by
staff. I believe this will be a good education piece for those that do not fully understand transitional uses
and that higher density near services and transportation is sound planning practice.
Thank you,
David Branton
Broker In Charge
Eastern Carolinas Commercial Real Estate
(910) 399-4602(o)
(910) 399-4675(f)
(704) 740-8184(c)
david@eccrenc.com
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 20
20
Doss, Amy
From:JULIE BARBER <malandjulie@bellsouth.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2024 10:37 AM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Pleading for NHC to preserve what is left of our natural beauty
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
This movement to plead for protection of NHC is long overdue, but it is not too late to halt the aggressive pursuit of
growth. This aggressive growth has been at the expense of sacrificing the natural beauty of Wilmington including but not
limited to the loss of trees, wildlife and their habitats. It is quite sad to see the rapid removal of acres of trees and
natural landscapes. The trees and natural wooded areas are being traded for large apartment complexes, shopping
centers, and roads throughout the county. What once was full of nice neighborhoods with beautiful trees, yards, and a
special sense of nature and community is now being developed with only investors and their desire for more growth and
wealth. The loss of beauty for the exchange of asphalt, concrete and large buildings is devastating for our area.
Wilmington has suffered under such visions and leadership. We are losing our coastal feel and resembling just another
congested city with shopping centers, apartments, gas stations and new cookie cutter neighborhoods void of trees,
plants, and animals . Please look at the loss and exchange we are experiencing. More trees and natural landscapes are
what is truly valuable and has made this area special. Let’s not continue to sacrifice our natural treasures for financial
gain.
Sincerely,
Julie Barber
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 21
21
Doss, Amy
From:Marlene Linden <marlenelinden@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 20, 2024 3:55 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Draft Amendment to Residential Density Infill Development Guidelines
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Dear Ms. Doss,
This Draft amendment has just recently been called to my attention by some caring residents of New Hanover County
who are as concerned as I am about these continual developments in housing. These developers are showing no regard
to the destruction of the natural environment (clear cutting of beautiful trees & marsh lands). We moved here BECAUSE
of the beauty and privacy, low traffic, good school system and stable property values and natural green spaces.
"Transitional Buffers" DO NOT address these issues
Now this amendment gives full reign to developers who are recklessly over-developing now. Does no one understand or
even care about this over development and its' repercussions??
I am writing to request at least a 6 day extension for our community to comment on this issue. New Hanover County is a
beautiful rural county with much to offer those who love the natural diversity in wildlife, tree canopies, quiet and peaceful
surroundings, which is all at stake of totally disappearing. It is very sad that I ever have to address this concern.
This is my plea for SMART growth !!
Marlene Linden
Castle Hayne, NC
marlenelinden@yahoo.com
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 22
22
Doss, Amy
From:Elli Klein <elli_klein@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 20, 2024 1:11 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Cc:Elli Klein
Subject:Amendment to the Residential Density and Infill Development Guidelines.
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
To All This Should Concern:
I am writing as a resident of Wilmington, New Hanover County abut a proposed amendment to the Residential Density
and Infill Development Guidelines. From all that has happened since I moved here in 2004, I have seen unfettered
development-- including development in areas not appropriate for destruction of nature to allow for inappropriate
development of any kind. Whether it is over crowding, inappropriate height, traffic, flooding from removing trees and/or
building in watershed areas, etc etc, "planners" and electeds put development (including for hoards who Might move here)
over quality of life for people actual living here.
I urge you to reject the amendment that will allow developers and builders and electeds even more of a strangle hold on
our fragile-- yes, fragile-- area. Please put good judgement over profits.
--Elli Klein, Wilmington
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 23
23
Doss, Amy
From:Justin Hoke <jstnhoke@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 20, 2024 12:14 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Density Amendment Comment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Dear Amy,
As a NHC resident, I am strongly opposed to the Residential Density and Infill Draft
Amendment:
(https://www.nhcgov.com/DocumentCenter/View/7308/Residential-Densities-Draft-for-
Public-Comment?bidId=)
Higher densities typically lead to more traffic congestion, school crowding, negative
environmental impacts, and poor aesthetics. These are issues that the county and city are
already struggling with. I agree that higher densities can have a small number of benefits,
but the negatives far outweigh the benefits, especially for our area.
In my opinion, the aim of this amendment is too biased in advocating for higher density.
Thank you,
Justin Hoke
6241 Teal St
Wilmington, NC 28403
Dr. Justin Hoke
D.M.A. Florida State University
(919) 971-1321
justinhokeguitar.com
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 24
24
Doss, Amy
From:Leah Mclean <mcleah124@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 20, 2024 10:48 AM
To:Doss, Amy
Cc:Leah McLean
Subject:Residential Densities Project
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
The issues raised regarding the proposed amendment highlight a troubling trend towards prioritizing
developer interests over the well-being of our communities and natural environments. As a concerned
citizen, I am vehemently opposed to the seemingly unending development in our community. The
lack of specificity and metrics, coupled with the language that seemingly favors denser and more
intense development, raises significant red flags about the potential long-term consequences on our
neighborhoods.
These proposed projects do not only threaten the natural beauty of our surroundings but also poses a
significant risk to our local ecosystem and wildlife. The increased traffic, noise, and pollution that
would come with this type of development would drastically alter the peaceful way of life we used to
enjoy. Moreover, the potential strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, such as schools and
healthcare facilities, cannot be ignored. In recent public hearings citizens have told of EMS and Fire
trucks having to use wrong lanes to get to accidents and or fires navigating traffic. E.R wait times are
outrageous and even obtaining a doctor visit can take months. Children are being picked up in unsafe
areas for school buses. Being told by board of education-sorry there is a bus driver shortage. Special
classes are being eliminated in schools to allow for the influx of students.
Instead of prioritizing short-term economic gains, we should focus on sustainable development that
preserves our environment and quality of life for future generations. It is crucial that we stand up
against these ill-conceived projects and protect the interests of our community and the
environment. The risk of irreversibly altering the character, value, and integrity of established
communities, while further encroaching on green spaces, tree canopy, and ecosystems, is a cause for
grave concern,
My future votes for New Hanover County representatives will be for people who agree the existing
issues need to be addressed prior to creating more issues. It will be for the people who do think
forward and head warnings from environmentalists regarding over development of a coastal
ecosystem.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 25
25
Doss, Amy
From:Luis Cruz <lcruz83@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2024 3:06 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Residential Density and Infill Development
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Hello Ms. Doss-
I wanted to respectfully voice my opposition to the Residential Density and Infill Development
amendment. From what I understand, this amendment suggests making it easier for developers to build
high density projects on infill lots that are adjacent to single family homes. We have precious few urban
forests left in Wilmington, why would we want to make it easier to destroy them? The infrastructure we
have now seems just barely adequate to handle the needs of the population, specifically the already
traffic clogged roads and the many areas that are prone to flooding.
I don't know very many people in Wilmington who are filmlar with this plan that will cause
irreversible harm. Why is that? Why hasn't this plan been made very public, advertised heavily across
City social media platforms? Why am I just learning about it on a friend's Instagram page?
I would also like to know where did this plan originate? Who, exactly, spearheaded this effort? The total
lack of transparency is very disingenuous.
I can't think of anyone who wants to make it easier for developers to scrape off every tree, pave over the
land, and fill it with high density apartment buildings. Well, except for developers and anyone else who
stands to make money.
I am formally asking that this amendment not move forward. We need more stringent guidelines and
ordinances, not loose terminology that gives developers the green light to irreversibly change the
landscape of our beloved city.
Luis Cruz
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 26
26
Doss, Amy
From:lennybeller@gmail.com
Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2024 9:16 AM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Residential Density and Infill Draft Amendment formal comments
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Dear Amy Doss,
Please formally add this email to public comments that are due by May 26 regarding the ‘Residential
Density and Infill Dra Amendment.”
In addition, I am requesting an extension for comments. Citizens I’ve talked to were not aware of
this amendment and require more time to provide quality and meaningful comments. An extension
of 2 months should be sufficient. This is too important to rush through.
To me, this amendment does not meet the definition of a plan but is more a set of guidelines to be
considered by developers. The words “recommended” and “encouraged” are used though out. Also,
I don’t see any method of enforcement, or incentive for developers to build with existing community
quality of life as a consideration.
Regarding “street connectivity” there should be no allowance for connecting to existing side streets
that are not presently used as a means of passage from one part of town to another. Creating a
passageway on an existing side street where one does not currently exist should be forbidden, not
just “discouraged”.
Developers should be required to produce, for review and comment, a detailed environmental
impact study for any large project (i.e., greater than 10 acre). The study must include a measurable
and objective risk assessment that shows the proposed project will not impact existing storm and
flood mitigation features such as mature growth trees, water sheds and wetlands. The
environmental impact study must be peer reviewed by a credible and impartial third party prior to
submi4al. Any increase in the risk of storm impact should disqualify the proposed project(s).
I am formally asking that this amendment not move forward. Actions such as these give the
developers an unfair advantage with no serious checks and balances. We elected the Wilmington
City Council and New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to work for the citizens and our best
interest. Actions such as these give a strong impression that these elected bodies are more
concerned with making life easier for the developers. Most citizens are not opposed to
development, but we do demand planning that will protect our interests and quality of life.
Thank you for your consideration of my formal comments and concerns.
Best Regards,
Lenny Beller
(910) 520-2503
lennybeller@gmail.com
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 27
27
Doss, Amy
From:Kim Beller <kimbellerart@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 19, 2024 8:23 AM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Amendment / public comment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Dear Amy Doss,
Please formally add my email to public comments that are due by May 26 regarding the ‘Residential
Density and Infill Draft Amendment.”
First and foremost, I am requesting an extension for comments. Many New Hanover County citizens that
I speak with do not even know about this and need time to review. An extension on the deadline would be
the fair thing to do so that all citizens have an opportunity to share comments and use their voice. An
extension at least thru end of July would be helpful. Thank you.
My first question is why do we need this amendment? And who prompted this? After reviewing, it seems
that the amendment offers loose guidelines for developers which may be interpreted in different ways. It
appears to give planners and developers a blank slate to develop areas with more “density” and ‘Higher
mixed-use intensity.”
What I didn’t see in this draft is any though or consideration to the increasing traffic and load on our
existing infrastructure.
*"This plan outlines a recommended range of densities for each place type, but the entire spectrum of densities may not
be appropriate for every property or project. Appropriate densities are tied to specific site constraints and community
infrastructure, as outlined in the diagram below."
The word “encouraged” is used ten times in this proposed amendment. So we are “encouraging”
developers ?? And saying things “should be considered” ?
"Barriers such as fencing or walls are encouraged in cases when higher intensity uses abut lower intensity uses without a
spatial buffer or transitional space. The scale of existing versus proposed development should be considered."
"Street connectivity is encouraged while cul-de-sacs and gated communities that impede connectivity and emergency
response are discouraged.”
I am strongly opposed to “street connectivity” - there are residents in smaller neighborhoods who have lived here for years,
and connecting to their streets to run roads through for higher density projects will greatly impact their quality of life. This
promotes increased traffic through neighborhoods and is not ideal.
As a layperson, I do not see anything here about affordable housing. What is the motivation for this
amendment? Developers are consistently clear cutting mature growth canopies and green space to
build apartment complexes full of asphalt for parking and driving. Our beautiful county is turning into
pavement, so why would we “encourage” them and green light “higher density” and “infill” ? Time and
time again, we are losing trees and natural resources in the name of development. As a third generation
Wilmington native, I am continually in dismay of what has been allowed to happen here.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 28
28
I am formally asking that this amendment NOT move forward. We need more stringent guidelines and
ordinances, not loose verbage that gives developers green lights to do whatever they please. I am not
opposed to development. I’m just asking for SMART development. Our county/ city is a constant traffic
jam and we can not afford to continue development at such a rapid rate without having stronger
infrastructure in place.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kim Beller
Kim Beller
kimbellerart.com
kimbellerart@gmail.com
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 29
29
Doss, Amy
From:Kayne Darrell <kayne.darrell820@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2024 8:34 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Cc:Roth, Rebekah
Subject:Access to draft amendment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Amy,
I received an email on May 9th regarding the draft amendment to the Res. Densities & Infill Policy
Guidelines. While I was initially able to access the draft plan through the link, my access was blocked
when I tried to go back later that same day and has continued to be blocked on every subsequent
attempt since then until this afternoon.
I forwarded the email to several people who I knew would be interested (and who I hoped could make
sense of it, as I found it quite vague), all of whom were also blocked from accessing it.
I will also add that all of those I sent it to are on the sunshine list and could be not understand why they
did not receive the initial email sent by the county.
For these reasons, I’d like to request that the deadline for comments be extended for the 6 days the draft
amendment was not accessible to the public.
I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Thank you,
Kayne Darrell
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 30
30
Doss, Amy
From:Bunny Shiflett <bunny.shiflett@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2024 5:00 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:NHC Residential Infill and Density Amendment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
To the NHC Residential Infill and Density Amendment,
I live in the Forest Hills area and although I have worked and lived here for over 20 years, in just the past 4
years, I no longer recognize what once was the most beautiful and friendly COW. The waterfront - now
just another small city that gave itself away to profit and development. I often hear the loud pavilion
concerts from my house at night and no longer even try to get sleep until they end. I won’t even start on
the congestion EVERYWHERE from downtown to the beaches. The destruction of nature and green space
in even the smallest of spaces is just so unnecessary. It is just a shame and shame on the parties that
keep allowing “rezonings” in favor of profit over listening to the citizens / residents that live here and pay
their salaries.
Overdevelopment is already out of control. The planning commission, which already approves most projects, even when the projects
are entirely too dense for the surrounding single-family home neighborhoods, would destroy natural plant and animal habitats,
permanently alter the ability of urban forest tracts to mitigate climate change, and put a tremendous burden on existing infrastructure,
may be removing a layer of protection for neighborhoods and Wilmington residents.
It's filled with "developer speak", vague language, and should not be adopted.
Bunny Shiflett
2711 Park Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 31
31
Doss, Amy
From:Helen Mirkil <brknvsl12@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2024 3:19 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:keeping Wilmington beautiful for generations to come!
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Dear Ms. Doss,
I’m a grandmother of six. Both my sons and their families live here. One is a biology teacher
at Hoggard, the other an emergency room doctor at Novant. If you asked my sons what is
most important to me when buying a home, it’s the trees (having said that, I live in an
apartment,
at the Reserve at Mayfaire, and from my little cement porch, what do I see? TREES!).
Trees. They provide oxygen, beauty, shade, flood protection……is it necessary at this point
to add even more…?
But somehow the powers that be in New Hanover County have forgotten this. It’s easier to
clear-cut and save time and money.
But what about our grandchildren? Our great-grandchildren? Will they see Wilmington turn
into
a cement and macadam platform, treeless, which floods every time there’s a little storm?
WHERE IS THE HUMANITY?
WHY ARE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS OF OUR COUNTY
LETTING GREED WIN OVER HUMANITY?
I just returned from Bald Head Island. The houses built in the wooded areas (yes,
wooded!!!)
are surrounded by old growth trees.
THE HOUSES ON BALD HEAD ISLAND ARE POSITIONED ON THEIR LOTS LIKE A SHIP
IN A BOTTLE!
How did the builders and developers preserve the beauty? And why does everyone who’s
ever been to
Bald Head think it’s a paradise? It’s NATURE, pure and simple. The trees.
Does BHI have to be an exception? Why can’t NHC value nature so we, in our homes, can
enjoy the beauty,
right here…? And not have a constant worry about flooding?
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 32
32
Please consider, or reconsider, or whatever it takes, to preserve as much nature as
possible when
developers (some, from out of town, seem to care little about what affects Wilmington) put
forward
proposals.
I beg you. The beauty of our surroundings is being STRIPPED AWAY IN FRONT OF OUR
EYES.
Please give this great thought and consideration as you go forward.
blessings,
Helen Mirkil
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 33
33
Doss, Amy
From:Martha M jeter <marthamjeter@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 8:11 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:I’M SAYING NO TO RESIDENTIAL INFILL and DENSITY AMENDMENT!!
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 34
34
Doss, Amy
From:Mary Faye Lindsay <mlindsay@sweyerrentals.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 3:20 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:NO TO THE NHC RESIDENTAIL INFILL AND DENSITY AMENDMENT
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
To Whom It May Concern,
Overdevelopment is already out of control. The planning commission, which
already approves most projects, even when the projects are entirely too dense for
the surrounding single-family home neighborhoods, would destroy natural plant
and animal habitats, permanently alter the ability of urban forest tracts to mitigate
climate change, and put a tremendous burden on existing infrastructure, may be
removing a layer of protection for neighborhoods and Wilmington residents. It’s
filled with “developer speak”, vague language, and should not be adopted. 
Stop catering to the developers. Everywhere I look there is a sign up to change the
zoning. The traffic is getting worse in this town, water runoff has nowhere to go. The
homeless is getting worse. There needs to be more green spaces in this town not less.
Mary Faye
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 35
35
Doss, Amy
From:James Wolff <jaywolff52@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 3:14 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Residential Density and Infill Policy
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
This policy is horrendous. Definitely written by real estate agents with zero regard for the people of
Wilmington. The continued over building is making Wilmington a place where people no longer want to
live. Traffic infrastructure does not support the continued growth and the city's air quality continues to
get worse. I strongly disagree with everything in the draft plan.
James Wolff
302 Colonial Drive
--
Jay Wolff
Treasurer, Friends of Civil Affairs
Race Director, Around the World Run
www.goodsearch.com/goodshop-invite/jay-wolff-393699
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 36
36
Doss, Amy
From:Debbie Whitman <deborahkwhitman@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 3:01 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:No to the NHC Residential Infill and Density Amendment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Dear Ms Doss
Overdevelopment is already out of control. The planning commission, which already approves most projects, even when
the projects are entirely too dense for the surrounding single-family home neighborhoods, would destroy natural plant
and animal habitats, permanently alter the ability of urban forest tracts to mitigate climate change, and put a
tremendous burden on existing infrastructure, may be removing a layer of protection for neighborhoods and
Wilmington residents. It’s filled with “developer speak”, vague language, and should not be adopted. 
The quality of life in this lovely county that I have lived in for 72 years is being destroyed by over development and
greedy developers and politicians.
Please do not adopt this amendment.
Deborah K Whitman
Sent from my iPhone
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 37
37
Doss, Amy
From:Polly Tait <pollytait@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 2:57 PM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:No to the NHC Residential Infill and Density Amendment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Hello Ms Doss,
I wanted to express my comments about the infill amendment coming to the planning board.
Overdevelopment is already out of control. The planning commission, which already approves most
projects, even when the projects are entirely too dense for the surrounding single-family home
neighborhoods, would destroy natural plant and animal habitats, permanently alter the ability of urban
forest tracts to mitigate climate change, and put a tremendous burden on existing infrastructure, may be
removing a layer of protection for neighborhoods and Wilmington residents. It’s filled with “developer
speak”, vague language, and should not be adopted.  I am against making it easier for developers to
pave over urban forests and build large scale, high density developments on infill lots. Enough is enough!
Polly Tait
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 38
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 39
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 4 - 40
Public Comments
(Submitted after the public comment period)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 1
1
Doss, Amy
From:robert parr <nativewildtrout@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 27, 2024 9:06 AM
To:Doss, Amy; Robert Parr
Subject:Residential Density and Infill Draft Amendment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Residential Density and Infill Draft Amendment
Thank you for giving residents the opportunity to review this draft
amendment in the early stages. The comment period for public
input in government matters is generally accepted to be 5 PM at the
close of business hours and not 8 AM on a National Holiday. I ask
that these comments be submitted to the public comments even
though they are submitted at 9 AM on Memorial Day.
My overall impression is that the amendment at this stage is vague,
lacks numerical identification of what higher and lower density
means, will be used to justify higher density adjacent to long
established lower density neighborhoods and erroneously implies
that the existing low density residential development of New
Hanover County is somehow antiquated and undesirable.
To better illustrated my concern, I have copied specific sections of
the Draft Amendment in “quotes” followed by my comments in
blue specifically with respect to the existing lower density
residential development pattern in Middle Sound.
“This project will not change existing guidelines surrounding
residential development, but will further clarify when specific
densities and infill development may or may not be appropriate.”
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 2
2
Background: Middle Sound is peninsula surrounded on three sides
by water. There are only three traffic access points to thousands of
homes on the peninsula (Market Street has two access points and
Military Cutoff has one access point). Our main access point is the
Middle Sound/Market Street the longest traffic signal (5 + minutes)
in the County and projected to become significantly longer with the
completion of the high density Lendire apartment and commercial
complex which will primarily use the same access
point. Appropriate zoning densities for Middle Sound are R 20S,
R20, R15 and R10 as developed in the citizen initiated Middle
Sound Plan. Higher densities are not appropriate in the physical,
environmental and traffic restricted setting. Since the Middle Sound
Plan was adopted in 1987 Middle Sound has grown appropriately,
living within the natural constraints of the setting. Against the
advice of local citizens, the County forced higher densities on the
restricted peninsula for Middle Sound Village in 2010. The
development agreed to limit residents of Middle Sound Village to
above 55 age restrictions to reduce generated traffic but these
restrictions have largely or completely been ignored at the present
time to the detriment of surrounding community by adding
unnecessary traffic at the Ogden School Round About and Red
Cedar Road and Market Street congestion points.
“Much of New Hanover County’s existing development pattern is
low density and makes less efficient use of land resources, as it
was developed at a time when water and sewer utilities were not
available.”
The term less efficient gives negative connotation to existing
neighborhoods that form the backbone of New Hanover County and
property tax base - neighborhoods which represent the most
desirable places to raise families, maintain home values and best
protect the existing environment.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 3
3
“This plan envisions a more efficient development pattern, which
means that the density of new infill projects may be different from
the development pattern of the surrounding community.”
See above.
“A greater mix of uses is also encouraged, so higher intensity
mixed- use and commercial developments that may have longer
hours or more noise may be located in closer proximity to existing
neighborhoods than may have been anticipated when those
communities were designed.”
Who is encouraging these ideas ? – definitely not citizens who
overwhelmingly oppose mixing high/low density housing types.
“When this occurs, site design of projects becomes more important,
and transitional elements should be included to ensure compatibility
with the existing community’ s character.”
The suggested transitional elements are mostly cosmetic and not
functionally effective in making smooth transitions or preventing
degradation of the existing neighborhoods.
“This also includes cases where higher densities are recommended
or necessary to achieve the plan’s goals for housing affordability
and clustering of development to reduce the impact on sensitive
natural resources.”
Citizens are an equal part of the plan - just as important as the
development community. High density, build to the max
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 4
4
development plans are not what most citizens (equal partners)
have suggested in Middle Sound.
“Water & Sewer unavailable or not planned
Limited Vehicular Access
Flood Plain Hazards in close proximity
Sensitive Environmental Features Present “
These attributes describe much of Middle Sound verifying the need for
low density housing on a peninsula surrounded on three sides by
environmentally sensitive waters.
“Transitional Elements”
I am unable to read writing on maps even at higher magnification.
“New residential and commercial construction is likely to be taller
than historic development in the unincorporated county due to
market demands, more efficient use of land, and advances in
building techniques.
This may require additional transitional elements, such as
landscaping and retention of existing tree buffers, especially on the
border between place types with different recommendations for
building height.”
Transitional elements used by development and approved by
Planning in the past are usually not sufficient to override the
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 5
5
negative impacts (local school crowding, unsafe traffic, excessive
noise, excessive lighting, environmental degradation).
“Housing diversity is encouraged.”
This is a design and not functional component of planning and has been
used to encourage high density, unsustainable development in low density
areas in the past.
Connectivity Is Good
Landscaping Is Good
Roadways and Private Drives – High intensity uses which generate more
traffic in congested areas should be avoided at all costs and not covered
over with layout and design features that are cosmetic and not functional.
Avoidance of any additional lighting in residential areas is good.
Maintaining the established low density residential development patterns,
with abundant open space will reduce the need for stormwater retention
ponds which may require regular application of toxic pond chemicals
draining into nearby natural aquatic community resources.
The low density, residential development of Middle Sound was designed
to protect the Outstanding Resource Waters of Howe Creek and Middle
Sound Waterway. Unnecessary retention ponds required for commercial
and higher density developments do little to treat secondary pollutants
which will enter these protected waters to the detriment of the natural
environment.
Fences may partially reduce the visual impact of higher density adjacent to
lower residential development but the more important negatives of higher
traffic volumes, increased noise, public safety concerns are not mitigated
by fencing.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 6
6
Thank you for considering these comments.
Dr. Robert Parr
6706 Falcon Pointe Road Wilmington 28411
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 7
7
Doss, Amy
From:Mike Travis <mtravis@equationresearch.com>
Sent:Monday, May 27, 2024 8:26 AM
To:Doss, Amy
Subject:Amendment comment
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Dear Amy Doss,
The guidelines set for the amendment are simply not enough. I understand the UDO is where the ordinances can be
found, but decisions for the way this county is getting destroyed, are being made through the guidelines in the
comprehensive plan and by your commission and boards/staff.
To begin with, the idea that rezoning is acceptable just because a developer asks for it, is an incorrect assumption. And
for some rezoning projects, NHC needs better, higher standards that are "required".
Because the guidelines of the comprehensive plan use words like "should", "encourage" and "recommend", developers
are not following those suggestions and we are ending up with ugly square buildings that go from lot line to lot line, with
concrete and asphalt and few puny non-value contributing trees.
Beautiful buffers should be required. A concrete road or a fence alone should not serve as transitional element. Leaving
visual tree buffers deeper than 25 feet should be required.
Obviously, looking at the way New Hanover County is being developed at the moment, NHC standards are very low to
begin with. But we can do better.
This amendment can help that. It should have detail, more specifics, and keep in mind the final product. OUR
COMMUNITY. Make sure all projects will enhance an area in function and beauty.
The part about "appropriate" low or high density, is very subjective and seems like most things would get rezoned high
density. The chart is not clear enough. For example, just because a site has vehicle access and water/sewer does not
justify the need for a property to be changed to high density!
I would like for you to reply and tell me why this needs to be in amendment form if it's simply to "articulate"?
Thank you,
--Mike Travis
m: 970-227-2239
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 2 - 5 - 8
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2024
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor
CONTACT(S): Robert Farrell; Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Request by Samuel Franck with Ward and Smith, P.A., applicant, to amend Ar8cle 4 of the Unified Development
Ordinance to change the use of Senior Living: Independent Living Re8rement Community from requiring a Special
Use Permit to permi<ed-by-right in the RA, Rural Agricultural district.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
This is an applicant-ini!ated text amendment request to amend the Table of Permi%ed Uses to allow the use of Senior
Living: Independent Living as a by-right use in the RA, Rural Agricultural zoning district.
Currently the use of Senor Living: Independent Living Re!rement Community requires approval of a Special Use Permit
in the RA district. A by-right use designa!on means all reviews and approvals would be handled administra!vely at staff
level through the Technical Review Commi%ee (TRC).
The RA district is concentrated in the northwestern por!on of the county west of Castle Hayne Road between the GE
Campus to the south and the Pender County line to the north.
The purpose of the RA district is to allow very low density single-family residen!al development that is compa!ble in
scale and character to rural and agricultural se3ngs. Residen!al development remains lower density in the area due to
the need for private wells and sep!c systems. However, individual developers have the op!on of using private
investment to extend public water and sewer for individual projects.
Senor Living: Independent Living Re!rement Communi!es are defined as:
“A housing development that may contain a variety of housing types designed for and restricted to occupancy by
households having at least one member who is 55 years of age or older, living independently. Facili!es and services
typically include features such as: security; lawn and building maintenance; wellness, fitness, or spa services and
facili!es; central mee!ng areas; programmed recrea!on or social facili!es and ac!vi!es; communal garden spots;
AARP Universal design or other similar characteris!cs. Minimal suppor!ve services may also be offered to residents in
senior apartment facili!es.”
New Hanover County has iden!fied a rising need for senior housing and established goals to increase senior housing
op!ons in the county.
The 2022 Housing Needs Assessment, also known as the Bowen Report, states household growth is projected to
remain posi!ve among household age groups through 2027 with seniors (ages 75 and older) increasing 24.6%. The
report concludes that the projected significant increase in senior households indicates a likely increase in demand for
senior-oriented housing of both independent and assisted living types.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3
The New Hanover County Master Aging Plan is a five-year plan which contains broad goals and objec!ves with
corresponding implementa!on strategies to address resources and services for older adults who have a wide range of
needs. One of the iden!fied strategies is to a%ract private builders and developers by offering incen!ves to build lower
cost community building spaces.
Local governments incen!vize development through a variety of methods. One method is to relax previous zoning
restric!ons for specific development or housing types to encourage more private investment.
A goal of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan is to accommodate popula!ons with special needs such as the elderly by
providing for a range of housing types and op!ons. An implementa!on strategy of the plan is to review zoning
regula!ons to accommodate popula!ons with special needs. Staff's review of the proposed text amendment found it
to be generally CONSISTENT with the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed amendment would allow the
development of senor housing in a residen!al zoning district without the addi!onal step of a quasi-judicial hearing and
board approval.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan, Housing Needs Assessment, and Master Aging Plan collec!vely indicate a rising need
for senior housing and for steps towards reducing barriers to the development of senior housing to meet current and
future demand. Addi!onally, Independent Living Re!rement Communi!es have the same form and func!on as
development that is not age restricted. The proposed amendment would allow age restricted housing development in
the RA district to be regulated the same as other non-age restricted housing in New Hanover County helping to
address the projected 24.6% increase in senior households over the next 10 years and mee!ng the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Master Aging Plan by reducing barriers to the development of senior housing op!ons.
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the request and suggests the following mo!on:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development
Ordinance to allow the use of Senior Living: Independent Living Re!rement Community as by-right in the RA, Rural
Agricultural zoning district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
because it provides for a range of housing types, opportuni!es, and choices for seniors. I also find recommending
APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because both the Housing Needs
Assessment and the Master Aging Plan have iden!fied a need for addi!onal senior housing to serve current and future
demand.
Alterna8ve Mo8on for Denial (If based on informa!on presented at the public hearing or other considera!on beyond
the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be generally CONSISTENT with the purposes
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the development scale is in line with the plan’s recommenda!on for the
place type and the project would provide addi!onal housing diversity in the area. I find recommending DENIAL of the
rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the RA district currently lacks sufficient public
infrastructure to support the needs of senior housing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip!on
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3
TA24-03 PB Script
TA24-03 PB Staff Report
TA24-03 Proposed Amendment
TA24-03 Application Coversheet
TA24-03 Application
TA24-03 Public Comment
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3
SCRIPT for Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment (TA24-03)
Request by Samuel Franck with Ward and Smith, P.A., applicant, to amend Article 4 of the Unified
Development Ordinance to change the use of Senior Living: Independent Living Retirement Community
from requiring a Special Use Permit to permitted-by-right in the RA, Rural Agricultural district.
1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then any supporters and
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes
for rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Applicant’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
3. Close the public hearing
4. Board discussion
5. Before we proceed with the vote, I would like to invite the applicant to the podium. Based on
the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, would you like to
withdraw your petition, request a continuance, or proceed with a vote?
6. Vote on amendment. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or is not,
consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is reasonable
and in the public interest.
Example Motion of Approval
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover
County Unified Development Ordinance to allow the use of Senior Living: Independent Living
Retirement Community as by-right in the RA, Rural Agricultural zoning district. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it
provides for a range of housing types, opportunities, and choices for seniors. I also find
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public
interest because both the Housing Needs Assessment and the Master Aging Plan have
identified a need for additional senior housing to serve current and future demand.
Alternative Motion for Denial (If based on information presented at the public hearing or other
consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be generally
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
development scale is in line with the plan’s recommendation for the place type and the project
would provide additional housing diversity in the area. I find recommending DENIAL of the
rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the RA district currently lacks
sufficient public infrastructure to support the needs of senior housing.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 1 - 1
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to recommend [Approval/Denial] of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified
Development Ordinance. I find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
I also find [Approval/Denial] of the proposed amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because
[insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 1 - 2
STAFF REPORT FOR TA24-03
TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST
REQUEST SUMMARY
Case Number: TA24-03
Request:
Request by Samuel Franck with Ward and Smith, P.A., applicant, to amend Article 4 of the Unified
Development Ordinance to change the use of Senior Living: Independent Living Retirement
Community from requiring a Special Use Permit to permitted-by-right in the RA, Rural Agricultural
district.
Applicant: Subject Ordinances:
New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Purpose & Intent
The applicant’s key intent for this amendment is to change the use of Senior Living: Independent
Living Retirement Community from requiring a special use permit in the RA zoning district, to being
permitted-by-right.
BACKGROUND
This is an applicant-initiated text amendment request to amend the Table of Permitted Uses to allow
the use of Senior Living: Independent Living as a by-right use in the RA, Rural Agricultural zoning
district. Currently the use of Senor Living: Independent Living Retirement Community requires
approval of a Special Use Permit in the RA district.
A by-right use designation means all reviews and approvals would be handled administratively at
staff level through the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
The RA district is concentrated in the northwestern portion of the county west of Castle Hayne Road
between the GE Campus to the south and the Pender County line to the north.
The purpose of the RA district is to allow very low density single-family residential development
that is compatible in scale and character to rural and agricultural settings. Residential development
remains lower density in the area due to the need for private wells and septic systems. However,
individual developers have the option of using private investment to extend public water and sewer
for individual projects.
Senor Living: Independent Living Retirement Communities are defined as:
“A housing development that may contain a variety of housing types designed for and
restricted to occupancy by households having at least one member who is 55 years of age
or older, living independently. Facilities and services typically include features such as:
security; lawn and building maintenance; wellness, fitness, or spa services and facilities;
central meeting areas; programmed recreation or social facilities and activities; communal
garden spots; AARP Universal design or other similar characteristics. Minimal supportive
services may also be offered to residents in senior apartment facilities.”
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 1
ANALYSIS
Unlike other types of senior living such as a continuing care or assisted living facility, Independent
Living Retirement Communities have the same form and function as development that is not age
restricted. Often the primary difference between a Senior Living: Independent Living development
and other apartment or subdivision development is an age restriction requirement in the restrictive
covenants.
Because the age restrictions are established by private restrictive covenants, existing apartments
or subdivisions have the option to choose to become age restricted after they are permitted and
approved by the county. In that scenario the county would have challenges for both monitoring
those changes and retroactively requiring a special use permit to age restrict existing development
to meet the UDO.
Currently, any senior housing apartment or subdivision is subject to the requirements of the
underlying RA zoning district such as the setbacks and minimum lot size. Projects are also subject to
the county’s general development standards for residential development including lighting, open
space, parking, tree retention, and landscaping. Those standards would continue to apply to
development with or without a special use permit.
In addition to the practical implementation of age-restricted housing, New Hanover County has
identified a rising need for senior housing and established goals to increase senior housing options
in the county.
Housing Needs Assessment
• The 2022 Housing Needs Assessment, also known as the Bowen Report, concluded there is
an estimated overall housing gap of 12,147 rental units and a gap of 16,875 for-sale units
within the county over the next 10 years.
• According to the report, in 2022 household heads between the ages of 55 and 64
comprised 17.1% of all households in the county, the largest percentage by age group.
Collectively, senior households 55 and older constituted 45.6% of all households.
• Household growth is projected to remain positive among most household age groups through
2027 with Seniors (ages 75 and older) increasing 24.6%.
• The report concludes that the projected significant increase in senior households indicates a
likely increase in demand for senior-oriented housing of both independent and assisted-
living types.
Master Aging Plan
• The New Hanover County Master Aging Plan is a five-year plan which contains broad goals
and objectives with corresponding implementation strategies to address resources and
services for older adults who have a wide range of needs.
• Through the Master Aging Plan, the county intends to create an “Aging-friendly” community,
which is a community that provides affordable, accessible housing, multiple modes of
transportation, access to community services, and opportunities for engagement for all
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 2
residents, regardless of age or ability. By focusing on creating a complete community, New
Hanover County will be encouraging aging in place and improve quality of life for older
adults and their families.
• Goal 4 of the plan is to ensure a variety of affordable, quality housing options are located
in areas that are easily accessible to necessary resources and services for daily living.
• Objective 4.2 is to increase the variety and number of affordable housing options.
• One of the identified strategies for Objective 4.2 is to attract private builders and
developers by offering incentives to build lower cost community living spaces.
• Local governments incentivize development through a variety of methods. One method is to
relax previous zoning restrictions for specific development or housing types to encourage
more private investment.
• The proposed amendment is an applicant-initiated amendment to allow senior housing
development in the RA district without the requirement of a quasi-judicial hearing.
2016 Comprehensive Plan
• The Action Plan for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan established the goals, objectives, and
implementation strategies for the plan. Goal XV “Provide for a range of housing types,
opportunities, and choices” has the stated desired outcome that citizens are not
overburdened with the costs of availability of housing but have a diverse range of options
that are affordable at different income levels.
• Implementation guideline XV.A.3 of the Comprehensive Plan is to review zoning regulations
where appropriate to accommodate populations with special needs such as the elderly and
disabled.
• Staff's review of the proposed text amendment found it to be generally CONSISTENT with
the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed amendment would allow the development
of senor housing in a residential zoning district without the additional step of a quasi-judicial
hearing and board approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan, Housing Needs Assessment, and Master Aging Plan collectively
indicate a rising need for senior housing and for steps towards reducing barriers to the
development of senior housing to meet current and future demand. Additionally, Independent
Living Retirement Communities have the same form and function as development that is not age
restricted. The proposed amendment would allow age restricted housing development in the RA
district to be regulated the same as other non-age restricted housing in New Hanover County
helping to address the projected 24.6% increase in senior households over the next 10 years and
meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Master Aging Plan by reducing barriers to
the development of senior housing options.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 3
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the request and suggests the following motion:
I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New
Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to allow the use of Senior Living:
Independent Living Retirement Community as by-right in the RA, Rural Agricultural
zoning district. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because it provides for a range of housing types, opportunities,
and choices for seniors. I also find RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed
amendment reasonable and in the public interest because both the Housing Needs
Assessment and the Master Aging Plan have identified a need for additional senior
housing to serve current and future demand.
Alternative Motion for Denial (If based on information presented at the public hearing or other
consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be generally
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
development scale is in line with the plan’s recommendation for the place type and
the project would provide additional housing diversity in the area. I find
recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because the RA district currently lacks sufficient public infrastructure to support the
needs of senior housing.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 2 - 4
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposed text amendment is attached, with red italics indicating new language and strikethrough indicating text that is to be removed.
Unified Development Ordinance
Table 4.2.1: Principal Use Table
Key: P = Permitted by Right S = Special Use Permit Required *= Specific Use Standards Apply in District
blank cell = not allowed
Use
Zoning Districts
RA
AR
R-20
S
R-20
R-15
R-10
R-7
R-5
RM
F
-L
RM
F
-M
RM
F
-MH
RM
F
-H
PD
UM
X
Z
B-1
CB
B-2
O&
I
SC
CS
AC
I-1
I-2
Us
e
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Senior Living: Independent Living
Retirement Community S P S S S S P P P P P P P S
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 3 - 1
Initial Application
Documents & Materials
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 4 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 2
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 3
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 4
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 5
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 6
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 5 - 7
Public Comments
In Support 0
Neutral 0
In Opposition 0
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 3 - 6 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2024
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Wendell E. Biddle, Development Review Planner
CONTACT(S): Wendell E. Biddle; Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor; Rebekah Roth, Planning
and Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z24-05) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solu8ons, applicant, on behalf of Paul E. &
Deanne Meadows, property owners, to rezone approximately 0.93 acres zoned RA, Rural Agricultural located at
4737 Castle Hayne Road to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business, for two commercial structures totaling 8,700 square feet
for the use of General Retail for a 8re store and other limited uses.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 0.93 acres from the RA, Rural Agricultural residen,al zoning district
to a (CZD) B-2, Regional Business District.
The proposed rezoning is to accommodate an exis,ng legal non-conforming use and to develop 3,000 square feet of
new commercial flex space.
The corner of Castle Hayne Road and Sondey Road has historically been used commercially since before the adop,on
of county zoning in the area. The exis,ng commercial structure is currently Dad's Tire Store, a minor vehicle service
sta,on and ,re store.
A legal non-conforming use means that while the property is zoned residen,ally, the commercial use may con,nue to
operate because it pre-dates zoning regula,ons in the area.
The proposed concept plan includes removing a covered storage area on the rear of the exis,ng ,re store to bring the
structure into compliance with the required B-2 zoning district setbacks. A condi,on has been included guaranteeing
removal of the storage area to meet the setback requirements. As part of the project a new storage is proposed on the
northern side of the ,re store facing Sondey Road mee,ng the B-2 setback requirements.
In addi,on to changes to the exis,ng ,re store, the concept plan proposes 3,000 square feet of new commercial flex
space. The flex space is divided into two 1,500 square feet units, each with a bay door facing Castle Hayne Road.
The applicant has proposed a condi,on limi,ng the permi;ed uses to Animal Grooming Services, Contractor Office
(with no outdoor storage), Offices for Private Business & Professional Ac,vi,es, Instruc,onal Services & Studios,
Personal Services, General Retail Sales, Minor Vehicle Service Sta,on, and Warehousing.
Due to the increased impervious surface from the addi,onal commercial building and associated parking, the concept
plan proposes an underground stormwater management system. Due to the size of the site a state stormwater permit
will not be required by NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) however a county stormwater permit will
be required by New Hanover County Engineering.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4
CFPUA u,li,es are not available in the area. The site is currently served by private well and sep,c. The applicant
proposes to improve the exis,ng well and sep,c to serve both the exis,ng ,re store and the proposed commercial flex
space. New or expanding private sep,c and wells require review and permiDng by New Hanover County
Environmental Health. A condi,on has been included requiring a shared easement for maintenance of the well and
sep,c area that must be approved by Environmental Health.
The site also includes two Significant Trees, a condi,on has been included guaranteeing the trees remain on site.
The RA district in the area was established in 1985. At the ,me, the purpose of the district was to provide low density
single-family residen,al development, encourage agricultural ac,vi,es, and preserve open space and rural
development pa;erns.
The purpose of the B-2 district is to provide for the proper site layout and development of larger format or larger
structure size business uses, including big box stores and automobile dealers. It is also designed to provide for the
appropriate loca,on and design of auto-oriented uses that meet the needs of the motoring public or that rely on pass-
by traffic.
As currently zoned, the exis,ng ,re store is es,mated to generate approximately 8 AM and 12 PM peak hour trips. The
proposed (CZD) B-2 adding commercial flex space is es,mated to generate 8 AM and 11 PM peak hour trips, the
combined total of the ,re store and flex space increases the combined es,mated number of trips to approximately 16
AM and 23 PM trips.
The es,mated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the ordinance
requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
A commercial use has been in opera,on on the corner of Sondey and Castle Hayne roads since prior to the adop,on
of county zoning in the area. The proposed addi,onal commercial development will have full access to Castle Hayne
Road and will not have access to Sondey Road. The Castle Hayne Road corridor has seen increased interest in
commercial development and the site is approximately two miles north of the I-140 interchange. While the project
proposes addi,onal commercial space the increase in es,mated trips is minimal and the project is below the threshold
that requires a TIA. The project will be subject to NCDOT engineering review through the driveway permit process.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan designates these parcels as Community Mixed Use which focuses on small-scale,
compact, mixed use development pa;erns that serve all modes of travel and act as an a;ractor for county residents
and visitors. Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recrea,onal, commercial, ins,tu,onal, mul,-
family, and single-family residen,al.
The proposed rezoning request is generally CONSISTENT with the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed limited
commercial uses are encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type and would serve nearby exis,ng and future
residen,al developments.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff’s recommenda,on is based on the policy guidance of the Comprehensive Plan, zoning considera,ons, technical
review and the proposal including limited land use within the proposed B-2 district, and addi,onal condi,ons outlined
below. The property is located along Castle Hayne Road surrounded by very low-density residen,al parcels, with four
commercially zoned proper,es to the northeast and southeast. The proposed rezoning is less than two miles north of
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4
I-140 interchange and being located in an area that has transi,oned to more commercial and industrial ac,vi,es since
ini,al zoning, the subject parcel is found to be in an area an,cipated for future commercial development along the
corridor. The proposed land use is limited in scope and is found to be similar in nature and impact to the other uses in
the area while also in keeping with the Community Mixed Use place type.
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the request and suggests the following mo,on:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a Condi,onal B-2 district. I find it to be CONSISTENT
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the rezoning provides for the types of uses
recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request
is reasonable and in the public interest because the applica,on limits uses to those which are more appropriate for the
area and addi,onal condi,ons reduce impact on adjacent residen,al areas.
Staff and Applicant Proposed Condi,ons:
1. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to: Animal Grooming Services, Contractor Office (without
outdoor storage space), General Personal Services, General Retail Sales, Instruc,onal Services & Studios, Minor
Vehicle Service Sta,on, Offices for Private Business & Professional Ac,vi,es, and Warehousing.
2. The a;ached shed that encroaches into the rear setback is to be removed, bringing Dad’s Tire Store into compliance
with required setbacks.
3. A sep,c and well easement approved by New Hanover County Environmental Health shall be recorded with the
Register of Deeds guaranteeing access and maintenance for the exis,ng sep,c system and any future improvements.
Environmental Health approval of the sep,c system and well shall be required prior to issuance of construc,on
permits for the flex commercial space.
4. Exterior ligh,ng including luminaries and security ligh,ng shall be fully cutoff fixtures that are directed downward in
compliance with Figures of the UDO. In no case shall ligh,ng be directed at or above a horizontal plane through the
ligh,ng fixture.
5. The two Significant Trees iden,fied on the concept plan shall be permanently retained on site.
Alterna8ve Mo8on for Denial (If based on informa,on provided at the public hearing or other considera,on beyond
the scope of staff review, the Board finds approval appropriate).
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to a Condi,onal B-2 district. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the rezoning provides for the types of
uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type, I find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the desired character of the
surrounding community and will adversely impact the adjacent residen,al areas.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip,on
Z24-05 PB Script
Z24-05 PB Staff Report
Z24-05 Zoning Map
Z24-05 Future Land Use Map
Z24-05 Mailout Map
Z24-05 Application Cover Sheet
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4
Z24-05 Application
Z24-05 Concept Plan Cover Sheet
Z24-05 Concept Plan
Z24-05 Public Comment
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4
PLANNING BOARD SCRIPT
for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z24-05)
Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, to rezone approximately 0.93 acres zoned
RA, Rural Agricultural located at 4737 Castle Hayne Road to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business for the two
commercial structures totaling 8,700 square feet for the use of General Retail for a tire store and other
limited uses.
1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes
for rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Applicant’s and supporters’ presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant’s and supporters’ rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
f. Staff review of any additional conditions
3. Close the public hearing
4. Board discussion
5. Before we proceed with a motion and vote, I would like to invite the applicant to the podium.
Based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, would you like
withdraw your petition, request a continuance, or proceed with a vote?
6. Vote on the application. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or
is not, consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Example Motion for Approval
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a Conditional B-2 district. I find
it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
rezoning provides for the types of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type.
I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public
interest because the application limits uses to those which are more appropriate for the area
and additional conditions reduce impact on adjacent residential areas.
Proposed Conditions:
1. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to: Animal Grooming Services, Contractor
Office (with no outdoor storage), Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities,
Instructional Services & Studios, Personal Services, General Retail Sales, Minor Vehicle Service
Station, and Warehousing.
2. The attached shed that encroaches into the rear setback is to be removed, bringing Dad’s Tire
Store into compliance with required setbacks.
3. A septic and well easement approved by New Hanover County Environmental Health shall be
recorded with the Register of Deeds guaranteeing access and maintenance for the existing
septic system and any future improvements. Environmental Health approval of the septic system
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 1 - 1
and well shall be required prior to issuance of construction permits for the flex commercial
space.
4. Exterior lighting including luminaries and security lighting shall be fully cutoff fixtures that are
directed downward in compliance with Figures of the UDO. In no case shall lighting be directed
at or above a horizontal plane through the lighting fixture.
5. The two Significant Trees identified on the concept plan shall be permanently retained on site.
Alternative Motion for Denial (if based on information presented at the public hearing or other
consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to a Conditional B-2 district. While I
find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
rezoning provides for the types of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type,
I find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because the proposal is not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community
and will adversely impact the adjacent residential areas.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to RECOMMEND [Approval/Denial] of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) B-2 district.
I find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
I also find RECOMMENDING [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in
the public interest because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 1 - 2
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 1 of 14
STAFF REPORT FOR Z24-05
CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z24-05
Request:
Rezoning to a Conditional B-2, Regional Business district
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions Paul E. & Deanne R. Meadows
Location: Acreage:
4737 Castle Hayne Road 0.93 Acres
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
R01700-002-007-000 Community Mixed Use
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Minor Vehicle Service Station
Minor Vehicle Service Station, Flex Space,
Animal Grooming Service, Contractor Office
(without outdoor storage), Offices for Private
Business & Professional Activities, Instructional
Services & Studios, Personal Services,
General Retail Services, and Warehousing
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
RA, Rural Agricultural (CZD) B-2
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North Undeveloped Land, Single-Family Residential RA
East Single-Family Residential, Major Vehicle Repair Shop R-20, B-1
South
Undeveloped Land, Single-Family Residential, and
the former Castle Creek Memory Care Assisted
Living Facility
RA, O&I
West Single-Family Residential, Undeveloped Land RA
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 1
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 2 of 14
ZONING HISTORY
July 1, 1985 Initially Zoned as RA, Rural Agricultural district (Castle Hayne)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer
CFPUA sewer and water are not available. While the site has an existing
septic system, both it and the well will require New Hanover County
Environmental Health review and permitting.
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire
District, New Hanover County Castle Hayne Station 13.
Schools Castle Hayne Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, Laney High Schools
Recreation Riverside Park, Blue Clay Bike Park
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation No known conservation resources
Historic No known historic resources
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 2
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 3 of 14
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL
Applicant’s Concept Plan – Includes Staff Mark-Ups
• The applicant is proposing to rezone an approximate 0.93-acre parcel of land from (RA),
Rural Agricultural residential district to a (CZD) B-2, Regional Business District.
• The proposed rezoning is to accommodate an existing non-conforming use, subdivide the
parcel, and develop a 3,000 square foot flex commercial space with limited uses.
• The site has historically been used as a tire store and is considered a legal non-conforming
use.
• As a legal non-conforming use, the site can continue to be used as a tire store in the existing
RA district.
• The existing structure has an attached shed that encroaches into the lot’s rear setback. A
condition guaranteeing its removal has been included. Once the structure has been removed,
Dad’s Tire Store
30’
Addition to be
Removed
Vacant Lot
Zoned RA
Significant Tree
Significant Tree
Underground
Stormwater
Trench
Proposed 3,000 sf
Flex Space
consisting of (2)
1,500 sf Bays
New 15’ x 30’
Tire Shed
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 3
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 4 of 14
a new 15’x30’ tire shed will be constructed, and Dad’s Tire Shop will then be considered a
conforming land use within the proposed B-2 district.
• Under the proposed (CZD) B-2 rezoning, the lot’s dimensional standards would
accommodate subdividing and the development of a commercial flex space.
• The (CZD) B-2’s lot dimensions allow for a minimum lot width of 80 feet whereas the existing
RA district’s minimum lot width is 115 feet.
• The proposed development is to be a 3,000 square foot structure that consists of two 1,500
square foot units, each with an overhead door facing Castle Hayne Road.
• Due to the existing and proposed impervious ground cover being greater than 13,000
square feet, a New Hanover County stormwater permit for attenuation will be required.
However, since the total amount of land disturbance is less than one acre, the property
owner will not be required to obtain a North Carolina stormwater quality permit.
• The applicant has provided a condition limiting the principal use to: Animal Grooming
Services, Contractor Office (with no outdoor storage), Offices for Private Business &
Professional Activities, Instructional Services & Studios, Personal Services, General Retail
Sales, Minor Vehicle Service Station, and Warehousing.
• On the subject lot are two regulated trees classified as Significant that are conditioned to
remain on site.
• The site also includes an area for an underground stormwater facility and parking space.
• The applicant has conditioned a septic and well easement that would serve both lots.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The subject lot is located at the corner of Castle Hayne Road and Sondey Road within the
RA zoning district.
• The RA district in this area was established in 1985. At the time, the purpose of the district
was to provide low density single-family residential development, encourage agricultural
activities, and preserve open space and rural development patterns.
• The purpose of the B-2 district is to provide for the proper site layout and development of
larger format or larger structure size business uses, including big box stores and automobile
dealers. It is also designed to provide for the appropriate location and design of auto-
oriented uses that meet the needs of the motoring public or that rely on pass-by traffic.
• The site’s existing tire store is considered a legal non-conforming use. If approved, the
rezoning would place the existing business in a more compatible zoning district, as well as
allow for the applicant to erect an appropriate tire shed, subdivide the lot, and develop a
3,000 square foot facility to serve as a flex space.
• Commercial districts adjacent to residential properties are prescribed additional standards.
When a B-2 district is adjacent to a residentially zoned parcel, a 30-foot interior side
setback, and a 35-foot rear setback is required of all structures. Rear setbacks adjacent to
residentially zoned parcels that are undeveloped or used for non-residential purposes have
a reduced rear setback of 20 feet.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 4
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 5 of 14
• In February of this year, the applicant had requested a variance from the RA district’s rear
setback requirement to accommodate the structure’s encroachment. The Boad of Adjustment
denied the variance request and as a result the applicant is conditioning the structure’s
removal and, in its place, a new tire shed will be constructed.
• Specific transitional buffers prescribed by the UDO require that the subject parcel’s interior
property lines implement a Type A: Opaque Buffer between the subject lot and the adjacent
residential districts.
• If approved, the project would be subjected to the Technical Review Committee and zoning
compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements and
specific conditions included in the approval. Only minor deviations from the approved
conceptual plan, as defined by the UDO, would be allowed.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 5
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 6 of 14
AREA DEVELOPMENTS
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 6
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 7 of 14
TRANSPORTATION
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Intensity of Current Zoning Approximately 6,000 square foot Vehicle Service
Station, Minor (Dad’s Tire Store)
PROPOSED ACCESS
Primary Access
The existing tire store has full access to Castle Hayne
Road with secondary access onto Sondey Road. The
proposed flex space, however, will only have full access
to Castle Hayne Road.
Secondary Access Sondey Road
EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Affected Roadway Castle Hayne Road
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 7
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 8 of 14
Type of Roadway NCDOT minor arterial
Roadway Planning Capacity (AADT) 15,456
Latest Traffic Volume (AADT) 12,000
Latest WMPO Point-in-Time County
(DT) 11,998
Current Level of Congestion Available Capacity
NEARBY NCDOT STIP ROADWAY PROJECTS
No nearby STIP projects
TRAFFIC GENERATION
Traffic
Generated by
Present
Designation
Traffic Generated
by Proposed
(Small Office
Building)
Designation
Potential
Impact of
Proposed
Designation
AM Peak Hour Trips 8 8 16
PM Peak Hour Trips 12 11 23
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)
The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the
ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
SUMMARY
A commercial use has been in operation on the corner of Sondey and Castle Hayne roads since
prior to the adoption of county zoning in the area. The proposed additional commercial
development will have full access to Castle Hayne Road and will not have access to Sondey Road.
The Castle Hayne Road corridor has seen increased interest in commercial development and the
site is approximately two miles north of the I-140 interchange. While the project proposes
additional commercial space the increase in estimated trips is minimal and the project is below the
threshold that requires a TIA. The project will be subject to NCDOT engineering review through the
driveway permit process.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 8
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 9 of 14
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area or a Special Flood Hazard Area.
• The property is within the Prince George Creek watershed.
• Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class II (moderate limitation) soil. CFPUA water and sewer are not
available on site.
• The property’s current well and septic system are both required to be updated.
• On site there are two regulated trees classified as Significant. One a Live Oak and the
other a Water Oak, measuring 32” Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) and 48”, respectively.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
New Hanover County Strategic Plan
On July 17, 2023, the Board of Commissioners adopted a new strategic plan for Fiscal Years 2024-
2028. This plan focuses on three core areas: workforce and economic development, community
safety and well-being, and sustainable land use and environmental stewardship.
Strategic Plan Outcomes Relevant to Proposal Analysis
Through planned growth and development,
residents have access to their basic needs.
The proposed (CZD) B-2 rezoning will allow a
business that can support the surrounding
community to be located in a transitional area
along a major roadway corridor and in close
proximity to a number of households.
A business-friendly environment that promotes
growth, agility, and collaboration.
The plan aims to prepare for the long-term
needs of businesses and to maintain new business
growth within 2.5% of the state. The proposed
commercial zoning district will enable a new
business.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 9
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 10 of 14
Representative Developments
Existing Minor Vehicle Service Station Use:
Dad's Tire Store - 4737 Castle Hayne Road
Representative Development of Single Family Residential in the RA District:
3921 Sondey Road
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 10
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 11 of 14
Representative Developments of Proposed Commercial Flex Space:
Bayside Electric Supply
Flex Space on Gordon Road
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 11
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 12 of 14
Context and Compatibility
• The proposed rezoning is for a .93-acre parcel that is fronted by Castle Hayne Road.
• Nearby, there is residential, agricultural, neighborhood business, and undeveloped land
nearby.
• The subject lot is located approximately two miles north of the I-140 interchange and the
General Electric campus.
• The subject lot is north of an O&I district, southwest of three B-1 parcels, and west of several
R-20 lots.
• With the site’s proximity to the I-140 interchange and the area transitioning to more
commercial and industrial activities, this portion of Castle Hayne is likely to develop into a
service node within the coming years, rendering new single-family development along the
Castle Hayne Road corridor less likely.
• Both the proposed and existing uses, flex space and tire store respectively, are similar in
nature and impact of the nearby commercial development activities.
• At 40,510 square feet, the subject lot is precluded from subdivision due to the current zoning
district’s dimensional standards which require a lot to meet a minimum of 30,000 square
feet.
• While this portion of Castle Hayne Road has seen a number of light industrial and
commercial rezonings since zoning was first established, development has been constrained
due to lack of public water and sewer access.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for
New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and
function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are
intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be
interpreted as being parcel specific.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 12
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 13 of 14
Future Land Use
Map Place Type Community Mixed Use
Place Type
Description
Focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve
all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors.
Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational,
commercial, institutional, multi-family, and single-family residential.
Analysis
The subject property is located at the junction of Castle Hayne Road and
Sondey Road, located north of the I-140 interchange and the Wrightsboro
Commercial node. These areas are connected by Castle Hayne Road, a
minor arterial roadway.
The Comprehensive Plan classifies the property fronting Castle Hayne Road
as Community Mixed Use- a common classification along the Castle Hayne
Road corridor.
The Community Mixed Use place type includes commercial uses and
encourages infill development along highway corridors. The proposed
project could be appropriate in the transitional area while providing service
to nearby residents.
Additional conditions have been provided to limit the extent of land use
within the proposed B-2 district, preserve trees, and removal of an
accessory structure to ensure the proposed lot will meet UDO conformity
standards.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed rezoning request is generally CONSISTENT with the
Comprehensive Plan because the proposed limited commercial use is
encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type and would serve
nearby existing and future residential developments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff’s recommendation is based on the policy guidance of the Comprehensive Plan, zoning
considerations, technical review. The property is located along Castle Hayne Road surrounded by
very low-density residential parcels, with four commercially zoned properties to the northeast and
southeast. The proposed rezoning is less than two miles north of I-140 interchange and being
located in an area that has transitioned to more commercial and industrial activities since initial
zoning, the subject parcel is found to be in an area anticipated for future commercial development
along the corridor. The proposed land use is limited in scope and is found to be similar in nature
and impact to the other uses in the area while also in keeping with the recommendations of the
Community Mixed Use place type.
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the request and suggests the following motion:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a Conditional B-2 district. I
find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because
the rezoning provides for the types of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place
type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 13
Z24-05 Staff Report PB 06.06.2024 Page 14 of 14
the public interest because the application limits uses to those which are more appropriate
for the area and additional conditions reduce impact on adjacent residential areas.
Proposed Conditions:
1. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to: Animal Grooming Services,
Contractor Office (with no outdoor storage), Offices for Private Business & Professional
Activities, Instructional Services & Studios, Personal Services, General Retail Sales, Minor
Vehicle Service Station, and Warehousing.
2. The attached shed that encroaches into the rear setback is to be removed, bringing
Dad’s Tire Store into compliance with required setbacks.
3. A septic and well easement approved by New Hanover County Environmental Health
shall be recorded with the Register of Deeds guaranteeing access and maintenance for
the existing septic system and any future improvements. Environmental Health approval
of the septic system and well shall be required prior to issuance of construction permits
for the flex commercial space.
4. Exterior lighting including luminaries and security lighting shall be fully cutoff fixtures
that are directed downward in compliance with Figures of the UDO. In no case shall
lighting be directed at or above a horizontal plane through the lighting fixture.
5. The two Significant Trees identified on the concept plan shall be permanently retained
on site.
Alternative Motion for Denial (If based on information provided at the public hearing or other
consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the Board finds approval appropriate).
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to a Conditional B-2 district.
While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive
Plan because the rezoning provides for the types of uses recommended in the
Community Mixed Use place type, I find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request
is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the
desired character of the surrounding community and will adversely impact the adjacent
residential areas.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 2 - 14
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 3 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 4 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 5 - 1
Initial Application
Documents & Materials
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 6 - 1
Page 1 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165
nhcgov.com/528/Planning-Land-Use
CONDITIONAL ZONING APPLICATION
This application form must be completed as part of a conditional zoning application submitted through the county’s
online COAST portal. The main procedural steps in the submittal and review of applications are outlined in the flowchart
below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the
application, are set out in Section 10.3.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Public Hearing Procedures
(Optional)
Pre-Application Conference
1
Community Information Meeting
2
Application Submittal & Acceptance
3
Planning Director Review & Staff Report (TRC Optional)
4
Public Hearing Scheduling & Notification
5
Planning Board Hearing & Recom-mendation
6
Board of Commissioners Hearing & Decision
7
Post-Decision Limitations and Actions
1. Applicant and Property Owner Information
Applicant/Agent Name Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent)
Company Company/Owner Name 2
Address Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Phone Phone
Email Email
Cindee Wolf
Design Solutions
P.O. Box 7221
Wilmington, NC 28406
910-620-2374
cwolf@lobodemar.biz
Paul E. & Deanne R. Meadows
4717 Indian Corn Trail
Castle Hayne, NC 28429
910-617-5105 (Contact: Rick Meadows)
meadowsd@earthlink.net
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 1
Page 2 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
2. Subject Property Information
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s) Future Land Use Classification
3. Proposed Zoning, Use(s), & Narrative
Proposed Conditional Zoning District: Total Acreage of Proposed District:
Maximum Residential Density (if applicable) Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage (if
applicable)
Please list all of the specific uses that will be allowed within the proposed Conditional Zoning District, the
purpose of the district, and a project narrative (attach additional pages if necessary). Note: Only uses permitted
in the corresponding General Use District are eligible for consideration within a Conditional Zoning District.
4737 Caztle Hayne Road 322112.95.1866 [R01700-002-007-000]
0.94 acres RA / Tire Store Community Mixed-Use
(CZD) B-2 0.94 ac.
N/A
5,200 s.f.+/- Existing / 3,500 s.f. Proposed
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 2
Page 3 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
4. Proposed Condition(s)
Note: Within a Conditional Zoning District, additional conditions and requirements which represent greater
restrictions on the development and use of the property than the corresponding general use district regulations may
be added. These conditions may assist in mitigating the impacts the proposed development may have on the
surrounding community. Please list any conditions proposed to be placed on the Conditional Zoning District below.
Staff, the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners may propose additional conditions during the review process.
5. Traffic Impact
Please provide the estimated number of trips generated for the proposed use(s) based off the most recent version of
the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must be completed for
all proposed developments that generate more than 100 peak hour trips, and the TIA must be included with this
application.
Note: It is recommended that traffic generation numbers be reviewed by the WMPO prior to application to ensure
that the most appropriate ITE land use code is identified and most recent generation rates have been applied. If
numbers are verified, please attach a copy of the verification. If numbers have not been verified and the submitted
generation numbers must be adjusted, this may result in the application being ineligible to move forward to the intended
Planning Board agenda.
ITE Land Use(s):
Trip Generation Use and Variable (gross floor area, dwelling units, etc.)
AM Peak Hour Trips: PM Peak Hour Trips:
Business Park (770)
Calculated based on 3,500 s.f. GFA
5 4
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 3
Page 4 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
6. Conditional Zoning District Considerations
The Conditional Zoning District procedure is established to address situations where a particular land use would be
consistent with the New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the objectives outlined in the Unified
Development Ordinance and where only a specific use or uses is proposed. The procedure is intended primarily for use with transitions between zoning districts of dissimilar character where a particular use or uses, with restrictive conditions to safeguard adjacent land uses, can create a more orderly transition benefiting all affected parties and the community at-large.
The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed Conditional Zoning district meets the following criteria.
1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County’s policies for growth and development, as
described in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, applicable small area plans, etc.
2. How would the requested Conditional Zoning district be consistent with the property’s classification on the
2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 4
Page 5 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is
the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning?
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 5
Page 6 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
Staff will use the following checklist to determine the completeness of your application. Please verify all of the listed
items are included and confirm by initialing under “Applicant Initial”. If an item is not applicable, mark as “N/A”.
Applications determined to be incomplete must be corrected in order to be processed for further review; Staff will
confirm if an application is complete within five business days of submittal.
Application Checklist Applicant Initial
This application form, completed and signed (all property owners must sign signatory
page)
Application fee:
• $600 for 5 acres or less
• $700 for more than 5 acres
• $300 in addition to base fee for applications requiring TRC review
Community Information Meeting Report (complete and signed by agent or all property
owners)
Traffic Impact Analysis if applicable (use of attached report document is recommended)
• The official TIA approval letter is recommended prior to this item being placed on the Planning Board meeting agenda. The Planning Board may choose to continue the hearing until the official TIA approval letter is provided.
• The official TIA approval letter is required prior to this item being placed on the
Board of Commissioners meeting agenda.
Legal description (by metes and bounds) or recorded survey Map Book and Page Reference
of the property requested for rezoning
Conceptual Plan including the following minimum elements [Note: If elements beyond the
minimum requirements are shown on the concept plan they may be considered conditions of
approval if not eligible for approval as minor deviations]:
Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels and roads
• Proposed use of land, building areas and other improvements
o For residential uses, include the maximum number, height, and type of
units; area to be occupied by the structures; and/or proposed subdivision
boundaries.
o For non-residential uses, include the maximum square footage and height
of each structure, an outline of the area structures will occupy, and the
specific purposes for which the structures will be used.
• Proposed transportation and parking improvements; including proposed rights-of-
way and roadways; proposed access to and from the subject site; arrangement
and access provisions for parking areas.
• All existing and proposed easements, required setbacks, rights-of-way, and
buffers.
• The location of Special Flood Hazard Areas.
• A narrative of the existing vegetation on the subject site including the approximate
location, species, and size (DBH) of regulated trees. For site less than 5 acres, the
exact location, species, and sized (DBH) of specimen trees must be included.
• Approximate location and type of stormwater management facilities intended to
serve the site.
• Approximate location of regulated wetlands.
• Any additional conditions and requirements that represent greater restrictions on
development and use of the tract than the corresponding general use district regulations or additional limitations on land that may be regulated by state law or local ordinance
CAW
CAW
CAW
CAW
N/A
CAW
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 6
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 7
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 8
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 9
Legal DescripƟon for
CondiƟonal District Rezoning of
4737 Castle Hayne Road
Beginning at a point in the northwestern boundary of Castle Hayne Road (U.S. Hwy, 117), a
variable-width public right-of-way; said point being at its intersecƟon with the southern
boundary of Sondey Road (S.R. 1334), a 50’ public right-of-way; and running thence with the
Castle Hayne Road right-of-way,
South 36038’35” West, 244.57 feet to a point; thence
North 66024’25” West, 158.90 feet to a point; thence
North 28027’35” East, 226.93 feet to a point in the southern boundary of Sondey Road;
Thence with that right-of-way,
South 69058’25” East, 195.25 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing
40,844 square feet, or 0.94 acres, more or less.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 10
Page 1 of 2
Community Information Meeting Report – Approved 06-2022
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165 Nhcgov.com/528/Planning-Land-Use
COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING REPORT
This Community Information Meeting Report must be submitted with the application for a conditional rezoning, planned
development, or intensive industry special use permit in order for the application to be deemed complete.
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Meeting Date and Time
Format (Virtual, In-Person, Hybrid) Location if In-Person or Hybrid
Selection Criteria for Location
Meeting Summary
Issues and Concerns Discussed at Meeting
In-Person
4737 Castle Hayne Road 322112.95.1866 [R01700-002-007-000]
Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / 6:00 P.M.
Project Location
In-person / 4737 Castle Hayne Road
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 11
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 12
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 13
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 14
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 15
PROPERTIES WITHIN A 500' PERIMETER OF 4737 CASTLE HAYNE ROAD:
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY / STATE / ZIP
CASTLE HAYNE HEALTH HOLDINGS LLC 1270 SE 25TH ST HICKORY NC 28602
CHADWICK SYLVIA B TRUSTEE 2505 CASTLE HAYNE RD WILMINGTON NC 28401
COASTAL TRANSMISSION INC 7615 MYRTLE GROVE RD WILMINGTON NC 28409
DAVIS EVELYN POTTER HRS 132 NIGHTSHADE LN GARNER NC 27529
DIAZ JUAN CECELIA G 4815 CASTLE HAYNE RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
DOMBROSKI RONALD ETAL 4917 CASTLE LAKES RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
FLORES JOSEPH P JR 3913 SONDEY RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
GRIFFIN RYAN E 4736 CASTLE HAYNE RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
HAAGENSEN CRAIG C DARLEEN O 3224 N COLLEGE RD #229 WILMINGTON NC 28405
JAMES JOHMACHIEL BRANDI E 4713 CASTLE HAYNE RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
JONES KELLY C 4832 CASTLE HAYNE RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
KERN DARA A RICHARD F 4740 CASTLE HAYNE RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
KOLTERJAHN GEOFFREY PAUL 12 SHEEHAN TER ROCKPORT MA 01966
KOWALKSI MICHAEL ETAL 4715 CASTLE HAYNE RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
MCCLORY RAYMOND C TRUSTEE 508 JENOA DR CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
MCGEE ROBERT L SR PO BOX 312 HAMPSTEAD NC 28443
MEADOWS PAUL E DEANNE R 4717 INDIAN CORN TRL CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
MECKLER RYAN P AMANDA D 3908 SONDEY RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
MILLS TERRY L SR JULIE 3921 SONDEY RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
NEW HANOVER COUNTY 230 GOV CENTER DR STE 190 WILMINGTON NC 28403
SAUER KATHERINE ANNE 4715 CASTLE HAYNE RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
SOUTH COAST ENTERPRISES OF NC LLC PO BOX 12587 WILMINGTON NC 28405
SPICER JOSEPH H 4838 CASTLE HAYNE RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
VASQUEZ ALICIA D 4807 CASTLE HAYNE RD CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 16
January 11, 2024
To: Adjacent Property Owners
This is a notice of a community information meeting for an upcoming rezoning request on
behalf of Rick & Deanne Meadows, property owners of 4737 Castle Hayne Road. The rezoning
request would be from R-15, a residential district, to (CZD) B-2, a conditional highway business
district, to bring the existing tire store into compliance, and for development of a commercial
building where the house burned down. The meeting is an opportunity for further explanation
of the proposal and for questions to be answered concerning project improvements, benefits
and impacts.
The subject tract, is at the corner of Castle Hayne Road and Sondey Road. Its area is 0.94 acres.
Your property is located in the proximity, within a 500’ perimeter, of the lot boundary.
A Conditional Zoning District in New Hanover County allows particular uses to be established
only in accordance with specific standards and conditions pertaining to each individual
development project & rezoning petition. Essentially, this means that only the specific use(s)
and the proposed site improvements of an approved petition can be developed.
A meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 23rd, 6:00 p.m., in the lobby of Dad’s Tire Service,
4737 Castle Hayne Road. If you cannot attend, you are welcome to contact Cindee Wolf at
telephone # 910-620-2374, or email cwolf@lobodemar.biz with comments and/or questions.
We appreciate your interest and look forward to continuing to be a good neighbor and an asset
to the community.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 17
Cas
t
l
e
H
a
y
n
e
R
o
a
d
Son
d
e
y
R
o
a
d
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 7 - 18
Concept Plan
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 8 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 9 - 1
Public Comments
In Support 0
Neutral 0
In Opposition 0
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 4 - 10 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2024
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor
CONTACT(S): Robert Farrell; Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z24-06) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solu7ons, applicant, on behalf of LaLuLi
Investments, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 0.86 acres zoned R-15, Residen7al located at 501 and
505 Manassas Drive to (CZD) O&I, Office and Ins7tu7onal for one commercial structure totaling 8,000 square feet
for the use of Medical and Dental Office and Clinic and other limited uses.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to rezone two residen!ally zoned lots to (CZD) O&I for a proposed 2-story, 8,000 square
foot commercial building with associated parking. The applicant is proposing to use the site for a den!st's office but
has also included a limited list of other poten!al uses to provide flexibility for poten!al future landowners or tenants.
In addi!on to the use of Medical and Dental Office and Clinic for the den!st, a condi!on has been included limi!ng the
allowed uses to Bank and / or Financial Ins!tu!on, Business Service Center, Offices for Private Businesses &
Professional Ac!vi!es, Instruc!onal Services & Studios, and Personal Services (no ta9oo parlors).
The project includes a solid wood privacy fence to provide a visual screen from the adjacent residen!ally zoned parcels
to the north and east. The fence will be in addi!on to the required Type A opaque buffer along the property lines. A
condi!on has been including guaranteeing the privacy fence.
Access to the site is right-in / right-out only onto Carolina Beach Road. NCDOT has conducted a preliminary review of
the site and prohibited access onto Manassas Drive to prevent cut-throughs from Manassas Drive to Carolina Beach
Road.
CFPUA has confirmed the nearest public sewer access is at Appoma9ox Drive, approximately 1,500 feet from the
subject parcels. Due to the distance from public sewer CFPUA cannot require sewer connec!on. The project proposes
a private sep!c field for sewer service on the eastern side of the property away from Carolina Beach Road and
buffered with a privacy fence. New sep!c systems must be reviewed and approved by New Hanover County
Environmental Health.
The concept plan also proposes an underground stormwater facility under the parking lot on the western side of the
site. A soils analysis was provided indica!ng the site is suitable to support an underground system. Stormwater systems
must be reviewed and approved by both New Hanover County Engineering and the State Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ).
The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the !me the purpose of the district was to ensure housing
served by private sep!c and wells would be developed at low densi!es.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5
Since that !me, the Carolina Beach Road corridor has experienced a transi!on to higher density residen!al and mixed
commercial districts from the Monkey Junc!on growth node to Halyburton Parkway.
The O&I district was established to provide lands that accommodate ins!tu!onal, professional office, and other
compa!ble uses. The O&I district is recommended for areas with more intense uses and higher density development
pa9erns to support economic clusters in appropriate loca!ons.
As currently zoned, the site is es!mated to generate approximately 2 AM and 2 PM peak hour trips. The proposed
(CZD) O&I development is es!mated to generate 19 AM and 53 PM peak hour trips, increasing the es!mated number
of trips by approximately 17 AM and 51 PM trips.
Carolina Beach Road is currently over capacity in the vicinity of the Manassas Drive intersec!on. The es!mated traffic
genera!on of the proposed uses are moderately low and the proximity of the proposed uses to residen!al
neighborhoods could reduce vehicle traffic with longer trips on Carolina Beach Road. Southbound traffic on Carolina
Beach Road would u!lize a U-turn approximately 1,000 feet south of the site. While there is a U-turn available south
of the site, there are anecdotal accounts of regular prohibited U-turn movements at the Manassas Drive intersec!on
resul!ng in vehicle conflicts at the intersec!on. While vehicles could use the exis!ng southern U-turn or an available
U-turn on Manassas Drive, the restric!on of right-in / right-out access onto Carolina Beach Road could result in
increased conflic!ng U-turn ac!vity at Manassas Drive. The project will be subject to NCDOT engineering review
through the driveway permiHng process.
The es!mated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the ordinance
requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan designates these parcels as Urban Mixed Use which promotes development of a mix of
residen!al, office, and retail uses at higher densi!es. Types of uses encouraged include office, retail, mixed use, small
recrea!on, commercial, ins!tu!onal, single-family, and mul!-family residen!al.
The proposed rezoning request is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed
mix of uses is in line with the recommenda!ons of the Urban Mixed Use place type and the proposed development
would act as an appropriate transi!on between the highway and exis!ng residen!al development.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff's recommenda!on is based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning considera!ons, and
technical review. This por!on of the Carolina Beach Road corridor has been designated Urban Mixed Use. The plan
proposes neighborhood level services that can reduce the need for addi!onal longer trips on Carolina Beach Road and
serve as an appropriate transi!on between the highway corridor and neighboring residen!al development.
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the request and suggests the following mo!on:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed mix of uses is in line with the recommenda!ons of the Urban
Mixed Use place type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public
interest because the project would act as an appropriate transi!on between the highway and exis!ng residen!al
development.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5
Applicant Proposed Condi!ons:
1. Street yard landscaping will be installed along Carolina Beach Road to meet current Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) landscape requirements for commercial projects.
2. Any freestanding sign(s) on the site shall be monument-style with landscaping around the base of the sign. No pole
signs shall be permi9ed.
3. Exterior ligh!ng including luminaries and security ligh!ng shall be full cut-off fixtures that are directed downward in
compliance with Figure 5.5.4.C Full Cut-off Fixtures of the UDO. In no case shall ligh!ng be directed at or above a
horizontal plane through the ligh!ng fixture. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet.
4. Permi9ed uses are limited to:
- Medical and Dental Office and Clinic
- Bank and / or Financial Ins!tu!on
- Business Service Center
- Offices for Private Business and Professional Ac!vi!es
- Instruc!onal Services and Studios
- Personal Services (no ta9oo parlors)
5. Significant trees iden!fied on the concept plan shall be permanently retained.
6. A six-foot-tall solid wood privacy fence shall be installed along the northern and eastern sides of the project as
depicted on the concept plan.
7. A minimum 20 food wide public access easement shall be provided along the frontage parallel with Carolina Beach
Road for public bicycle and pedestrian use.
Alterna7ve Mo7on for DENIAL (if based on informa!on presented at the public hearing or other considera!on
beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate)
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed mix of uses is in line with the recommenda!ons of the Urban
Mixed Use place type. I find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because the project does not provide adequate transi!on to neighboring residen!al development.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip!on
Z24-06 PB Script
Z24-06 PB Staff Report
Z24-06 Zoning Map
Z24-06 Future Land Use Map
Z24-06 Mailout Map
Z24-06 Application Coversheet
Z24-06 Application
Z24-06 Concept Plan Coversheet
Z24-06 Concept Plan
Z24-06 Public Comment
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5
PLANNING BOARD SCRIPT
for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z24-06)
Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of LaLuLi Investments, LLC,
property owner, to rezone approximately 0.86 acres zoned R-15, Residential located at 501 and 505
Manassas Drive to (CZD) O&I, Office and Institutional for one commercial structure totaling 8,000
square feet for the use of Medical and Dental Office and Clinic and other limited uses.
1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes
for rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Applicant’s and supporters’ presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant’s and supporters’ rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
f. Staff review of any additional conditions
3. Close the public hearing
4. Board discussion
5. Before we proceed with a motion and vote, I would like to invite the applicant to the podium.
Based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, would you like
withdraw your petition, request a continuance, or proceed with a vote?
6. Vote on the application. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or
is not, consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Example Motion for Approval
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with
the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed mix of uses is in line
with the recommendations of the Urban Mixed Use place type. I also find recommending
APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the project
would act as an appropriate transition between the highway and existing residential
development.
Applicant Proposed Conditions:
1. Street yard landscaping will be installed along Carolina Beach Road to meet current
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) landscape requirements for commercial
projects.
2. Any freestanding sign(s) on the site shall be monument-style with landscaping around
the base of the sign. No pole signs shall be permitted.
3. Exterior lighting including luminaries and security lighting shall be full cut-off fixtures
that are directed downward in compliance with Figure 5.5.4.C Full Cut-off Fixtures of
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 1 - 1
the UDO. In no case shall lighting be directed at or above a horizontal plane through
the lighting fixture. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet.
4. Permitted uses are limited to:
• Medical and Dental Office and Clinic
• Bank and / or Financial Institution
• Business Service Center
• Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities
• Instructional Services and Studios
• Personal Services (no tattoo parlors)
5. Significant trees identified on the concept plan shall be permanently retained.
6. A six-foot-tall solid wood privacy fence shall be installed along the northern and
eastern sides of the project as depicted on the concept plan.
7. A minimum 20 foot wide public access easement shall be provided along the frontage
parallel with Carolina Beach Road for public bicycle and pedestrian use.
Alternative Motion for DENIAL (if based on information presented at the public hearing or other
consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed mix of uses is
in line with the recommendations of the Urban Mixed Use place type. I find recommending
DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the project
does not provide adequate transition to neighboring residential development.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to RECOMMEND [Approval/Denial] of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) O&I district.
I find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
I also find RECOMMENDING [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in
the public interest because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 1 - 2
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 1 of 14
STAFF REPORT FOR Z24-06
CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z24-06
Request:
Rezoning to a Conditional O&I district
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions LaLuLi Investments, LLC
Location: Acreage:
501 and 505 Manassas Drive 0.86
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
R07906-001-001-000 and R07906-001-002-
000 Urban Mixed Use
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Two undeveloped residential lots
Medical and Dental Office and Clinic, Bank
and / or Financial Institution, Business Service
Center, Offices for Private Business &
Professional Activities, Instructional Services &
Studios, Personal Services (no tattoo parlors)
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
R-15, Residential (CZD) O&I, Office & Institutional
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North Single Family Residential R-15
East Single Family Residential R-15
South Veterinary Clinic and Single Family Residential (CZD) O&I and R-15
West
Carwash, Convenience Store with Fuel Stations, and
Restaurant (CZD) B-1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 1
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 2 of 14
ZONING HISTORY
April 7, 1971 Initially zoned R-15 (Area 4)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer
Water services are available through CFPUA. Public sewer is not located in
close proximity to the site. As a result, sewer service is proposed by a
private septic system that must be approved and permitted by New
Hanover County Environmental Health.
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Southern Fire
District, New Hanover County Myrtle Grove Station
Schools Bellamy Elementary, Murray Middle, and Ashley High Schools
Recreation Hanover Pines Park
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation No known conservation resources.
Historic No known historic resources.
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 2
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 3 of 14
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN
Applicant’s Concept Plan - Includes Staff Markups
• The concept plan includes a 2-story, 8,000 square foot commercial building with associated
parking. The applicant is proposing using the site for a dentist’s office but has also included
a limited list of other potential uses to provide flexibility for potential future landowners or
tenants.
• In addition to the use of Medical and Dental Office and Clinic for the dentist, a condition
has been included limiting the allowed uses to Bank and / or Financial Institution, Business
Service Center, Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities, Instructional Services &
Studios, and Personal Services (no tattoo parlors).
Manassas Drive
Proposed Privacy Fence
Proposed
Underground
Stormwater
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 3
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 4 of 14
• Access to the site is right-in / right-out only onto Carolina Beach Road. NCDOT has
conducted a preliminary review of the site and prohibited access onto Manassas Drive to
prevent cut-throughs from Manassas Drive to Carolina Beach Road.
• The project includes a solid wood privacy fence to provide a visual screen from the adjacent
residentially zoned parcels to the north and east. The fence will be in addition to the
required Type A opaque buffer along the property lines. A condition has been included
guaranteeing the privacy fence.
• CFPUA has confirmed the nearest public sewer access is at Appomattox Drive,
approximately 1,500 feet from the subject parcels. Due to the distance from public sewer
CFPUA cannot require sewer connection. The project proposes a private septic field for
sewer service on the eastern side of the property away from Carolina Beach Road and
buffered with a privacy fence. New septic systems must be reviewed and permitted by New
Hanover County Environmental Health.
• The concept plan also proposes an underground stormwater facility under the parking lot
on the western side of the site. A soils analysis was provided indicating the site is suitable
to support an underground system. Stormwater systems must be reviewed permitted by both
New Hanover County Engineering and the State Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ).
• Staff has proposed an additional condition for a public access easement along the frontage
of Carolina Beach Road to accommodate future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
• Three Significant Trees are shown along the northern property line. A condition has been
included guaranteeing retention of the significant trees.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the time, the purpose of the R-15
district was to ensure housing served by private septic and wells would be developed at
low densities.
• Since that time, the Carolina Beach Road corridor has experienced a transition to higher
density residential and mixed commercial districts from the Monkey Junction growth node to
Halyburton Parkway.
• The O&I district was established to provide lands that accommodate institutional,
professional office, and other compatible uses. The O&I district is recommended for areas
with more intense uses and higher density development patterns to support economic clusters
in appropriate locations.
• In addition to the required lighting standards listed in Section 5.5 of the UDO, the applicant
has proposed to limit light posts to a height of 12 feet.
• A Type A Opaque buffer is required along the northern and eastern property lines
bordering residentially zoned parcels. In addition to the Type A buffer standards the
applicant has provided a condition for a solid wood privacy fence in those areas.
• If approved, the project would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and Zoning
Compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements and
specific conditions included in the approval. Only minor deviations from the approved
conceptual plan, as defined by the UDO, would be allowed.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 4
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 5 of 14
AREA DEVELOPMENTS
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 5
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 6 of 14
TRANSPORTATION
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Intensity of Current Zoning Typical development under current zoning would allow 2 single
family dwelling units.
PROPOSED ACCESS
Primary Access Carolina Beach Road via a right-in, right out only driveway
Secondary Access N/A
EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Affected Roadway Carolina Beach Road
Type of Roadway State Highway
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 6
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 7 of 14
Roadway Planning
Capacity (AADT) 41,370
Latest Traffic Volume
(AADT) 48,000
Latest WMPO Point-in-Time
Count (DT) 48,748
Current Level of Congestion Over Capacity
Sources
Source of Planning Capacity: WMPO
Source of Latest Traffic Volume: 2022
Source of WMPO Point-in-Time County: 2023
NEARBY NCDOT STIP ROADAWAY PROJECTS
U-5702B- S. College Rd.
Improvements
(2025 Right-of-way
acquisition and utilities)
- Access management and travel time improvements along
College Road between Shipyard Boulevard and Carolina
Beach Road.
U-5790 – Monkey Junction
Intersection and Roadway
Improvements
(2029 Right-of-way
acquisition and utilities)
- Project to convert the intersection of Carolina Beach Road
and College Road to a continuous flow intersection.
- The project includes widening Carolina Beach Road south of
the intersection of Sanders Road.
TRAFFIC GENERATION
Traffic Generated
by Present
Designation
Traffic Generated by
Proposed
Designation
Potential Impact of
Proposed
Designation
AM Peak Hour Trips 2 19 +17
PM Peak Hour Trips 2 53 +51
Assumptions
Typical Development with Existing Zoning – 2 single family detached
dwellings.
Proposed Development – 2-story, 8,000 square foot medical office
building.
Sources
Source of Trip Generation: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Ed.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)
The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the
ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 7
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 8 of 14
SUMMARY
Carolina Beach Road is currently over capacity in the vicinity of the Manassas Drive intersection. The
estimated traffic generation of the proposed uses is moderately low and the proximity of the
proposed uses to residential neighborhoods could reduce vehicle traffic with longer trips on Carolina
Beach Road. Southbound traffic on Carolina Beach Road would utilize a U-turn approximately 1,000
feet south of the site. While there is a U-turn available south of the site, there are anecdotal accounts
of regular prohibited U-turn movements at the Manassas Drive intersection resulting in vehicle conflicts
at the intersection. While vehicles could use the existing southern U-turn or an available U-turn on
Manassas Drive, the restriction of only right-in / right-out access onto Carolina Beach Road could
result in increased conflicting U-turn activity at Manassas Drive. The project will be subject to NCDOT
engineering review through the driveway permitting process.
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area or Special Flood Hazard Area.
• The property is within the Everette Creek watershed.
• Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class I (Suitable) soils.
• The project proposes an underground stormwater management system. A soil report was
included with the application verifying the property is suitable for an undergound
stormwater system. The system must be reviewed and permitted by New Hanover County
Engineering and NCDEQ.
• CFPUA public water is available to the site. The applicant is proposing a private septic
system for sewer utilities. Septic systems must be approved by New Hanover County
Environmental Health. The closest available public sewer is approximately 1,500 feet away
from the site at Appomattox Drive and Chancellorsville Drive.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 8
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 9 of 14
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
New Hanover County Strategic Plan
On July 17, 2023, the Board of Commissioners adopted a new strategic plan for Fiscal Years 2024-
2028. This plan focuses on three core areas: workforce and economic development, community
safety and well-being, and sustainable land use and environmental stewardship.
Strategic Plan Outcomes
Relevant to Proposal
Analysis
Through planned growth and
development, residents have
access to their basic needs.
The strategic objective to achieve this desired outcome
includes providing residents with space to accommodate small
businesses that support the local economy. The proposed CZD
O&I rezoning will allow businesses that could support the
surrounding community to locate in a transitional area along
a major roadway corridor and in close proximity to a number
of households.
A business-friendly environment
that promotes growth, agility,
and collaboration.
The plan aims to prepare for the long-term needs of
businesses and to maintain new business growth within 2.5%
of the state. The proposed commercial zoning district will
enable new businesses.
Representative Developments
Representative Developments of Single Family Residential:
Manassas Drive
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 9
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 10 of 14
Tarin Woods Subdivision
Representative Development of O&I and Medical Office
Myrtle Grove Animal Hospital – Manassas Drive
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 10
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 11 of 14
Browning Orthodontics – Junction Creek Drive
Context and Compatibility
• The project is located at the corner of Carolina Beach Road and Manassas Drive
approximately 1,500 feet south of the Beau Rivage Marketplace that includes a grocery
store, restaurants, vehicle service, home appliance sales, and pharmacy services.
• The Carolina Beach Road corridor has seen increased interest in higher density residential
development such as the Towns at Market Place across the highway from the subject site,
and the Winds Ridge and Myrtle Landing Townhomes approximately a mile south.
• The project proposes a condition limiting the list of allowed uses to those intended to serve
surrounding residential development such as the use of medical offices and offices for
private business and professional activities.
• An existing similar office use is located on the southern corner of Carolina Beach Road and
Manassas Drive.
• The project is located at the intersection of a major highway and the primary entrance to
several residential developments which makes the subject parcels less likely to be developed
for single-family residential.
• The Carolina Beach Road corridor has also seen a gradual conversion of residentially zoned
parcels to commercial and mixed-use projects. As proposed the project would serve as an
appropriate transition between the Carolina Beach Road corridor and neighboring
residential development.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 11
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 12 of 14
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for
New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and
function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are
intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be
interpreted as being parcel specific.
Future Land Use
Map Place Type Urban Mixed Use
Place Type
Description
Promotes development of a mix of residential, office, and retail uses at
higher densities. Types of uses encouraged include office, retail, mixed use,
small recreation, commercial, institutional, single-family, and multi-family
residential.
Analysis
The property is located at the intersection of Carolina Beach Road and
Manassas Drive. The Carolina Beach Road corridor has seen increased
interest in higher density residential development such as the Towns at
Market Place across the highway from the subject site, and the Winds Ridge
and Myrtle Landing Townhomes approximately a mile south.
The Comprehensive Plan classifies the property as Urban Mixed Use, which
promotes a mix of residential and commercial uses intended for areas of
higher growth.
The proposed mix of uses is limited to community level services and business
uses in closer proximity to nearby subdivisions.
Additional neighborhood level services can reduce the need for additional
longer vehicle trips on Carolina Beach Road and serve as an appropriate
transition between the highway corridor and neighboring residential
development.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed rezoning request is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because the proposed mix of uses is in line with the
recommendations of the Urban Mixed Use place type and the proposed
development would act as an appropriate transition between the highway
and existing residential development.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 12
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 13 of 14
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff’s recommendation is based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning
considerations, and technical review. This portion of the Carolina Beach Road corridor has been
designated Urban Mixed Use. The plan proposes neighborhood level services that can reduce the
need for additional longer trips on Carolina Beach Road and serve as an appropriate transition
between the highway corridor and neighboring residential development.
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the request and suggests the following motion:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
proposed mix of uses is in line with the recommendations of the Urban Mixed Use place
type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and
in the public interest because the project would act as an appropriate transition
between the highway and existing residential development.
Applicant Proposed Conditions:
1. Street yard landscaping will be installed along Carolina Beach Road to meet
current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) landscape requirements for
commercial projects.
2. Any freestanding sign(s) on the site shall be monument-style with landscaping
around the base of the sign. No pole signs shall be permitted.
3. Exterior lighting including luminaries and security lighting shall be full cut-off
fixtures that are directed downward in compliance with Figure 5.5.4.C Full Cut-
off Fixtures of the UDO. In no case shall lighting be directed at or above a
horizontal plane through the lighting fixture. Light posts shall be no taller than
twelve (12) feet.
4. Permitted uses are limited to:
• Medical and Dental Office and Clinic
• Bank and / or Financial Institution
• Business Service Center
• Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities
• Instructional Services and Studios
• Personal Services (no tattoo parlors)
5. Significant trees identified on the concept plan shall be permanently retained.
6. A six-foot-tall solid wood privacy fence shall be installed along the northern
and eastern sides of the project as depicted on the concept plan.
7. A minimum 20 foot wide public access easement shall be provided along the
frontage parallel with Carolina Beach Road for public bicycle and pedestrian
use.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 13
Z24-06 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 14 of 14
Alternative Motion for DENIAL (if based on information presented at the public hearing or other
consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
proposed mix of uses is in line with the recommendations of the Urban Mixed Use place
type. I find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the
public interest because the project does not provide adequate transition to neighboring
residential development.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 2 - 14
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 3 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 4 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 5 - 1
Initial Application
Documents & Materials
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 6 - 1
Page 1 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165
nhcgov.com/528/Planning-Land-Use
CONDITIONAL ZONING APPLICATION
This application form must be completed as part of a conditional zoning application submitted through the county’s
online COAST portal. The main procedural steps in the submittal and review of applications are outlined in the flowchart
below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the
application, are set out in Section 10.3.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Public Hearing Procedures
(Optional)
Pre-Application Conference
1
Community Information Meeting
2
Application Submittal & Acceptance
3
Planning Director Review & Staff Report (TRC Optional)
4
Public Hearing Scheduling & Notification
5
Planning Board Hearing & Recom-mendation
6
Board of Commissioners Hearing & Decision
7
Post-Decision Limitations and Actions
1. Applicant and Property Owner Information
Applicant/Agent Name Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent)
Company Company/Owner Name 2
Address Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Phone Phone
Email Email
Cindee Wolf
Design Solutions
P.O. Box 7221
Wilmington, NC 28406
910-620-2374
cwolf@lobodemar.biz
LaLuLi Investments, L.L.C.
gravesnate87@gmail.com
Wilmington, NC 28412
7617 Clark Hill Road
801-318-6994 (Contact: Dr. Nathan Graves)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 1
Page 2 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
2. Subject Property Information
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s) Future Land Use Classification
3. Proposed Zoning, Use(s), & Narrative
Proposed Conditional Zoning District: Total Acreage of Proposed District:
Maximum Residential Density (if applicable) Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage (if
applicable)
Please list all of the specific uses that will be allowed within the proposed Conditional Zoning District, the
purpose of the district, and a project narrative (attach additional pages if necessary). Note: Only uses permitted
in the corresponding General Use District are eligible for consideration within a Conditional Zoning District.
501 & 505 Manassas Drive 313310.37.1200 / 313310.37.1300
37,549 sf / 0.86 acres R-15 Community Mixed-Use
0.86 ac.(CZD) O&I
N/A 8000 s.f.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 2
Page 3 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
4. Proposed Condition(s)
Note: Within a Conditional Zoning District, additional conditions and requirements which represent greater
restrictions on the development and use of the property than the corresponding general use district regulations may
be added. These conditions may assist in mitigating the impacts the proposed development may have on the
surrounding community. Please list any conditions proposed to be placed on the Conditional Zoning District below.
Staff, the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners may propose additional conditions during the review process.
5. Traffic Impact
Please provide the estimated number of trips generated for the proposed use(s) based off the most recent version of
the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must be completed for
all proposed developments that generate more than 100 peak hour trips, and the TIA must be included with this
application.
Note: It is recommended that traffic generation numbers be reviewed by the WMPO prior to application to ensure
that the most appropriate ITE land use code is identified and most recent generation rates have been applied. If
numbers are verified, please attach a copy of the verification. If numbers have not been verified and the submitted
generation numbers must be adjusted, this may result in the application being ineligible to move forward to the intended
Planning Board agenda.
ITE Land Use(s):
Trip Generation Use and Variable (gross floor area, dwelling units, etc.)
AM Peak Hour Trips: PM Peak Hour Trips:
Reference Concept Plan for layout.
8000 s.f. GFA
Medical / Dental Office - not on Hospital Campus (ITE - 720)
25 30
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 3
Page 4 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
6. Conditional Zoning District Considerations
The Conditional Zoning District procedure is established to address situations where a particular land use would be
consistent with the New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the objectives outlined in the Unified
Development Ordinance and where only a specific use or uses is proposed. The procedure is intended primarily for use with transitions between zoning districts of dissimilar character where a particular use or uses, with restrictive conditions to safeguard adjacent land uses, can create a more orderly transition benefiting all affected parties and the community at-large.
The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed Conditional Zoning district meets the following criteria.
1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County’s policies for growth and development, as
described in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, applicable small area plans, etc.
2. How would the requested Conditional Zoning district be consistent with the property’s classification on the
2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 4
Page 5 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is
the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning?
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 5
Page 6 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
Staff will use the following checklist to determine the completeness of your application. Please verify all of the listed
items are included and confirm by initialing under “Applicant Initial”. If an item is not applicable, mark as “N/A”.
Applications determined to be incomplete must be corrected in order to be processed for further review; Staff will
confirm if an application is complete within five business days of submittal.
Application Checklist Applicant Initial
This application form, completed and signed (all property owners must sign signatory
page)
Application fee:
• $600 for 5 acres or less
• $700 for more than 5 acres
• $300 in addition to base fee for applications requiring TRC review
Community Information Meeting Report (complete and signed by agent or all property
owners)
Traffic Impact Analysis if applicable (use of attached report document is recommended)
• The official TIA approval letter is recommended prior to this item being placed on the Planning Board meeting agenda. The Planning Board may choose to continue the hearing until the official TIA approval letter is provided.
• The official TIA approval letter is required prior to this item being placed on the
Board of Commissioners meeting agenda.
Legal description (by metes and bounds) or recorded survey Map Book and Page Reference
of the property requested for rezoning
Conceptual Plan including the following minimum elements [Note: If elements beyond the
minimum requirements are shown on the concept plan they may be considered conditions of
approval if not eligible for approval as minor deviations]:
Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels and roads
• Proposed use of land, building areas and other improvements
o For residential uses, include the maximum number, height, and type of
units; area to be occupied by the structures; and/or proposed subdivision
boundaries.
o For non-residential uses, include the maximum square footage and height
of each structure, an outline of the area structures will occupy, and the
specific purposes for which the structures will be used.
• Proposed transportation and parking improvements; including proposed rights-of-
way and roadways; proposed access to and from the subject site; arrangement
and access provisions for parking areas.
• All existing and proposed easements, required setbacks, rights-of-way, and
buffers.
• The location of Special Flood Hazard Areas.
• A narrative of the existing vegetation on the subject site including the approximate
location, species, and size (DBH) of regulated trees. For site less than 5 acres, the
exact location, species, and sized (DBH) of specimen trees must be included.
• Approximate location and type of stormwater management facilities intended to
serve the site.
• Approximate location of regulated wetlands.
• Any additional conditions and requirements that represent greater restrictions on
development and use of the tract than the corresponding general use district regulations or additional limitations on land that may be regulated by state law or local ordinance
CAW
CAW
CAW
N/A
CAW
CAW
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 6
Page 7 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
Documentation on soil types and infiltration rates if underground stormwater facilities
proposed
One (1) digital PDF copy of ALL documents AND plans
7. Acknowledgement and Signatures
By my signature below, I understand and accept all of the conditions, limitations, and obligations of the Conditional
Zoning District zoning for which I am applying. I understand that the existing Official Zoning Map is presumed to be
correct. I certify that this application is complete and that all information presented in this application is accurate to
the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
If applicable, I also appoint the applicant/agent as listed on this application to represent me and make decisions on
my behalf regarding this application during the review process. The applicant/agent is hereby authorized on my
behalf to:
1. Submit an application including all required supplemental information and materials;
2. Appear at public hearings to give representation and comments;
3. Act on my behalf without limitations with regard to any and all things directly or indirectly connected with or
arising out of this application; and
4. Provide written consent to any and all conditions of approval.
Signature of Property Owner(s) Print Name(s)
Signature of Applicant/Agent Print Name
Note: This form must be signed by the owner(s) of record. If there are multiple property owners, a signature is
required for each owner of record.
Note: If changes are made to the proposal after the application completeness determination that require additional
staff review and vetting, the proposal will be ineligible to move forward to the intended Planning Board agenda. No
changes will be accepted by staff after the applications are posted at the time of public notice.
If an applicant requests delay of consideration from the Planning Board or Board of County Commissioners before notice
has been sent to the newspaper, the item will be calendared for the next meeting and no fee will be required. If delay is
requested after notice has been sent to the newspaper, the Board will act on the request at the scheduled meeting and are
under no obligation to grant the continuance. If the continuance is granted, a fee in accordance with the adopted fee
schedule as published on the New Hanover County Planning website will be required.
CAW
CAW
Dr. Nathan Graves
Cynthia Wolf - Design Solutions
- LaLuLi Investments, L.L.C.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 7
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 8
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 9
Legal DescripƟon for
CondiƟonal Rezoning of
501 & 505 Manassas Drive
Beginning at a point in the northern boundary of Manassas Drive (NC SR 1581), a 100’ public
right-of-way; said point being at its intersecƟon with the eastern boundary of Carolina Beach
Road (U.S. Hwy. 421), a 160’ public right-of-way; said point also being at the southwestern
corner of “Lot 2 – BaƩle Park / SecƟon No. 1,” a subdivision recorded among the Land Records
of the New Hanover County registry in Map Book 7, at Page 77; and running thence from the
point of beginning with the Carolina Beach Road right-of-way:
North 05044’55” East, 57.11 feet to a point; thence
North 05027’21” East, 43.00 feet to a point; thence
North 05026’25” East, 100.14 feet to a point; thence leaving the right-of-way,
South 81025’22” East, 193.19 feet to a point; thence
South 08033’53” West, 99.98 feet to a point; thence
South 08035’00” West, 100.00 feet to a point in the northern boundary of Manassas Drive;
thence with that right-of-way,
North 81025’00” West, 182.56 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 37,549
square feet, or 0.86 acres, more or less.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 10
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 11
Page 1 of 2
Community Information Meeting Report – Approved 06-2022
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165 Nhcgov.com/528/Planning-Land-Use
COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING REPORT
This Community Information Meeting Report must be submitted with the application for a conditional rezoning, planned
development, or intensive industry special use permit in order for the application to be deemed complete.
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Meeting Date and Time
Format (Virtual, In-Person, Hybrid) Location if In-Person or Hybrid
Selection Criteria for Location
Meeting Summary
Issues and Concerns Discussed at Meeting
501 & 505 Manassas Drive 313310.37.1200 / 313310.37.1300
Thursday, March 28, 6:00 p.m.
In-person (w/ contact information to call oremail with questions or comments Best Western - Plus / 5600 Carolina Beach Rd
General vicinity of the subject property location
No calls or emails inquiries were received. No one attended the meeting.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 12
Page 2 of 2
Community Information Meeting Report – Approved 06-2022
List of Changes and Modifications Made to the Proposal in Response to Issues and Concerns (if no modifications
were made, please explain why)
Report Attachments
All of the following items must be submitted as part of the required community information meeting report in addition
to this form.
Checklist Applicant Initial
A list of names and addresses of attendees
A list of the names and addresses of invitees and copies of any returned mailings received to date
A copy of the mailed notice with all attachments
A copy of all materials distributed or presented at the meeting
Acknowledgement and Signatures
By my signature below, I hereby certify that written notice of the community information meeting as described above was mailed and/or personal delivery to property owners withing 500 feet of the subject site as set forth on the attached list, by first class mail on [DATE] _____________________________. A copy of the written notice is also attached. I also herby certify that the meeting summary and list of attendees is accurate and representative of the proceedings at the community information meeting.
Signature of Applicant or Applicant’s Agent Print Name
Date
CAW
CAW
CAW
CAW
Cynthia Wolf - Design Solutions
03/29/24
None
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 13
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 14
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 15
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 16
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 17
ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN A 500' PERIMETER OF 501 & 505 MANASSAS DRIVE:
SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY / STATE / ZIP
LALULI INVESTMENTS, LLC 7617 CLARK HILL RD WILMINGTON NC 28412
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY / STATE / ZIP
418 LIGHTNING WHELK TRUST ETAL 3225 MCLEOD DR LAS VEGAS NV 89121
ADAMS JOHN K MARINA R 520 MANASSAS DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
ANCHOR LAND INVESTMENTS LLC 7150 RIVER RD WILMINGTON NC 28412
BANNERMAN PATRICIA A 437 LIGHTNING WHELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
BARE SHANA SCOTT 408 LIGHTNING WHELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
BOLZ PROPERTIES LLC 277 LODER AVE WILMINGTON NC 28409
BRIDGMAN WILLIAM 435 LIGHTNING WELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
BRYANT RUTH B 445 LIGHTING WHELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
BULLOCK POPE LEIGH A 6018 LETTERED OLIVE PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
BUNN COASTAL PROPERTIES LLC 5029 DOCKSIDE DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
BYRD EMMETT M 409 MOON SNAIL PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
CAPPS BILLY F 441 LIGHTNING WHELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
CATALANO KAREN A 61 OLIVER ST #25 BROOKLYN NY 11209
COPE SHARON C 433 LIGHTNING WHELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
CORCORAN ALEXANDER M JULIE A 161 BILLETTS BRIDGE RD CAMDEN NC 27921
CREECH JUDITH 6002 LETTERED OLIVE PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
DEWID DIANE TRUSTEE 6014 LETTERED OLIVE PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
DGB INVESTMENTS LLC 701 HAMLET AVE CAROLINA BEACH NC 28428
DOWELL JIMMY L JR 407 MOON SNAIL DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
ECHO BEAU RIVAGE LLC 560 EPSILON DR PITTSBURGH PA 15238
EFTING ALAN E GLORIA J 4233 THURSLEY RD WILMINGTON NC 28412
ELDRIDGE ASHLEY 6036 BANDED TULIP DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
EVANSEK ELIZABETH J 6016 SLIPPER SHELL ST WILMINGTON NC 28412
FARIDY FUZAIL F OROOS JABIN 10323 SNOWBELL CT CHARLOTTE NC 28215
FIELDS DEBORAH LIVING TRUST 7620 EASTBOURNE RD CHARLOTTE NC 28227
FOGLEMAN F M 109 HINTON AVE #7 WILMINGTON NC 28403
FOGLEMAN VANN LAILA M 116 RICE RD WILMINGTON NC 28409
GAFFNEY THOMAS C JR TRUSTEE ETAL 10600 HEPPLEWHITE WAY NEW MARKET MD 21774
GANSMANN KARA O TRUSTEE 6002 SLIPPER SHELL ST WILMINGTON NC 28412
GARDNER PROPERTIES LLC 1115 SANDY BEACH CIR LELAND NC 28451
GIANCARLO LLC PO BOX 12650 WILMINGTON NC 28405
GIBNEY ANN S 6018 SLIPPER SHELL ST WILMINGTON NC 28412
GILCHRIST TIMOTHY DALE 405 MOON SNAIL DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
GRIFFIN ELANE B 6021 BANDED TULIP DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
GUVEN GULBAHAR ETAL 6015 LETTERED OLIVE PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
HARGROVE JOHN FAITH 6012 BANDED TULIP DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
HARRIS HOLDINGS LLC 213 DORCHESTER PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
HARRISON SHIRLEY WATKINS HRS 512 MANASSAS DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
HILLTOP REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 4228 FORWALT PL WILMINGTON NC 28409
HOGAN BIRMINGHAM PROP LLC 1108 MERCHANT LN CAROLINA BEACH NC 28428
HT FUEL NC LLC 701 CRESTDALE RD MATTHEWS NC 28105
HUNT SUSAN B ETAL 6008 BANDED TULIP DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
KELLY EVERETT K LOIS W 516 MANASSAS DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
KELLY WALTER L JR DAISY W 4701 WEDGEFIELD DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
KINLEY REGINA KAY 424 LIGHTNING WHELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
LAMOREUX SCOTT P DEBORAH H 6009 BANDED TULIP DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
LEACH CARLA R ETAL 6013 SLIPPER SHELL ST WILMINGTON NC 28412
LEGACY POINT PROPERTIES LLC 5305 BURCLIFF PL RALEIGH NC 27612
MCCANN STEPHEN M IRENE L 6337 SUGAR PINE DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 18
MCVICAR WILLIAM G 416 LIGHTNING WHELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
MDC NC1 LP 11995 EL CAMINO REAL SAN DIEGO CA 92130
MEISTER GALE PO BOX 1199 EDGARTOWN MA 02539
MILLER CROFT NATASHA IRENE 536 MANASSAS DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
MILLER DONNAMARIE E 6004 LETTERED OLIVE PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
MJS STRICKLAND TRUST 5411 RESERVE DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
MURPHY THOMAS CLAIRE ETAL 259 61ST AVE FLUSHING NY 11362
MYERS KIM A SUSAN 2223 MEADOW HOLLY TRL LELAND NC 28451
NC SDS LLC 1530 HUGH FOREST RD CHARLOTTE NC 28270
NIXON HEZEKIAH III ANTOINETTE 6003 LETTERED OLIVE PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
NIXON LEWIS D 6016 LETTERED OLIVE PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
NNN REIT LP 450 S ORANGE AVE STE 900 ORLANDO FL 32801
NORMENT JOHN A MARIA O 1845 TORRINGTON ST RALEIGH NC 27615
NSA PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC 8400 E PRENTICE AVE 9TH FLOOR GREENWOOD VILLAGE CO 80111
PERSON ELISA A 515 MANASSAS DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
PETERSON CURTIS R JR FAYE M 406 LIGHTNING WHELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
PETERSON ROBERT PATRICIA HAHN 528 MANASSAS DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
PLUNKETT KATHLEEN A TRUSTEE 431 LIGHTNING WHELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
POPE SARA D 6007 LETTERED OLIVE PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
PUCKETT KEITH A BARBARA 519 MANASSAS DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
ROBERTS SUSAN R 6017 SLIPPER SHELL ST WILMINGTON NC 28412
ROCAMORA LARRY NANCY 1912 WILSHIRE DR DURHAM NC 27707
ROGERS BARBARA J 412 LIGHTNING WHELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
ROUEN DAVID L JR 5949 CAROLINA BEACH RD UNIT 1 WILMINGTON NC 28412
RUDEN JOAN MANSON 6004 SLIPPER SHELL CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
SHAMROCK INVESTMENTS OF NC LLC 8395 NC HWY 581 S BAILEY NC 27807
SIGMON STEVEN A CARMELA 6003 SLIPPER SHELL ST WILMINGTON NC 28412
SIMMONS SAMUEL N 2117 LEE SHORE PL WILMINGTON NC 28405
SINGLETON WILLIAM P KIM A REV TRUST 6005 BANDED TULIP DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
SMIST JOHN ERIK ALYSON MELANIE 6008 SLIPPER SHELL ST UNIT A WILMINGTON NC 28412
SPARROW ISSAAC J 5000 SPLIT RAIL DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
SPARROW KATHERINE S 5000 SPLIT RAIL DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
SPELLMAN BARRY JANET 511 MANASSAS DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
STEEN SHANNON M 6031 BANDED TULIP DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
STONE BRIAN D 6012 SLIPPER SHELL ST WILMINGTON NC 28412
SUPERIOR CENTER COA INC PO BOX 15256 WILMINGTON NC 28408
SUPERIOR CENTER LLC 5949 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON NC 28412
SWARTZ PROPERTIES LLC 724 PILOTS RIDGE RD WILMINGTON NC 28412
SYLVAIN HOPE F 6025 BANDED TULIP DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
TAYLOR HARRY J PATSY H 6009 LETTERED OLIVE PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
THIXTON JOINT REV LIVING TRUST 6015 BANDED TULIP DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
THOMPSON LAUREN E 6028 BANDED TULIP DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
TOWNES @ MARKETPLACE OWNERS ASSN 6105 OLEANDER DR WILMINGTON NC 28403
UNITED ZION LLC 126 SPENCER FARLOW DR CAROLINA BEACH NC 28428
WELTY FRANCES E 426 LIGHTNING WHELK WAY WILMINGTON NC 28412
WHITE FREDERICK CAROLINE 6400 CAROLINA BEACH RD STE 8-26 WILMINGTON NC 28412
WHITE MELISSA 7327 AUTHON DR DALLAS TX 75248
WHITE OTIS JESSE BARBARA G 365 CORNUBIA DR CASTLE HAYNE NC 28429
WHITMAN MARIE 6026 BANDED TULIP DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
WILLIS JOHN R DERINDA FAYE 532 MANASSAS DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
WILSON PENNY 6005 LETTERED OLIVE PL WILMINGTON NC 28412
WILSON STEPHANIE M MARK A 6009 SLIPPER SHELL ST WILMINGTON NC 28412
WINDHAM GRADY J CAROLYN T 7520 MASONBORO SOUND RD WILMINGTON NC 28409
YI TOK U 6005 SLIPPER SHELL ST WILMINGTON NC 28412
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 19
March 17, 2024
To: Adjacent Property Owners
This is a notice of a community information meeting. An upcoming rezoning request will be
made on behalf of Laluli Investments, L.L.C. (Dr. Nathan Graves, DMD). The subject properties
are 501 & 505 Manassas Drive, the corner lots facing Carolina Beach Road. The zoning change
would be from the current district overlay of Residential (R-15), to Conditional Office &
Institutional (CZD/O&I), for development of a medical office. The project is being proposed by
Myrtle Grove Dentistry with a goal of relocating their facilities to a new building.
The composite tract includes totals approximately 0.86 acres. Your property is located in the
proximity, within a 500’ perimeter of the outer boundary of the proposed project.
Conditional Zoning District in New Hanover County allows particular uses to be established only
in accordance with specific standards and conditions pertaining to each individual development
project & rezoning petition. Essentially, this means that only the specific use(s) and the
proposed site improvements of an approved petition can be developed.
The meeting is an opportunity for further explanation of the proposal and for questions to be
answered concerning project improvements, benefits and impacts. It will be held on Thursday,
March 28th, 6:00 p.m., at the Best Western Plus – Wilmington, 5600 Carolina Beach Road. If
you cannot attend, you are also welcome to contact Cindee Wolf at telephone # 910-620-2374,
or email cwolf@lobodemar.biz with comments and/or questions.
We look forward to your interest, being a good neighbor, and being an asset to the community.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 20
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 21
April 15, 2024 Mr. Trey Lewis Lewis Coastal Homes and Renovations, LLC 7930 Champlain Drive Wilmington, North Carolina 28412 Reference: Report of Seasonal High Water Table Estimation and Infiltration Testing Manassas Site Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina ECS Project No. 49.22856 Dear Mr. Lewis: ECS Southeast, LLC (ECS) recently conducted a seasonal high water table (SHWT) estimation and infiltration testing within the stormwater control measure (SCM) area(s) at 501-505 Manassas Drive in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina. This letter, with attachments, is the report of our testing. Field Testing On April 15, 2024, ECS conducted an exploration of the subsurface soil conditions, in accordance with the NCDEQ Stormwater Design Manual section A-2, at two requested locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). ECS used GPS equipment in order to determine the boring locations. The purpose of this exploration was to obtain subsurface information of the in situ soils for the SCM area(s). ECS explored the subsurface soil conditions by advancing one hand auger boring into the existing ground surface at each of the requested boring locations. ECS visually classified the subsurface soils and obtained representative samples of each soil type encountered. ECS also recorded the SHWT elevation observed at the time of the hand auger borings. The attached Infiltration Testing Form provides a summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at the hand auger boring locations. The SHWT elevation was estimated at the boring locations below the existing grade elevation. A summary of the findings are as follows:
Location SHWT
I-1 58 inches
I-2 66 inches
ECS has conducted two infiltration tests utilizing a compact constant head permeameter near the hand auger borings in order to estimate the infiltration rate for the subsurface soils. Infiltration tests are typically conducted at two feet above the SHWT or in the most restrictive soil horizon. The tests were conducted at the approximate subgrade elevation of the proposed pervious pavement SCM.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 22
Report of SHWT Estimation and Infiltration Testing
Manassas Site Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina ECS Project No. 49.22856
April 15, 2024
2
Field Test Results Below is a summary of the infiltration test results: Location Description Depth Inches/ hour
I-1 White fine to coarse SAND 18 inches 21.35
I-2 White fine to coarse SAND 12 inches 24.58
Infiltration rates and SHWT may vary within the proposed site due to changes in elevation, soil classification and subsurface conditions. ECS recommends that a licensed surveyor provide the elevations of the boring locations. Closure ECS’s analysis of the site has been based on our understanding of the site, the project information provided to us, and the data obtained during our exploration. If the project information provided to us is changed, please contact us so that our recommendations can be reviewed and appropriate revisions provided, if necessary. The discovery of any site or subsurface conditions during construction which deviate from the data outlined in this exploration should be reported to
us for our review, analysis and revision of our recommendations, if necessary. The assessment of site environmental conditions for the presence of pollutants in the soil and groundwater of the site is beyond the scope of this geotechnical exploration.
ECS appreciates the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or this project, please contact us. Respectfully, ECS SOUTHEAST, LLC
K. Brooks Wall W. Brandon Fulton, PSC, PWS, LSS Project Manager Environmental Department Manager bwall@ecslimited.com bfulton@ecslimited.com
910-686-9114 704-525-5152 Attachments: Figure 1 - Boring Location Plan Infiltration Testing Form GBA Document
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 23
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS
SCALE SHOWN ABOVE
Manassas Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County,
North Carolina
ECS Project # 49.22856
April 15, 2024
KBW
Figure 1– Boring Location Plan Provided by: Google Earth
I-1
I-2
N
W
S
E
N
W
S
E
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 24
Infiltration Testing Form
Manassas Site
Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
ECS Project No. 49.22856 April 15, 2024
Location Depth USCS Soil Description
I-1 0-10” SM Brown fine SAND w/ silt
10”-66” SP White fine to coarse SAND Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 58 inches below the existing grade elevation. Test was conducted at 18 inches below existing grade elevation
Infiltration Rate: 21.35 inches per hour
Location Depth USCS Soil Description
I-2 0”-66” SP White fine to coarse SAND
Seasonal High Water Table was estimated to be at 66 inches below the existing grade elevation. Test was conducted at 12 inches below existing grade elevation Infiltration Rate: 24.58 inches per hour
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 25
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Important Information about This
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one – not even you – should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
Read this Report in FullCostly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about ChangeYour geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include: • the client’s goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk-management preferences; • the general nature of the structure involved, its size, configuration, and performance criteria; • the structure’s location and orientation on the site; and • other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the site’s size or shape;
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s
changed from a parking garage to an office building, or
from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.
This Report May Not Be ReliableDo not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a
portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or
environmental remediation, or natural events like floods,
droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified
codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.
Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s
subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The
data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to
form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual
sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from
those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your
geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
whenever needed.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 26
This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-DependentThe recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.
This Report Could Be MisinterpretedOther design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members, • help develop specifications, • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications, and • be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may
perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position
to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring
them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction
conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured
unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays,
cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical
engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.
Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate
where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental
site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform
a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of
encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management
guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer’s
services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled
migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through
building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can
cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront
the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold
specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent
Telephone: 301/565-2733
e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 7 - 27
Concept Plan
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 8 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 9 - 1
Public Comments
In Support 1
Neutral 0
In Opposition 0
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 10 - 1
1
Farrell, Robert
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2024 4:28 PM
To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Biddle, Wendell; Doss, Amy;
Dickerson, Zachary; Ott, Love
Subject:Online Form Submission #11199 for Public Comment Form
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Public Comment Form
Public Comment Form
The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning
Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of
the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and
will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting.
First Name Adam
Last Name Wylubski
Address 6134 Tarin Rd
City Wilmington
State NC
Zip Code 28409
Email awylubski@yahoo.com
Please select the case
for comment.
PB Meeting - Z24-06 Manassas Dentistry
What is the nature of
your comment?
Support project
Public Comment I support this project because the new location will be more
convenient to access from my home. Additionally, the traffic
impact will be minimal due to the location at the corner of
Manassas Dr. and Carolina Beach Rd.
Upload supporting files
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 5 - 10 - 2
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2024
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor
CONTACT(S): Robert Farrell; Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z24-08) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solu9ons, applicant, on behalf of Giovanni
Ippolito and Tanya Vlacancich, property owners, to rezone approximately 4.65 acres of land located at 6634
Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residen9al to (CZD) RMF-M, Residen9al Mul9-Family – Moderate Density for a
maximum 64-unit mul9-family development.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The proposed Palm Grove project is the same applica"on and concept plan that was not approved by the Board of
Commissioners at their May 1, 2023 regular mee"ng. No changes have been made to the proposed applica"on or
concept plan under considera"on.
The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 4.65 acres from R-15, Residen"al to the RMF-M, Residen"al Mul"-
family - Moderate Density zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct four three-story, 12-unit mul"-family
structures and two two-story, eight unit mul"-family structures totaling a maximum of 64 units. The concept plan
includes an amenity center, recrea"on area, and open space.
The applicant's proposed conceptual plan shows the mul"-family structures and amenity center in a circular forma"on
towards the center of the parcel. The parking area circles the buildings providing an addi"onal spa"al buffer between
the mul"-family units and neighboring residen"al uses. A sidewalk is proposed along the interior of the parking area
providing an addi"onal pedestrian recrea"onal amenity.
The site is accessed by Carolina Beach Road, an NCDOT maintained Urban Principal Arterial highway. Access is right-in
/ right-out with a proposed right-turn lane to serve the development. The right-turn lane is a voluntary addi"on to the
development and will be subject to NCDOT requirements and permi:ng.
The applicant has provided an addi"onal condi"on related to workforce housing to require 10 percent, or six (6) units,
whichever is greater, of the total units be dedicated for workforce housing for a minimum of 15 years.
The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the "me, the purpose of the R-15 district was to ensure that
housing served by private sep"c and wells would be developed at low densi"es. Since that "me, public and private
water and sewer services have become available to the surrounding area; however, the Carolina Beach corridor
remains primarily zoned for low density housing.
The RMF-M district was established to provide lands that accommodate moderate density single and mul"-family
development. The intent of the district is to func"on as a transi"onal district between intensive nonresiden"al
development and higher density residen"al areas. The district is designed to provide a reasonable range of choice,
type, and loca"on of housing units.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6
While the site is zoned R-15, the Carolina Beach Road corridor has seen increased interest in higher density residen"al
and commercial development such as the Myrtle Landing townhomes to the north and the Coral Ridge Subdivision to
the south of the subject site.
As currently zoned, the site would be permi@ed up to 12 dwelling units at a density of 2.5 du/ac under the performance
development standards. The proposed 64 units equate to an overall density of 14 du/ac. To meet the proposed density
the development must connect to public water and sewer at the nearest connec"on to the south at Glenarthur Drive.
It is es"mated the site would generate approximately 11 AM and 14 PM trips during the peak hours if developed at the
permi@ed density for performance development in the R-15 district. The proposed RMF-M development would result
in an es"mated 43 AM and 48 PM trips, increasing the es"mated number of peak hour trips by approximately 32 AM
and 34 PM trips.
The es"mated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the ordinance
requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
The proposed project is located along a major arterial highway that is currently nearing capacity. The proposed access
is located north of the entrance to the Lord’s Creek community and between two nearby U-turn movements on
Carolina Beach Road. Currently there are no State Transporta"on Improvement Projects (STIP) iden"fied in the
immediate area to address current condi"ons. Several other projects are currently under review or development in the
vicinity, and while their traffic impact analyses did not take this proposal into account, all were developed to account
for general traffic growth in the area.
Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Anderson Elementary School, Murray Middle, and
Ashley High School. Based on a generalized historic genera"on rate, staff would es"mate the increase in homes would
result in an increase of approximately 11 more students than the es"mated number of students generated under
exis"ng zoning.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Mixed Use, a land use classifica"on that promotes a
mix of retail, office, and residen"al development at moderate densi"es up to 15 units per acre. This classifica"on is
generally applied to areas intended as community-level service nodes and / or transi"ons between lower density
housing and higher intensity development.
The proposed rezoning request is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan’s recommended density
and intent for development to act as a transi"on between major roadways, higher intensity uses and exis"ng
residen"al areas. The project also provides a range of housing types, opportuni"es, and choices.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff's recommenda"on is based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning considera"ons,
technical review. The current applica"on does not propose any changes from the applica"on considered in 2023. Both
the current and previous applica"on proposed a housing type and density within the recommenda"ons of the
Community Mixed Use place type and the project acts as a transi"on between major roadways and higher intensity
uses and exis"ng residen"al areas and provides a range of housing opportuni"es and choices.
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the request and suggests the following mo"on with the proposed
condi"ons:
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6
I move to recommend APPROVAL the proposed rezoning. I find it to be generally CONSISTENT with the purposes
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the development scale and density is in line with the plan's
recommenda"on and the project would provide addi"onal housing diversity in the area. I find
recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because it provides an
alterna"ve housing type that acts as a buffer for lower density residen"al, contribu"ng to the kind of transi"onal
development desired along highway corridors. An addi"onal voluntary condi"on by the applicant also ensures
workforce housing affordability for 10 percent of the units, or 6 total units, whichever is greater for a period of 15
years.
Proposed Condi9ons:
1. Exterior ligh"ng, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumina"on in
an upward direc"on above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be
numbered such that adequate levels of ligh"ng are maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed at
adjacent property, neighboring areas, or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet.
2. The proposed right turn lane must be approved and permi@ed by NCDOT. Changes to the concept plan to meet
NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved administra"vely by county staff.
3. Tree protec"on fencing shall be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and grading along a minimum 15-foot
offset from the edge of the outer drive. No disturbance of exis"ng vegeta"on of grading will be permi@ed. Prior to the
Cer"ficate of Occupancy, a minimum 8-foot-tall solid wood screening fence shall be installed along a 3-foot offset
from the driveway pavement.
4. The project will include a minimum 10% of the units or six (6) total units, whichever is greater, as workforce housing
units that will be made available for a period of no less than 15 years with rental limits based upon HUD HIGH HOME
standards. An agreement between the developer and county will be required before the issuance of any Cer"ficate of
Occupancy for the project. The agreement shall specify:
- The number of affordable units provided;
- The income limits;
- Rent limits subject to annual change;
- The period of "me workforce housing units must remain affordable;
- Any other criteria necessary for compliance and monitoring;
- An established "meframe for annual repor"ng from the developer or owner of the development to New Hanover
County. Annual reports shall provide the following minimum informa"on:
- Unit number
- Bedroom number
- Household size
- Tenant income
- Rent rate
The developer or owner of the development shall report any mid-year lease changes to workforce housing units to
New Hanover County to ensure lease changes remain compliant with the agreement.
If the total number of workforce housing units falls below the minimum of 10% of the units or seven (7) total units
whichever is greater before the expira"on of the minimum 15-year period of affordability the development will be
subject to enforcement measures found in Ar"cle 12 Viola"ons and Enforcement of the Unified Development
Ordinance.
5. The project is limited to a maximum of 64 units and the two westernmost mul"-family structures shall be limited to
two stories.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6
Alterna9ve Mo9on for Denial (If based on informa"on presented at the public hearing or other considera"on beyond
the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be generally CONSISTENT with the
purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density of the development exceeds the density
recommended for the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest because the number of mul"-family structures and associated parking reduced the
amount of open space and increases traffic on the roadway network.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip"on
Z24-08 PB Script
Z24-08 PB Staff Report
Z24-08 Zoning Map
Z24-08 Future Land Use Map
Z24-08 Mailout Map
Z24-08 Application Coversheet
Z24-08 Application
Z24-08 Concept Plan Coversheet
Z24-08 Concept Plan
Z24-08 Public Comment
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6
PLANNING BOARD SCRIPT
for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z24-08)
Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya
Vlacancich, property owners, to rezone approximately 4.65 acres of land located at 6634 Carolina
Beach Road from R-15, Residential to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-family – Moderate Density for
a maximum of 64 multi-family dwelling units.
1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes
for rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Applicant’s and supporters’ presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant’s and supporters’ rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
f. Staff review of any additional conditions
3. Close the public hearing
4. Board discussion
5. Before we proceed with a motion and vote, I would like to invite the applicant to the podium.
Based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, would you like
withdraw your petition, request a continuance, or proceed with a vote?
6. Vote on the application. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or
is not, consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Example Motion for Approval
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be generally
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
development scale and density is in line with the plan’s recommendation for the place type
and the project would provide additional housing diversity in the area. I find recommending
APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because it provides
an alternative housing type that acts as a buffer for lower density residential, contributing to
the kind of transitional development desired along highway corridors. An additional voluntary
condition by the applicant also ensures workforce housing affordability for 10 percent of the
units, or 6 total units, whichever is greater for a period of 15 years.
Proposed Conditions:
1. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so
as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from
the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels
of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent
property, neighboring areas, or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12)
feet.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 1 - 1
2. The proposed right turn lane must be approved and permitted by NCDOT. Changes to the
concept plan to meet NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved
administratively by county staff.
3. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and grading
along a minimum 15-foot offset from the edge of the outer drive. No disturbance of existing
vegetation or grading will be permitted. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, a minimum
8-foot-tall solid wood screening fence shall be installed along a 3-foot offset from the
driveway pavement.
4. The project will include a minimum of 10% of the units or six (6) total units, whichever is
greater, as workforce housing units that will be made available for a period of no less than
15 years with rental limits based upon HUD HIGH HOME standards. An agreement between
the developer and county will be required before the issuance of any Certificate of
Occupancy for the project. The agreement shall specify:
• The number of affordable units provided;
• The income limits;
• Rent limits subject to annual change;
• The period of time workforce housing units must remain affordable;
• Any other criteria necessary for compliance and monitoring;
• An established timeframe for annual reporting from the developer or owner of the
development to New Hanover County. Annual reports shall provide the following
minimum information:
o Unit number
o Bedroom number
o Household size
o Tenant income
o Rent rate
• The developer or owner of the development shall report any mid-year lease changes
to workforce housing units to New Hanover County to ensure lease changes remain
compliant with the agreement.
If the total number of workforce housing units falls below the minimum of 10% of the units
or six (6) total units whichever is greater before the expiration of the minimum 15-year
period of affordability the development will be subject to enforcement measures found in
Article 12 Violations and Enforcement of the Unified Development Ordinance.
5. The project is limited to a maximum of 64 units and the two westernmost multi-family
structures shall be limited to two stories.
6. A minimum 20-foot-wide public access easement shall be provided along the frontage
parallel with Carolina Beach Road for public bicycle and pedestrian use.
Alternative Motion for Denial (If based on information presented at the public hearing or other
consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be generally
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
development scale is in line with the plan’s recommendation for the place type and the project
would provide additional housing diversity in the area. I find recommending DENIAL of the
rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the number of multi-family
structures and associated parking reduces the amount of available open space and increases
traffic on the roadway network.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 1 - 2
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to RECOMMEND [Approval/Denial] of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) RMF-M
district. I find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
I also find RECOMMENDING [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in
the public interest because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 1 - 3
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 1 of 17
STAFF REPORT FOR Z24-08
CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z24-08
Request:
Rezoning to a Conditional RMF-M district
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions Giovanni Ippolito & Tanya Vlacancich
Location: Acreage:
6634 Carolina Beach Road 4.65
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
R08200-001-036-000 Community Mixed Use
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Undeveloped 64 Multi-Family Dwelling Units
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
R-15, Residential (CZD) RMF-M
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North Religious Institution R-15
East Single-Family Residential R-15
South Single-Family Residential R-15
West Religious Institution and Single-Family Residential R-15
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 1
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 2 of 17
ZONING HISTORY
April 7, 1971 Initially zoned R-15 (Area 4)
May 1, 2023 -
Denial
Z23-06 request to rezone from R-15 to (CZD) RMF-M for a 64-unit multi-
family development
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer Water and sanitary sewer services are available through CFPUA by
extension of public utility mains
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Southern Fire
District, New Hanover County Federal Point Station 19
Schools Ashley High School, Murray Middle School, Anderson Elementary School
Recreation Veterans Park
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation Developer delineated wetlands on the property.
Historic No known historic resources
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 2
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 3 of 17
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN
Includes Staff Markups
• The proposed Palm Grove project is the same application and concept plan that was not
approved by the Board of Commissioners at their May 1, 2023 regular meeting. No
changes have been made to the proposed application or concept plan under consideration.
• The applicant is proposing to construct four three-story, 12-unit multi-family structures and
two two-story, eight-unit multi-family structures totaling a maximum of 64 units. The concept
plan includes an amenity center, recreation area, and open space.
• The applicant’s proposed conceptual plan shows the multi-family structures and amenity
center in a circular formation towards the center of the parcel. The parking area circles the
Proposed Right Turn Lane
Amenity Center
Stormwater
12 Unit,
3 Story
12 Unit,
3 Story
Proposed Fence
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 3
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 4 of 17
buildings providing an additional spatial buffer between the multi-family units and
neighboring residential uses.
• A sidewalk is proposed along the interior of the parking area providing an additional
pedestrian recreational amenity.
• The development also proposes a continuous right turn lane off Carolina Beach Road through
to the existing turn lane onto Glenarthur Drive. The proposed turn lane must be reviewed
and permitted by NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) before construction.
• In addition to required lighting standards listed in Section 5.5 of the UDO, the applicant has
proposed to limit light posts to a height of 12 feet.
• An additional condition related to tree protection and visual screening has been provided
requiring tree protection fencing be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and grading
along a minimum 15-foot offset from the edge of the outer drive. No disturbance of existing
vegetation or grading will be permitted. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, a minimum
8-foot-tall solid wood screening fence shall be installed along a 3-foot offset from the
driveway pavement.
• The applicant’s proposed conceptual plan indicates 1.37 acres, approximately 30% of the
site, will be preserved as open space, exceeding the UDO requirement of 20% open space.
• The applicant has also proposed a condition to reserve 10 percent, or six (6) total units for
workforce housing. The condition has been included guaranteeing the future monitoring and
enforcement of the condition.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the time, the purpose of the R-15
district was to ensure that housing served by private septic and wells would be developed
at low densities. Since that time, public and private water and sewer services have become
available to the surrounding area; however, the Carolina Beach corridor remains primarily
zoned for low density housing.
• While the site is zoned R-15, the Carolina Beach Road corridor has seen increased interest
in higher density residential and commercial development such as the Myrtle Landing
townhomes to the north and the Coral Ridge Subdivision to the south of the subject site.
• As currently zoned, the site would be permitted up to 12 dwelling units at a density of 2.5
du/ac under the performance development standards. The proposed 64 units equate to an
overall density of 13.7 du/ac.
• The RMF-M district was established to provide lands that accommodate moderate density
single and multi-family development. The intent of the district is to function as a transitional
district between intensive nonresidential development and higher density residential areas.
The district is designed to provide a reasonable range of choice, type, and location of
housing units.
• The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) does not prescribe a specific height per story;
however, the maximum height of the proposed development is limited to a maximum
building height of 3 stories and 40 feet for the 12-unit structures. An additional condition
limits the two westernmost multi-family structures to 2 stories.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 4
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 5 of 17
• The proposed development uses the parking lot as an additional perimeter buffer between
the proposed multi-family structures and the existing residential uses.
• The UDO contains controls on exterior lighting on the site. The maximum illumination levels
at the common property line with the residential properties to the west shall not exceed 0.5-
foot candles and 1.0-foot candles at the northern property line adjacent to the religious
institution.
• A Type-A opaque buffer meeting the standards of Table 5.4.3.B.2 is required along the
property lines adjoining neighboring single-family development.
• To meet the proposed density the development must connect to public water and sewer at
the nearest connection to the south at Glenarthur Drive.
• If approved, the project would be subject to Technical Review Committee (TRC) and zoning
compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements and
specific conditions included in the approval. Only minor deviations from the approved
conceptual plan, as defined by the UDO, would be allowed.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 5
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 6 of 17
AREA DEVELOPMENTS
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 6
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 7 of 17
TRANSPORTATION
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Intensity of Current Zoning Typical development under current zoning would allow a maximum
of 12 single-family dwelling units.
PROPOSED ACCESS
Primary Access Carolina Beach Road
Secondary Access N/A
EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Affected Roadway Carolina Beach Road
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 7
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 8 of 17
Type of Roadway NCDOT major arterial
Roadway Planning Capacity
(AADT) 41,368
Latest Traffic Volume (AADT) 32,982
Latest WMPO Point-in-Time
Count (DT) 37,645
Current Level of Congestion Nearing Capacity
Sources
Source of Planning Capacity: WMPO
Source of Latest Traffic Volume: NCDOT (2023)
Source of WMPO Point-in-Time County: WMPO (2023)
NEARBY NCDOT STIP ROADAWAY PROJECTS
No Nearby STIP Projects
TRAFFIC GENERATION
Traffic Generated by
Present Designation
Traffic Generated
by Proposed
Designation
Potential
Impact of
Proposed
Designation
AM Peak Hour Trips 11 43 +32
PM Peak Hour Trips 14 48 +34
Assumptions
Typical Development with Existing Conditions – 12 single family
detached dwellings
Proposed Development – 64-unit multi-family development
Sources Source of Trip Generation: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Ed.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)
The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the
ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
SUMMARY
The proposed project is located along a major arterial highway that is currently nearing capacity.
The proposed access is located north of the entrance to the Lord’s Creek community and between
two nearby U-turn movements on Carolina Beach Road. Currently there are no State Transportation
Improvement Projects (STIP) identified in the immediate area to address current conditions. Several
other projects are currently under review or development in the vicinity, and while their traffic impact
analyses did not take this proposal into account, all were developed to account for general traffic
growth in the area. The proposed project’s peak hour traffic is below the 100 peak hour threshold
requiring a traffic impact analysis, but NCDOT will review the project through the driveway
permitting process.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 8
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 9 of 17
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area or the Special Flood Hazard Area.
• The property is within the Lords Creek and Drains to ICW6 watersheds.
• Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class I (Suitable), Class II (Moderate Limitation), and Class III (Severe
Limitation) soils; however, the project is expected to be served by CFPUA if developed.
• The proposed concept plan has identified wetlands on the southwestern portion of the site.
The identified wetlands are outside the development area of the project and the applicant
has provided a 25-foot setback from the wetlands.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Schools
• Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Anderson Elementary
School, Murray Middle School, and Ashley High School. Students may apply to attend
public magnet, year-round elementary, or specialty high schools.
• A maximum of 12 dwelling units would be permitted under the current R-15 zoning base
density, and 64 units could potentially be developed under the proposed zoning for an
increase of 52 dwelling units.
• Based on a generalized historic generation rate*, staff would estimate that the increase in
homes would result in approximately 11 additional students than would be generated under
current zoning.
• The general student generation rate provides only an estimate of anticipated student yield
as different forms of housing at different price points yield different numbers of students.
• Over the past four years, staff has also seen a decline in the number of students generated
by new development. Between the 2020-2021 school year and the 2023-2024 school
year, total student population decreased by approximately 300 students, while over
11,000 new residential units were constructed.
• The county uses the most current New Hanover County Schools Facilities Needs Study in its
analysis and it currently shows the student population is anticipated to only grow by
approximately 1,300 students over the next 10 years. However, a more recent New
Hanover County School Facility Utilization Study presented to the School Board in
September 2023 indicates only approximately 400 more students by the 2032-2033
school year, though numbers are anticipated to be higher during certain school years over
the next ten years.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 9
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 10 of 17
Development Type Intensity Estimated Student Yield
(current general student generation rate) *
Existing Development Undeveloped Approximate** Total: 0
(0 elementary, 0 middle, 0 high)
Typical Development Under
Current Zoning 12 residential units Approximate** Total: 3
(1 elementary, 1 middle, 1 high)
Proposed Zoning 64 residential units Approximate** Total: 13
(6 elementary, 3 middle, 4 high)
*The current general student generation rate was calculated by dividing the New Hanover County public school student
enrollment for the 2023-2024 school year by the number of dwelling units in the county. Currently, there are an
average of 0.21 public school students (0.10 for elementary, 0.04 for middle, and 0.07 for high) generated per
dwelling unit across New Hanover County. These numbers are updated annually and include students attending out-
of-district specialty schools, such as year-round elementary schools, Isaac Bear, and SeaTech.
**Because the student generation rate often results in fractional numbers, all approximate student generation yields
with a fraction of 0.5 or higher are rounded up to a whole number and yields with a fraction of less than 0.5 are
rounded down. This may result in student numbers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels not equaling the
approximate total.
• Staff has provided information on existing school capacity to provide a general idea of the
potential impact on public schools, but these numbers do not reflect any future capacity
upgrades.
School Enrollment* and Capacity** (2023-2024 School Year)
*Enrollment is based on the New Hanover County Schools student numbers for the 2023-2024 school year.
**Capacity calculations were determined based on the capacities for the 2023-2024 school year, and funded or
planned capacity upgrades were those included in the Facility Needs Study presented by New Hanover County Schools
to the Board of Education in January 2021. This information does not take into account flexible scheduling that may
be available in high school settings, which can reduce the portion of the student body on campus at any one time.
• The 2021 facility needs survey prepared by Schools staff indicates that, based on NC
Department of Public Instruction (DPI) student growth projections and school capacity data,
planned facility upgrades, combined with changes to student enrollment patterns, will result
in adequate capacity district wide over the next ten years if facility upgrades are funded.
• The more recent New Hanover County Schools School Facility Utilization Study has been
prepared and was presented to the School Board in September 2023, and it identifies
updated capacity upgrade projects. Those upgrade projects have not been finalized by
the New Hanover County School Board.
Level
Total
NHC
Capacity
School
Projected
Enrollment of
Assignment
School
Capacity of
Assigned
School
w/Portables
Capacity of
Assigned
School
Funded or
Planned
Capacity
Upgrades
Elementary 90% Anderson 603 569 106% None
Middle 88% Murray 896 889 101% None
High 93% Ashley 1910 1900 100.5% None
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 10
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 11 of 17
New Hanover County Strategic Plan
On July 17, 2023, the Board of Commissioners adopted a new strategic plan for Fiscal Years 2024-
2028. This plan focuses on three core areas: workforce and economic development, community
safety and well-being, and sustainable land use and environmental stewardship.
Strategic Plan Outcomes
Relevant to Proposal
Analysis
Through planned growth and
development, residents have
access to their basic needs.
The strategic objective to achieve this desired outcome
includes the provision of a variety of housing options. The
proposed CZD RMF-M rezoning would provide new multi-
family dwelling units in an area of the county that is largely
single-family, detached and can aid in achieving the target
of increasing the housing supply to a level of one residential
unit per every two residents.
The 2022 Housing Needs Assessment, also known as the
Bowen Report, concluded there is an estimated overall
housing gap of 12,147 rental units and a gap of 16,875 for-
sale units within the county over the next 10 years. The
proposed project is being developed by Habitat for
Humanity which typically provides housing opportunities within
the range of 30-80 % AMI. The Housing Needs Assessment
estimates an overall housing gap of 5,923 rental units and
5,670 for sale units within the range of 30-80% AMI.
Natural areas and critical
environmental features are
enhanced and protected.
While wetlands have been identified on site the project does
not propose any construction in the wetland areas. In addition,
the project proposes 30.1% open space, 10.1% more than
the minimum required for performance residential
developments.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 11
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 12 of 17
Representative Developments
Representative Developments of R-15:
Woods Edge in Monkey Junction
Hidden Valley in Monkey Junction
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 12
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 13 of 17
Representative Developments of Multi-Family Apartments:
Amberleigh Shores in Ogden
Stephens Pointe in Porters Neck
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 13
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 14 of 17
Context and Compatibility
• The Board of Commissioners considered this request at their May 1, 2023 regular meeting.
No changes have been made to the application. At the meeting a motion and second was
made to approve the request that did not receive a majority vote (2-3), rendering the
application denied by the Board of Commissioners.
• The property is located adjacent to Carolina Beach Road with right-in / right-out access to
the highway.
• The property is located south of Veterans Park and the elementary, middle, and high schools
however there is no pedestrian infrastructure in place and all traffic must travel south
approximately 1,800 feet to a U-turn movement on Carolina Beach Road to travel north.
• The subject property is one of several undeveloped tracts along Carolina Beach Road and
acts as a buffer between the highway and lower density single-family development to the
west.
• Most of the surrounding land is either undeveloped or used for single-family development
and religious institutions.
• The subject property is bordered by the Lord’s Creek Subdivision to the west and a religious
institution to the north.
• Due to the size of the parcel and access onto Carolina Beach Road, the property is less
likely to be developed with lower density detached single family housing.
• The proposed concept plan positions a portion of the stormwater facilities closer to the
existing single-family homes to the south of the site. A perimeter parking lot around the
development acts as an additional spatial buffer between the multi-family dwellings and
neighboring homes.
• In addition to the setback and buffer requirements of the UDO, the applicant has agreed
to additional exterior lighting conditions and height restrictions on the two westernmost multi-
family structures to reduce the potential impact on neighboring residential uses.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for
New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and
function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are
intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be
interpreted as being parcel specific.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 14
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 15 of 17
Future Land Use
Map Place Type Community Mixed Use
Place Type
Description
Focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve
all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and
visitors. Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use,
recreational, commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family
residential.
Analysis
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Mixed Use,
a land use classification that promotes a mix of retail, office, and residential
development at moderate densities up to 15 units per acre. This
classification is generally applied to areas intended as community-level
service nodes and / or transitions between lower density housing and higher
intensity development.
At 13.7 du/ac, the proposed maximum density for the development is within
the density recommendation for the place type. Site features such as
landscaping buffers, parking, and stormwater facilities have been located
along the boundaries of the project adjacent to existing single-family
development to provide a transition between the residential uses. An
additional voluntary condition by the applicant also ensures workforce
housing affordability for 10 percent of the units, or 7 total units whichever
is greater, for a period of 15 years.
The Community Mixed Use place type specifically identifies the Carolina
Beach Road corridor as appropriate for the place type and recommends
higher-intensity mixed use with first floor retail and office and housing
above, with a building height range of 1 to 3 stories.
The RMF-M district is intended to act as a transitional district between
residential and commercial development. The proposed project would
provide a buffer between the highway and single-family development.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 15
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 16 of 17
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed rezoning request is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan’s recommended density and intent for development to
act as a transition between major roadways, higher intensity uses and
existing residential areas. The project also provides a range of housing
types, opportunities, and choices. An additional voluntary condition by the
applicant also ensures workforce housing affordability for 10 percent of
the units, or 6 total units, for a period of 15 years.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff’s recommendation is based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning
considerations, technical review. The current application does not propose any changes from the
application considered in 2023. Both the current and previous application proposed a housing type
and density within the recommendations of the Community Mixed Use place type and the project
acts as a transition between major roadways and higher intensity uses and existing residential
areas and provides new housing opportunities and choices.
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the request and suggests the following motion:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be generally
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
development scale and density is in line with the plan’s recommendation for the place type
and the project would provide additional housing diversity in the area. I find recommending
APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because it
provides an alternative housing type that acts as a buffer for lower density residential,
contributing to the kind of transitional development desired along highway corridors. An
additional voluntary condition by the applicant also ensures workforce housing
affordability for 10 percent of the units, or 6 total units, whichever is greater for a period
of 15 years.
Proposed Conditions:
1. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or
shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary
line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be
numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light
spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent property, neighboring areas, or
motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet.
2. The proposed right turn lane must be approved and permitted by NCDOT. Changes
to the concept plan to meet NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved
administratively by county staff.
3. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and
grading along a minimum 15-foot offset from the edge of the outer drive. No
disturbance of existing vegetation or grading will be permitted. Prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy, a minimum 8-foot-tall solid wood screening fence shall be
installed along a 3-foot offset from the driveway pavement.
4. The project will include a minimum of 10% of the units or six (6) total units, whichever
is greater, as workforce housing units that will be made available for a period of
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 16
Z24-08 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 17 of 17
no less than 15 years with rental limits based upon HUD HIGH HOME standards. An
agreement between the developer and county will be required before the issuance
of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The agreement shall specify:
• The number of affordable units provided;
• The income limits;
• Rent limits subject to annual change;
• The period of time workforce housing units must remain affordable;
• Any other criteria necessary for compliance and monitoring;
• An established timeframe for annual reporting from the developer or owner
of the development to New Hanover County. Annual reports shall provide the
following minimum information:
o Unit number
o Bedroom number
o Household size
o Tenant income
o Rent rate
• The developer or owner of the development shall report any mid-year lease
changes to workforce housing units to New Hanover County to ensure lease
changes remain compliant with the agreement.
If the total number of workforce housing units falls below the minimum of 10% of the
units or six (6) total units whichever is greater before the expiration of the minimum
15-year period of affordability the development will be subject to enforcement
measures found in Article 12 Violations and Enforcement of the Unified Development
Ordinance.
5. The project is limited to a maximum of 64 units and the two westernmost multi-family
structures shall be limited to two stories.
6. A minimum 20-foot-wide public access easement shall be provided along the
frontage parallel with Carolina Beach Road for public bicycle and pedestrian use.
Alternative Motion for Denial (If based on information presented at the public hearing or other
consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be generally
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
development scale is in line with the plan’s recommendation for the place type and the
project would provide additional housing diversity in the area. I find recommending
DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the
number of multi-family structures and associated parking reduces the amount of
available open space and increases traffic on the roadway network.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 2 - 17
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 3 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 4 - 1
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
Bancroft Dr
Burroughs Dr Joey Ct
Stoddard
R
d
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
GlenarthurDr
Hailsha mDr
Cypress V i llage Pl
GlenarthurDr
M yrtleGroveRd
Sa
g
o
P
a
l
m
D
r
Sago Bay Dr
Halyb u r t o n M e morialPkwy
Site
(CZD) RMF-MR-156634 Carolina Beach RoadZ24-08
Proposed Zoning/Use:Existing Zoning/Use:Site Address:Case:
Nearby Properties
Z24-08
Parcels within 510 feet
0 500 1,000
US FeetPlanning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 5 - 1
Initial Application
Documents & Materials
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 6 - 1
Page 1 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165
nhcgov.com/528/Planning-Land-Use
CONDITIONAL ZONING APPLICATION
This application form must be completed as part of a conditional zoning application submitted through the county’s
online COAST portal. The main procedural steps in the submittal and review of applications are outlined in the flowchart
below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the
application, are set out in Section 10.3.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Public Hearing Procedures
(Optional)
Pre-Application Conference
1
Community Information Meeting
2
Application Submittal & Acceptance
3
Planning Director Review & Staff Report (TRC Optional)
4
Public Hearing Scheduling & Notification
5
Planning Board Hearing & Recom-mendation
6
Board of Commissioners Hearing & Decision
7
Post-Decision Limitations and Actions
1. Applicant and Property Owner Information
Applicant/Agent Name Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent)
Company Company/Owner Name 2
Address Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Phone Phone
Email Email
Cindee Wolf
Design Solutions
P.O. Box 7221
Wilmington, NC 28406
910-620-2374
cwolf@lobodemar.biz
Giovanni Ippolito & Tayna Vlancancich
154-30 Powells Cove Blvd.
Beechhurst, NY 11357
917-881-0932
gianniendo@msn.com
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 1
Page 2 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
2. Subject Property Information
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s) Future Land Use Classification
3. Proposed Zoning, Use(s), & Narrative
Proposed Conditional Zoning District: Total Acreage of Proposed District:
Maximum Residential Density (if applicable) Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage (if
applicable)
Please list all of the specific uses that will be allowed within the proposed Conditional Zoning District, the
purpose of the district, and a project narrative (attach additional pages if necessary). Note: Only uses permitted
in the corresponding General Use District are eligible for consideration within a Conditional Zoning District.
6634 Carolina Beach Road 313206.37.2876 [R08200-001-036-000]
R-15 / Vacant Community Mixed-Use
(CZD) RMF-M 4.56 ac.
4.56 ac.
64 Units (14.0 units / ac.)N/A
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 2
Page 3 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
4. Proposed Condition(s)
Note: Within a Conditional Zoning District, additional conditions and requirements which represent greater
restrictions on the development and use of the property than the corresponding general use district regulations may
be added. These conditions may assist in mitigating the impacts the proposed development may have on the
surrounding community. Please list any conditions proposed to be placed on the Conditional Zoning District below.
Staff, the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners may propose additional conditions during the review process.
5. Traffic Impact
Please provide the estimated number of trips generated for the proposed use(s) based off the most recent version of
the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must be completed for
all proposed developments that generate more than 100 peak hour trips, and the TIA must be included with this
application.
Note: It is recommended that traffic generation numbers be reviewed by the WMPO prior to application to ensure
that the most appropriate ITE land use code is identified and most recent generation rates have been applied. If
numbers are verified, please attach a copy of the verification. If numbers have not been verified and the submitted
generation numbers must be adjusted, this may result in the application being ineligible to move forward to the intended
Planning Board agenda.
ITE Land Use(s):
Trip Generation Use and Variable (gross floor area, dwelling units, etc.)
AM Peak Hour Trips: PM Peak Hour Trips:
Mid-rise / Multi-family Housing (ITE - 221)
per Dwelling Unit @ 64
29 37
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 3
Page 4 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
6. Conditional Zoning District Considerations
The Conditional Zoning District procedure is established to address situations where a particular land use would be
consistent with the New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the objectives outlined in the Unified
Development Ordinance and where only a specific use or uses is proposed. The procedure is intended primarily for use with transitions between zoning districts of dissimilar character where a particular use or uses, with restrictive conditions to safeguard adjacent land uses, can create a more orderly transition benefiting all affected parties and the community at-large.
The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed Conditional Zoning district meets the following criteria.
1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County’s policies for growth and development, as
described in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, applicable small area plans, etc.
2. How would the requested Conditional Zoning district be consistent with the property’s classification on the
2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 4
Page 5 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is
the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning?
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 5
Page 6 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
Staff will use the following checklist to determine the completeness of your application. Please verify all of the listed
items are included and confirm by initialing under “Applicant Initial”. If an item is not applicable, mark as “N/A”.
Applications determined to be incomplete must be corrected in order to be processed for further review; Staff will
confirm if an application is complete within five business days of submittal.
Application Checklist Applicant Initial
This application form, completed and signed (all property owners must sign signatory
page)
Application fee:
• $600 for 5 acres or less
• $700 for more than 5 acres
• $300 in addition to base fee for applications requiring TRC review
Community Information Meeting Report (complete and signed by agent or all property
owners)
Traffic Impact Analysis if applicable (use of attached report document is recommended)
• The official TIA approval letter is recommended prior to this item being placed on the Planning Board meeting agenda. The Planning Board may choose to continue the hearing until the official TIA approval letter is provided.
• The official TIA approval letter is required prior to this item being placed on the
Board of Commissioners meeting agenda.
Legal description (by metes and bounds) or recorded survey Map Book and Page Reference
of the property requested for rezoning
Conceptual Plan including the following minimum elements [Note: If elements beyond the
minimum requirements are shown on the concept plan they may be considered conditions of
approval if not eligible for approval as minor deviations]:
Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels and roads
• Proposed use of land, building areas and other improvements
o For residential uses, include the maximum number, height, and type of
units; area to be occupied by the structures; and/or proposed subdivision
boundaries.
o For non-residential uses, include the maximum square footage and height
of each structure, an outline of the area structures will occupy, and the
specific purposes for which the structures will be used.
• Proposed transportation and parking improvements; including proposed rights-of-
way and roadways; proposed access to and from the subject site; arrangement
and access provisions for parking areas.
• All existing and proposed easements, required setbacks, rights-of-way, and
buffers.
• The location of Special Flood Hazard Areas.
• A narrative of the existing vegetation on the subject site including the approximate
location, species, and size (DBH) of regulated trees. For site less than 5 acres, the
exact location, species, and sized (DBH) of specimen trees must be included.
• Approximate location and type of stormwater management facilities intended to
serve the site.
• Approximate location of regulated wetlands.
• Any additional conditions and requirements that represent greater restrictions on
development and use of the tract than the corresponding general use district regulations or additional limitations on land that may be regulated by state law or local ordinance
CAW
CAW
CAW
N/A
CAW
CAW
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 6
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 7
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 8
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 9
NOT FOR REAL ESTATENOT FOR REAL ESTATNNNNNOOOTTTTT TT FFOORRR R R RRRRREEREEEEEAAAAAALLLL EEEEEEESSTTTTAAAAATTTTEEEENNNNOOOOTTTTTTTFFFFFFOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEAAAAAAAALEEESSSSSSSTTTTTTATATTATAAAATTTTSALES OR CONVEYANCE
PRELIMINARYPPPPRRRRREELLLLIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMINNNAAAAAAARRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYPPRREEEELLMMMINNNAAAAARRRRYYYY
SSSSS OONNNEEEESSSSOOOOO NNNCCCCCC
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 10
Legal Description for
Conditional Zoning District Boundary
At 6634 Carolina Beach Road
Beginning at a point in the western boundary of Carolina Beach Road (U.S. Hwy. 421), a 160’
public right‐of‐way; said point being located northwardly 417.75’ along that western boundary
from its intersection with the centerline of Glenarthur Drive (S.R. 2346), a 50’ public right‐of‐
way shown on a plat entitled Lords Creek Subdivision – Section 1, and recorded among the land
records of the New Hanover County Registry in Map Book 36, at Page 190; and running thence
from the said point of beginning:
South 15044’09” West, 280.71 feet to a point; thence
North 67048’50” West, 414.02 feet to a point; thence
North 18052’49” West, 133.69 feet to a point; thence
North 01013’52” West, 162.27 feet to a point; thence
North 02058’08” West, 67.39 feet to a point; thence
South 89034’15” East, 435.90 feet to a point in the western boundary of Carolina Beach
Road; thence with that right‐of‐way,
South 17010’32” East, 250.07 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 4.56
acres, more or less.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 11
Page 1 of 2
Community Information Meeting Report – Approved 06-2022
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165 Nhcgov.com/528/Planning-Land-Use
COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING REPORT
This Community Information Meeting Report must be submitted with the application for a conditional rezoning, planned
development, or intensive industry special use permit in order for the application to be deemed complete.
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Meeting Date and Time
Format (Virtual, In-Person, Hybrid) Location if In-Person or Hybrid
Selection Criteria for Location
Meeting Summary
Issues and Concerns Discussed at Meeting
6634 Carolina Beach Road 313206.37.2876 [R08200-001-036-000]
Wednesday, April 24th, 6:00 p.m.
Best-Western Plus, 5600 Carolina Beach Rd.
Proximity to the subject project site
In-person w/ offer of alternative contactfor questions & comment by both Tel. & Email
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 12
Page 2 of 2
Community Information Meeting Report – Approved 06-2022
List of Changes and Modifications Made to the Proposal in Response to Issues and Concerns (if no modifications
were made, please explain why)
Report Attachments
All of the following items must be submitted as part of the required community information meeting report in addition
to this form.
Checklist Applicant Initial
A list of names and addresses of attendees
A list of the names and addresses of invitees and copies of any returned mailings received to date
A copy of the mailed notice with all attachments
A copy of all materials distributed or presented at the meeting
Acknowledgement and Signatures
By my signature below, I hereby certify that written notice of the community information meeting as described above was mailed and/or personal delivery to property owners withing 500 feet of the subject site as set forth on the attached list, by first class mail on [DATE] _____________________________. A copy of the written notice is also attached. I also herby certify that the meeting summary and list of attendees is accurate and representative of the proceedings at the community information meeting.
Signature of Applicant or Applicant’s Agent Print Name
Date
CAW
CAW
CAW
CAW
April 13, 2024
Cynthia Wolf - Design Solutions
April 29, 2024
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 13
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 14
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 15
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 16
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 17
ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN A 500' PERIMETER OF 6634 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD:
BARTLEY STEVE W PAMELA B 6703 CHELWOOD CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
BUOL CLARENCE J BEVERLY C 1046 MARSHSIDE WAY LELAND NC 28451
CENATIEMPO RICHARD EILEEN 1123 PARK VIEW DR COVINA CA 91724
COLLINS EUGENE JR 314 TOULON DR WILMINGTON NC 28405
CONNER CASSANDRA S 812 MACKAY CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
CRAIG KENDRA J 814 MACKAY CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
DERRICK CHARLES A MARGUERITE R 6701 OLIVER CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
DEWEY MICHAEL L 807 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
DIGBY CHARLES B RHEA M TRUSTEES 820 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
DOUGAN ROBERT D DIANE L 845 SLOOP POINTE LN KURE BEACH NC 28449
DRYE CLARENCE L ABIGAIL G 815 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
ESTABROOKS MARILYN LIFE EST ETAL 901 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
FENDER DOROTHY 821 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
HANKS CHAPEL AME CHURCH 6562 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON NC 28403
HESSE ARTHUR H KATHLEEN 6709 CHELWOOD CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION PARISH 6650 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON NC 28412
JONES VONZELLA SHERWAN MCLEAN 6617 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON NC 28412
KOURY MARVEL E 6706 CHELWOOD CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
LASALLA THEO PATRICIA REV TRUST 114 WATERSFIELD RD LELAND NC 28451
LORDS CREEK HOA INC PO BOX 2298 CAROLINA BEACH NC 28428
MCCLUNEY YOLANDA R TONY M 606 RYE RIDGE RD CARY NC 27519
MCIRNEY KIMBERLY ROBERT 802 TANLAW CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
MCNEIL HENRY PORTER JR 6647 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON NC 28412
MCQUILLAN WILLIAM SR CAROLYN 6402 BOYER ST PHILADELPHIA PA 19119
METERKO TIMOTHY A KAREN J 809 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
MEYERSON KATHLEEN C ETAL 6702 CHELWOOD CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
MITCHELL AMOS DWIGHT ETAL 4014 TROTTER RIDGE RD DURHAM NC 27707
MURCH STEVEN G DIANNA MARIE 810 MACKAY CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
MYRTLE GROVE COMM CENTER 6608 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON NC 28403
MYRTLE GROVE COMM CENTER 9129 TIMBER LN LELAND NC 28451
MYRTLE GROVE HOLINESS PO BOX 15680 WILMINGTON NC 28412
OAK GROVE CEMETERY INC 6602 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON NC 28403
PACE MONICA B 904 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
PALADINO MARISSA ETAL 6704 CHELWOOD CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
PINER CHERYL 507 CHARLOTTE AVE CAROLINA BEACH NC 28428
QUARLES SANDRA S 803 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
RESTRICTED 123 ANYROAD DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
RHOADS MALLERNEE III TRUSTEES 808 TANLAW CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
RICK LEO J 819 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
SANCTUARY CHURCH OF WILM PO BOX 2374 CAROLINA BEACH NC 28428
STARLING HELEN ETAL 806 TANLAW CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
STEELE NANCY S 816 MACKAY CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
STEWART WM MARTHA TRUSTEES 813 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
SUNDERLAND PRESTON J 804 TANLAW CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
SURFSIDE PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 16470 WILMINGTON NC 28409
TAYLOR DANNIE LEE DORETHA L 227 GABRIEL ST WILMINGTON NC 28412
TICE JAMES N ETAL 817 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
TOBY THOMAS MARI K 6605 OLIVER CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
TRACEY EILEEN 6705 CHELWOOD CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
TRIPP CHRIS D 905 GLENARTHUR DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
UNDENOMINATIONAL PENTECOSTAL 6622 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON NC 28403
WALKER SUSAN J 6602 OLIVER CT WILMINGTON NC 28412
WHISPERING PINES BAPTIST 6547 CAROLINA BEACH RD WILMINGTON NC 28412
WRIGHT ARMOND ETAL 1220 S 6TH ST WILMINGTON NC 28401Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 18
P.O. Box 7221, Wilmington, NC 28406 * Telephone: 910-620-2374 * Email: cwolf@lobodemar.biz
Community Information
April 13, 2024
To: Adjacent Property Owners & Other Interested Parties
From: Cindee Wolf
Re: Palm Grove Apartments
This letter is notice of a community information meeting for an upcoming rezoning request.
Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlacancich are property owners of 6634 Carolina Beach Road. The
4.56-acre tract is currently zoned Residential (R-15). The proposed rezone would be for a
Conditional District / Residential Multi-family - Moderate Density (CZD/RMF-M). The proposal is to
develop a 64-unit community, comprised of two (2) 2-story / 8-unit buildings and four (4) 3-story /
12-unit buildings. A site layout is attached.
Your property is located in the proximity, within a 500’ perimeter, of the lot boundary. The meeting
is an opportunity for further explanation of the proposal and for questions to be answered
concerning project improvements, benefits and impacts.
A Conditional Zoning District in New Hanover County allows particular uses to be established only in
accordance with specific standards and conditions pertaining to each individual development
project & rezoning petition. Essentially, this means that only the specific use(s) and the proposed
site improvements of an approved petition can be developed.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 24th, 6:00 p.m., at the Best Western Plus –
Wilmington, 5600 Carolina Beach Road. If you cannot attend, you are also welcome to contact me
at telephone # 910-620-2374, or email cwolf@lobodemar.biz with comments and/or questions.
We appreciate your interest in the project and continue to believe that this new community will
provide a housing alternative missing in the southern portion of the County, be good neighbor and
be an asset to the community.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 19
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 7 - 20
Concept Plan
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 8 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 9 - 1
Public Comments
In Support 0
Neutral 0
In Opposition 6
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 1
1
Farrell, Robert
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Monday, May 27, 2024 1:58 PM
To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Biddle, Wendell; Doss, Amy;
Dickerson, Zachary; Ott, Love
Subject:Online Form Submission #11334 for Public Comment Form
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Public Comment Form
Public Comment Form
The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning
Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of
the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and
will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting.
First Name Joni
Last Name Monroe
Address 6817 Teviot Rd
City Wilmington
State NC
Zip Code 28412
Email Jonimonroe0613@hotmail.com
Please select the case
for comment.
PB Meeting - Z24-08 Palm Grove Apartments
What is the nature of
your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment Once again I come to you, the planning board, to not allow this
project go through. We already have enough traffic in the
neighborhood as it is. Our roads are in need of repairs as it is
and I cannot imagine how it will be if you add more traffic to this
area. In addition to our neighborhood traffic, getting out of the
neighborhood onto CB road is also a hassle and gets worse
every year, especially during the summer.
Lastly, as a resident of this area for the past 11.5 years, it
would be nice if developers would go elsewhere to develop.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 2
2
The city barely has any green space as it is. And folks want to
complain about seeing different types of wildlife in the area and
it’s b/c we keep ruining their natural environments!
This area DOES NOT need MORE APARTMENTS! What we
need are childcare centers and community pools. Please,
please, please do not let this project become a reality.
Upload supporting files
If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No
more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt,
pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png.
File 1 Field not completed.
File 2 Field not completed.
File 3 Field not completed.
File 4 Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 3
3
Farrell, Robert
From:noreply@civicplus.com
Sent:Monday, May 27, 2024 7:41 AM
To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Biddle, Wendell; Doss, Amy;
Dickerson, Zachary; Ott, Love
Subject:Online Form Submission #11329 for Public Comment Form
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
Public Comment Form
Public Comment Form
The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning
Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of
the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and
will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting.
First Name Nancy
Last Name Steele
Address 816 Mackay Ct.
City Wilmington
State NC
Zip Code 28412
Email nancyseele1@comcast.net
Please select the case
for comment.
PB Meeting - Z24-08 Palm Grove Apartments
What is the nature of
your comment?
Oppose project
Public Comment This project was considered and rejected for rezoning last year
and no substantive changes have been made to their
application for re-zoning. So why would we come to a different
decision a year later?
The density is too high and there is no need for additional
rental apartments in this part of NHC (OR any other part of the
county). We have an overabundance of apartments with
soaring vacancies. People do not desire this housing option
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 4
4
and there seems to be enough availability to satisfy the need.
Every re-zoning in recent years along this stretch of Carolina
Beach Road has been for a gas station, or apartments or for
storage units. Enough is enough! Let's be a little more creative
and come up with some better ideas.
We need something for ownership - such as townhouses. Or a
medical office building. I know of several residents in the area
who would consider renting space close by for their physical
therapy practices. It would be nice to have a dentist office, etc
near our neighborhoods.
The nearby neighborhoods are united in their decision that this
development is not in the best interest of the area. The majority
DO NOT want the re-zoning.
Upload supporting files
If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No
more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt,
pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png.
File 1 Field not completed.
File 2 Field not completed.
File 3 Field not completed.
File 4 Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 5
5
Farrell, Robert
From:Alan Mercer <wellthereitis@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2024 3:45 PM
To:Farrell, Robert
Subject:NHC Planning Board Meeting June 6 2024 Z24-08 Palm Grove Apartments
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
As was the case last year regarding Z23-06: 6634 Carolina Beach Rd, I remain opposed to high density
development on the small and poorly accessible parcel. Regarding the new developer and a slightly reduced
scale, the development remains too dense for an area with existing development straining capacity of roadways,
drainage, schools, and public safety. New Hanover County recognized this previously and rejected high density
development in this location.
As stated in the Unified Development Ordinance the existing R-15 zoning “is established to provide lands that
accommodate very low to low density residential development that can serve as a transition between very low
density residential development patterns and smaller lot, more dense residential areas of the County. District
regulations discourage development that substantially interferes with the quiet residential and recreational nature
of the district.” The prior denial of rezoning to (CZD) RMF-M zoning agreed with this view, that the proposal was a
higher and denser than what is recommended for the area. A less than 8 percent decrease in density under the
revised plan is not significant enough to meet the recommendations for the area.
The topology of the site currently drains into the Lords Creek wetland area and cutting the green space in half will
only increase runoƯ into the adjacent properties, particularly Lots 1, 5, and 6 of Section 1 map book 36 page 190
with potential impacts on lots 4 and 7. The potential to overwhelm the existing drainage and resultant flooding of
adjacent properties and road is of great concern.
Local schools continue to be overcrowded in this area, with modular units. Apartments will bring an increased
number of younger adults with children of school age, further straining not only the school system but traƯic flows
at the school due to parents driving children to school due to limited walkability and being adjacent to a highway
with 55 MPH and faster traƯic. This property has no contiguous area to Halyburton Memorial Pkwy where the area
schools are located nor walkable egress to adjoining neighborhoods with such access except to walk along
Carolina Beach Rd which is dangerous at any age.
As has been frequently noted, the area schools are already overcrowded and other public facilities such as the
new fire station have yet to be built to accommodate this growth.
Unlike City of Wilmington, there are no walkable shopping centers and a lack of public transportation that may be
needed by workforce housing or an aging population that would be likely to require lower maintenance and lower
cost housing.
In addition, the approach to and exit from Glenauthur Drive is already limited and aƯords little deceleration and
acceleration area when exiting or entering Carolina Beach Rd. This becomes even more strained on weekends
and as the warmer weather draws more people to the beach. The entrance for a community of 64 apartments
with and estimated 120 plus vehicles will require an egress from the proposed development that will make the
entrance approach to Glenauthur far more dangerous and increase the likelihood of accidents in that area. Due
to Carolina Beach traƯic there is a high probability of increased traƯic through the neighborhoods of Lord’s Creek,
Woodlake, and Ocean Forest Lakes by new residents of this property to take an alternate route north using River
Rd, putting unacceptable traƯic on private property without compensation.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 6
6
This can be easily mitigated by preserving the current zoning at the existing R-15 where only approximately 14
houses could be built and remain within the Unified Development Ordinance regarding the R-15 zoning.
In short, the existing R-15 single family housing zoning for this plot of land is more suitable for the area
infrastructure than the proposed change to dense population development. Please deny this application with
prejudice to prevent further attempts to negatively alter the long standing zoning,
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 7
7
Farrell, Robert
From:Ben Namiot <bnamiot@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2024 10:03 AM
To:Farrell, Robert
Subject:Fw: Please don’t allow palm grove apartments to build at 6634 CB road
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
As the owner in resident of 7408 Champlain drive my wife Kari and I fully agree with these emails. (See
below) This is clearly an attempt by a developer to change the structure of the land use and profit. The
statements they have made about needed housing are completely driven not by their philanthropism to
help people find affordable housing but by their greed. When I bought my home just like probably
everyone else around the zoning of the nearby land has residential was very important because we did
not want to live in this type of area with massive congestion.
Coupled with the destination location of Carolina Beach which already sees a huge traffic surge at
certain times of the year it's absolutely correct that Carolina Beach road cannot accept additional traffic
without causing problems.
Additionally, this request has been made before as I'm sure you are aware and was rejected. That should
have been the end of it, whatever legal loophole was used to allow them to reapply so soon was clearly
abused.
To put it frankly I would be perfectly fine with them building single-family homes here I have a problem
with high density housing. Please do not approve this.
Benjamin Namiot
7408 Champlain drive
Wilmington NC 28412
540-903-6123
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Jonathan Groner (The Wayward Pilot)" <groner1661@gmail.com>
To: "Rowy Groner" <rowy@busybudgeter.com>
Cc: "Kari Namiot" <knamiot@yahoo.com>, "Ben Namiot" <bnamiot@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2024 at 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Please don’t allow palm grove apartments to build at 6634 CB road
This is what I wrote:
This is the wrong development for the community as it stands. There is not enough infrastructure to
support the development as planned.
Furthermore the owners of the property were aware of the approved uses before they purchased the
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 8
8
property. Their poor decisions and lack of forethought should not be carried by actual residents of the
area. The owners have multiple properties in the NYC area. Wilmington and New Hanover County is NOT
New York City.
This attempt is simply to make the value of the owner’s property skyrocket with an unwanted, unneeded,
and inappropriate development. They are increasing their own value at the expense of the community at
large.
Please do not approve this rezoning request.
From a resident and homeowner in Ocean Forrest Lakes development.
Jonathan Groner
Airline Transport Pilot: AMEL
Commercial Pilot: ASEL/ASES
CFI/CFII/MEI/AGI Gold Seal
DA-EASY (PIC), CE-525 (PIC), HS-125 (SIC)
571-331-5045
On May 22, 2024, at 9:18 AM, Rowy Groner <rowy@busybudgeter.com> wrote:
In case anyone also wants to email
Rosemarie Groner
Founder, Busy Budgeter
e:Rosemarie@busybudgeter.com | w:www.busybudgeter.com
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
(Sent from my iPhone)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rowy Groner <rowy@busybudgeter.com>
Date: May 21, 2024 at 9:49:38 PM EDT
To: rfarrell@nhcgov.com
Subject: Please don’t allow palm grove apartments to build at 6634 CB road
This address absolutely does not have the infrastructure to support the plan as they’ve
submitted it.
I’m absolutely against rezoning that area.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 9
9
Rezoning Request (Z24-08 – Palm Grove Apartments) – Request by Cindee Wolf with
Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlacancich, property
owners, to rezone approximately 4.65 acres of land located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road
from R-15, Residential to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-family – Moderate Density for a
maximum of 64 multi-family dwelling units.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 10
10
Farrell, Robert
From:Jonathan Groner (The Wayward Pilot) <groner1661@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2024 9:37 AM
To:Farrell, Robert
Subject:Palm Grove Apartments (6634 Carolina Beach Rd) Rezoning Request
** External Email: Do not click links, open aƩachments, or reply unƟl you know it is safe **
This is the wrong development for the community as it stands. There is not enough infrastructure to support the
development as planned.
Furthermore the owners of the property were aware of the approved uses before they purchased the property. Their
poor decisions and lack of forethought should not be carried by actual residents of the area. The owners have mulƟple
properƟes in the NYC area. Wilmington and New Hanover County is NOT New York City.
This aƩempt is simply to make the value of the owner’s property skyrocket with an unwanted, unneeded, and
inappropriate development. They are increasing their own value at the expense of the community at large.
Please do not approve this rezoning request.
From a resident and homeowner in Ocean Forrest Lakes development.
Jonathan Groner
Airline Transport Pilot: AMEL
Commercial Pilot: ASEL/ASES
CFI/CFII/MEI/AGI Gold Seal
DA-EASY (PIC), CE-525 (PIC), HS-125 (SIC)
571-331-5045
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 11
11
Farrell, Robert
From:Rowy Groner <rowy@busybudgeter.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2024 9:49 PM
To:Farrell, Robert
Subject:Please don’t allow palm grove apartments to build at 6634 CB road
** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe **
This address absolutely does not have the infrastructure to support the plan as they’ve submitted it.
I’m absolutely against rezoning that area.
Rezoning Request (Z24-08 – Palm Grove Apartments) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions,
applicant, on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlacancich, property owners, to rezone
approximately 4.65 acres of land located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential to (CZD)
RMF-M, Residential Multi-family – Moderate Density for a maximum of 64 multi-family dwelling units. Rosemarie Groner
Founder, Busy Budgeter
e:Rosemarie@busybudgeter.com | w:www.busybudgeter.com
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
(Sent from my iPhone)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 6 - 10 - 12
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2024
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Wendell E. Biddle, Development Review Planner
CONTACT(S): Wendell E. Biddle; Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor; Rebekah Roth, Planning
and Land Use Director
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Rezoning Request (Z24-09) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solu8ons, applicant, on behalf of Walter Wayne
Winner, property owner, to rezone approximately 0.25 acres zoned R-15, Residen8al located at 802 S. Seabreeze
Road to (CZD) CB, Community Business, for 1,800 square feet of General Retail Sales and other limited uses.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to construct a 1,800 square foot building for General Retail Sales. The Proposed building will
be a 2-story structure with a maximum height of 25 feet from grade that faces the parking lot.
The structure's footprint will be 1,250 square feet with a 550 square foot mezzanine on the upper level to serve as a
place for offices and or product storage.
The applicant has provided a condi2on that alterna2ve future uses would be limited to: Animal grooming Services,
Offices for Private Business & Professional Ac2vi2es, Instruc2onal Services & Studios, and General Personal Services.
The development’s proposed total impervious area is under 10,000 square feet that triggers the requirement for a New
Hanover County stormwater permit. County Engineering may also grant a one-2me allowance of an addi2onal 3,000
square feet of impervious surface allowing a maximum of 13,000 square feet.
The total proposed land disturbance is less than one acre that triggers the state requirement for a stormwater permit
from the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). A condi2on has been included capping the total
impervious square footage for the project
The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the 2me, the purpose of the R-15 district was to ensure that
housing served by private sep2c and well would be developed at low densi2es. Since that 2me, private water and
sewer services have become available to the surrounding area through private u2lity provider AQUA.
North of the subject lot, several R-15 parcels were rezoned to (CZD) CB within the last year. The approved rezoning,
Z23-23, allows for mul2ple mixed-use commercial buildings with each building serving different purposes.
The Community Business (CB) district was established to provide lands that accommodate the development, growth,
and con2nued opera2on of businesses that serve surrounding neighborhoods with goods and services needed for a
variety of daily and long-term purposes. the CB district requires a 25-foot rear setback where it abuts residen2ally
zoned proper2es.
Commercial proper2es require the Type A Opaque buffer along the eastern and southern property lines bordering
residen2ally zoned parcels. In addi2on to the Type A buffer standards, the applicant has provided a condi2on for a
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7
solid wood privacy fence.
As currently zoned, the site is es2mated to generate approximately 1 AM and 1 PM peak hour trips if developed
residen2ally for one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed (CZD) CB development is expected to generate 4 AM
and 12 PM peak hour trips, increasing the es2mated number of trips by approximately 3 AM and 11 PM trips.
The proposed project is located at the corner of two local roadways with available capacity. The concept plan
proposes two driveways. While the driveway connected to Service Road will be both a point of for access and exit, the
driveway connec2ng to S. Seabreeze will be a one-way exit only. North of this project is a recently approved mixed-
use commercial center that required a TIA. Though this project's impact was not considered in that TIA, general traffic
growth in the area was included with recommended improvements to accommodate future growth. the proposed
project's peak hour traffic genera2on is below the 100 peak hour threshold requiring a traffic impact analysis; however,
NCDOT will review the project through the driveway permiGng process, to iden2fy any required improvements to the
site.
The site is within the historic Seabreeze Community which served as a beach resort community for African Americans
from the 1930's through the 1950's and is located at the corner of Service Road and Seabreeze Road.
This area was the focus of the Seabreeze Small Area Plan created in 1988. the recommenda2ons for the area included
revitaliza2on of the businesses and redevelopment of the waterfront. However, since the adop2on of the plan this
revitaliza2on has not been accomplished and some of the historic structures and proper2es have been converted into
single-family homes.
While much of the surrounding area is low-density residen2al, there are planned higher density townhomes to the
south, and a recently rezoned mixed commercial development to the north. The property's proximity to the Snow's
Cut bridge along a heavily traveled corridor serves as a loca2on conducive to this type of commercial development.
The proposed commercial development provides a community-serving business in a largely residen2al area adjacent to
a highly traveled corridor. Due to the area's loca2on adjacent to Carolina Beach Road, the site is less likely to be
developed for low density housing.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan designates these parcels as Community Mixed Use which focuses on small-scale,
compact, mixed use development paIerns that serve all modes of travel and act as a an aIractor for county residents
and visitors. Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed-use, recrea2onal, commercial, ins2tu2onal, mul2-
family, and single-family residen2al.
This classifica2on is generally applied to areas intended as community-level service nodes and / or transi2ons between
lower density housing and higher intensity development. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a mix of commercial
services along the Carolina beach road corridor and in the Seabreeze area to serve adjacent residents and to help
revitalize the historic Seabreeze area.
Addi2onally, having a small commercial service area closer to residences would reduce the need to travel south to
Pleasure Island or north to Monkey Junc2on for those services.
The proposed (CZD) CB District is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed
uses are in line with the recommenda2ons of the Community Mixed Use place type, and the development would act as
a community service business node to serve both the Seabreeze Community and the surrounding area.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff's recommenda2on is based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning considera2ons, and
technical review.
The property is located along Carolina beach Road just north of the Snow's Cut bridge and in the historic Seabreeze
Community. though the surrounding area is largely residen2al, the site is located adjacent to the heavily traveled
Carolina Beach Road corridor and can serve the surrounding area with commercial uses that reduce travel 2mes along
that corridor and act as an appropriate transi2on from the Corridor to the low-density residen2al area in Seabreeze.
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the request and suggests the following mo2on:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses are in line with the recommenda2ons of the Community
Mixed Use Place Type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public
interest because the development would act as a community service business node to serve both the Seabreeze
Community and the surrounding area.
Staff and Applicant Proposed condi8ons:
1. The proposed rezoning's principal use shall be limited to: General Retail Sales, Animal Grooming Service, General
Personal Services, Instruc2onal Services & Studios, and Offices for Private Business & Professional Ac2vi2es.
2. A privacy fence measuring 10-feet high will be installed between the adjacent residen2al lots and the required buffer
yard.
3. The development's proposed impervious is capped at 10,000 square feet unless granted a 3,000 square foot
impervious allotment by New Hanover County Engineering. Any further increase in impervious ground cover will
require rezoning.
4. Exterior ligh2ng including luminaries and security ligh2ng shall be fully cutoff fixtures that are directed downward in
compliance with Figures of the UDO. In no case shall ligh2ng be directed at or above a horizontal plane through the
ligh2ng fixture.
Alterna8ve mo8on for DENIAL (if based on informa2on presented at the public hearing or other considera2on
beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses are in line with the recommenda2ons of the Community
Mixed Use Place Type, I find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest
because the project would possibly expand the commercial node closer to the exis2ng single-family residen2al
developments and does not provide substan2al enough transi2on to limit impacts on the surrounding area.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip2on
Z24-09 PB Staff Report
Z24-09 PB Script
Z24-09 Zoning Map
Z24-09 Future Land Use Map
Z24-09 Mailout Map
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7
Z24-09 Application Cover Sheet
Z24-09 Application
Z24-09 Concept Plan Cover Sheet
Z24-09 Concept Plan
Z24-09 Public Comment
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 1 of 13
STAFF REPORT FOR Z24-09
CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z24-09
Request:
Rezoning to a Conditional CB, Community Business district
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Cindee Wolf, Design Solutions Walter Wayne Winner, II
Location: Acreage:
802 S. Seabreeze Road 0.25
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
R08514-004-008-000 Community Mixed Use
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Undeveloped Residential
General Retail Sales, Animal Grooming
Service, General Personal Services,
Instructional Services & Studios, and Offices
for Private Business & Professional Activities
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
R-15, Residential (CZD) CB, Community Business
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North Community Business (Formerly Pelican SnoBalls) (CZD) CB
East Single Family Residential R-15
South
An existing Single-Family Residential and an
approved rezoning for 46 attached Single-Family
homes
R-15 & (CZD) R-5
West Single Family Residential R-15
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 1
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 2 of 13
ZONING HISTORY
April 7, 1971 Initially zoned R-15 (Area 4)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer
CFPUA services are not available in the area. Aqua water and sewer utilities
are in the area. Aqua utilities will need to commit to providing services to
the parcel.
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Southern Fire
District, New Hanover County Federal Point Station
Schools Anderson Elementary, Murray Middle, and Ashley High Schools
Recreation Veterans Park
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation
The conservation resource map indicates pocosin wetlands on the property;
however, they are not underlaid with Class IV soils, thus no additional
development standards governing conservation resources apply.
Historic
While undeveloped, the parcels are located within the historical Seabreeze
neighborhood. Established in the mid-1920’s, the area was a prime vacation
resort for African Americans within southeastern North Carolina from the
1930’s through the 1950’s before a decline stemming from Hurricane Hazel
in 1954, financial trouble, and the end of segregation in the 1960’s.
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 2
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 3 of 13
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN
Includes Staff Markups
• The applicant is proposing to construct an 1,800 square foot building for General Retail
Sales.
• The proposed building will be a 2-story structure with a maximum height of 25 feet from
grade that faces the parking lot.
• The structure’s footprint will be 1,250 square feet with a 550 square foot mezzanine on the
upper level to serve as a place for offices and or product storage.
• The applicant has provided a condition that alternative future uses would be limited to:
o Animal Grooming Services
o Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities
o Instructional Services & Studios
o Personal Services, General
• The applicant has proposed a condition to incorporate a 10’ high wooden fence between
the adjacent residential parcels and the required buffer yard.
1,800 sq ft Retail
Building
10’ Fenced in
Buffer Yard
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 3
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 4 of 13
• The development’s proposed total impervious area is under 10,000 square feet that
triggers the requirement for a New Hanover County stormwater permit. County Engineering
may also grant a one-time allowance of an additional 3,000 square feet of impervious
surface allowing a maximum of 13,000 square feet.
• The total proposed land disturbance is less than one acre that triggers the state requirement
for a stormwater permit from the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). A
condition has been included capping the total impervious square footage for the project.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the time, the purpose of the R-15
district was to ensure that housing served by private septic and well would be developed
at low densities. Since that time, private water and sewer services have become available
to the surrounding area through private utility provider AQUA.
• North of the subject lot, several R-15 parcels were rezoned to (CZD) CB within the last year.
The approved rezoning, Z23-23, allows for multiple mixed-use commercial buildings with
each building serving different purposes.
• As currently zoned, the subject site would allow one single-family dwelling unit.
• The CB, Community Business CB district was established to provide lands that accommodate
the development, growth, and continued operation of businesses that serve surrounding
neighborhoods with goods and services needed for a variety of daily and long-term
purposes.
• The UDO contains controls on exterior lighting on the site, and the maximum illumination
levels at the common property line with the residential properties to the west shall not
exceed 0.5 foot candles and 25 feet in height. The UDO specifies that all exterior luminaries
for nonresidential adjacent to single-family residential subdivisions shall be full cut-off
features that are directed downward. In no case shall lighting be directed at or above a
horizontal plane through the lighting fixture.
• The CB district requires a 25-foot rear setback where it abuts residentially zoned properties.
• Commercial properties require the Type A Opaque buffer along the eastern and southern
property lines bordering residentially zoned parcels. In addition to the Type A buffer
standards, the applicant has provided a condition for a solid wood privacy fence.
• If approved, the project would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and zoning
compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements and
specific conditions included in the approval. Only minor deviations from the approved
conceptual plan, as defined by the UDO, would be allowed.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 4
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 5 of 13
AREA DEVELOPMENTS
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 5
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 6 of 13
TRANSPORTATION
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Intensity of Current Zoning Typical development under current zoning would allow
one single-family residential dwelling
PROPOSED ACCESS
Primary Access Service Road between Carolina Beach Road and
subject lot
Secondary Access One way exit from site onto S. Seabreeze Road
One Way Exit onto
S. Seabreeze Rd
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 6
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 7 of 13
EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Affected Roadway Carolina Beach
Road
S Seabreeze
Road Service Road
Type of Roadway NCDOT Principle
Arterial Local Road Local Road
Roadway Planning Capacity (AADT) 41,369 4,000* 4,000*
Latest Traffic Volume (AADT) 32,500 400 N/A
Latest WMPO Point-in-Time County (DT) 33,254 N/A N/A
Current Level of Congestion Available
Capacity
Available
Capacity
Available
Capacity
NEARBY NCDOT STIP ROADAWAY PROJECTS
No Nearby STIP Projects.
TRAFFIC GENERATION
Traffic
Generated by
Present
Designation
Traffic Generated
by Proposed
Designation
Potential
Impact of
Proposed
Designation
AM Peak Hour Trips 1 4 +3
PM Peak Hour Trips 1 12 +11
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)
The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the
ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
SUMMARY
The proposed project is located at the corner of two local roadways with available capacity. The
concept plan proposes two driveways. While the driveway connected to Service Road will be both a
point for access and exit, the driveway connecting to S. Seabreeze will be a one-way exit only. North
of this project is a recently approved mixed-use commercial center that required a TIA. Though this
project’s impact was not considered in that TIA, general traffic growth in the area was included with
recommended improvements to accommodate future growth. The proposed project’s peak hour traffic
generation is below the 100 peak hour threshold requiring a traffic impact analysis; however, NCDOT
will review the project through the driveway permitting process, to identify any required improvements
to the site.
* Seabreeze Road and Service Road do not have listed planning capacities. The WMPO and DOT use a base 4,000 vehicles per
day for these road types because it is the minimum threshold necessary for DOT to discuss roadway capacity improvements.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 7
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 8 of 13
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area.
• The majority of the property is within the Shaded Zone X (0.2% annual flood risk) Special
Flood Hazard Area. This is considered an area of moderate to low risk and is not subject to
floodplain development requirements or density restrictions for new development.
• The property is within watersheds ICW13 and ICW14 that drain to portions of the
Intracoastal Waterway.
• Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class III (Severe Limitation) soils.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
New Hanover County Strategic Plan
On July 17, 2023 the Board of Commissioners adopted a new strategic plan for Fiscal Years 2024-
2028. This plan focuses on three core areas: workforce and economic development, community
safety and well-being, and sustainable land use and environmental stewardship.
Strategic Plan Outcomes Relevant to
Proposal Analysis
Through planned growth and development,
residents have access to their basic needs.
The proposed (CZD) CB rezoning will allow
businesses that can support the surrounding
community and are located in an area along a
major roadway corridor, in close proximity to a
number of households.
A business-friendly environment that promotes
growth, agility, and collaboration
The plan aims to prepare for the long-term needs
of businesses and to maintain new business
growth within 2.5% of the state. The proposed
commercial zoning district will enable several new
businesses.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 8
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 9 of 13
Representative Developments
Representative Developments of R-15:
S. Seabreeze Road
Representative Developments within the proposed uses:
The Grill House at 6312 Carolina Beach Road
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 9
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 10 of 13
Flex Office Space
Context and Compatibility
• This property is located at the intersection of Carolina Beach Road and Seabreeze Road,
an area that has not experienced the same interest in higher density growth as the northern
and central portions of the Carolina Beach Road corridor.
• The site is within the historic Seabreeze Community which served as a beach resort
community for African Americans from the 1930’s through the 1950’s. The subject site is
undeveloped.
• This area was the focus of the Seabreeze Small Area Plan created in 1988. The
recommendations for the area included revitalization of the businesses and redevelopment
of the waterfront. However, since the adoption of the plan this revitalization has not been
accomplished and some of the historic structures and properties have been converted into
single-family homes.
• While much of the surrounding area is low-density residential, there are planned higher-
density townhomes to the south. The property’s proximity to the Snow’s Cut bridge along a
heavily traveled corridor serves as a location conducive to this type of commercial
development.
• To the north of the subject site, a proposed mixed commercial development, Z23-23, has
been approved within the last year. The site in question was rezoned from R-15 to (CZD)
CB.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 10
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 11 of 13
• The application proposes a condition to limit some of the uses that would be permitted in a
CB district. The intent of limiting the uses is to help make the development more compatible
with the area and to be more convenient to the surrounding community.
• The existing land uses in the area include a mix of small and large single-family dwellings,
along with boat storage closer to the Intracoastal Waterway.
• The proposed commercial development provides a community-serving business in a largely
residential area adjacent to a highly traveled corridor.
• Due to the area’s location adjacent to Carolina Beach Road, it is less likely to be developed
for low density housing.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for
New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and
function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are
intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be
interpreted as being parcel specific.
Future Land Use
Map Place Type Community Mixed Use
Place Type
Description
Focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve
all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors.
Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational,
commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 11
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 12 of 13
Analysis
The proposed development is located at the intersection of Carolina Beach
Road and Seabreeze Road, in the historic Seabreeze community.
While the Seabreeze area has remained largely residential over the past
several decades, there has been increased interest in commercial
development along the Carolina Beach Road corridor.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property and the majority of the
Carolina Beach Road corridor as Community Mixed Use, a land use
classification that promotes a mix of retail and office development. This
classification is generally applied to areas intended as community-level
service nodes and/or transitions between lower density housing and higher
intensity development. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a mix of
commercial services along the Carolina Beach Road corridor and in the
Seabreeze area to serve adjacent residents and to help revitalize the
historic Seabreeze area.
Additionally, having a small commercial service area closer to residences
would reduce the need to travel south to Pleasure Island or north to Monkey
Junction for those services.
This commercial development, which is intended to service both the
Seabreeze Community and the surrounding area, is compatible with both
the Community Mixed Use place type and the intent of the Community
Business zoning district.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed (CZD) CB District is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses are in line with the
recommendations of the Community Mixed Use place type, and the
development would act as a community service business node to serve both
the Seabreeze Community and the surrounding area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff’s recommendation is based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning
considerations, and technical review.
The property is located along Carolina Beach Road just north of the Snow’s Cut bridge and in the
historic Seabreeze Community. Though the surrounding area is largely residential, the site is located
adjacent to the heavily traveled Carolina Beach Road corridor and can serve the surrounding area
with commercial uses that reduce travel times along that corridor and act as an appropriate
transition from the corridor to the low-density residential area in Seabreeze.
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the proposal and suggests the following motion:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
proposed uses are in line with the recommendations of the Community Mixed Use Place
Type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 12
Z24-09 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 13 of 13
in the public interest because the development would act as a community service
business node to serve both the Seabreeze Community and the surrounding area.
Proposed Conditions:
1. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to: General Retail Sales,
Animal Grooming Service, General Personal Services, Instructional Services &
Studios, and Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities.
2. A privacy fence measuring 10-feet high will be installed between the adjacent
residential lots and the required buffer yard.
3. The development’s proposed impervious is capped at 10,000 square feet unless
granted a 3,000 square foot impervious allotment by New Hanover County
Engineering. Any further increase in impervious ground cover will require rezoning.
4. Exterior lighting including luminaries and security lighting shall be fully cutoff
fixtures that are directed downward in compliance with Figures of the UDO. In no
case shall lighting be directed at or above a horizontal plane through the lighting
fixture.
Alternative Motion for DENIAL (if based on information presented at the public hearing or other
consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the
proposed uses are in line with the recommendations of the Community Mixed Use Place
Type, I find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the
public interest because the project would possibly expand the commercial node closer
to the existing single-family residential developments and does not provide substantial
enough transition to limit impacts on the surrounding area.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 1 - 13
PLANNING BOARD SCRIPT
for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z24-09)
Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, to rezone approximately 0.25 acres zoned
R-15, Residential located at 802 S. Seabreeze Road to (CZD) CB, Community Business for a commercial
structure totaling 1,800 square feet for the use of General Retail Sales and or other limited uses.
1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes
for rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Applicant’s and supporters’ presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant’s and supporters’ rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
f. Staff review of any additional conditions
3. Close the public hearing
4. Board discussion
5. Before we proceed with a motion and vote, I would like to invite the applicant to the podium.
Based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, would you like
withdraw your petition, request a continuance, or proceed with a vote?
6. Vote on the application. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or
is not, consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Example Motion for Approval
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with
the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses are in line with
the recommendations of the Community Mixed Use Place Type. I also find recommending
APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the
development would act as a community service business node to serve both the Seabreeze
Community and the surrounding area.
Proposed Conditions:
1. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to: General Retail Sales, Animal
Grooming Service, General Personal Services, Instructional Services & Studios, and Offices
for Private Business & Professional Activities.
2. A privacy fence measuring 10-feet high will be installed between the adjacent residential
lots and the required buffer yard.
3. The development’s proposed impervious is capped at 10,000 square feet unless granted
a 3,000 square foot impervious allotment by New Hanover County Engineering. Any
further increase in impervious ground cover will require rezoning.
4. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so
as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 2 - 1
the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate
levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed at
adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas, or motorists.
Alternative Motion for DENIAL (if based on information presented at the public hearing or other
consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses are in line
with the recommendations of the Community Mixed Use Place Type, I find recommending
DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the project
would possibly expand the commercial node closer to the existing single-family residential
developments and does not provide substantial enough transition to limit impacts on the
surrounding area.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to RECOMMEND [Approval/Denial] of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) CB district. I
find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
I also find RECOMMENDING [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in
the public interest because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 2 - 2
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 3 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 4 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 5 - 1
Initial Application
Documents & Materials
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 6 - 1
Page 1 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165
nhcgov.com/528/Planning-Land-Use
CONDITIONAL ZONING APPLICATION
This application form must be completed as part of a conditional zoning application submitted through the county’s
online COAST portal. The main procedural steps in the submittal and review of applications are outlined in the flowchart
below. More specific submittal and review requirements, as well as the standards to be applied in reviewing the
application, are set out in Section 10.3.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Public Hearing Procedures
(Optional)
Pre-Application Conference
1
Community Information Meeting
2
Application Submittal & Acceptance
3
Planning Director Review & Staff Report (TRC Optional)
4
Public Hearing Scheduling & Notification
5
Planning Board Hearing & Recom-mendation
6
Board of Commissioners Hearing & Decision
7
Post-Decision Limitations and Actions
1. Applicant and Property Owner Information
Applicant/Agent Name Owner Name (if different from Applicant/Agent)
Company Company/Owner Name 2
Address Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Phone Phone
Email Email
Cindee Wolf
Design Solutions
P.O. Box 7221
Wilmington, NC 28406
910-620-2374
cwolf@lobodemar.biz
Walter Wayne Winner II
8100 River Road
Wilmington, NC 28412
828-429-4224
Jerry Vess (Contract Purchaser)
jerryv1976@yahoo.com
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 1
Page 2 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
2. Subject Property Information
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Total Parcel(s) Acreage Existing Zoning and Use(s) Future Land Use Classification
3. Proposed Zoning, Use(s), & Narrative
Proposed Conditional Zoning District: Total Acreage of Proposed District:
Maximum Residential Density (if applicable) Maximum Non-Residential Square Footage (if
applicable)
Please list all of the specific uses that will be allowed within the proposed Conditional Zoning District, the
purpose of the district, and a project narrative (attach additional pages if necessary). Note: Only uses permitted
in the corresponding General Use District are eligible for consideration within a Conditional Zoning District.
802 S Seabreeze Road 313110.36.8275 [R08514-004-008-000]
11,025 s.f. / 0.25 ac. R-15 / Vacant Community Mixed-Use
(CZD) CB 0.25 ac.
N/A GFA = 1800 s.f.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 2
Page 3 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
4. Proposed Condition(s)
Note: Within a Conditional Zoning District, additional conditions and requirements which represent greater
restrictions on the development and use of the property than the corresponding general use district regulations may
be added. These conditions may assist in mitigating the impacts the proposed development may have on the
surrounding community. Please list any conditions proposed to be placed on the Conditional Zoning District below.
Staff, the Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners may propose additional conditions during the review process.
5. Traffic Impact
Please provide the estimated number of trips generated for the proposed use(s) based off the most recent version of
the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) must be completed for
all proposed developments that generate more than 100 peak hour trips, and the TIA must be included with this
application.
Note: It is recommended that traffic generation numbers be reviewed by the WMPO prior to application to ensure
that the most appropriate ITE land use code is identified and most recent generation rates have been applied. If
numbers are verified, please attach a copy of the verification. If numbers have not been verified and the submitted
generation numbers must be adjusted, this may result in the application being ineligible to move forward to the intended
Planning Board agenda.
ITE Land Use(s):
Trip Generation Use and Variable (gross floor area, dwelling units, etc.)
AM Peak Hour Trips: PM Peak Hour Trips:
Variety Store (ITE - 814)
Calculated based on 1,800 s.f. GFA
2 9
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 3
Page 4 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
6. Conditional Zoning District Considerations
The Conditional Zoning District procedure is established to address situations where a particular land use would be
consistent with the New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the objectives outlined in the Unified
Development Ordinance and where only a specific use or uses is proposed. The procedure is intended primarily for use with transitions between zoning districts of dissimilar character where a particular use or uses, with restrictive conditions to safeguard adjacent land uses, can create a more orderly transition benefiting all affected parties and the community at-large.
The applicant must explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed Conditional Zoning district meets the following criteria.
1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County’s policies for growth and development, as
described in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, applicable small area plans, etc.
2. How would the requested Conditional Zoning district be consistent with the property’s classification on the
2016 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 4
Page 5 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is
the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning?
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 5
Page 6 of 7
Conditional Zoning District Application – Updated 06-2023
Staff will use the following checklist to determine the completeness of your application. Please verify all of the listed
items are included and confirm by initialing under “Applicant Initial”. If an item is not applicable, mark as “N/A”.
Applications determined to be incomplete must be corrected in order to be processed for further review; Staff will
confirm if an application is complete within five business days of submittal.
Application Checklist Applicant Initial
This application form, completed and signed (all property owners must sign signatory
page)
Application fee:
• $600 for 5 acres or less
• $700 for more than 5 acres
• $300 in addition to base fee for applications requiring TRC review
Community Information Meeting Report (complete and signed by agent or all property
owners)
Traffic Impact Analysis if applicable (use of attached report document is recommended)
• The official TIA approval letter is recommended prior to this item being placed on the Planning Board meeting agenda. The Planning Board may choose to continue the hearing until the official TIA approval letter is provided.
• The official TIA approval letter is required prior to this item being placed on the
Board of Commissioners meeting agenda.
Legal description (by metes and bounds) or recorded survey Map Book and Page Reference
of the property requested for rezoning
Conceptual Plan including the following minimum elements [Note: If elements beyond the
minimum requirements are shown on the concept plan they may be considered conditions of
approval if not eligible for approval as minor deviations]:
Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels and roads
• Proposed use of land, building areas and other improvements
o For residential uses, include the maximum number, height, and type of
units; area to be occupied by the structures; and/or proposed subdivision
boundaries.
o For non-residential uses, include the maximum square footage and height
of each structure, an outline of the area structures will occupy, and the
specific purposes for which the structures will be used.
• Proposed transportation and parking improvements; including proposed rights-of-
way and roadways; proposed access to and from the subject site; arrangement
and access provisions for parking areas.
• All existing and proposed easements, required setbacks, rights-of-way, and
buffers.
• The location of Special Flood Hazard Areas.
• A narrative of the existing vegetation on the subject site including the approximate
location, species, and size (DBH) of regulated trees. For site less than 5 acres, the
exact location, species, and sized (DBH) of specimen trees must be included.
• Approximate location and type of stormwater management facilities intended to
serve the site.
• Approximate location of regulated wetlands.
• Any additional conditions and requirements that represent greater restrictions on
development and use of the tract than the corresponding general use district regulations or additional limitations on land that may be regulated by state law or local ordinance
CAW
CAW
CAW
N/A
CAW
CAW
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 6
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 7
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 8
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 9
Legal DescripƟon for
CondiƟonal District Rezoning of
802 S. Seabreeze Road
Beginning at a point in the southern boundary of S. Seabreeze Road (S.R. 1530), a 60’ public
right-of-way; said point being at its intersecƟon with the eastern boundary of Carolina Beach
Road (U.S. Hwy. 421), a 270’ public right-of-way; and running thence form the point of
beginning with the S. Seabreeze Road right-of-way,
South 73001’39” East, 105.00 feet to a point; thence
South 14006’36” West, 105.00 feet to a point; thence
North 73001’39” West, 105.00 feet to a point in the eastern boundary of Carolina Beach Road;
Thence with that right-of-way,
North 14006’36” East, 105.00 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 11,025
square-feet, or 0.25 acres, more or less.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 10
Page 1 of 2
Community Information Meeting Report – Approved 06-2022
NEW HANOVER COUNTY_____________________
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Telephone (910) 798-7165 Nhcgov.com/528/Planning-Land-Use
COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING REPORT
This Community Information Meeting Report must be submitted with the application for a conditional rezoning, planned
development, or intensive industry special use permit in order for the application to be deemed complete.
Address/Location Parcel Identification Number(s)
Meeting Date and Time
Format (Virtual, In-Person, Hybrid) Location if In-Person or Hybrid
Selection Criteria for Location
Meeting Summary
Issues and Concerns Discussed at Meeting
802 S. Seabreeze Road 313110.36.8275 [R08514-004-008-000]
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
Proximity to the subject project site
In-person w/ info provided for alternativecontact if not able to attend Seaside Chapel Independent Church105 South Dow Road, Carolina Beach
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 11
Page 2 of 2
Community Information Meeting Report – Approved 06-2022
List of Changes and Modifications Made to the Proposal in Response to Issues and Concerns (if no modifications
were made, please explain why)
Report Attachments
All of the following items must be submitted as part of the required community information meeting report in addition
to this form.
Checklist Applicant Initial
A list of names and addresses of attendees
A list of the names and addresses of invitees and copies of any returned mailings received to date
A copy of the mailed notice with all attachments
A copy of all materials distributed or presented at the meeting
Acknowledgement and Signatures
By my signature below, I hereby certify that written notice of the community information meeting as described above was mailed and/or personal delivery to property owners withing 500 feet of the subject site as set forth on the attached list, by first class mail on [DATE] _____________________________. A copy of the written notice is also attached. I also herby certify that the meeting summary and list of attendees is accurate and representative of the proceedings at the community information meeting.
Signature of Applicant or Applicant’s Agent Print Name
Date
CAW
CAW
CAW
CAW
April 9, 2024
Cynthia Wolf - Design Solutions
April 30, 2024
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 12
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 13
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 14
ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN 500' PERIMETER OF 802 SEABREEZE ROAD S:
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY / STATE / ZIP
ATWOOD ERIC ANNAMARIE 1308 DEER HILL DR WILMINGTON NC 28409
BARNETT LEONARD F TRUSTEE 924 ROSCOE FREEMAN AVE WILMINGTON NC 28409
BRADSHAW RONALD JR ETAL 93 SPARGER SPRINGS LN DURHAM NC 27705
CARROTHERS EDWARD JR LYNN 744 OCRACOKE DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
ELDER FREDERICK FRANCES 4110 LYNBROOK DR WILMINGTON NC 28405
FREEMAN WILLIAM E 924 ROSCOE FREEMAN AVE WILMINGTON NC 28409
GIACOMELLI ROBERT V LISA D 743 GRAND BANKS DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
HINNANT CORDELIA ANN ETAL 1011 BROAD AVE GREENSBORO NC 27406
KAMINSKI EDWARD ANTONINA 215 GREAT END PATH HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278
LEE TIMOTHY P 8377 NC HIGHWAY 50 BENSON NC 27504
MILLS MICHELE R KENNETH M 5610 KIRLAND DR FREDERICK MD 21703
PEARSON RICHARD D ET UX 747 GRAND BANKS DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
PLOURDE MICHAEL J JULIE ANN 9931 RIVER RD WILMINGTON NC 28412
R&S FOREST LLC 5087 EDINBORO LN WILMINGTON NC 28409
RAPER KAYSEY E 736 OCRACOKE DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
SB COTTAGES INVESTMENT LLC 4004 NC 55 HWY CARY NC 27519
SOCOL LLC 5087 EDINBORO LN WILMINGTON NC 28409
STEIN MEGAN M 725 OCRACOKE DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
TANGUAY BRIAN C ETAL 8601 HIDDEN LAKE CT MANASSAS VA 20112
TONEY ROBERT W 546 NC HWY 24-27 W MIDLAND NC 28107
WADE LEON MORRIS ETAL 381 SE EASTWOOD LN LELAND NC 28451
WALKER SHARON K 2546 SW JOHN AVE SUPPLY NC 28462
WHITTEMORE JAMES A 724 OCRACOKE DR WILMINGTON NC 28412
WINNER WALTER WAYNE II ETAL 8100 RIVER RD WILMINGTON NC 28412
WIVELL BRADLEY W ETAL 834 S SEABREEZE RD WILMINGTON NC 28409
WIXTED MICHAEL ELIZABETH 217 WARBLER DR MONROE NC 28110
YANG RICHARD SUSAN 5087 EDINBORO LN WILMINGTON NC 28409
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 15
April 9, 202
To: Adjacent Property Owners
From: Jerry & Dana Vess
This is a notice of a community information meeting for an upcoming rezoning request. We
would like to develop a small retail business at 802 Seabreeze Road South. The current owner
is Walter Wayne Winner II etal. We would purchase it.
The rezoning request would be from R-15, a Residential district, to (CZD) CB, a Conditional
Community Business district. The meeting is an opportunity for further explanation of the
proposal and for questions to be answered concerning project improvements, benefits and
impacts.
The subject tract, is at the corner of the service road for Carolina Beach Road and Seabreeze
Road South. Its area is 0.25 acres. Your property is located in the proximity, within a 500’
perimeter, of the lot boundary.
A Conditional Zoning District in New Hanover County allows particular uses to be established
only in accordance with specific standards and conditions pertaining to each individual
development project & rezoning petition. Essentially, this means that only the specific use(s)
and the proposed site improvements of an approved petition can be developed.
A meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 23rd, 6:00 p.m., at the Seaside Chapel Independent
Church, 105 South Dow Road (between Charlotte and Hamlet Avenues), Carolina Beach. If you
cannot attend, you are welcome to contact Cindee Wolf at telephone # 910-620-2374, or email
cwolf@lobodemar.biz with comments and/or questions.
We appreciate your interest and look forward to continuing to be a good neighbor and an asset
to the community.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 16
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 7 - 17
Concept Plan
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 8 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 9 - 1
Public Comments
In Support 0
Neutral 0
In Opposition 0
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 7 - 10 - 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2024
Regular
DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Love O, Development Review Planner
CONTACT(S): Love O; Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor; Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use
Director
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing
Request by Ma/son Wiksell with Hoyt & Berenyi, applicant, on behalf of Southeastern Freight Lines, INC,
property owner, to rezone approximately 3.73 acres of a 4.24 acre parcel zoned B-2, Regional Business located at
2824 N. 23rd Street to (CZD) AC, Airport Commercial for the use of Motor Freight TransportaBon Warehousing to
expand the exisBng Southeastern Freight Lines facility.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 3.73 acres from B-2, Regional Business to (CZD) AC, Airport
Commerce.
The proposed rezoning is intended to expand their exis2ng truck and employee parking areas.
In 1986 the site was rezoned from AI to B-2. The owners at the 2me rezoned to B-2 for more flexibility and a wider
range of poten2al uses. The AI district was established in 1976 to provide commercial and industrial zoning to support
the airport. During the 2020 Unified Development Ordinance update, the AI district was renamed to Airport
Commerce (AC).
As currently zoned, the subject site would allow a 29,246 sq. >. building in the B-2 zoning district.
The UDO includes site design standards related to buffers and ligh2ng. Currently there are two mobile homes in the
remaining por2on of the manufactured home park zoned B-2. When industrial development is adjacent to a
commercially zoned parcel with residen2al uses a Type B Aesthe2c buffer is required. A Type B Aesthe2c buffer
provides the op2on of either three rows of vegeta2on or a combina2on of vegeta2on and fencing.
The UDO contains controls on exterior ligh2ng on the site, and the maximum illumina2on levels at the common
property line with the residen2al proper2es to the west shall not exceed 0.5-foot candles and 25 feet in height. The
UDO specifies that all exterior luminaries for nonresiden2al adjacent to single-family residen2al subdivisions shall be
full cut-off features that are directed downward. In no case shall ligh2ng be directed at or above a horizontal plan
through the ligh2ng fixture.
The proposed project is located along a minor arterial highway that is currently nearing capacity. The Royal Farms
convenience store will be located across the street, which requires a TIA that includes new turn lanes on both 23rd
Street and Castle Hayne Road. The Castle Hayne Road widening project would theore2cally decrease conges2on in
the area; however, it is unfunded at this 2me. The roundabout at Castle Hayne Road and 23rd Street is s2ll scheduled
for construc2on, which will improve the flow of traffic at this intersec2on. While the business itself is not expanding,
the applica2on indicates the need for more parking which would naturally increase the traffic to and from the site.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8
The proposed project's peak hour traffic is below the 100 peak hour threshold requiring a traffic impact analysis, but
NCDOT will review the project through the driveway permiFng process.
While much of the area to the north and south is zoned B-1 and B-2, many of the surrounding proper2es to the east
are zoned AC. The site is located south of the Wrightsboro commercial node and is centrally located between access
to I-140 to the north, the Isabel Holmes Bridge to the south, and Wilmington Interna2onal Airport to the east.
Residen2al growth in the area as well as expanded transporta2on network on I-140 has increased the demand form
commercial services along Castle Hayne Road. Wilmington Interna2onal Airport is expanding, due to the growth of the
county has seen other rezonings to AC that can directly and indirectly support the airport by crea2ng areas for
compa2ble uses that would not conflict with the airport.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Employment Center and Community Mixed Use. The
Employment Center place type is generally applied in areas like this that are intended to serve as employment and
produc2on hubs where office and light industrial uses are easily available. While the expansion will help with the
business's success, the parking lot will provide a buffer between the Employment Center place type and the
Community Mixed Use place type development paerns in the area.
The proposed rezoning request is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed
use is an expansion of a neighboring compa2ble use in the Employment Center place type.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS:
Staff recommenda2on is based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning considera2ons, and
technical review. The proposed site plan and restricted uses are supported by the recommended Employment Center
and Community Mixed Use in the County's 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the proposal and suggests the following moBon:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because the proposed use is an expansion of a neighboring compa2ble use in the Employment
Center place type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public
interest because the project will provide commercial development that is compa2ble with its proximity to Wilmington
Interna2onal Airport.
The applicant has proposed a condi2on requiring that development of the property will be in accordance with the
concept plan. However, this is required for any condi2onal zoning district, excep2ng any minor modifica2ons allowed
by the ordinance. As a result, staff would not recommend including this condi2on in order to avoid future
misunderstandings of its intent.
AlternaBve MoBon for DENIAL (if based on informa2on presented at the public hearing or other considera2on
beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it is located in an area designated as Employment Center and Community
Mixed Use, it provides for the type of uses recommended by the place types. I find recommending DENIAL of the
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8
rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because while the use is centrally located near major
transporta2on routes, there are limited plans for increase capacity along the roadway.
ATTACHMENTS:
Descrip2on
Z24-10 PB Script
Z24-10 PB Staff Report
Z24-10 Zoning Map
Z24-10 PB Future Land Use Map
Z24-10 Mailout Map
Z24-10 Application Cover Sheet
Z24-10 Application
Z24-10 Concept Plan Cover Sheet
Z24-10 Concept Plan
Public Comment
COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager)
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8
PLANNING BOARD SCRIPT
for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z24-10)
Request by Mattson Wiksell with Hoyt & Berenyi, applicant, on behalf of Southeastern Freight Lines,
INC, property owner, to rezone approximately 3.73 acres of 4.24 acres zoned B-2, Regional Business
located at 2824 N. 23rd Street to (CZD) AC, Airport Commercial for the use of Motor Freight
Transportation Warehousing to expand the existing Southeastern Freight Lines facility.
1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any
opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes
for rebuttal.
2. Conduct Hearing, as follows:
a. Staff presentation
b. Applicant’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes)
d. Applicant’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes)
3. Close the public hearing
4. Board discussion
5. Before we proceed with the vote, I would like to invite the applicant to the podium. Based on
the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, would you like withdraw
your petition, request a continuance, or proceed with a vote?
6. Vote on the application. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or
is not, consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest.
Example Motion for Approval
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with
the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed use is an expansion of a neighboring
compatible use in the Employment Center place type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of
the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the project will provide
commercial development that is compatible with its proximity to Wilmington International
Airport.
The applicant has proposed a condition requiring that development of the property will be in
accordance with the concept plan. However, this is required for any conditional zoning district,
excepting any minor modifications allowed by the ordinance. As a result, staff would not
recommend including this condition in order to avoid future misunderstandings of its intent.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 1 - 1
Alternative Motion for Denial
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT
with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it is located in an area
designated as Employment Center and Community Mixed Use, it provides for the type of uses
recommended by the place types. I find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is
reasonable and in the public interest because while the use is centrally located near major
transportation routes, there are limited plans for increased capacity along the roadway.
Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial:
I move to RECOMMEND [Approval/Denial] of the proposed rezoning to a Community Business
district. I find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
I also find RECOMMENDING [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in
the public interest because [insert reasons]
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 1 - 2
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 1 of 14
STAFF REPORT FOR Z24-10
CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Case Number: Z24-10
Request:
Rezoning to a Conditional AC, Airport Commerce District
Applicant: Property Owner(s):
Mattson Wiksell, P.E. with Hoyt & Berenyi Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc
Location: Acreage:
2824 N. 23rd Street 3.73
PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type:
R04100-002-007-001 Community Mixed Use & Employment Center
Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use:
Vacant – Formerly a mobile home park
Commercial and passenger vehicle parking
for a Motor Freight Transportation
Warehousing facility.
Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
B-2, Regional Business (CZD) AC, Airport Commerce
SURROUNDING AREA
LAND USE ZONING
North Fast Food Restaurant, Industrial Services B-2, AC
East Mixed commercial and industrial uses and
Wilmington International Airport AC
South Southeastern Freight Lines Moving and Storage AC
West Commercial Retail B-1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 1
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 2 of 14
ZONING HISTORY
October 4, 1976 Initially zoned AI, Airport Industrial (Airport Area)
April 8, 1986 Rezoned from AI to B-2
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Water/Sewer Water services are available through CFPUA. Sewer services are not
available however the proposed site will not require utilities.
Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, Northern Fire District, New Hanover
County Wrightsboro Station
Schools Wrightsboro Elementary, Holly Shelter Middle, and New Hanover High
Schools
Recreation Cape Fear Optimist Park
CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Conservation No known conservation resources
Historic No known historic resources
Archaeological No known archaeological resources
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 2
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 3 of 14
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN
Applicant’s Concept Plan - Includes Staff Markups
• The site was the previous site of a legal non-conforming manufactured home park. The
previous property owner closed the park and there are no tenants within the project area.
• The existing Southeastern Freight Lines (SEFL) motor freight transportation warehousing
facility is requesting to rezone 3.73 acres of a 4.24-acre parcel to expand their existing
truck and employee parking areas.
• The concept plan includes a fenced truck and trailer parking area with a smaller employee
parking area to the south near N. 23rd Street and the existing SEFL employee and customer
parking.
• Access is provided through the existing SEFL facility site as well as a secondary employee
parking access onto N. 23rd Street.
• The concept plan also includes two stormwater ponds to the north and west of the new
parking areas.
• The application indicates that the business operations are not expanding, but that there is
an increased demand for parking on the premises, for both trucks and employees.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The AI, Airport Industrial district in this area was established in 1976. At the time, the
purpose of the AI district was to provide commercial and industrial zoning to support the
airport.
• In 1986, the site was rezoned from AI to B-2. The owners of the site at the time rezoned to
B-2 for more flexibility and a wider range of potential uses.
• During the 2020 Unified Development Ordinance update, the AI district was renamed to
Airport Commerce.
Proposed Trailer
Yard Expansion
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 3
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 4 of 14
• Similar to the original AI district, the AC district was established to provide lands to
accommodate planned restricted business and industrial development in which the principal
use of the land is for indoor manufacturing, distribution, and other types of operation that
are compatible with the airport facilities and require sites near to railroads and/or major
throughfares. The specific intent of the district is to:
o Encourage the types of development that are compatible with airport
operations;
o Protect and promote the public utility of Wilmington International Airport;
o Promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents of New
Hanover County by preventing the creation of hazards around the airport
to protect the lives and property of both the users of the airport and nearby
residents; and
o Prevent destruction or impairment of the utility of the airport and the public’s
investment.
• The AC District prescribes additional standards as described below:
o Access
▪ Any means of direct access to or from any development shall not be through
any land in a Residential district or land on which there is residential
development, or along any street or road in a residential subdivision.
o Lighting
▪ Any pulsating, flashing, rotating, oscillating, or other types of light intended
as an attention-getting device is prohibited.
▪ Flood lights, spotlights, or another lighting device shall be arranged or
shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an
imaginary line extended from the light source parallel to the ground.
o Radio and Electric Device
▪ Any radio or electronic device is permitted only in conjunction with a valid
license or other authorization as may be issued by the FCC.
▪ Any radio or electronic device, the operation of which would violate any
rules or regulations of the FCC is prohibited.
o Visual Hazards
▪ Any operation or use that emits smoke, dust, or creates glare or other visual
hazards is prohibited.
• The UDO contains controls on exterior lighting on the site, and the maximum illumination
levels at the common property line with the residential properties to the west shall not
exceed 0.5 foot candles and 25 feet in height. The UDO specifies that all exterior luminaries
for nonresidential adjacent to single-family residential subdivisions shall be full cut-off
features that are directed downward. In no case shall lighting be directed at or above a
horizontal plane through the lighting fixture.
• Currently there are two mobile homes in the remaining portion of the manufactured home
park zoned B-2. When industrial development is adjacent to a commercially zoned parcel
with residential uses a Type B Aesthetic buffer is required. A Type B Aesthetic buffer
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 4
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 5 of 14
provides the option of either three rows of vegetation or a combination of vegetation and
fencing.
• If approved, the project would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and zoning
compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements and
specific conditions included in the approval. Only minor deviations from the approved
conceptual plan, as defined by the UDO, would be allowed.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 5
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 6 of 14
AREA DEVELOPMENTS
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 6
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 7 of 14
TRANSPORTATION
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 7
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 8 of 14
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Intensity of Current
Zoning
Typical development under current B-2 zoning for a site of this size could
accommodate approximately 29,246 sq. ft. of building area for retail.
PROPOSED ACCESS
Primary Access North 23rd Street
Secondary Access N/A
EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Affected Roadway North 23rd Street
Type of Roadway NCDOT minor arterial
Roadway Planning
Capacity (AADT) 15,459
Latest Traffic Volume
(AADT) 14,804
Latest WMPO Point-
in-Time County (DT) 17,492
Current Level of
Congestion Nearing Capacity
NEARBY NCDOT STIP ROADWAY PROJECTS
U-5863 – Castle
Hayne Road
Widening
(Unfunded at this time,
post 2029 completion)
- Widen Castle Hayne Road into multi-lanes from I-140 to Division
Drive. Right-of-way acquisition and utilities is currently scheduled
to take place in FY 2025, with construction beginning after 2029.
U-5954 – North 23rd
Street Roundabout
(Funded, construction
year 2027)
- Roundabout is located at the intersection of Castle Hayne Road
and North 23rd Street. Right-of-way acquisition and utilities are
currently scheduled to take place in FY 2025, with construction
beginning in 2027.
TRAFFIC GENERATION
Traffic
Generated
by Present
Use (2
mobile
homes)
Traffic
Generated by
Typical B-2
Development1
Traffic Generated by
Proposed Designation2
Potential
Impact of
Proposed
Designation
AM Peak Hour Trips 1 69 10 -59
PM Peak Hour Trips 1 193 11 -182
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA)
The estimated traffic generated from the site is under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggers the
ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 8
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 9 of 14
NOTES
1Based on typical 18% buildout of a retail/business use in a B-2 zoning district, 29,246 sq. ft.
2The application indicates that the business operations are not expanding, but that there is
increased demand for truck and employee parking on the premises. Per staff correspondence with
the WMPO, the increased parking would increase traffic slightly on the site.
SUMMARY
The proposed project is located along a minor arterial highway that is currently nearing capacity.
The site is located near the Castle Hayne Road and North 23rd Street intersection. The Royal Farms
convenience store will be located across the street, which requires a TIA that includes new turn lanes
on both 23rd Street and Castle Hayne Road. The Castle Hayne Road widening project would
theoretically decrease congestion in the area; however, it is unfunded at this time. While the Castle
Hayne widening is unfunded, the roundabout at Castle Hayne and 23rd Street is still scheduled for
construction, which will improve the flow of traffic at the intersection. While the business itself is not
expanding, the application indicates the need for more parking which would naturally increase the
traffic to and from the site. The proposed project’s peak hour traffic is below the 100 peak hour
threshold requiring a traffic impact analysis, but NCDOT will review the project through the
driveway permitting process.
ENVIRONMENTAL
• The site does not contain a Special Flood Hazard Areas, wetlands, or Natural Heritage
Areas.
• The property is within the Smith Creek watershed, which drains to the NE Cape Fear River.
• Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the
property consist of Class II (moderate limitation) and Class IV (unsuitable) soils. However,
the proposed site plan does not require any public or private utilities. The site is a formerly
manufactured home park with several existing septic systems. Septic tanks and wells must
be properly abandoned through New Hanover County Environmental Health.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
New Hanover County Strategic Plan
On July 17, 2023 the Board of Commissioners adopted a new strategic plan for Fiscal Years 2024-
2028. This plan focuses on three core areas: workforce and economic development, community
safety and well-being, and sustainable land use and environmental stewardship.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 9
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 10 of 14
Strategic Plan Outcomes Relevant to
Proposal Analysis
A business-friendly environment that promotes
growth, agility, and collaboration.
The plan aims to prepare for the long-term needs
of businesses and to maintain new business
growth within 2.5% of the state. The proposed
zoning district would allow for the future
expansion of an existing business.
Representative Developments
Representative Developments of B-2:
Boat and Vehicle Sales – Market Street
Office Flex Space – Exchange Drive, Gordon Road
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 10
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 11 of 14
Representative Developments:
Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc. – N. 23rd Street
Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc. – N. 23rd Street
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 11
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 12 of 14
Context and Compatibility
• The property is located on North 23rd Street, an NCDOT minor arterial road near the Castle
Hayne Road and North 23rd Street intersection, south of the Wrightsboro commercial node.
• While much of the area to the north and south of the site is zoned B-1 and B-2, many of the
surrounding properties to the east are zoned AC.
• The site is located south of the Wrightsboro commercial node and is centrally located
between access to I-140 to the north, the Isabel Holmes Bridge to the south, and Wilmington
International Airport to the east. Residential growth in the area as well as expanded
transportation network on I-140 has increased the demand for commercial services along
Castle Hayne Road. A future NCDOT project to widen Castle Hayne Road to alleviate
congestion and prepare for expected future growth has been included in the STIP but is
currently unfunded. While the Castle Hayne widening is currently unfunded, the 23rd Street
roundabout is funded and will help with traffic at the intersection.
• The applicant has proposed a condition to develop the property in accordance with the
concept plan.
• Wilmington International Airport is expanding, due to the growth the county has seen other
rezonings to Airport Commerce that can directly and indirectly support the airport by
creating areas for compatible uses that would not conflict with the airport.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for
New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and
function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are
intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be
interpreted as being parcel specific.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 12
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 13 of 14
Future Land Use
Map Place Type
Community Mixed Use and Employment Center
Because of the general nature of place type borders, sites located in
proximity to the boundaries between place types could be appropriately
developed with either place type, allowing site-specific features and
evolving development patterns in the surrounding area to be considered.
Place Type
Description
Community Mixed Use:
Focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve
all modes of travel and act as a attractor for county residents and visitors.
Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational,
commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential.
Employment Center:
Serves as an employment and production hub where office and light
industrial uses predominate. It can also include residential, civic, and
recreational uses, but should be clearly delineated from rural and
conservation areas. Commercial uses designed to serve the needs of the
employment center are appropriate.
Analysis
The subject property is located in the north of Wilmington near Wilmington
International Airport. It is near the intersection of Castle Hayne Road and
North 23rd Street. The site is located near existing other commercial uses in
the north and south of the proposed site.
The Comprehensive Plan classifies a portion of the subject parcel as
Employment Center. Employment Center place types are generally applied
in areas like this that are intended to serve as employment and production
hubs where office and light industrial uses are easily available.
The Comprehensive Plan classifies a smaller portion of the subject parcel as
Community Mixed Use. While the expansion will help with the business’s
success, the parking lot will provide a buffer between the Employment
Center place type and the Community Mixed Use place type development
patterns in the area.
Consistency
Recommendation
The proposed rezoning request is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan because the proposed use is an expansion of a
neighboring compatible use in the Employment Center place type.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 13
Z24-10 Staff Report PB 6.6.2024 Page 14 of 14
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation is based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning
considerations, and technical review. The proposed site plan and restricted uses are supported by
the recommended Employment Center and Community Mixed Use in the County’s 2016
Comprehensive Plan.
As a result, Staff recommends approval of the proposal and suggests the following motion:
I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed use is an
expansion of a neighboring compatible use in the Employment Center place type. I
also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the
public interest because the project will provide commercial development that is
compatible with its proximity to Wilmington International Airport.
The applicant has proposed a condition requiring that development of the property
will be in accordance with the concept plan. However, this is required for any
conditional zoning district, excepting any minor modifications allowed by the ordinance.
As a result, staff would not recommend including this condition in order to avoid future
misunderstandings of its intent.
Alternative Motion for DENIAL (if based on information presented at the public hearing or other
consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the board finds denial appropriate.)
I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be
CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it is
located in an area designated as Employment Center and Community Mixed Use, it
provides for the type of uses recommended by the place types. I find recommending
DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because while
the use is centrally located near major transportation routes, there are limited plans for
increased capacity along the roadway.
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 2 - 14
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 3 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 4 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 5 - 1
Application Documents &
Materials
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 6 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 1
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 2
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 3
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 4
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 5
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 6
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 7
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 8
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 9
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 10
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 11
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 12
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 13
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 14
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 15
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 16
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 17
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 18
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 19
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 20
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 21
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 22
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 23
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 24
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 7 - 25
Concept Plan
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 8 - 1
℄
℄
℄
RE
V
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
DA
T
E
BY
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
PROJECT #:
SCALE:
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
DR
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
:
28
0
0
N
2
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
W
i
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
N
C
Ne
w
H
a
n
o
v
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
N
C
Wi
l
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
PR O F E SSIONA
L
N O R T H C A R O LI N A
ENGI NE E R
K Y L E M. H O Y T
Kyle M. Hoyt, P.E.
4/10/2024
22-033
1" = 50'
Mattson C. Wiksell, P.E.
CP
CONCEPT PLAN
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 9 - 1
Public Comments
In Support 0
Neutral 0
In Opposition 0
Planning Board - June 6, 2024
ITEM: 8 - 10 - 1