Loading...
05-02-24 PB MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board May 2, 2024 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on May 2, 2024, at 6:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Members Present Colin Tarrant, Vice Chair   Pete Avery Kevin Hine Clark Hipp Hansen Matthews Cameron Moore Members Absent Jeff Petroff, Chair   Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use   Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor  Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor  Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney  Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner Dylan McDonnell Associate Planner Amy Doss, Assoicate Planner Love Ott, Assoicate Planner Lisa Maes, Administrative Coordinator Vice Chair Colin Tarrant called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience. After the welcome remarks, Planning and Land Use Operations Supervisor Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance, and Vice Chair Tarrant provided an overview of the meeting procedures and read the Code of Ethics. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the April 2, 2024, Agenda Review and April 4, 2024, Regular Meetings were considered by the Board. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes as drafted. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to approve the April 2, 2024, Agenda Review and April 4, 2024, Regular Meeting minutes passed 6-0. Vice Chair Tarrant announced that the public hearings for items one, two, and three would move forward to June 3, 2024, County Commissioners meeting, while the public hearings for items five and six were scheduled to be held at the June 17, 2024, County Commissioners meeting. Vice Chair Tarrant announced that item four, rezoning request Z24-04 had been withdrawn by the applicant and the public hearing would not be held. Board Member Hansen Matthews announced that a business partner was representing the buyer for rezoning request Z24-07 and would recuse himself if a potential conflict of interest was identified. Vice Chair Tarrant announced that a law partner was on the Board of Directors of the applicant for rezoning request Z24-07 and would recuse himself if a potential conflict of interest was identified. Board Member Pete Avery stated since neither Mr. Matthews or Vice Chair Tarrant would gain monetarily from the transaction he did not see their involvement in the public hearing as a conflict of interest. Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards stated that neither potential conflict rose to the level to disqualify Mr. Matthews or Vice Chair Tarrant from voting. New Business Prior to the first item, which was a preliminary forum, Vice Chair Tarrant provided an overview of the procedures for this type of item. He explained that the purpose of the preliminary forum for special use permit request S24-01 was to facilitate a transparent discussion and to allow for the opportunity for public comment and questions. He added that per state law the Planning Board would not be making a recommendation on the permit, the final decision would be made by the Board of Commissioners based on the findings of a quasi-judicial hearing where public participation would be limited to parties with standing and evidence be provided through sworn testimony. He then explained the process for the preliminary forum, which would consist of a staff introduction of the application, an applicant presentation, public comment and questions, applicant rebuttal, Board member comments and questions, and finally staff will close the forum by explaining the next steps. Special Use Permit Request (S24-01 – Tarin Woods – Shiloh Drive Additional Dwelling Allowance – Request by Samuel Potter with Equitas Law Partners, LLC, applicant, on behalf of Hoosier Daddy, LLC, property owner, for an Additional Dwelling Allowance to increase the allowed density up to 10.2 dwelling units per acre for 24 parcels totaling approximately 16.78 acres of land currently zoned R-15, Residential located at 535, 539, 543, and 547 Manassas Drive and unaddressed parcels on the 5900 block of Shiloh Drive. Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell provided a brief overview of the application and reiterated the purpose of the preliminary forum. He explained that the necessary conclusions for approval were: • The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and approved, • The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), • The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or the use is a public necessity; and • The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County. Mr. Farrell stated that the site was located in the 5900 Block of Shiloh Drive, at the intersection of Shiloh Drive and Manassas Drive. He added that the site was currently undeveloped and bordered by commercial and residential development to the west along Carolina Beach Road and by the single-family residential development Tarin Woods to the east. He added that the site had existing access to Carolina Beach Road from Manassas Drive that was right-in right-out only with a U- Turn opportunity about 900 feet to the north. He stated that the site would have additional interconnectivity with the Tarin Woods subdivision with connections at Sweet Gum Drive, Sand Ridge Drive, and Black Ash Run, with an additional road stub being built on an adjacent commercial property that would allow future access to Carolina Beach Road. He explained that the site was originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s and that the purpose of the district was to provide housing at lower density due to the need for private wells and septic systems, but public water and sewer utilities have become available for the area. He then stated that additional dwelling allowances were permitted in the R-15 district by special use permit to ensure that they evaluated for specific site and surrounding uses and to ensure that they meet the supplemental standards set by the UDO. The supplemental standards included a minimum open space requirement of 35%, an impervious surface limit of 40%, a minimum setback of 25 feet, and any building over 25 feet tall shall have a setback equal to the height of the building. Mr. Farrell then explained the applicant’s concept plan. He reiterated where the access points would be before explaining that that the site would consist of multi-family units along Carolina Beach Road, attached row-style and quadraplex units located towards Tarin Woods that would run perpendicular to Shiloh Drive, an amenity center, and existing stormwater ponds. He stated that under current zoning the site was expected to generate 29 AM and 39 PM peak hour trips with the proposed development increasing that to 76 AM and 94 PM peak hour trips, an increase of 47 AM and 55 PM trips. He added that this was under the 100 peak hour trip threshold that required a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) but the area was included in the overall Tarin Woods TIA that was approved in May 2018 and amended in March 2020. He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as General Residential and Urban Mixed Use place types, with a majority of the property being General Residential. He explained that the General Residential place type encouraged single family and duplex residential development at a maximum of eight dwelling units per acre while the Urban Mixed Use place type encouraged multi-family and higher density residential development and did not include a recommended maximum density to allow for a variety of housing choices. He added that sites located at the border of multiple place types could be appropriately developed with either place type. Mr. Farrell then reiterated the necessary conclusions for approval of the special use permit and the purpose of the preliminary forum. He explained that comments from the Board should focus on providing advice to the applicant on components of their application and presentation that may not be clear, advice to parties speaking in opposition on what they might want to consider for preparation for the Board of Commissioners meeting, and advice for both parties on potential issues that that should be addressed before the public hearing. Mr. Farrell concluded his presentation and introduced Scott James of the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and Tim Lowe of County Engineering, who were available for any questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding the difference in standards between a Performance Residential development and the supplemental standards associated with the special use permit, Mr. Farrell responded that the minimum open space percentage for Performance Residential projects was 20% and that there was not an impervious surface limit, though that would affect other aspects of the site such as stormwater. He added that there was a Performance Residential Setback of 20 feet, but there was not a requirement that linked building height to setback length. In response to questions from the Board regarding if the special use permit application met UDO standards, Mr. Farrell replied that staff believed it did, but it would still need Technical Review Committee approval. Vice Chair Tarrant recognized the applicant for their presentation. Sam Potter, of Equitas Law Partners, on behalf of Hoosier Daddy, LLC, gave a brief overview of the special use permit application. He explained that the requirements for a Special Use Permit to allow an additional dwelling allowance were: • Development is within 250 feet of an Urban Mixed Use place type, • Development has direct access to a major or minor arterial road, • Interior drives are designed to allow adequate access for emergency vehicles, • 35% of development area is set aside as open space, • Buildings are setback equal to the height of the building, • Buffer strips, parking, signs, and sewage disposal facilities, as well as other applicable district requirements are installed per Code. He explained that the purpose of this development was to act as an appropriate transition from commercial uses along Carolina Beach Road, with the residential densities getting less the farther away it is from the commercial uses. He stated that the proposal met several County land use goals, including promoting environmentally responsible growth by strengthening and directing development toward existing communities through infill development and promoting fiscally responsible growth by encouraging development where existing infrastructure was available. He added that the subject property was suitable for infill development because the proposal would provide a range of housing types and serve as a transition from lower density residential development to commercial uses along Carolina Beach Road. He displayed renderings of the multi-family units and the attached units. Mr. Potter concluded his presentation. In response to questions from the Board regarding the ownership of an adjacent parcel, James Yopp replied that he had attempted to purchase the property, but the owner was hesitant to sell. He added that his developments had brought public utilities to the area. In response to questions from the Board regarding future plans for a road connection to the north of the property, Mr. Yopp replied that they owned a B-2 parcel where it was intended to provide a connection point onto Carolina Beach Road north of Sanders Road. In response to questions from the Board regarding the layout of the dwelling units, Mr. Yopp replied that there was not a solidified design, but market factors made a three-bedroom layout more desirable. In response to questions from the Board regarding additional parking, Mr. Yopp replied that most homes would have a drive or garage and the amount of impervious surface would dictate home much extra parking could be built. With no further questions for the applicant, Vice Chair Tarrant opened the hearing for public comment. Michelle O’Brien, 5949 Appomattox Drive, expressed her concern that the TIA was conducted during the COVID pandemic when driver counts were lower. She added her concerns about safety issues for pedestrians and bicyclists with the increased traffic and the potential impact of summer tourist traffic. To address her concerns regarding stormwater drainage issues due to no additional ponds being built on site, she asked for the County stormwater engineer to explain how the new development would not affect the existing homes. Vivian Radesky, 6001 Appomattox Drive, expressed her concerns about traffic. She stated that she believed the Special Use Permit would violate the covenants placed on the land located in the Battle Park subdivision. She added that the new development would be substantially different from the existing homes. Shawn Bunge, 6119 Tarin Road, expressed his concerns about not knowing what housing products would be built, and that the possible housing products in the proposal were very different than what was already built. He asked the Board to postpone the hearing until the applicant had a more concrete plan with more up to date information. He added that approving this proposal could set a bad president as the applicant had been denied for a project at the location in the past. He added that there could be issues with emergency evacuations in the area. Chass Hood, 777 Libert Landing Way, stated that a petition amongst neighbors in opposition to the project had over 600 signatures. She expressed her concerns about school system capacity with the upcoming budget cuts, wait times for medical care, and the precedent approving this application would set. With no further public comment, Vice Chair Tarrant recognized the applicant to address any comments or questions. Mr. Potter had no comments. Vice Chair Tarrant opened the forum for Board discussion and questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding whether staff felt they had received adequate information on the project, Mr. Farrell replied that stormwater engineering would be finished fully pending approval of the Special Use Permit. Planning and Land Director Rebekah Roth added that the county had requirements for which information must be provided at the time of application that staff would review for completeness, and it was the role of the Board of Commissioners to determine whether adequate evidence had been provided to determine if the application met the necessary conclusions for approval. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that the Special Use Permit project was different and required a different level of certainty in comparison to the previous applications the public were familiar with. He added that a certain level of expertise was required for this process. Mr. Bunge stated that based on the information provided it was not possible for the public to acquire an expert on the issues at hand and in his experience if the developer does not include something in their plan it will not be built. He reiterated his request for a continuance. Vice Chair Tarrant explained that a quasi-judicial hearing all evidence provided needs to meet certain legal requirements and encouraged the public to consult with legal counsel if possible due to the standards. In response to questions from the Board regarding what stormwater standards Tarin Woods were built to, Mr. Lowe replied that the development would have to meet the new County standards even though the developer intended to utilize existing stormwater ponds. In response to questions from the Board regarding the number of parking spaces required per residential unit, Mr. Farrell replied that it would depend on the type of residence and the number of bedrooms. In response to questions from the Board regarding whether a garage could count as a parking space, Mr. Farrell replied it could. In response to questions from the Board regarding the previously approved TIA, WMPO Transportation Planning Engineer Scott James replied that TIA was initially approved in 2018 and could need to be updated depending on surrounding development, but the WMPO found that it was still applicable and all required traffic improvements had already been constructed. Board Member Hansen Matthews reiterated that the hearing at the Board of Commissioners was different than other hearings and that the public needed expert testimony for the Commissioners to consider it as evidence. In response to questions from the Board regarding if adequate parking was included in the current concept plan, Mr. Farrell replied that would be something calculated during the TRC process. In response to questions from the Board regarding the density of the application, Mr. Farrell replied that the 10.2 dwelling units in the concept plan was the maximum allowed. Board Member Kevin Hine reiterated the level of evidence needed at the Commissioners meeting and added that in order to participate standing was needed. He stated that building at the maximum density allowed was a big ask and may not be in harmony with the existing development. In response to questions from the Board regarding the ability of the Board to table the preliminary forum, Ms. Roth replied that the UDO gave the Board that ability, but it had not been used before. Board Member Clark Hipp asked the Board if they were open to delaying the hearing so that the public could have more time to obtain expert testimony. Ms. Roth stated that the full staff report of the application would be available soon for the public to review before the Commissioners meeting. Vice Chair Tarrant stated that the criteria that the applicant needs to meet would not change if the hearing was delayed and he was satisfied with moving forward to the Commissioners meeting. Board Member Cameron Moore echoed Vice Chair Tarrant’s statement. Board Member Pete Avery stated he believed the hearing should move forward to the Commissioners. Mr. Farrell explained the next steps and the procedure for the quasi-judicial hearing before the Board of Commissioners. He stated that at the June 3 hearing each side would have 15 minutes for discussion and five minutes for rebuttal. He added that public comment must be provided at the hearing and had to be based on factual evidence. Vice Chair Tarrant closed the preliminary forum. Vice Chair Tarrant explained that the next five items would be public hearings where each side would have a 20-minute period to speak consisting of 15 minutes for presentation and five minutes for rebuttal. He reminded those in attendance that the Planning Board was only an advisory board, and the final decision would be made by the Board of Commissioners, but public comment could impact the Board’s recommendation tonight and what is ultimately presented to the Board of Commissioners. Rezoning Request (Z24-07) – Request by Sam Franck with Ward and Smith, P.A., applicant, on behalf of the YMCA of Southeastern North Carolina, INC, property owner, to rezone approximately 53 acres of an approximately 242-acre parcel zoned R-15, Residential located on the 6600 block of the north side of Sidbury Road to a general use CB, Community Business district. Senior Planner Zach Dickerson gave a brief overview of the rezoning request. He explained since the application was a straight rezoning request so there was no concept plan, and no conditions could be imposed. He stated that the site was located at the 6600 block of Sidbury Road and was originally zoned R-15 in 1972 to ensure that homes were built at low densities because of the need for private water and sewer systems, but public water and sewer services had since become available for some of the area but not this location. Aerial photography of the site was shown, illustrating that it was currently wooded and near the Sidbury Station single family residential development. He then provided examples of R-15 development and Community Business development. He stated that common uses in the CB district included bank or financial institutions, restaurant, offices, pharmacy, retail, and some other uses. He explained that the site currently had direct access to Sidbury Road, but future site access would be subject to TRC and NCDOT review. He added that there was one residential subdivision under construction and one TIA in a one-mile radius of the site. He explained that a TIA was not required for a straight rezoning but one would likely be required in the future due to the acreage and by-right uses allowed in the CB district. Mr. Dickerson stated that the Sidbury Road corridor was expected to see more commercial and residential growth due to the expansion of public water and sewer but there were no community- oriented businesses to serve residents of the area. He explained that the current WMPO transportation plan intended to modernize the travel lanes to be 12 feet wide and to install a multi- use path. He added that the subject site was appropriate for a commercial node due to being located halfway between Dairy Farm Road and the future Hampstead Bypass interchange. He explained that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as the Community Mixed Use place type and that this project was generally consistent with that place type because it was in line with the recommended uses for the place type and would provide neighborhood-serving commercial development for the Sidbury Road area. He added that staff recommended approval of the rezoning request. Mr. Dickerson concluded his presentation and stated that the site would be subject to TRC and zoning compliance review, and that Mr. James of the WMPO and Mr. Lowe from County Engineering were available for questions. Vice Chair Tarrant invited the applicant for their presentation. Sam Franck, of Ward and Smith, on behalf of the YMCA of Southeastern North Carolina, INC, gave a brief overview of the application. He explained that the entire parcel was bisected by Sidbury Road and that the subject 53 acres were all on the north side of the road. He stated that R- 15 zoning was not conducive to goals of the Community Mixed Use place type and the CB district would better facilitate a mix of uses for the area. He added that the current and future residents of the area had to travel a considerable distance to access commercial uses and this application would rectify that. He stated that the recreation and health use that the applicant provided was a critical component of having a healthy quality of life. He explained that many of the permitted uses in a Commercial Business district would serve the neighboring residents and contribute to the desired mixing of uses. In response to questions from the Board regarding if the applicant intended to have a mix of commercial uses aside from the YMCA, Mr. Franck replied that was the intention, but no other use had been solidified yet. Mr. Franck explained that while, if rezoned, the subject site would see an increase in trips generated in comparison to R-15 zoning, overall traffic in the area would decrease as residents would not have to travel as far to reach a commercial node. Board Member Kevin Hine agreed with Mr. Franck about the traffic. In response to questions from the Board regarding who would own the property, Mr. Franck replied that the YMCA would purchase a portion and the current owner would retain the rest. With no speakers in opposition, Vice Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. Board Member Cameron Moore stated that it was important to build commercial uses in the Sidbury area as more residential development was on the horizon. He added that the nearest health related facility for the Sidbury area was in Porters Neck or Hampstead, so it was a need for the area. He explained that he believed the application was a proactive solution to the upcoming need for services in the area. Board Member Pete Avery echoed Mr. Moore’s points. He explained that the YMCA deal could fall through but there are a variety of other uses that the community could benefit from. Board Member Hansen Matthews stated that the Sidbury area is one of the last regions in the county to be developed so it was important to approve the right projects now to avoid urban sprawl in the future and to have physical activities available for residents, so he supported the rezoning application. In response to questions from the Board regarding pedestrian infrastructure on Sidbury Road, WMPO Planner Bill McDow replied the Sidbury Road widening project would address pedestrians in the area and various other efforts such as the NHC Comprehensive Greenway Plan would address this. In response to questions from the Board regarding what type of use the YMCA was considered, Mr. Dickerson replied that it could be indoor or outdoor recreation depending on the setup of the facility. Ms. Roth added that community center had been discussed as an appropriate classification. In response to questions from the Board regarding if the Board could request conditions during a straight rezoning, Mr. Dickerson replied that conditions could not be requested during a straight rezoning. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that he was a large fan of the work the YMCA does and was excited to see it expand to the Sidbury area. He expressed his concerns about straight rezonings as there was limited land left in the county and he believed it was the responsibility of the developer to have a concrete plan so the community could have a better understanding of how things were being developed. Vice Chair Tarrant thanked the applicant for their presentation and echoed the points of the other Board members. He stated that while he had concerns about a straight rezoning the community needed a variety of services, so he generally supported the application. Vice Chair Tarrant asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Mr. Franck affirmed his intention to proceed with a vote. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of rezoning request (Z24-07) as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the Community Business zoning district would provide uses that are in line with the Community Mixed Use place type that could serve existing and future residents, and it was reasonable and in the public interest because the district would act as a community service business node to serve the surrounding area. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z24-07) passed 5-1, with Board Member Clark Hipp dissenting. Rezoning Request (Z24-03) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Littlebird Properties, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 4.93 acres zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business and R-20, Residential located at 3121 Castle Hayne Road to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business for two commercial structures totaling a maximum 19,150 square feet for the use of Contractor Office and other limited uses. Associate Planner Love Ott gave a brief overview of the application. She explained the purpose of the application was to rezone approximately 4.93 acres from B-1, Neighborhood Business District, and R-20, Residential, to Conditional (CZD) B-2, Regional Business District, for a maximum 12,000 square foot flex space and 7,150 square foot office and garage. She added that it was a conditional rezoning request so conditions could be applied with the agreement of the applicant. She stated that the site was located at 3121 Castle Hayne Road and was currently split with B-1, Commercial, along the road and R-20, Residential, on the western portion of the parcel. Aerial photography of the site was shown which showed that the site had a detached single-family dwelling that would be removed if the application was approved. She explained that the Habitat for Humanity Development Haven Place and a future New Hanover County fire station were located south of the property. She then provided examples of representative development in R-20, B-1, and B-2 districts. A concept plan, provided by the applicant, was then shown. Ms. Ott explained that the site would contain: • A 12,000 square foot flex space along Castle Hayne that had the condition that any restaurant use would be limited to 3,000 square feet and the retail plaza to 7,500 square feet, • A 7,150 square foot contractors office and garage at the rear of the property with the condition that the office would be a maximum of 1,800 square feet. • Fenced outdoor storage directly behind the garage, • Vegetation to meet buffer requirements, • A Type A 20-foot buffer yard along the property lines • A Ness Creek tributary stream and the adjacent 50 foot Stream Buffer, • Two stormwater ponds with one being located by the contractor office and the other by the commercial flex space, • Pedestrian access from Haven Place to the commercial flex space. She explained that the site currently had full access to Carolina Beach Road but the State Transportation Improvement Project to wide Castle Hayne Road could limit it to right-in right-out access in the future. She added that the site was expected to generate 86 AM and 53 PM peak hour trips and was under the 100 peak hour trip threshold that required a TIA, which was an increase of 63 AM and 30 PM trips from current zoning. She stated that the area was trending towards commercial development; with similar parcels being rezoned to CB, B-1, B-2, and O&I districts from the original R-20 zoning; so the proposed use and intensity aligned with the surrounding development. She explained that residential growth in the area had increased the demand for commercial services along Castle Hayne Road, with conditions placed on the commercial uses to mitigate impacts on adjacent residents. Ms. Ott stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as Community Mixed Use which included commercial uses and encouraged infill development to act as a transition from Castle Hayne Road to neighboring residential uses, and the General Residential place type. She explained that the proposed use could act as a transition and provide neighboring residents with commercial services. She added that the General Residential place type focused on lower density housing and could have strategically placed commercial uses. She stated that staff recommended approval of the rezoning request because the proposed scale and density would provide an adequate transition from a commercial corridor to the residential districts, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed use of a restaurant will have a cap of 3,000 square feet. The contractor’s office will be capped at 1,800 square feet. The strip retail plaza will be capped at 7,500 square feet. Any change in square footage must be reviewed and approved by the County in order to verify compliance with the zoning district standards. 2. Pedestrian access will be provided from Haven Place to the proposed flex space commercial structure as shown on the concept plan. 3. The existing vegetation as shown on the concept plan will be retained to meet the Type A opaque buffer requirement. 4. A Type A buffer shall be provided along the southern boundary of the parcel, adjacent to parcels zone R-10. 5. A 50-foot-wide stream buffer is required between the proposed structure and the Ness Creek Tributary as shown on the concept plan. 6. Permitted Uses shall be limited to: a) Animal Grooming/Veterinary (Kennel or Daycare Prohibited) b) Business Service Center c) Contractor’s Office d) Offices for Private Businesses & Professional Activities e) General, Personal Services (Tattoo Parlors Prohibited) f) Instructional Services & Studios g) General, Retail Sales h) Restaurant Ms. Ott concluded her presentation and stated that the site would be subject to TRC and zoning compliance review, and that Mr. McDow of the WMPO and Mr. Lowe from County Engineering were available for questions. Vice Chair Tarrant invited the applicant for their presentation. Cindee Wolf, Design Solutions, on behalf of Littlebird Properties, LLC, property owner, gave a brief overview of the application. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan encouraged the efforts to attract new and retain existing businesses, and Rainstorm Solutions had been successful in the area for years and now needed an office and crew staging space. She added that the existing home on the site would hopefully be relocated and adaptatively reused as it did not suit the landowners’ needs. A rendering of the site was then shown, showing the contractor’s office located at the rear of the property, a commercial flex space by Castle Hayne Road, pedestrian access from Havens Place to the commercial space, and a vegetative buffer around the property consisting of existing vegetation. She explained that the commercial space could accommodate up to eight 1,500 square foot units or combinations if more floor space was needed, with limited uses. She added that the entrance to the site was situated to the south of the property and closer to the future fire station to limit the possible impact on the residence to the north of the property, as well as being setback from Castle Hayne Road to accommodate any future right-of-way acquisitions for road improvement projects. To further limit the potential impacts on the residence to the north, she explained that there would be a filter fence in addition to the 20-foot buffer, with the building being 48 feet from the property line. Ms. Wolf explained that TRC, County Stormwater, NCDOT Driveway Permitting, and state water quality review would all be completed prior to the beginning of construction. To conclude her presentation, she stated that the proposed development could provide commercial uses to and improve the area’s character, that the agreed to conditions would ensure compatibility with and minimize the impacts on adjacent residences, and that the proposal would act as a transition from Castle Hayne Road to the residential areas nearby. Jeff Simmons, on behalf of the residents of Swartville Road, voiced his support for the project and requested information about the possibility of utility extensions for his neighborhood. In response to questions from the Board regarding trash collection for the contractor’s office, Ms. Wolf stated that there would be a dumpster. In response to questions from the Board regarding if the applicant was comfortable with not having outdoor storage for the commercial space, Ms. Wolf replied that she was comfortable with that and only the contractor space at the rear of the site would have outdoor storage. In response to questions from the Board regarding water and sewer for the site, Ms. Wolf replied that it was intended to be connected to CFPUA utilities. Vice Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. Board Member Kevin Hine stated that he was in support of the plan as it complemented the development going on in the area. Board Member Hansen Matthews stated that he believed it was a well thought out project. Vice Chair Tarrant stated that he supported having commercial uses along major roads. In response to questions from the Board regarding what would be stored in the contractors outside storage area, Ms. Wolf replied that it would be supplies for the business, like plants and mulch. Board Member Cameron Moore added that, based on his experience with the business, piping, landscaping boxes, and other plastic oriented materials could be expected. Board Member Clark Hipp asked if the condition regarding outdoor storage for the contractor could be modified to say that no outdoor storage could be permitted on the eastern portion of the lot, and Ms. Wolf agreed to the condition. Vice Chair Tarrant asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Wolf affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote. Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL or rezoning request (Z24-03), as it was consistent with eh purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed scale and density would provide an adequate transition from a commercial corridor to residential districts, and it was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed concept plan was in line with the current development patterns, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed use of a restaurant will have a cap of 3,000 square feet. Any change in square footage must be reviewed and approved by the County in order to verify compliance with the zoning district standards. 2. Permitted Uses shall be limited to: a) Animal Grooming/ Veterinary (Kennel or Daycare prohibited) b) Business Service Center c) Contractor Office (Outdoor storage east of Ness Creek prohibited) d) Offices for Private Businesses & Professional Activities e) General, Personal Services (Tattoo Parlors prohibited) f) Instructional Services & Studios g) General, Retail Sales h) Restaurant 3. Pedestrian access will be provided from Haven Place to the proposed flex space commercial structure as shown on the concept plan. 4. The existing vegetation as shown on the concept plan will be retained to meet the Type A opaque buffer requirement. 5. A Type A buffer shall be provided along the southern boundary of the parcel adjacent to parcels zoned R-10. 6. A 50’ wide stream buffer is required between the proposed structures and the Ness Creek Tributary as shown on the concept plan. SECONDED by Board Member Kevin Hine The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z24-03) passed 6-0. The Board took a 10-minute recess. Vice Chair Tarrant called the meeting back to order. Text Amendment Request (TA24-02) – Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend Article 10 of the Unified Development Ordinance to incorporate standards for required Agreements to Conditions. Mr. Farrell gave a brief overview of the text amendment request. He explained that at the March 18th Board of Commissioners Regular meeting, the Board gave staff direction to draft an amendment to the UDO that stated if an applicant did not sign a document agreeing to the conditions of an application within seven days of Board approval, the rezoning application would be considered denied. He added that the UDO currently states that, if an application is denied by the Board of Commissioners, the same or a similar application cannot be resubmitted for one year unless specific conditions of the ordinance are met and that similar provisions are common across the state to discourage a repeated cycle of the same denied project being submitted. He explained that the General Statues stated that conditions could be placed on conditional rezoning requests if the Board and applicant consented to the conditions and the applicant had to agree to them in writing. He added that currently if the applicant did not submit written agreement to the conditions within seven business days the application was considered voided and would not be subject to the one-year resubmittal waiting period. He explained that if approved, this text amendment would enforce the waiting period on applications where the applicant does not sign the written agreement. He stated that based on conversations with the County Attorney’s Office, the seven-day period could be extended, and staff was comfortable with extending the period to 15 business days but that could be changed based on Board discussion. He added that the intent was to have a hearing for the text amendment in June. Board Member Clark Hipp stated his support for the 15-day deadline as it allowed for more time for applicants and staff to come to an agreement on conditions. Vice Chair Tarrant echoed Mr. Hipp’s point but expressed his concerns that there was not the ability to extend the deadline if both sides were negotiating in good faith but could not agree on a certain condition, though he also saw it as an opportunity to make sure that communication from all parties was clear so no misunderstandings could arise. He added that the scenario could arise where both parties would like to extend the deadline. Board Member Cameron Moore asked if it was possible to add language to allow for an additional 15-day period that the applicant and staff would agree to and must be approved by the Board of Commissioners. Vice Chair Tarrant stated that he would like for the Board of Commissioners to have the ability to extend the deadline, however rare the need for it would be. In response to questions from the Board regarding if the language of the amendment needed to be finalized at this meeting, Ms. Roth replied that the Commissioners’ expectation was for the Planning Board to make a recommendation at that night’s meeting but stated that it could be appropriate for the Board to recommend approval with the provision that language regarding a Board of Commissioners approved extension be added by staff. Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards confirmed the Board could add that language but there could be issues with adding the item to the Commissioners agenda after the extension is agreed to. Board Member Cameron Moore stated that the deadline could be changed to state that conditions must be agreed to before the next Commissioners meeting. In response to questions from the Board regarding if staff could continue to work on the amendment for the Board to finalize at their next meeting, Ms. Roth replied that the intent was to have the amendment agreed to as soon as possible so she suggested to have language regarding an extension be part of the Board’s recommendation. Board Member Cameron Moore asked if it was possible to not have a set number of days for the extension for the moment and allow staff to further review that aspect. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that having a definite deadline encouraged resolution and that 15 days was more reasonable than seven days. Board Member Kevin Hine stated that 20 days was a reasonable timeline as it was almost a month. Board Member Clark Hipp agreed that 20 days was reasonable and that it should be up to the Commissioners to add a possible extension if they saw the need. In response to questions from the Board regarding if language could be added, that allowed for the commissioners to set the length of the extension as they saw fit. Ms. Richards responded that could be a solution and the Commissioners could modify the language as they saw fit but it was important to keep the language around good faith negotiations. Vice Chair Tarrant reiterated the discussion and asked what language the Board wanted to move forward with. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that 15 or 20 days would be the best and that the ordinance should allow the Commissioners to grant an extension as they saw fit. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of text amendment request (TA24-02) to specify an applicant’s refusal to sign the required agreement to conditions for a conditional rezonings within twenty (20) business days of approval by the Board of Commissioners is an automatic denial requiring a one (1) year waiting period before resubmittal, unless extended by the Board of Commissioners if good faith efforts to resolve condition language are underway, as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides up-to-date zoning tools. He also found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL was reasonable and in the public interest because it provided clear and effective ordinance standards. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to recommend approval of text amendment request (TA24-02) passed 6-0. Comprehensive Plan Update- Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate revisions to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure policies. Associate Planner Dylan McDonnell gave a brief overview of the Comprehensive Plan update. He reminded the Board of the timeline for the update and stated that the intention was to receive final approval from the Board of Commissioners at their June meeting. He explained that the purpose of the update was to improve the planning for and installation of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in the County by identifying what kind of facilities were desired and where to install them. He added that a facility was a path or trail in the form of a sidewalk, bike lane, or the preferred multi-use path. He explained that the identified projects in the plan came from the NHC Capital Improvement Plan, ¼ cent Sales Tax Project List, public comments, and Board recommendations and that the list of projects had not received any major changes since the Board last saw the list. He stated that public comments were generally positive but expressed some concerns about safety and connectivity. He added that many of the public comments came from individuals who used the current infrastructure and that two letters of support were sent in by the bicycle advocacy groups The Terry Benjey Foundation and Cape Fear Cyclists. Mr. McDonnell explained that the main goals of the Plan were to expand the existing bicycle and pedestrian network and to incorporate policy guidance from the Board of Commissioners that would provide for the inclusion of 20-foot bicycle and pedestrian easements along Carolina Beach Road. He stated that based on feedback from the WMPO, staff had updated the map to better clarify on what road a project would be located. He added that the list of projects was updated to better represent what roads were receiving pedestrian improvements. He then explained that the language being added to goals IV and VIII of Chapter five of the Comprehensive Plan clarified the need to adopt a bicycle and pedestrian plan and to install those facilities along Carolina Beach Road, would make it clear to applicants and the public where facilities were desired, and to allow them to be considered by staff and the Board during public hearings. Mr. McDonnell concluded his presentation and stated that the next step of the process was to hold a public hearing at the Board of Commissioners meeting in June. Board Member Pete Avery thanked Mr. McDonnell for his presentation. Board Member Kevin Hine stated that the plan seemed very comprehensive and was excited to see something like this move forward. Board Member Kevin Hine made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan to add the Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities Plan that includes new strategies and guidelines found in Chapter 5 Building the Future, as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it broadens existing goals and guidelines promoting the desire to have more bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the county. And it was reasonable and in the public interest because it articulates identified priority bicycle and pedestrian projects, clarifies where bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is desired during the development review process, and formalizes policy direction to include bicycle and pedestrian easements along Carolina Beach Road with new development projects. SECONDED by Board Member Cameron Moore. The motion to recommend approval of the amendment to the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan to add the Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities Plan passed 6-0. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Staff Presentation – Residential Density and Infill Guidelines – Public Comment Draft Release Associate Planner Amy Doss gave a brief presentation on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to add Residential Density and Infill Guidelines. She explained that the intent of the amendment was to provide staff and the Board with a tool to use when considering rezoning requests while the Comprehensive Plan is being updated, to clarify density recommendations based on existing development, and to provide examples of transitional elements. She stated that the components of the amendment would include a graphic to outline site components to use when identifying the appropriate for a place type, an explanation of how and when the recommendations are intended to be applied, and a chart explaining transitional elements with graphics. She explained that the amendment met the Workforce & Economic Development and the Sustainable Land Use & Environmental Stewardship goals of the 2024-2028 Strategic Plan. She stated that when a rezoning project is presented it is necessary to examine the density of the project in relation to the place type and the surrounding land, adding that what is appropriate for one area of the County is not appropriate in another even though they were the same place type. She explained that some factors to consider when determining if lower or higher density was appropriate, including flood plain risks and limited vehicular access for less dense projects or proximity to public transit and commercial centers for higher density projects. Ms. Doss explained that site plans should incorporate transitional elements such as landscaping and connectivity, with more information on the elements outlined in the amendment. She explained that hard barriers would be appropriate when the intensity of use between two sites was drastically different and there was no option for a spatial buffer. She stated that the timeline for the amendment included the release of the public comment draft in May, a public hearing at the June Planning Board meeting, and then a public hearing at the Board of Commissioners July meeting. She added that the public comment period would run from Friday May 3rd to Monday May 27th at 8 AM and any comments could be directed to her email. She concluded her presentation and asked the Board if they would like more information on the transitional elements. Board Member Pete Avery stated that he would like more information to look at the amendment before asking more questions. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that he believed the amendment would be very beneficial to the review process for projects requesting increased density. Vice Chair Tarrant echoed Mr. Hipp’s points. Other Items Ms. Roth stated that there was the potential for seven or more public hearings for the June Board meeting and she suggested having an earlier start time for the June 6th meeting. In response to questions from the Board regarding how much earlier the meeting would start, Ms. Roth replied the intention would be to start at 5 PM but that was contingent on the courthouse being available at that time. She stated that the Board would have to vote to approve a modification of the start time. In response to questions from the Board if there were any staff items on the next agenda and the agenda order, Ms. Roth replied that the only staff item would be a public hearing on the Residential Density and Infill Guidelines amendment and that the agenda was usually structured to have applicant hearings first with items that were expected to have higher public participation at the start. She added that staff items could be heard first at the June meeting to allow citizens who work till 5 PM to have time to get to the meeting. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to change the start time of the June 6th Planning Board meeting to 5 PM, as long as the Courthouse was available at that time. SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Matthews. The motion to move the start time of the June 6th Planning Board meeting to 5 PM passed 6-0. Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION to ADJOURN the meeting. SECONDED by Board Member Kevin Hine. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:27 PM.