The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-07-2025 Agenda Review Minutes Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board Agenda Review      January 7, 2025      An agenda review of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on January 7, 2025 at 3:00 PM in the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Dr., Conference Room 138 in Wilmington, North Carolina             Members Present        Colin Tarrant, Chair  Cameron Moore, Vice Chair    Hansen Matthews   Pete Avery           Kaitlyn Rhonehouse                Members Absent      Kevin Hine      Clark Hipp        Staff Present        Rebekah Roth, NHC Director of Planning & Land Use     Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney   Jessica Loeper, NHC Assistant County Manager   Ken Vafler, NHC Planning Operations Supervisor   Robert Farrell, NHC Development Review Supervisor   Lisa Maes, NHC Administrative Supervisor Katia Boykin, NHC Housing Supervisor Ryan Biel, NHC Associate Planner  Zach Dickerson, NHC Senior Planner       Amy Doss, NHC Associate Planner   Katherine May, NHC Associate Planner Virginia Norris, NHC Long Ranger Planner Bruce Gould, NHC Administrative Specialist        The meeting was called to order by Chair Tarrant at 3:02 PM  Agenda Item 1: Preliminary Forum, Special Use Permit (S24-04) and (S24-05) Mr. Farrell provided an overview of the application request for two special use permits for a 62-unit multi-family development with 1,800 square feet of commercial space and 242 row-style dwellings at 8138 and 8100 Market Street. The Board discussion focused on increased traffic, school capacity, and the impact of higher density on nearby single-family neighborhoods. They emphasized the need to ensure public understanding of the project’s zoning requirements and the quasi-judicial process during the preliminary forum. Ms. Roth mentioned the importance of the preliminary forum for the special use permit, noting the potential confusion due to different rules for rezoning and special use permits. There was discussion around needing to allocate sufficient time for public comments and the interconnected nature of the projects. To ensure sufficient time for public comments, the board would have the ability to vote at the meeting to extend the allowed time for the presentations and public comments. Item 2: Destination 2050 Project Update Ms. Roth gave an update on the Destination 2050 project, covering key aspects like the upcoming joint work session, the housing needs assessment, the market analysis, and the evaluation of land use alternatives. She emphasized the importance of understanding how different development scenarios could impact transportation, flscal sustainability, and environmental preservation. The project was moving into its second phase, with preparations underway for the next joint work session. During that session, flnal flndings from various studies and collected data would be presented. The Workforce Housing Advisory Committee had already begun assessing the county’s housing needs, with initial flndings expected to be flnalized and submitted ahead of the meeting to help guide discussions on housing solutions. Alongside the housing assessment, the team was conducting a market analysis to identify areas likely to see the highest demand for mixed-use development over the next decade. To support this effort, they had organized focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders—such as commercial realtors and developers—to gain insights into market trends. The project team also has been analyzing four possible land use scenarios: • Business as usual – keeping development on its current path • Diffuse housing impact – spreading housing growth more evenly across unincorporated areas • Focused housing impact – concentrating housing in key locations • Environmental preservation – limiting development in sensitive areas This analysis would provide valuable data to help decision-makers shape future growth and sustainability plans. Ms. Norris introduced a web-based public forum for Destination 2050, designed to make community engagement more accessible, especially for those unable to attend in-person meetings. The virtual open house featured an easy-to-use platform where people could explore project data, maps, and submit feedback. The goal was to broaden public input and ensure that residents had a say in shaping the county’s future growth, land use, and infrastructure planning. During the board’s discussion, members focused on housing targets, market demand, and ways to boost public participation. They also stressed the importance of analyzing different development scenarios, particularly in terms of environmental impact. Item 3: Update on School Student Yield Analysis Ms. Norris presented the updated student yield analysis, offering a comprehensive look at trends in student generation rates across the county. The analysis followed a methodology aligned with the school system's reporting practices, incorporating data from student membership counts taken during the second month of the school year, programmatic capacity flgures, and new dwelling unit counts. This approach aimed to evaluate how new residential developments impacted school enrollment and capacity planning. The flndings indicated that student generation rates had remained stable over the past flve years. However, there was a signiflcant decline in elementary student enrollment between the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. The district with the highest student yield was Masonboro Elementary. Interestingly, areas with the largest increase in new dwelling units did not correspond with higher student generation rates, suggesting that other factors, such as demographic shifts or housing preferences, were infiuencing enrollment patterns. The analysis underscored the importance of continuing monitoring to ensure that school capacity remained sufficient to meet future demands. The Board’s questions focused on the school system’s demographic analysis, particularly whether it undercounted new housing units. While the county recorded an annual average of 2,800 new units, the school system’s reports only accounted for about 750. Whether this discrepancy resulted from methodological choices or undercounting remained unclear. The deflnition of a "housing unit" also varies across different tracking methods. Ultimately, while new development contributed to enrollment changes, the analysis conflrmed that student population shifts were infiuenced by multiple factors, requiring ongoing evaluation for future planning. Item 4: Sledge Forest Project Concerns Ms. Roth provided an update on the Sledge Forest project, addressing public concerns about density, environmental impacts, and contamination. She explained the status of the project, the regulatory limitations, and the ongoing efforts to coordinate with other agencies. Meeting adjourned at 4:45 PM