Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-2025 Planning Board Minutes Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board June 5, 2025 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on June 5, 2025, 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, Chair Cameron Moore, Vice Chair Kevin Hine Hansen Matthews Kaitlyn Rhonehouse Pete Avery Members Absent Clark Hipp Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Kemp Burpeau, Senior Deputy County Attorney Zach Dickerson, Senior Development Review Planner Timothy Lowe, County Engineer Katherine May, Development Review Planner Ryan Beil, Development Review Planner Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor Bruce Gould, Administrative Specialist Shauna Bradley, Administrative Specialist Chair Tarrant called the meeting to order at 6:02 PM and welcomed the audience Approval of Minutes The minutes from the April 1st and 29th, 2025 Planning Board Agenda Review were presented for consideration and approval. With no discussion, a motion to approve minutes from April 1st and 29th was made by Vice Chair Moore, seconded by Mr. Avery, and was approved unanimously. Chair Tarrant announced that items discussed during the meeting would advance the County Commissioners' meeting, scheduled for July 21, 2025. He also noted that Mr. Hine would serve as the Planning Board’s representative during that meeting. Chair Tarrant then reminded the Board of the Code of Ethics as adopted on January 4, 2016, emphasizing that board members must avoid conflicts of interest. At this time several board members entered into the record potential conflicts of interest with cases on the agenda. Chair Tarrant needed to recuse himself from Item 1 and Item 4 due to both applicants being clients at his law firm. Vice Chair Moore needed to recuse himself from Item 1 due to the applicant, Mr. Johnson, being a member of his organization’s Board of Directors. Mr. Matthews also recused himself from Item 4 due to the applicant’s property being contiguous to his. Mr. Avery made the motion to have Chair Tarrant rescued from Item 1 and 4, Vice-Chair Moore from Item 1 and Mr. Matthews from Item 4. Ms. Rhonehouse seconded the motion. Following these declarations, Chair Tarrant and Vice Chair Moore recused themselves from Item 1 on the agenda the board then proceeded to appoint an Interim Chair to oversee the proceedings for that item. A motion was made by Mr. Matthews and was seconded by Ms. Rhonehouse to appoint Mr. Avery as Interim Chair for Item 1 only. The motion carried unanimously. Regular Business Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z25-06) - Request by Craig Johnson with Heron Cove Development, LLC, applicant, on behalf of Canh Nguyen and Ngoc Nguyen, property owners, to rezone approximately 10.8 acres located at 6425 and 6437 Gordon Road and 1927 Gordon Acres Drive from R-15, Residential to a (CZD) R-5, Residential Moderate High District for an 81-lot residential subdivision. This item was continued from the May 1, 2025, regular meeting. The applicant has reduced the number of proposed lots from 81 to 67. The revised site plan is included in the packet. Mr. Dickerson presented an overview of the request to rezone approximately 10.8 acres from R- 15, Residential district to a Conditional R-5, Residential Moderate-high density district for a 67- lot single-family residential development. Mr. Dickerson proceeded to shows aerial views and discussed the elements of the previous and revised concept plan. The revised concept plan included the reduction on lots, stormwater management areas, open spaces, and a recreation area. The key updates to the plan included preservation of an oak tree, reconfiguring the internal road layout, two pedestrian and bicycle access points to connect Gordon Road and Daniel Boone Trail. The revised project's lower density reduced the traffic counts from the original proposal by 9AM and 14 PM trips. Mr. Dickerson stated the Comprehensive Plan classified this area as General Residential, and this project was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for properties that are in the general residential place type. Staff found the proposed Conditional R-5 district generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it would fit into a largely residential area and within the recommended density of the general residential place type. Mr. Dickerson said that if approved, the project would be subject to further review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and Zoning Compliance to ensure all ordinance requirements were met. The proposed Conditional R-5 District was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it would fit into a largely residential area and within the recommended density of the general residential place type. Mr. Dickerson concluded his presentation with the introduction of Mr. Lowe and Caitlin Cerza from the WMPO, both of whom were available for questions. The applicant was also present and prepared to provide further details. Attorney Amy Schaefer, representing the applicant, presented an overview of the revised project, including updated conditions, its context with surrounding properties, the location of green spaces and other features of the proposed site plan, and how the applicant had incorporated staff recommendations, such as the bicycle and pedestrian connection to Gordon Acres Drive. Ms. Shaffer mentioned that the homebuyer would have the option to purchase a two-car garage home or a single car garage home, both with two car driveways, tree retention would be prioritized in the open spaces and that there would be two trees planted per lot. In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. Schaefer clarified that the revised concept plan incorporated new off-street parking areas in addition to the off-street parking area provided at the end of the road. The Board asked for clarification concerning the sidewalks and Ms. Schaefer clarified it will be sidewalks on both sides of the project. Following the applicant’s presentation, Mr. Avery noted that a member of the public had signed up to speak in support of the project. Natalie English, 1 Estell Lee Place Natalie English spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce by expressing support for the Heron Cove project, highlighting the urgent need for increased workforce housing. She emphasized that boosting housing density is essential to address the community's housing shortage, which is pushing employees to move farther away or leave their jobs. While acknowledging traffic concerns, they noted that infrastructure improvements are already underway along Gordon Road. Ms. English urged the Planning Board to support the project and stated she will continue advocating for local employers on housing issues. Mr. Avery then opened the hearing to the members of the public in opposition to the request. Sarah Devries, 1930 Gordon Acres Drive Sarah Devries expressed that the issue was the single dead-end road. She posed three questions. If it was a well-planned R5 development, were there viable alternatives, and had the neighborhood been considered. Ms. Devries addressed density, lack of connectivity, limited consideration of the surrounding neighborhood, and the feasibility of alternative layouts as her concerns. She also criticized the tree removal plan as potentially misleading and urged the Planning Board to prioritize a responsible, sustainable development. Ms. Devries recommended denial of the rezoning request in favor of a more integrated and environmentally conscious design. Kim Turner, 1907 Gordon Acres Drive Ms. Turner stated that her concern was that planting trees doesn’t mitigate clearing 10 acres. Ms. Turner noted that comparisons to other RS developments were misleading, as those were primarily apartment or townhouse complexes, not single-family homes. She respectfully asked to have the project denied because it was distraction to the neighborhood and redrawn the plan because better, less destructive alternatives had not been explored. Tim Strickland, 1908 Daniel Boone Trail Tim Strickland expressed continued opposition to the Heron Cove development. He emphasized that the number of proposed homes was excessive and too densely packed for the area. While supportive of new housing in principle, Mr. Strickland argued that the tight spacing would negatively impact both quality of life and existing properties, with homes potentially being just 20 feet from neighboring lots. Mr. Strickland also raised concerns about significant tree removal, the project’s incompatibility with surrounding single-family developments, and existing flooding issues on Daniel Boone Trail, which is a private road with longstanding infrastructure deficiencies. Mr. Avery opened the floor for the applicant’s rebuttal. Ms. Schaefer refuted comments that the property was not designed appropriately, the retainment of trees was not considered, and stated the fact of New Hanover County’s scarcity of open space, projects are not going to be exactly how neighbors prefer. She mentioned how the developer came back to change the plan. Flooding concerns would be addressed through stormwater management, and both of the development’s and the county’s engineers were available to provide further information. Ms. Schaefer clarified that tree removal plans must be certified and reviewed by staff, and that the bike and pedestrian path were added at staff's recommendation. Heron Cove Development representative, Craig Johnson, expressed that he respected the system and appreciated the process as well as staff. He said he and his team used the Comprehensive Plans and Unified Development Ordinance as guides once they purchase property. Mr. Johnson said there were significant revisions in the revised site plan to reduce density and addressed concerns raised at the prior meeting, including the preservation of the 18-inch oak tree, space for a dog park, and mailboxes. Mr. Johnson acknowledged the site’s narrow shape and explained that the plan prioritized detached single-family homes to meet current housing demand. The Board asked whether there would be consideration to curve the street and if there would be a utility connection. Mr. Johnson said that density would be lost if the street were to be curved and the easement for utility connections could be changed. The Board also asked whether the homes were affordable housing. Mr. Johnson said they were originally priced around a low $300,000 but since they were losing density, prices would be closer to the upper $300,000s. Mr. Avery then opened the floor for the opposition’s rebuttal statements. Ms. Turner returned to express concerns about the placement of four retention ponds that would be directly behind her home. She added that she recently received a letter reclassifying her home into a floodplain under new mapping. She shared personal worries about long-term maintenance of the ponds, especially as they age and may no longer be able to manage potential issues such as flooding or pests. Ms. Turner requested clear accountability for ongoing pond maintenance. Mr. Lowe addressed the question the Board posed concerning the retention ponds. He noted that the maintenance is signed over to the HOA and the ordinance had compliance measures. If it was not maintained by the permit holders, New Hanover County would address the issue through compliance measures and work with the County legal team to notify the permit holder of any required corrective actions and then assess the permit holder if they were not fulfilled within required time frames. In response to Board questions, Mr. Lowe confirmed that developers were required to obtain a stormwater permit for required drainage devices, which must be maintained in perpetuity by the homeowner’s association. Mr. Lowe also explained that recurring stormwater issues were typically found outside of newer, permitted systems like those planned for the Heron Cove development. The proposed retention ponds were designed to prevent such problems. Mr. Lowe cited ongoing analysis of culverts under Daniel Boone and Daisy Lee as an example of the complexity in managing flooding in coastal areas, where flat terrain complicates both rainfall and floodplain assessments. Mr. Vafier provided information about the Northern Watershed Flood study which assessed 12 areas in the county not covered by detailed FEMA flood models. Using FEMA’s methodology, the study identified flood risk areas not shown on official flood insurance rate maps. While this advisory mapping did not carry regulatory weight and did not require property owners to buy flood insurance, it aimed to provide a clearer picture of real-world flood risk to help inform personal insurance decisions. The affected area on the Heron Cove site mainly traversed the access road and aligned with stormwater and open space areas. The study showed that while these areas were not mapped on the official flood insurance rate maps, they may be subject to flood risk of a 1% chance of annually exceeding the base flood. Mr. Avery closed the public hearing. Board members acknowledged previous concerns raised by the public, including density, tree removal, traffic safety, and parking. They recognized that the applicant reduced the number of units from 81 to 67, added off-street parking, preserved an 18-inch oak tree for a calming green space, and committed to planting additional trees per lot. The Board noted the need for higher density to support affordable housing and highlighted the value of sidewalks and utility connections for safety and community integration. Mr. Matthews made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning, finding the project to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it would fit into a largely residential area and is within the recommended density of the general residential place type and finding recommending approval of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the project was consistent with the character of the surrounding area, which would vary in density but remains residential. The motion included the following revised conditions: 1. A minimum one-car garage and two-car driveway with each home 2. Two trees per lot maintained by the H.O.A. 3. 18 inch will be preserved 4. 2-10 foot in width bicycle and pedestrian access easements connecting to Daniel Boone Trail and Gordon Acres Road 5. Preserve trees in the open spaces where no conflict of required utilities or easements The motion was seconded by Ms. Rhonehouse. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z25-06) passed 4-0. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z25-12) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Janece Stone with J Stone Investments, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 4.31 acres zoned R-20, Residential located at 3419 Castle Hayne Road to (CZD) CS, Commercial Services, for a marine contractor office with warehousing. Ms. May presented a rezoning request for approximately 4.31 acres at 3419 Castle Hayne Road, seeking to change the zoning from R-20 (Residential) to Conditional CS (Commercial Services). She introduced aerial views of the undeveloped site near Saint James AME to the north and Tractor Supply to the east and provided an overview of the concept plan which included an office, workshop, parking, and two warehouses west of the main office. The plan also included a stormwater facility and septic. Staff anticipated the applicant would change the proposed zoning district from Conditional CS to Condition B2. With those changes, the new zoning would be consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan that would designate this property as a small-scale mixed-use development. Ms. May noted that the current setbacks shown on the concept plan did not meet the requirements for the CS district (specifically a 35-foot rear buffer and 30-foot buffer between commercial and residential zones). Because of this, staff anticipated the applicant would revise the request for Conditional B-2 zoning, which would support the same uses but allow for more appropriate setback requirements . As a result, staff recommended a continuance of the proposal to the July 10, 2025, Planning Board meeting to allow time to readvertise the project under the Conditional B2 district. She noted that if the Board approved the request was reasonable and in the public interest, staff had proposed conditions, including that a 6-foot-high screening fence be required along the northern boundary of the gravel service yard, the existing utility easement must be preserved and accommodated, the concept plan must be updated to reflect all required setback dimensions for the CS zoning district Representative of the applicant, Cindee Wolf approached to discuss the concept for the relocating business which would include a large internal workshop, limited front parking, security gates paved to transition to a service yard, a multitude of overhead doors with space to maneuver small trucks and trailers. There would be warehousing in the rear of the building and a solid fence included along the northern boundary to screen the view of the service yard. A pond will be placed by partnering with St. James AME church. Ms. Wolfe highlighted that there would be no heavy machinery aside from forklifts and handheld power tools, but no hydraulic lifts or pneumatic equipment. There would only be a total of 12 employees and operation hours would be 7AM to 7PM. The zoning request was mistakenly submitted as CZD-CS but should be B2. All information in the application packet, zoning map, and project information was listed as B2. There were none signed up to speak in support of or in opposition to the project. The Board clarified that the only concerns staff had was the advertising and notice due to the wrong the district being listed on the application and asked Ms. Wolfe if she’d like to move forward with a vote. The board discussed that the intended B-2 zoning district would be appropriate and that staff’s concerns could be addressed without requiring a continuance. Mr. Hine moved to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning. He found it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the rezoning provided for the types of uses recommended in the community mixed use place type and he recommended approval of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because it was located near compatible land uses, with the following conditions: 1. The existing condition as shown on the site plan would remain as 20 feet 2. The 6-foot- high screening fence shall be required along the northern boundary of the gravel service yard as shown on the concept plan. 3. No development of outdoors storage shall occur within the existing utility easement as shown on the concept plan. The easement shall constitute an additional spatial buffer and the required transitional shall be installed along the northern portion of the easement. If the easement holder does not permit landscaping inside the easement. Mr. Avery seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z25-12) passed 6-0. Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z25-13) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Jose A C Godinez, property owner, to rezone approximately 2.00 acres zoned R-20, Residential located at 4222 Castle Hayne Road to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business, for the uses of Contractor Office and Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities. Ms. May introduced a request to rezone approximately 2 acres at 4222 Castle Hayne Road from R-20 (Residential) to (CZD) B-2 to allow for a contractor office and professional business office use. The concept plan included the repurposed office, a new parking lot, a storage yard, a 600 square foot shed, fencing, a stormwater pond that was recommended to be relocated to the front of the property and landscape buffering between the site and neighboring residentially zoned property, and the parking will be moved to the rear of the property. The property would be considered community mixed use which focused on small-scale, mixed-use development patterns that would serve all modes of travel. Based on the policy guidance of the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed uses line with the recommendation for the community mixed use place type and would be located near other adaptive reuse of residential homes. If approved, the project would be subject to review through the Technical Review Committee. Ms. Wolfe stated the employee parking, company vehicles, and storage activities would be in the rear of the site to maintain an attractive street view. The business would mostly operate off site because the employees would leave in company vehicles for assignments. There would be a small administrative staff that would occupy the building. There would be a fenced storage area for security, a permit for a D.O.T. driveway and a pond meeting state and county regulations. Ms. Wolfe indicated that this was the logical use of the property, considering similar uses that surrounded it. She went on to say the use was acceptable, adaptive and again reiterated that it would be zoned similarly to the properties around it. Ms. Wolfe emphasized the project encouraged continued efforts to attract and retain businesses. No one who signed up to speak is opposition to the project. After the Board determined no further discussion was needed, Mr. Moore made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning. He found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provided for the types of uses recommended in the community mixed use and employment center place types. Mr. Moore also found that recommended approval of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the application limits uses to those which were appropriate for the site, with the following conditions: 1. The existing structure will remain and will be renovated for office use, the use will be limited to contractor office and offices for private business and professional activities, 2. Parking shall be relocated to the rear of the structure 3. Existing tree shall be retained at the rear of the property to be used for the landscaping buffer. Mr. Avery seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z25-13) passed 6-0. Item 4: Rezoning Request (Z23-04M) - Rezoning Request (Z23-04M) - Request by Corrie Faith Lee with Equitas Law Partners LLP, applicant, on behalf of River Road Construction, LLC, property owner, to modify an existing approximately 13.94 acres (CZD) RMF-L, Residential Multi-Family - Low Density, and (CZD) B-2, Regional Business district located at 6900 and 6904 Carolina Beach Road to reduce the maximum unit count and density, and to modify the approved housing type from multi-family to single-family attached dwelling units. Chair Tarrant and Mr. Matthews left the podium as they had been previously recused from Item 4. Vice Chair Moore led the public hearing for Item 4. Mr. Beil introduced a request to rezone approximately 13.94 acres located on Carolina Beach Road. The property was split-zoned as Conditional Residential Multifamily-Low Density (CZD RMF-L) and Conditional B-2, and the application proposed to maintain those zoning districts while reducing the overall residential density. The original 2023 rezoning allowed for the construction of 126 multifamily apartment units and a 36,000-square-foot mini storage facility. The applicant sought to replace the 126 multifamily units with 85 single-family row-style homes, representing a net reduction of 41 residential units. The new concept plan maintained the mini storage facility component while replacing the multifamily apartments with 85 single-family- attached homes. The Comprehensive Plan designated this property as general residential in the rear half which, would focus on lower density housing, associated civic and commercial services, and community mix in the front half, which would focus on small scale compact mixed use development patterns. Staff recommended approval with proposed conditions. The applicants’ representative, Attorney Corrie Faith Lee, approached and offered remarks in support of the proposed modified 85 affordable townhomes. The modification would result in a one-third reduction in density and aligned with the county’s broader goals of housing accessibility and ownership opportunities. She also noted that the overall traffic impact of the revised plan would be significantly lower, with an estimated net reduction of 285 vehicle trips per day. The decrease addressed some of the concerns expressed in public comments regarding traffic and infrastructure strain. The applicant, Mr. James Yopp, emphasized that the previously approved conditions had been incorporated into the proposed revised plan and that the neighborhood had seemed pleased with the changes at the additional community meeting that had been held. Mr. Moore then opened the hearing to a member of the public in opposition to the project to speak. Charles Furguson, 69002 Southern Exposure, Charles Furguson opposed the project. While he expressed general support for neighborhood connectivity, he raised strong concerns that the new access point would increase through traffic on his street, Southern Exposure, particularly from drivers using it as a shortcut to Carolina Beach Road. He noted safety concerns for children who play in the street and emphasized that this change would negatively impact the character and safety of his long-established neighborhood. Mr. Ferguson mentioned a suggestion from planning staff about using a gated, emergency only access as a potential compromise and urged the board to consider an alternative access plan. With no other speakers signed up in opposition, Mr. Moore invited the applicant to speak in rebuttal. Attorney Lee’s rebuttal was that the traffic would be improved due to the density decrease proposed originally. She proposed to have an option for an emergency access gate on Southern Charm Drive. Mr. Furguson reapproached, stating he is not against any development but does not approve of the ability to have entry through Southern Charm Drive. With no further speakers in opposition, Vice Chair Moore closed the public hearing and opened for Board discussion. Board discussion focused on when emergency access gates were required by the local development ordinance and state fire code. Mr. Hine made a motion to approve the requested rezoning, finding the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it was in the area designated as community mixed use and general residential and provided the types of uses recommended by these place types and that recommending approval of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed rezoning would provide additional types of housing and greater land efficiency, with the following conditions: 1. Any RV and boat storage must be located on the interior of the mini storage and may not be visible from the public right-of-way 1. The access easement from Southern Charm to Carolina Beach Road shall be public 2. The access easements on Southern Charm Drive have the option to be gated and Carolina Beach Road will not be gated 3. Single-family row-style structures shall be limited to three stories. The mini storage height will be limited to 3 stories or 50 feet. 4. The buffer yard between the new residential structures and the adjacent residential structures shall be no less than 20 feet. 5. The mini storage structure will be limited to a 12,000 square foot maximum building footprint and a 36,000 gross square foot maximum. 6. A minimum 20-foot-wide public access easement shall be provided along the frontage parallel with Carolina Beach Road to accommodate future public bicycle and pedestrian use. Mr. Avery seconded the motion. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z23-04M) passed 4-0. UDO Update: Concept Presentation - Maintenance Amendment to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning and Land Use, provided an overview of a proposed maintenance amendment for the county’s sign regulations. She mentioned this was aimed at keeping regulations current, legally sound, and practically enforceable. The proposed amendment would include clarifications, new provisions, and regulatory updates. She explained that sign regulations did not receive a full update during the initial UDO project due to unresolved legal questions and pending court decisions at that time. Since then, changes in state law, increased inquiries from the public, and advances in sign technology, particularly digital signage, had made it clear that updates were needed. Among the key changes being considered were the introduction of standards for digital signs, updates to brightness and message transition speeds, improvements to the permitting process (in coordination with local sign companies and the Chamber), and clarification of rules surrounding nonconforming signs. Staff also intended to revise enforcement authority references and clarify jurisdictional responsibilities, especially for signage along NCDOT-managed roadways. The intent of this presentation was to inform the Planning Board of the direction staff was taking and to invite feedback or questions before drafting a public version of the amendment. Staff planned to release a draft for public comment in July, hold a Planning Board public hearing in August, and bring the amendment before the Board of Commissioners in September, pending any unforeseen delays. Mr. Hine asked about additional signage and audio, and Ms. Roth stated that she would research that further. Mr. Avery motioned to adjourn. Mr. Hine seconded. Meeting adjourned at 8:16pm