Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-2025 Planning Board Minutes Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board March 6, 20525 A regular meetfng of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on March 6, 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   Pete Avery Clark Hipp Hansen Matthews Kaitlyn Rhonehouse Members Absent Cameron Moore, Vice Chair  Kevin Hine Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor  Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner  Katfa Boykin, Planning and Land Use Supervisor Katherine May, Development Review Planner Lisa Maes, Administratfve Supervisor Chair Tarrant called the meetfng to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience.  After the welcome remarks, Chairman Tarrant led the Pledge of Allegiance and provided an overview of the meetfng procedures and read the Code of Ethics.   Chair Tarrant announced that items discussed during the evening's meetfng would advance to the County Commissioners' meetfng, scheduled for April10, 2025. He also noted that Board Member Hansen Matthews would serve as the Planning Board representatfve at that meetfng. 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. Approval of Minutes The minutes from February 6, 2025, Planning Board Regular Board Member were presented for consideratfon and approval. With no discussion, a MOTION was made by Pete Avery, SECONDED by Hansen Matthews to approve the draft minutes was approved 5-0. Regular Business Public Hearing Item 1: Text Amendment Request (TA25-01) - Request by Tammi Pits, applicant, on behalf of Wilmington Lodge #343, Loyal Order of Moose, I NC, property owner, to amend Section 4.4.4 Standards for Specified Accessory Uses and Structures to allow RV and boat storage and RV camping as permitted accessory uses to Lodges, Fraternal, & Social Organizations with restrictions. Zach Dickerson provided a presentatfon summarizing the Text Amendment Request TA25-01, a request submitted by Tammi Pitts, on behalf of Wilmington Lodge 343, Loyal Order of the Moose, Inc., to amend Sectfon 4.4.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The amendment had sought to allow RV and boat storage and RV camping as permitted accessory uses to lodges, fraternal, and social organizatfons, subject to specific restrictfons and its broader implicatfons. The amendment, as proposed, would permit fraternal and benevolent nonprofit lodges in New Hanover County to host and store RVs and allow overnight RV camping on lodge propertfes. Mr. Dickerson clarified that while the request had originated from a single lodge, approval would have applied countywide. He reviewed current zoning regulatfons, which had not allowed RV camping or storage in R-15 districts without a special use permit. The Moose Lodge’s long- standing RV use was noncompliant with these regulatfons. Mr. Dickerson presented he had conducted research on similar uses across the state and had found that many such operatfons—like the Elks Lodge on Oleander Drive—had been permitted historically through older ordinances or had been considered legal nonconformitfes. Most jurisdictfons would not have allowed new camping, and storage uses under current codes. Additfonally, concerns had been raised about health and environmental standards, notfng that on-site sewage disposal was required by the Environmental Health Department for all campgrounds. Mr. Dickerson emphasized the potentfal incompatfbility of combining lodge, campground, and storage uses within a single property, especially in residentfal zoning districts. Due to the wide-reaching impact of the amendment, staff had recommended denial of the request. However, they had presented an alternatfve amendment with conditfons that could have mitfgated impacts if the Board had chosen to recommend approval. These included limits on site size, maximum stays, waste disposal standards, required membership usage, and caps on the number of RV storage spaces. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant up to present. Mr. Brian DeBose, representfng the Wilmington Moose Lodge, had provided background on the lodge’s nonprofit mission and history. He noted that RV accommodatfon had been offered to traveling members for decades, a common practfce among Moose Lodges natfonally. Mr. DeBose explained that the lodge had received a zoning violatfon notfce in June 2024 and had submitted a correctfve actfon plan. He expressed that the lodge had believed its RV use had been grandfathered based on longstanding use and previous infrastructure improvements, including electrical hookups installed over 20 years ago. The applicant also noted that they had been working with Cape Fear Public Utflity Authority to develop compliant waste disposal systems. Mr. DeBose requested that the Board consider the staff’s alternatfve amendment, but with two revisions: reducing the allowable RV stay to seven days (instead of fourteen) and removing the restrictfon that restroom and shower facilitfes be located only within the lodge building. Chair Tarrant opened the hearing to oppositfon. With no speakers in oppositfon and the applicant having no further comments, Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion. During the Board’s discussion, concerns were raised about the countywide impact of a text amendment, partfcularly how it would apply to all lodges rather than just the Wilmington Moose Lodge. Members also questfoned the compatfbility of combining a lodge, campground, and RV storage within a single locatfon, as well as the potentfal impacts on surrounding residentfal areas. Given these concerns, the Board explored the possibility of using special use permits as a more appropriate alternatfve to a broad text amendment. While members acknowledged that Moose Lodge’s request had been reasonable, they ultfmately agreed that applying the amendment countywide would have been too expansive. The Board asked counsel if tabling the item would be appropriate to allow staff and applicants to develop alternatfve solutfons. In response, Mr. DeBose requested that the applicatfon be tabled so that he could have worked with staff on a more tailored approach. Mr. Avery made a MOTION to table the applicatfon which was SECONDED by Mr. Hipp and passed (5-0). Staff would notffy the Board when a revised proposal was ready for further consideratfon. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z25-02 – Medical Office) – Request by John Hinnant with Eastern Carolinas Commercial Real Estate, applicant, on behalf of Paul and Jane Chaucer, property owners, to rezone the existing (CZD) CB, Community Business zoning of approximately 0.36 acres located at 2626 Castle Hayne Road to (CZD) B-1, Neighborhood Business for the use of Medical and Dental Office and Clinic and other limited uses. Ms. May provided an overview of the rezoning which was intended to permit the use of the property for a medical and dental office or clinic, along with other limited commercial uses. The request was intended to permit the use of the property for a medical and dental office or clinic, along with other limited commercial uses. She described details of the site, which had previously been rezoned from R-20 to a conditfonal CB district in February 2023. The applicant, Trinity Health—a medical office currently operatfng from a unit within a commercial development located about 1,000 feet south of the subject site—had proposed relocatfng its business to the newly acquired locatfon. Ms. May noted that the property consisted of an existfng commercial building, an accessory structure, a gravel parking lot, and fenced buffers along the rear and side property lines. There were no proposed changes to the site plan previously approved under Z22-26. Access to the property would remain via Castle Hayne Road, although the driveway would be required to be upgraded to a commercial entrance in accordance with NCDOT standards. Photographs depictfng the site and nearby development were presented, illustratfng the existfng structure, parking area, and examples of adaptfve reuse within the B-1 district. Staff reported that the proposed use of a medical office would generate relatfvely low traffic and would be compatfble with surrounding residentfal and commercial uses. According to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the area had been designated as Community Mixed Use, a classificatfon supportfng small-scale, mixed-use development suited for transitfonal corridors such as Castle Hayne Road. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with five conditfons, all of which had previously been applied during the site’s earlier rezoning. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant up to present. John Hinnant spoke on behalf of Trinity Health and affirmed that there had been no changes to the approved site plan. He explained that the purpose of the request was to add "medical office/clinic" as an allowed use, which had initfally been thought to be permitted under the current CB zoning. However, due to a one-acre minimum requirement for CB-zoned parcels, staff had advised rezoning CZD B-1 instead. The applicant had agreed with that recommendatfon. Mr. Hinnant emphasized the applicant’s intent to move from rentfng to property ownership as part of a broader entrepreneurial effort. He also noted that the most significant site upgrade would involve convertfng the current driveway to a DOT-compliant commercial entrance. He added a personal observatfon that Castle Hayne Road had been overdue for state-funded transportatfon improvements given the nearby growth and economic development. Ben Donaldson, a partner at Trinity Health, was present but declined to speak unless the Board had questfons for him. Chair Tarrant opened the hearing to oppositfon. With no one signed up to speak in oppositfon or support, and no additfonal comments, the public hearing was closed for the Board discussion. The Board expressed support for the request, citfng appreciatfon for the adaptfve reuse of existfng structures and notfng that the proposed use would not have resulted in any dimensional expansion or increased impact on surrounding propertfes. Members discussed that the change from CB to B-1 had been primarily due to administratfve zoning requirements and did not constftute a substantfal land use change. The request was viewed as consistent with the County’s vision for the Castle Hayne commercial corridor and aligned with the Comprehensive Plan. Following the discussion the applicant confirmed that they had wished to proceed with a vote. Board member Mr. Avery then proceeded to make 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 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 site is located along a transitfoning commercial corridor near existfng commercial uses and conditfons will reduce impacts on adjacent residentfal areas, with the following conditfons: Proposed Conditions: 1. Restrictfng the uses allowed within the district would include medical and dental offices and clinics, business/professional offices, studios and personal services (excluding tattoo parlors), and general retail sales. 2. The existfng driveway to Castle Hayne Road would be upgraded to a commercial driveway per NCDOT requirements. 3. Landscaping would have been installed along the Castle Hayne Road frontage to meet the current street yard requirements. 4. Free-standing signage on the site would have been limited to monument-style signs with landscaping around the base. Pole signs would not have been permitted. 5. All exterior lightfng would have been controlled to minimize spillover, glare, and impacts to neighboring propertfes and motorists. This MOTION was seconded by Ms. Rhonehouse and carried 5-0. Item 3: Text Amendment Request (TA25-02) - Request by New Hanover County Planning and Land Use to amend Section 4.4.4, Section 6.3.2, Section 2.3 and Section 11.7 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance related to Accessory Dwelling Units, performance guarantees, and non- conforming signs to meet North Carolina General Statute requirements. Mr. Farrell presented an overview of the Text Amendment Request TA25-02, the amendment was proposed to bring local ordinances into compliance with recent updates to North Carolina General Statutes related to accessory dwelling units, performance guarantees, and nonconforming signs. Mr. Farrell explained that the County regularly undertakes maintenance or housekeeping amendments to ensure the ordinance remains clear, consistent, and legally current. While some amendments clarified internal standards, others—like the changes under consideratfon—were prompted by updates to state law and reviewed in collaboratfon with the County Attorney’s Office. Mr. Farrell summarized the three proposed amendments: 1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The current UDO included restrictfons on using storage containers as building materials for ADUs. Due to state law limitfng how local governments may regulate materials for single-family homes outside of building code standards, those restrictfons needed to be removed. 2. Performance Guarantees: State law now mandated a uniform process for releasing performance guarantees for development projects. While the County’s current procedures already followed the required 30-day release tfmeline, the ordinance language needed to be updated to reflect this statutory requirement. 3. Nonconforming Signs: Recent legislatfve changes introduced a definitfon for “on-premises advertfsing signs” and established new rights for the relocatfon or replacement of legally nonconforming signs. The proposed amendment would align local sign regulatfons with these provisions. Staff recommended approval of the text amendment to ensure contfnued compliance with state requirements and legal clarity in the UDO. Mr. Farrell stated that after the Planning Board’s recommendatfon, the item would proceed with the Board of Commissioners for final consideratfon. The Board asked whether there were any questfons for staff. Hearing none, and with no members of the public signed up to speak in favor or oppositfon, the public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Board. Board members agreed that the proposed changes were legally necessary and represented routfne updates to align the ordinance with state law. The amendments were described as straightiorward and administratfve in nature, without impact on development rights beyond those already established by state statute. Board member Mr. Matthews then proceeded to make the following MOTION. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to specify an applicant’s refusal to sign the required agreement to conditfons for conditfonal rezonings within seven (7) business days of approval by the Board of Commissioners is an automatfc denial requiring a one (1) year waitfng period before resubmittal. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides up-to-date zoning tools. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it provides for clear and effectfve ordinance standards This MOTION was seconded by Mr. Clark and carried 5-0. Staff Updates Chair Tarrant asked staff if there were any additfonal updates. Hearing none a MOTION to adjourn the meetfng was made by Mr. Clark, SECONDED by Mr. Avery. The motfon was approved unanimously 5-0. Meetfng adjourned 7:56 PM