HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-05-2025 Agenda Review MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board Agenda Review
August 5, 2025
An agenda review of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on August 5,
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
Cameron Moore, Vice Chair
Pete Avery
Andy Hewitt
Clark Hipp
Hansen Matthews
Kaitlyn Rhonehouse
Members Absent
Kevin Hine
Staff Present
Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use
Ken Vafier, Operations Supervisor
Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor
Katia Boykin, Planning & Land Use Supervisor
Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor
Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner
Ryan Beil, Development Review Planner
Shauna Bradley, Administrative Specialist
Katherine May, Development Review Planner
Virginia Norris, Long Range Planner
Meeting called to order at 3:03 PM
Welcome and Introduction:
The new planning board member, Andy Hewitt, was introduced. Andy has been involved
in community boards for 5-6 years and is looking forward to contributing to the planning
board.
Destination 2050 Update:
Staff reported that there were no significant updates for the Destination 2050 project at
this time. Work was continuing in collaboration with consultants to finalize the Land Use
Alternatives Analysis. This analysis focused on evaluating the impacts of developing
currently vacant land under various development scenarios. Specifically, it aimed to
assess the potential effects on residential unit growth, the transportation network, and
the fiscal impact on the county.
It was noted that community members had expressed difficulty understanding the
cumulative impacts of development decisions. As a result, the analysis was being
integrated into the comprehensive plan to help better illustrate these impacts. The goal
was to enable more informed decisions and potentially adjust policies to mitigate
negative outcomes.
Review of the Regular Meeting Agenda
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z25-11 7715 Market Steet & 7718,7740 Alexander Road)
Staff presented an overview of a rezoning request submitted by attorney Samuel Potter
of Equitas Law Firm LLP, representing Golden Ventures One LLC. The request proposed
rezoning approximately one acre of land—located at 7715 Market Street, 7718 Alexander
Road, and 7740 Alexander Road—to CDB-2 (Regional Business) and CDBG R-5
(Moderate Density Residential).
This case had been continued from the previous planning board meeting due to the
discovery of underground utilities that affected the site design. An updated concept plan
has been submitted, showing modifications to the stormwater pond and parking layout.
Several key issues were discussed by staff and board members. One focus was a
proposal for pedestrian easement ,including a connection to the nearby Sheetz store,
intended to encourage walking and biking over short car trips.
The Board members asked questions about traffic impacts and stormwater
management, especially in relation to neighboring properties. Staff explained that the
proposed stormwater system was designed to collect runoff from Alexander Road and
direct it south across Market Street to help mitigate potential flooding.
Staff stated that they were recommending approval of the rezoning request with
conditions, including a shared maintenance agreement for the stormwater pond.
However, the applicant had not yet confirmed agreement to these conditions.
Key concerns included increased traffic, the functionality of the stormwater system,
pedestrian accessibility, and whether the applicant would accept the recommended
conditions
Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z25-14 6634 Carolina Beach Road)
Staff presented an overview of a rezoning request submitted by Cindee Wolf on behalf of
Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlancancich to rezone approximately 4.56 acres of R-15
residential land, located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road, to (CDZ) R-5, Residential
Moderate-High Density. The proposed development would allow for a maximum of 36
attached single-family residential units.
The proposal for this site had been presented to the board multiple times since 2023,
with revisions to the proposed housing type. The current proposal featured quadruplexes,
limited to a total of 36 units.
During the discussion, the entrance location was addressed, with confirmation that it
remained unchanged from previous proposals. The project also included a right-turn
lane, which had received approval from the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(DOT), and a perimeter fence designed to preserve existing trees around the site.
Staff stated that they were recommending approval of the request with specific
conditions, including the addition of a pedestrian easement along Carolina Beach Road.
Key concerns discussed included the suitability of the entrance location and its impact
on traffic flow, the preservation of existing trees along the project's perimeter, and the
inclusion of a pedestrian easement to enhance accessibility. Additionally, staff
emphasized the importance of the recommended conditions to address community
concerns and ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Item 3: Public Comment Draft of the Maintenance Amendment to the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) Standards for signs
Staff provided an overview of the upcoming public comment draft of the sign ordinance
maintenance amendment, scheduled to be presented Thursday. A key update includes
the addition of specific standards for digital signs, previously missing from the ordinance.
Staff also revised the entire ordinance to ensure it is up to date and content-neutral, in
response to court rulings that limit the ability of local governments to regulate signage
based on message type or intended user. The revised draft aims to reduce subjective
interpretation and improve clarity for both staff and the public.
While the amendment meets the intended scope, staff noted that some provisions—
particularly those related to temporary signage—may not align with current market
practices. These issues are expected to receive public attention during the review period.
The board was advised that no policy changes are being proposed at this time, but future
adjustments could be considered, especially in coordination with the ongoing
Comprehensive Plan update.
During the discussion, staff clarified the differences between permanent and temporary
signs, regulations for real estate signs, and permit requirements for temporary business
signs. They mentioned the costs associated with permits and the necessity for
compliance to reduce enforcement issues.
During the presentation, staff would update the board on the draft's release process
and public comment period.
Staff Updates
Staff mentioned the role of Planning Board Representative for Commissioners meetings
and the importance of making sure you are at the Planning Board meeting prior to your
scheduled Commissioners’ meeting. Board members requested that staff make note of
who was scheduled to be the representative at the Commissioner meeting when sending
out Agenda Review Agenda.
Planning Board Training:
The Planning Department held a comprehensive training session for Planning Board
members, emphasizing the importance of regular board training and alignment on roles,
responsibilities, legal limitations, and planning procedures. The training included four
core modules: Planning Board structure and function, ethical and legal standards, the
Comprehensive Plan, and the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Staff reviewed the composition of the Planning Board, roles of officers, meeting
procedures, voting rules, and quorum requirements. Clarification was provided that a
quorum must be maintained not only to begin a meeting but also to conduct valid votes.
The responsibilities of board members were underscored, including consistent
attendance, familiarity with case packets, and acting as advisors—not decision-
makers—to the Board of Commissioners. The distinction between legislative (rezonings,
text amendments) and quasi-judicial (special use permits) matters was discussed, as
well as the importance of public transparency, proper notice procedures, and
maintaining the integrity of the public hearing process.
Ethical conduct, particularly avoiding conflicts of interest, ex parte communication, and
inappropriate disclosure of public records, was emphasized. Board members were
reminded that emails, texts, and notes related to board business may be subject to
public records laws. Members were encouraged to recuse themselves when appropriate
and to disclose potential conflicts early in the process, including during agenda reviews.
Staff also reviewed the legal protections available to board members when acting in good
faith, but noted that intentional or unlawful actions could still result in liability.
The session continued with an overview of comprehensive plans—long-term, non-
binding planning tools used to guide growth, development, and infrastructure decisions
in line with community goals. The importance of compliance with the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) for coastal counties was highlighted, along with how the plan
is used to inform zoning, land use, and development strategies. Staff noted that the
county’s current comprehensive plan, adopted in 2016, is being updated with the
Destination 2050 project.
Finally, staff introduced the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as the county’s
legally binding development code, covering zoning, use definitions, landscaping, parking,
floodplain regulations, and more. While Planning Board members are not expected to
know the UDO in full, familiarity with core standards—especially related to common
public hearing topics like landscaping—is encouraged. Staff closed by reviewing
procedural logistics such as meeting calendars, agenda packet timelines, and site visit
best practices (including avoiding trespassing).
Meeting Adjourned 4:40PM