The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-30-2025 Agenda Review MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board Agenda Review September 30, 2025 An agenda review of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on September 30, 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, Chair Pete Avery , Vice Chair Andy Hewitt Hansen Matthews Members Absent Clark Hipp Kevin Hine Kaitlyn Rhonehouse Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor Katia Boykin, Planning & Land Use Supervisor Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner Amy Doss, Development Review Planner Shauna Bradley, Administrative Specialist Katherine May, Development Review Planner Meeting called to order by Chair Moore at 3:05 PM Conflict of Interest Discussion Board members and staff briefly discussed potential conflicts of interest related to the upcoming agenda items. No specific conflicts were identified during the agenda review. Board members and staff also discussed the importance of identifying conflicts early in the process, including during agenda review, so that members with conflicts could recuse themselves from both the review and the formal hearing. Review of Regular Meeting Agenda Rezoning Request Z25-16 – Carryover from September 4, 2025 Ms. May provided an update on Rezoning Request Z25-16, a carryover case from the September 4, 2025 Planning Board meeting, explaining that the applicant had revised the concept plan to address NCDOT and County staff concerns by relocating site access to meet NCDOT requirements, positioning the driveway at the parcel boundary, adjusting the dumpster location, adding protections for a specimen tree at the rear of the site, and shifting the building to the left side of the property with parking primarily in front. She stated that the building’s square footage had been slightly reduced from approximately 5,500 to 5,150 square feet, that the project remained a small joint-use grocery and retail building, and that additional parking spaces had been added that met UDO standards and typical small grocery and retail parking ratios. She reminded the Board that the site was in an existing commercial zoning district, indicated that the proposal remained consistent with applicable standards, and reported that no community comments had been received. Staff also explained that the applicant currently operated a small grocery store in rented space nearby and was seeking to expand and own a permanent location within the same community. Ms. May noted that the applicant was predominantly Spanish speaking, that an interpreter from Permitting and the applicant’s English-speaking son were expected to attend the regular Planning Board meeting, and that the interpreter had been briefed on the meeting format, including time limits and rebuttal procedures, to ensure clear communication. Board members expressed general support for the proposed small business expansion and did not identify any additional concerns regarding the revised plan. Rezoning Request – Approximately 108 Acres (Industrial to Residential Multifamily Low Density) Mr. Dickerson provided an overview of a rezoning request for approximately 108 acres within a larger 800-acre tract. The area is primarily zoned I-2, with a portion zoned I-1. He explained that the request is for a straight rezoning to a residential multifamily low-density district, which would allow up to 10 dwelling units per acre. There is no concept plan or conditions attached to this request, therefore the Board must consider all permitted uses within the proposed district. He described additional environmental mapping and advisory flood information from the Northeast Watershed Flood Study included in the staff report and noted that, although the data were not regulatory, they overlapped with areas already regulated by conservation standards such as wetlands, conservation areas, and certain soil types, which would limit development in higher-risk areas and help address flood concerns. He clarified that references to “conditions” in this context referred to existing site conditions and regulatory standards rather than rezoning conditions and emphasized that the maps and data were informational tools for the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners and did not create new requirements. Board members requested a comparison slide for the regular meeting summarizing key uses allowed by right in the existing I-1 and I-2 districts versus the proposed residential multifamily low- density district to illustrate differences in scale and impact, particularly given the property’s location within a Community Mixed Use place type. Staff noted that the proposed residential zoning appeared more consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan than the existing heavy industrial zoning and reiterated that recommendations must be based on the current plan and policies until the Board of Commissioners adopted any changes through the Destination 2050 update. Board members briefly discussed the maximum density of up to 10 dwelling units per acre as a moderate residential level suitable for single-family, duplex, or multifamily configurations, and staff encouraged them to review the applicant’s Exhibit A, which acknowledged environmental and flood- related concerns and outlined mitigation approaches that could be referenced during the public hearing. Destination 2050 Updates Ms. Roth provided an update on the Destination 2050 Comprehensive Plan process and stated that staff anticipated presenting updates to the Future Community Types Map and draft goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies to the Board of Commissioners at their October 20, 2025 meeting for direction. She explained that, following that direction, staff planned to assemble a draft plan for public comment and subsequent Planning Board consideration, anticipated in January. She noted that Planning Board members had not heard all the recent direction from the Board of Commissioners and stated that staff intended to schedule one-on-one or small-group briefings before the October 20 meeting and to provide a more detailed presentation at the Planning Board’s November meeting so members would understand what was being presented and be prepared to respond to questions from the public. Staff Updates Recent State Legislation Affecting Development Regulations Ms. Roth reported that the Governor had allowed a new bill affecting local development regulation to become law without his signature and summarized three key changes. She explained that the statutory waiting period between denial of a rezoning or text amendment and a subsequent reapplication had been eliminated, noted that the County’s UDO currently requires a one-year waiting period, and stated that staff would bring forward a maintenance amendment to remove this local requirement. She further stated that the law now addressed properties that crossed jurisdictional boundaries by allowing the owner to proceed with development approvals in the jurisdiction where most of the property was located, subject to any interlocal agreements. She added that the law limited local governments’ ability to enforce development regulations related specifically to the flag of the United States, noted that the County’s sign ordinance update removing content-based distinctions among flag types remained scheduled for Board of Commissioners consideration, and explained that enforcement on very large American flags at some commercial sites would be constrained under the new law and that this limitation would be explained to the Board. Planning Board Rules of Procedure and Bylaws Mr. Farrell stated that planning staff, the County Attorney’s Office, and the Clerk to the Board were coordinating on a broader update to advisory board rules of procedure. They reported that the Board of Commissioners was expected to adopt updated general rules for advisory boards, including the Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, and Board of Equalization and Review, after which the Planning Board’s bylaws would be revised to align and a draft presented for Planning Board review and adoption before being forwarded to the Board for approval. He indicated that the updates were expected to address procedures for correcting errors or typographical mistakes in adopted actions, as well as policies on virtual or remote meetings and participation. He stated that staff anticipated recommending that remote participation not be allowed for Planning Board meetings, except under clearly defined emergency circumstances, such as a declared state of emergency, to maintain transparency and fairness. He also noted that the revised materials were intended to consolidate commissioner expectations and Planning Board roles into a single, user-friendly reference document and that, if the Board of Commissioners adopted rules allowing virtual meetings before the Planning Board updated its own bylaws, the Planning Board might consider an interim vote stating that remote participation was not permitted until specific language was adopted. Conflict of Interest Documentation for LLC Applicants The Board revisited prior concerns about identifying potential conflicts of interest when applicants were organized as LLCs. Staff reported that the current rezoning application included documentation identifying the managers of the LLCs involved, which had helped staff and Board members confirm that there were no conflicts. Board members expressed a preference that applicants be responsible for providing ownership and manager information from public records as part of their submittal, rather than relying on staff to research this information. Staff stated that they would explore by adding this requirement to the standard application materials so Board members could more easily review potential conflicts prior to agenda review and formal hearings. Meeting Adjourned at 3:40 PM