Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSB Cottages TRC Comment Responses December 5, 2025 Robert Farrell Development Review Supervisor Planning and Land Use New Hanover County, North Carolina RE: SB Cottages PID#: R08518-001-001-000, R08518-001-014-003, R08518-001-014-002, R08518-001-014-001 Egov#: SUBPP-25-0030 Riverview Engineering Project No: 1008.04 Mr. Farrell, In response to your letter regarding the preliminary plan TRC Review for the SB Cottages – Major Subdivision project, we offer the following responses: Planning, Compliance with local zoning requirements – Robert Farrell 1. General Comments a. Property was rezoned to Conditional R-5 in 2023 as Z23-14. The rezoning was approved with the following 5 conditions. Please include these conditions on one of the preliminary plan pages: i. The project as shown on the submitted site plan shall be developed with water and sewer connections to a private wastewater system. Private wells and septic systems are not allowed for residential development as contemplated on the site plan. Response: The project is proposing a public well to be owned and operated by Aqua. ii. As identified on the site plan, certain existing trees onsite will not be removed. Response: See sheet VX101. iii. The zoning approval and development contemplated therein shall not impact the current and future lot owners of the following parcels, R08518-001-014-004, R08518-001-015-000, and R08518-001-015-002, right to use the access easement shown on the concept plan, nor shall the zoning approval and development contemplated therein create any additional financial burden on those lot owners to contribute to the cost of maintenance for the access road. Response: Noted 2 iv. The northern terminus of the access easement shall be designated for public use to allow potential future connection to and through adjoining parcels to Seabreeze Road. 1. To meet condition 4, a public access easement will need to be shown on the end of the road circled in red below. The pavement will also need to be extended to the property boundary. Response: Easement already extends to the property line of R08518-001-015- 000 v. All stormwater management areas shown on the concept plan shall be required. Changes to the general shape of the basins as required by essential site improvements may be accepted administratively by Planning staff. Response: Noted b. Project proposes a performance residential development consisting of 47 dwelling units in the form of 10 quadraplexes (40 units), two duplexes or dual unit attached dwellings (4 units), and one triplex (3 units). i. The application indicates the site is 7.39 acres with 1.63 acres identified as marshes and 0.07 acres identified as Class IV soils that are not intended for permanent conservation. 1. 7.39 – 1.63 – 0.07 = 5.69 acres that can be used to count towards the density of the project. 2. The maximum density in the R-5 district is 8 dwelling units per acre. 3. 5.69 x 8 = 45.52 dwelling units. Fractional numbers 0.5 and above are rounded up to the nearest whole number = 46 total units allowed for the development. This matches the maximum number approved for the conditional rezoning. Response: 46 units are now proposed 4. The proposed preliminary plan shows 47 dwelling units. 1 dwelling unit must be removed from the project Response: 46 units are now proposed c. Staff recommend including the location of traffic calming devices on the preliminary plans. Installation of traffic calming devices is not required, but including potential locations on the plan ensures the future HOA / owners will have the opportunity to install them without conducting a traffic study. Response: Noted d. While the Army Corps of Engineers has not provided comments on this version of the project yet, they may send additional comments that will be forwarded at a later date. Response: Noted 3 2. UDO Section 5.1, Parking and Loading a. The plan will need to show the location, number, and size of all parking spaces in the development. Response: All 46 units will have a 2-car garage. i. The number of parking spaces for quadraplexes and triplexes is: 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit for 1-bedroom units, or 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for 2-bedroom units. ii. The number of parking spaces for duplexes or dual unit attached dwellings is: 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. iii. Garages may count towards the number of parking spaces however, the plan must indicate which units will have garages. However, if the plan indicates a garage will be provided and the future building permit application does not include a garage, the permit may be held until either the preliminary plan is updated or the building plans are updated to ensure compliance. Response: Noted 3. UDO Section 5.2, Traffic, Access and Connectivity a. Please note that no building permit for any structure shall be issued which requires NCDOT approval for a Driveway Permit until NCDOT has issued the permit approval. Evidence of approval shall accompany the application for building permit. Response: Noted 4. UDO Section 5.3, Tree Retention a. Note: Land disturbance permits can be issued by county Engineering before a Tree Removal Permit is approved by Planning. However, any trees removed before the Tree Removal Permit is issued may result in enforcement action under Section 5.3.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance to include prohibiting any development of the site for 3 to 5 years. Response: Noted b. The preliminary plan appears to indicate compliance with the condition to preserve existing specimen and significant trees on site identified during the rezoning process. Response: Noted c. Several of the trees appear to be in the road right-of-way. While not prohibited, staff cautions that roadway or utility work in the right-of-way may damage the roots of the tree. Response: Noted d. A separate tree removal permit application is required before any documented trees may be removed from the site. 4 Response: Noted. 5. UDO Section 5.4, Landscaping and Buffering a. Landscaping and buffering are only required for the amenity areas in residential developments. The site does not include an amenity area, therefore the landscaping standards do not apply. Response: Noted 6. UDO Section 5.5, Lighting a. Please note under 5.5.2.A that a lighting plan is not required for single-family residential projects and the county does not require streetlights, however a lighting plan is required for any amenity area. Response: Noted 7. UDO Section 5.6, Signs a. Will the development have an entrance sign for the subdivision? Response: No entry sign is proposed. b. If so, the plan needs to include the location of the sign. Response: Noted c. If the sign is along a DOT maintained road or near an intersection with a DOT road (including the driveway access). The sign must be outside the DOT sight triangles. Response: Noted d. For any signs on the site, a separate sign permit must be submitted and reviewed by the county for compliance with Section 5.6 of the UDO for standards at or after the submittal of the separate zoning compliance and construction permits for the primary building or use. Response: Noted 8. UDO Section 5.7, Conservation Resources a. Section 5.7 does not apply to the project. Response: Noted b. The Conservation Resources map indicates portions of the site may have pocosin conservation resources. However, the soil map indicates there are no Class IV soils on site. Pocosin conservation resources must be underlaid by Class IV soils to trigger additional ordinance requirements. Response: Noted 9. UDO Section 5.8, Open Space Requirements 5 a. Project is proposing a performance residential development which requires a minimum 20% open space. Response: See L-101 b. The draft preliminary plan shows areas for stormwater and land around the proposed homes but does not specifically label or show the areas for open space. Response: See L-101 c. The plan will need to include the open space acreage in the site notes and label the open space areas on the preliminary plan. Response: See L-101 10. UDO Article 6, Subdivision Design and Improvements a. Section 6.3.3.J.1.d requires sidewalks on both sides of the street for residential developments in the R-5 district. Preliminary plan does not show sidewalks as part of the plan. i. Prior discussions with the developer has indicated an intention to request an exemption from the sidewalk requirement under Section 6.3.3.J.2 which states “The TRC may exempt sidewalk installation in specific cases upon finding that sidewalks are unnecessary for the protection of the public safety or welfare due to conditions peculiar to the site.” Response: The developer is requesting an exemption from the sidewalk requirement to reduce site impervious area. This site has limited pedestrian access to adjacent roadways, which in themselves have no sidewalk facilities. ii. Is it the intention to request an exemption from the sidewalk requirement? And if so, please provide a statement regarding the specific conditions of the site that may warrant the exemption. Response: The developer is requesting an exemption from the sidewalk requirement to reduce site impervious area. This site has limited pedestrian access to adjacent roadways, which in themselves have no sidewalk facilities. b. The preliminary plan meets the block length requirement. Response: Noted c. Section 6.2.2.A.6.g Street Connectivity Standards requires a minimum link to node ratio of 1.40. The proposed project has 11 links and 7 nodes for a ratio of 1.57. Response: The Site Plan has been revised to show 8 links and 4 nodes for a ratio of 2.0. d. The pavement and right-of-way for the two roads terminating to the north of the site need to be extended to the property line. 6 Response: The right-of-way has been extended to the property line. e. Make sure to specify whether the rights-of-way as public or private. Response: See CS101. f. The plan shows the majority of the roads with a 40 foot right-of-way width. A portion is as narrow as 33.15 feet. The minimum width for private local roads is 45 feet wide. Response: Road right-of-way has been expanded to 45’ for all drives. 11. UDO Article 9, Flood Damage Prevention a. A small portion of the site is in the floodplain. The site plan shows no development is proposed in the floodplain area. A floodplain development permit is not required. However, if any clearing, grading, fill, or other work is proposed in the floodplain, a floodplain development permit is required. Response: Noted. b. Please confirm if any work is proposed in the floodplain? Response: Minimal grading is proposed in the floodplain only to improve the conveyance of offsite drainage coming onto the site. NHC Fire Services – David Stone 1. The access road serving units 1-8 is a dead end in excess of 150 feet. This road will require an approved that complies with Appendix D103.4 and Table D103.4. Response: The road has been shortened to 130’. 2. No gates or traffic calming devices unless approved by TRC. Response: Noted NHC Engineering (Stormwater Management and Land Disturbance)– Galen Jamison 1. A County stormwater and land disturbing permit issued by the County is required for this project. Please digitally submit the permit applications documentation with requisite review fees to the COAST online permit portal. Response: Noted 2. Please contact the State for their stormwater permit requirements. It is anticipated a new high density permit will be required. Response: Noted NHC Environmental Health, Septic Tanks and Wells – Dustin Fenske 1. Site plan shows connection to a public water supply. Proposed infrastructure maintains setbacks to surrounding properties well heads. Environmental Health records indicate a 7 potential well at 7641 Carolina Beach Rd. Developer shall investigate this potential well and protect the well head during demolition. Well head shall be properly abandoned by a Certified Well Driller. Response: Noted. 2. Site plan reflects connection to public sewer. Proposed infrastructure maintains setbacks to surrounding properties septic systems. Environmental Health records reflect a possible septic system at 7641 Carolina Beach Rd. Developer shall be mindful of this possibility and investigate. Abandon the septic system by pump, crush and fill of septic tank. Response: Noted NHC Addressing, Street Naming and Property Address – McCabe Watson 1. Each of the 5 streets will need to be assigned a name. Please submit street name proposals with alternatives prior to TRC approval. Response: Provided 2. Please contact me for address assignment following TRC approval (910-798-7068). Response: Noted CFPUA, Public Water and Sewer – Bernice Johnson 1. CFPUA TRC Comments provided are preliminary comments only. 2. CFPUA water and sewer not available. NCDOT, Driveway Access and State Road Improvements – Nick Drees NCDOT permitting is in process. Sincerely, Nick Lauretta, P.E., LEED AP cc: Project File 1008.04