Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Minutes 9-23-2025BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The New Hanover County Board of Adjustment held a regular and duly advertised meeting at 5:30 PM at the New Hanover County Government Center Complex, 230 Government Center Drive, in Conference Room 139, in Wilmington, NC on Tuesday September 23,2025. Member Present Members Absent Michael Keenan, Sr., ChairGreg Uhl Will Daube Laura King M ichael Sanclimenti (Alternate) Ed Trice (Alternate) Present. not servlng Caleb Rash, Vlce-Chair Jonathan Bridges (Alternate) M mbe Pres Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Ryan Biel, Development Review Planner Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor Shau na Bradley, Administrative Specialist The meeting was called to order by Attorney Richards at 5:31 P.M. First Order of Business The first matter of business was to determine an lnterim Chair and Vice Chair. Greg Uhl was nominated by Mr. Daube as lnterim Chair. Mr. Trice seconded the motion. Mr. Daube moved to nominate Ms. King as lnterim Vice Chair. Mr. Trice seconded the motion. The board discussed Mr. Rash having a conflict of interest with the case and needing to recuse himself. The members voted to deem the conflict to be true and accurate. The Board voted to approve his recusal unanimously,5-0. With no discussion or corrections, Mr. Daube moved to approve the June 24,2025, meeting minutes. Mr. Sanclimente seconded the motion. The board voted unanimously to a p prove. cAsE BOA -1000 Mr. Uhl called forward all individuals intending to speak so they could be sworn in. Matt Nichols, Allison Engebretson, Paul .,lonnet, Greg Dobur, and Michael Davis approached and were then sworn in. Mr. Biel began his presentation for a variance request of 8.5 feet from the maximum 6-foot height restriction for freestanding signs along Carolina Beach Road, as outlined in Section 5.6.2J.4.A.3 of the UDO. The variance pertained to an existing siSn that had been permitted and approved in error, exceeding the height limit on Carolina Beach Road as of September 12,2023. The subject property was zoned B-2 (Regional Business), surrounded by similarly zoned parcels. According to Table 5.6.2.H, freestanding signs are permitted by right in the B-2 zoning district; however, along Carolina Beach Road, such signs are limited to a maximum height of 6 feet and a maximum area of 150 square feet, per Section s.6.2J.4.4.3. An aerial photo was presented showing the location of the existing Myrtle Grove Shopping Center signs along Carolina Beach Road. Mr. Biel noted that one ofthese signs was the subject of the current request, while others had previously been approved through variance requests. The subject sign was similar in size to the Village's Myrtle Grove sign (approved as ZBA 915), though shorter than the yet-to-be- constructed BOA 987 sign, which would be the largest of the three. A closer aerialview showed the sign's location between T-Mobile and Dunkin' Donuts. Mr. Biel stated that the variance was necessary due to limited signage visibility and the Iack of clear identification for the shopping center, which had been a concern for national tenants. He also stated that the variance would allow for increased tenant visibil ity a nd more effective advertising opportu nities. The Board discussed the presence of three freestanding signs. ZBA 915 was approved in 2017 at a height of 20 feet, while BOA 987 was approved in 2024 at 26 feet, though it had not yet been constructed. The current sign under review stood at 14.5 feet. The Board noted that the signs were spaced approximately 0.2 miles apart, with the subject sign located between the other two. lt was clarified that the two previously approved signs were not part of the current application. It was confirmed that the existing sign in question had been constructed following a permitting error. Although it was intended as a replacement sign, it exceeded the 6- foot height limit. The applicant had submitted a permit that was approved administratively, likely due to a misinterpretation of dimensional compliance requirements. An internal email suggested that staff believed the replacement could be approved ad ministratively if it met dimensional standards, which led to the oversight. It was also noted that if the sign had only been reskinned and remained within the height limit, it would not have required a variance. However, since it was a full replacement and exceeded the height restriction, a variance was now necessary. The Board also briefly discussed the potential for a new access road to the shopping center, which could be approved ad ministratively if it served the entire parcel. Mr. Matt Nichols, the attorney representing the applicant, stood before the board in a request for a sign height variance at the Target shopping center located in the Monkey Junction area. He was accompanied by Paul Johnette, Executive Director of Research for Big V Property Group, as well as Allison Engebretson, a landscape architect with Paramount Engineering, and other members of the project team. Mr. Nichols began by providing context for the request, noting that the Target store currently under construction will be a significant asset to the community, particularly for residents in the southern part of the county. He emphasized the importance of the new access road recently constructed by the applicant, which serves as a fourth entry point into the shopping center. He explained that the access point was critical for improving traffic distribution and reducing congestion along Carolina Beach Road (King's Highway), especially given the proximity of Coastal Christian High School, Myrtle Grove Christian Academy, and the U.S. Post Office. These institutions contribute to high traffic volumes in the area, including many students and parent drlvers. The sign was located at the new access point and was constructed following a commercial site plan approval and a sign permit issued in 2019. An electrical permit was later issued in 2024, Mr. Nichols explained that the sign complied with the county's 150 square foot requirement, and the variance request pertains solely to its height, specifically an additional 8.5 feet. He pointed out that the sign was partially obscured by mature street trees, which are part of the streetscape and are not proposed for removal. Due to this limited visibility, the applicant believes the additional height was necessary to ensure the sign is effective for wayfinding and public safety. He further explained that the sign was constructed in good faith, based on approved plans and permits, and that the compliance issue was only recently identified. Mr. Nichols also referenced previous findings by the board that support similar variances, particularly in cases where parcel layout and phased development created unique circumstances beyond the applicant's control. In closing, Mr. Nichols respectfully requested approval of the variance, reiterating that the sign serves an irnportant function in guiding traffic to the new access point and supporting the overall success of the shopping center. The Board asked several clarifying questions regarding the proposed sign and its surrounding conditions. They inquired about the height of the trees located near the sign. Mr. Nichols responded that he did not have an exact measurement but estimated that the trees were likely close in height to the sign itsell which stands at approximately 14.5 feet. He acknowledged that the trees may even be taller in some areas and noted that the grade difference between the sign and the adjacent pa rking area may also affect visibility. The Board also asked why the sign was placed at its current distance from the road and whether a shorter sign placed closer to the right-of-way might have been more visible. Mr. Nichols explained that the sign's location was determined in part by a condition from a 2017 variance, which required that any new sign not be placed closer to the road than the existing sign. He added that considerations such as ingress, egress, and line-of-sight safety likely influenced that condition. He confirmed that the sign was constructed in accordance with the approved site plan and permits. The Board brought forth the possibility of converting the area around the siSn to lower-level landscaping to improve visibility while maintaining aesthetic value. Mr. Nichols responded that the applicant does not own the parcel where the trees are located but expressed openness to discussing landscaplng improvements with the county. He emphasized that the applicant wishes to maintain the current design, which was part of the approved plans, and that the sign's purpose is to clearly mark the new access point to the shopping center. They also discussed traffic flow and the importance of the new access road. Mr. Nichols reiterated that the sign is intended to direct traffic to this new entrance, which helps alleviate congestion on Carolina Beach Road, particularly near the post office and nearby schools. He noted that due to the presence of a median, vehicles traveling southbound must use this access point to enter the shopping center, as U- turns are not permitted at the main intersection. Mr. Nichols concluded by affirming the applicant's intent to work collaboratively with the county and reiterated the importance of the sign's visibility and placement in supporting safe and efficient traffic flow into the center. Mr. Uhl opened the meeting to the public. There was no one that signed up to speak in opposition. Michael Davis, 56'11 Carolina Beach Road Mr. Davis provided further context regarding the sign and the surrounding property. He confirmed that the light poles near the sign were 20 feet tall, and that the trees in question were Bradford pears, which he owned and maintained. Mr. Davis explained that these trees grew quickly and required regular trimming to prevent them from obstructi ng visi bi lity. Mr. Davis shared that approximately seven years prior, he had been approached by a representative from the development team who informed him that his property was essential to the layout of the proposed shopping center. He mentioned that the Target store's presence would significantly increase traffic in the area. He agreed to provide access through his property, recognizing the community benefit of bringing in a Target store. He stated that the new access point and the sign were essential for alleviating traffic congestion on King's Highway, particularly given the number of inexperienced student drivers in the area. Mr. Davis stated that the sign was not visible from Carolina Beach Road due to the trees and its placement, and that a visible sign was necessary to attract drivers to use the new access point. Without lt, drivers might bypass the entrance and be forced to make longer detours due to the presence of medians and limited U-turn options. When asked directly, Mr. Davis confirmed that he owned the trees and the portion of the property where they were located. He reiterated his willingness to continue trimming the trees to maintain visibility of the sign. He also indicated that Target had been aware of the sign and its importance to the overall site plan, and that the deal to bring Target to the site would not have been possible without the access agreement involving his property. Greg Dobur, 5513 Carolina Beach Road Mr. Dobur, representing Big V Property Group, explained his long-term involvement in the development of the Target project in MonkeyJunction. He noted that he had worked with Mr. Davis and Mr. White for several years to assemble the necessary components for the project, including securing a critical access easement from Mr. White and Ms. Ledbetter. He emphasized that Target considered the si8n in question to be essential for directing traffic into the shopping center and had originally requested a more prominent sign. While a compromise was reached, Target still viewed the approved sign as vital for visibility and traffic flow. Mr. Dobur elaborated that signage was planned for all four access points to the center, including signs near Wells Fargo, Starbucks, Piner Road, and King's Highway. He described the current sign as the smallest.among them and reiterate that Target's primary concern was ensuring balanced traffic distribution across all entrances. He also referenced data that showed that the Market Street Target was the most visited in the state, and that TarSet anticipated strong performance from the new location, expecting both stores to operate concurrently. He further noted that the shopping center's layout made it difficult to see from the main road, which increased the importance of clear signage. Mr. Dobur shared that he had worked with local stakeholders, including Coastal Christian High School, whose leadership supported the project. He acknowledged concerns about student traffic and emphasized that the sign would help guide vehicles safely to the new access point. In response to board questions, he clarified that Target wanted all access points to remain open and well-marked, not to restrict traffic from any one route, but to ensure safe and efficient circulation throughout the site. Eddy White, 5621 Carolina Beach Road Mr. White was sworn in. Mr. White expressed concerns about traffic congestion along King's Highway, particularly at the intersection near the shopping center. He explained that when the Department of Transportation (DOT) modified the intersection, they removed the left and right turn lanes and did not include an internal red-light phase. As a result, traffic had already begun backing up at the light even before the Target store had opened. He stated that this situation underscored the importance of having multiple access points into the shopping center to help distribute traffic and reduce pressure on the main intersection Mr. White noted that without proper signage, drivers unfamiliar with the area might miss the alternative entrances and be forced to make inconvenient U-turns or cut through parking lots to reach their destination. He explained that AT&T had declined to allow a U-turn at a nearby location, further complicating traffic flow. Mr. White stressed that the visibllity of the sign in question was essential not only for Target but for all businesses in the area, as it would help guide drivers to the appropriate access points and reduce confusion. N4r. White concluded by stating that the development team, including Big V Property Group, had been working closely with local stakeholders to improve traffic conditions through signage, road striping, and directional arrows. He acknowledged that the area was still under construction and that some traffic issues were temporary, but he remained confident that with proper signage and education, traffic flow would improve over time. He reiterated that visibility was key-if drivers could not see the sign, they would not know the access point existed, which would undermine efforts to manage traffic effectively and support the success of the development. The Board closed public comments and began discussion. The Board engaged in a thorough discussion concerning the visibility of the sign in relation to the surrounding vegetation, particularly the Bradford pear trees, and noted that while the sign was not especially large, its effectiveness might vary depending on the season. Some members observed that the trees tended to retain their leaves well into December, which could continue to obscure the sign during much of the year. There was general agreement that visibility might improve in the winter months when the trees were bare, but concerns remained about whether the sign would be noticeable enough to serve its intended purpose year-round. Several members expressed broader conce[ns about the implications of approving a variance that conflicted with earlier community input and planning decisions. They noted thatthe originalsix-foot height regulation had been supported by residents in the Myrtle Grove area and approved by the commissioners, and that granting a variance could undermine those intentions. However, a different perspective presented that the project would be a valuable opportunity to enhance the area, particularly with the arrival of a major retailer like Target. They suggested that the development could serve as a catalyst for improving the overall appearance of the corridor by consolidating signage, enhancing landscaping, and creating a more cohesive and attractive commercial environment. There was also discussion about the permitting process, with one member expressing concern that the applicant may have proceeded without full approval, referencing an email from staff that, in their view, did not constitute formal authorization. While acknowledging the applicant's efforts and the potential benefits of the project, the Board emphasized the importance of following proper procedures. Some members also raised questions about traffic flow, including how delivery trucks would access the site and whether the current signage plan would effectively guide customers. The idea of creating a more uniform signage strategy across the development was viewed positively, though it was acknowledged that such coordination would likely fall outside the scope of the current variance request. Mr. Vafier provided clarification regarding the current sign regulations and the broader context of signage along Carolina Beach Road. He explained that while the current code generally limits sign height, many of the taller signs observed along the corridor were legal nonconforminS structures, meaning they were built under previous regulations and are allowed to .remain despite not meetinB current standards. He noted that the Planning and Land Use Department was in the process of preparing a comprehensive update to the signage section of the development code, which was scheduled to go before the Board of Commissioners in October. The proposed update was described as policy-neutral, intended primarily to make the code easier to understand and apply. However, he acknowledged that if the Board or community desired changes to the content or policy direction of the code, those could be pursued through the appropriate legislative process. Mr. Vafier continued explaining that the official mechanism for making such changes would be through a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). This process would allow for formal revisions to signage regulations, including height, placement, and design standards, if directed by the Board or initiated through public input. Mr. Daube made a motion to approve, and Mr. Sanclimente seconded the motion. Ms. King and Mr. Trice opposed. Following the vote on the motion, Deputy County Attorney, Ms. Richards, clarified that the motion did not pass. She explained that in such instances, board members had the opportunity to offer an alternate motion or engage in further discussion if they wished to explore additional options. To guide the board through the procedural optlons available at that stage of the meeting, she noted that the board also had the authority to add conditions to a variance if they believed it would help address concerns or better align the request with applicable standards. During further deliberation, members of the Board expressed interest in the broader issue of signage uniformity along King's Highway. lt was suggested that the possibility of setting the current variance request aside temporarily allow for a more comprehensive review of the sign code amendment referenced earlier by planning staff. The idea of creating a more cohesive and consistent signage strategy for the area was viewed favorably, particularly considering ongoing concerns about traffic flow and driver confusion due to unclear or inconsistent entry points. The Board acknowledged that the matter before them was specifically a request for a height variance for a sign that had already been constructed based on previously issued permits. The broader discussion concerning traffic and aesthetics was recognized, the focus of their immediate decision needed to pivot on the variance itself. The Board suggested the possibility of attaching a condition to the variance such as removing or modifying a tree to improve visibility if it could be done in compliance with existing landscaping requirements. Ms. Richards and Mr. Vafier cautioned that any such condition would need to be carefully worded, as the tree in question might be part of required street yard landscaping. They noted that determining whether the tree was essential to meeting code requirements would require a full review of the approved site plan and current code standards, which could not be completed during the hearing. However, it was suggested that the Board could include a conditional statement in the motion, allowing for landscaping adjustments if determined to be feasible and compliant with code. This approach was discussed as a potential path forward if the Board wished to approve the variance while addressing visibility concerns. Duringfurther deliberation, members of the Board expressed interest in the broader issue of signage uniformity along King's Highway. lt was suggested that the possibility of setting the current variance request aside temporarily could allow for a more comprehensive review of the sign-code amendment referenced earlier by staff. The idea of creating a more cohesive and consistent slSnage strategy for the area was viewed favorably, particularly considering ongoing concerns about traffic flow and driver confusion due to unclear or inconsistent entry points. Ms. Richards acknowledged that the matter before them was specifically a request for a height variance for a sign that had already been constructed based on previously lssued permits. She acknowledged the broader discussion regarding traffic and aesthetics, and it was determined that the Board's immediate responsibility was to render a decision based solely on the variance request before them. The possibility of attaching a condition to the variance was presented to them. As the discussion continued, it was expressed that the Board might be extending beyond the scope of its authority by attempting to address broader community planning issues through a single variance request. They noted that while the desire to improve signage consistency and community aesthetics was understandable, it felt inappropriate to impose conditions or expectations that were not directly related to the matter at hand. A reminder that the Board's role was to evaluate the specific variance request before them, not to make broader planning decisions based on individual preferences. There was also acknowledgment of the procedural history of the sign, with one member pointing out that the applicant had followed the permittlng process and constructed the sign based on approvals received from the county. A concern was raised that if the variance were to be denied under these circumstances, it could be perceived as unfair, particularly if the applicant had relied on those approvals in good faith. lt was suggested that, if placed in the applicant's position, many would likely appeal the decision, and there was speculation that such an appeal could ultimately result in the variance being granted. As the discussion concluded, the Board reviewed the four required findings necessary to grant a variance under the county's zoning ordinance. Mr. Sanclimente made the motion to recommend approval of the variance passed 4-1 with the decision based on the following conclusions and findings of facts: 1. lt is the Board's conclusion that, if the applicant complies with the literal terms of the ordinance, specifically the 5' maximum height requirement per Section 5.6.2.).4.A.3 of the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance, that an unnecessary hardship would result. (lt shall be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made ofthe property.) This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: Considering the sign was permitted and approved, and has already been built, the Board would consider it an unnecessary hardship for the expense of the removal and constructing a suitable replacement. 2. lt is the Board's conclusion that the hardship of which the applicant complains results from unique circumstances related to the subject property, such as location, size, or topography. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: The applicant's complaint results from unique circumstances, because the sign was permitted in error. 3. lt is the Board's conclusion that the hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: The applicant submitted the sign permit, and it was approved, through no fault of their own. a 4. lt is the Board's conclusion that, if granted, the variance will be consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the ordinance, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT: The Board finds the variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the ordinance, with public safety secured and substantial justice is achieved. Mr. Uhl made another motion to approve the request based on the stated findings of fact. Mr. Daube seconded the motion. The motion carried with a 4-1 vote. Ms. King cast the dissenting vote. Following the conclusion of the regular meetinS, the Board transitioned into the first portion of member training. The training session covered foundational topics related to the Board of Adjustment, including board responsibilities, attendance expectations, and rules of procedure. Discussion included the required number of board members, term lengths, member duties, the importance of consistent attendance, proper meeting conduct, the order of hearing proceedings, quorum requirements, and voting procedures, Meeting adjourned There being no further business before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by and seconded by The motion to adjourn passed 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 6:37 P.M. Exec utive Secreta ry Chair tzl lt lzs Date ./^2-