Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-2-2025 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board  October 2, 2025 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on October 2, 2025, at 6:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.    Members Present      Cameron Moore, Chair    Pete Avery, Vice Chair Clark Hipp   Hansen Matthews   Kaitlyn Rhonehouse   Members Absent  Andy Hewitt Kevin Hine Staff Present   Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use       Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney    Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor   Zachary Dickerson, Senior Development Planner Amy Doss, Development Review Planner Katherine May, Development Review Planner  Shauna Bradley, Administrative Specialist  Mr. Moore called the meeting to order at 6 P.M. and welcomed the audience. Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Hine were absent. Mr. Hipp motioned to excuse their absence and Mr. Avery seconded the motion. Approval of Minutes The minutes from the Planning Board’s Regular Meetings on January 9th, May 1st, and August 7th of 2025 were presented for consideration and approval. With no discussion, Mr. Hipp motioned to approve meeting minutes. Mr. Avery seconded the motion, and the minutes were approved unanimously, 5-0. Mr. Moore announced that items discussed during the meeting would advance to the County Commissioners’ meeting tentatively scheduled for Monday, November 3rd, 2025. The Planning Board representative for that meeting would be Mr. Matthews. Mr. Moore reminded the Board of the Code of Ethics as adopted on January 4, 2016, emphasizing that board members must avoid conflicts of interest. Ms. Rhonehouse entered into the record that she had a conflict of interest with Item 2 due to the applicant being a client of her consulting company. Mr. Hipp motioned to recuse Ms. Rhonehouse from Item 2 and Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, 4-0. Regular Business  Public Hearing Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z25-16) - Request by Atilano Cardenas and Sebastian Cardenas, applicants, on behalf of Phillip and Princetta Pierce, property owners, to rezone approximately 0.39 acres located at 2624 Castle Hayne Road from an existing (CZD) B-1, Neighborhood Business district to a new (CZD) B-1 district for the uses of grocery store and restaurant Ms. May presented an overview of the rezoning request proposing a change from the B-1 Neighborhood Business District to a new Conditional B-1 District to allow for a grocery store and restaurant. She noted that the property, situated north of Kerr Avenue, was surrounded by commercial parcels to the northwest and south, and residential areas to the east. She reviewed the 2012 conditional rezoning, explaining that while the subject parcel was included in the rezoning, it was not part of the original commercial concept plan and remained undeveloped. Due to the absence of a concept plan and the existing conditions that were tied to the parcel, a new rezoning was required. Ms. May found the proposed rezoning was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the subject site was designated as Community Mixed Use. This designation supports small-scale, mixed-use development patterns that accommodate all modes of travel, aligning with the proposed project. She shared examples of similar local grocery store developments and introduced the proposed concept plan, which included a building for the grocery store and restaurant, parking in the front and side, a rear loading area, and a screened dumpster. The existing tree line at the rear would be preserved. She highlighted the site’s full access to Castle Hayne Road, the proposed sign location, and a five-foot pedestrian easement previously conditioned in the 2012 rezoning. She also referenced nearby commercial developments, including a recent rezoning for a medical office adjacent to the site. She concluded her presentation and if approved, the project would undergo further review by the Technical Review Committee. The applicants Atilano Cardenas and Sebastian Cardenas were in attendance but did not have a presentation. Mr. S. Cardenas did indicate that he was available for questions. There was no one from the public who signed up to speak in favor or opposition of the rezoning request. Board Discussion The Board members raised concerns about the tight layout of the site plan, particularly regarding parking space dimensions and buffering requirements along the north and south property lines. Ms. May confirmed that required buffers would be addressed during the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process. Board members expressed that the actual parking space dimensions could reduce the total number of usable spaces once properly engineered, potentially impacting the building size. Ms. May explained that the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) allows for minor deviations and the use of parking demand studies to justify reduced parking if needed. From a stormwater perspective, the County Engineer explained that the parcel would likely qualify under pre-2000 rules, allowing up to 13,000 square feet of impervious surface. A drainage plan would be required at the building permit stage to ensure proper water flow and prevent impacts to neighboring properties. The general drainage pattern was believed to direct runoff toward Castle Hayne Road. Mr. Matthews made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. He found 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. He also found recommending approval of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because it allowed for an additional grocery option for the community and will support a local business. The motion included the following revised conditions: 1. The list of approved uses shall be limited to Grocery, Restaurant, and General Retail. 2. A minimum 5-foot-wide public access easement shall be provided along the frontage parallel to Castle Hayne Road to accommodate future bicycle and pedestrian access. 3. The specimen live oak tree at the northeast corner of the property must be retained and protected during construction in accordance with the UDO standards. 4. The location of the dumpster will be located and screened in accordance with the standards of the UDO. 5. A drive-through was not allowed. 6. The driveway location will be amended based on the feedback from NCDOT during the TRC review process. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Hipp. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z25-16) passed unanimously. 5-0 Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z25-17) - Request by Mike Brown with Cape Fear Development, applicant, on behalf of OFSC Properties, LLC, Ammo Dump / Lake + 9, LLC, and the D. Webster Trask Revocable Trust, property owners, to rezone approximately 95 acres zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial and approximately 13 acres zoned I-1, Light Industrial for a total of 108 acres located in the 3100 to 4200 block of Blue Clay Road to a general use RMF-L, Residential Multi-Family Low Density zoning district and removing the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD). Ms. Rhonehouse left the meeting as she had been recused from this item due to conflict of interest. Mr. Dickerson then presented an overview of the request to rezone approximately 108 acres located in the 3100–4200 block of Blue Clay Road from I-1 (Light Industrial) and I-2 (Heavy Industrial) to RMF-L (Residential Multi- Family Low Density). He noted that this was a straight rezoning request, meaning no concept plan was submitted and no conditions could be imposed. The site, originally zoned I-2 in 1972 and partially rezoned to I-1 in 2005, included a portion within the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD), which imposes additional development standards to preserve scenic corridors. The applicant requested removal of the SHOD designation from the site. Mr. Dickerson described the site as mostly wooded with some agricultural use and showed aerial imagery from various angles. He outlined the by-right uses permitted in the current industrial zoning and contrasted them with the residential and civic uses allowed in the RMFL district, which permits up to 10 units per acre and includes housing types such as single-family homes, duplexes, rowhomes, and multifamily developments. He noted that future access points to Blue Clay Road would be reviewed through the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process, and that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required at the time of development. Student generation estimates were also provided based on maximum buildout. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Community Mixed Use, which supports residential densities up to 15 units per acre. Mr. Dickerson recommended the proposed RMF-L zoning because it was found to be generally consistent with the plan’s recommendations and compatible with the surrounding area. He concluded by noting that any future development would be subject to TRC and zoning compliance review to ensure adherence to all ordinance requirements. The Board discussed environmentally sensitive areas on the property possibly being removed or reduced during development. Mr. Dickerson explained that during the review process, the developer would hire an expert to officially map out those areas. Sometimes the boundaries change a little once they’re professionally reviewed, but once they’re finalized, the county uses those maps to figure out how much land must be set aside and protected. Mike Brown of Cape Fear Development explained that the request was for a straight rezoning of a 108-acre site on Blue Clay Road from industrial to Residential Multi- Family Low Density. He confirmed that sewer access would require an on-site pump station, which was typical for the area, and that water infrastructure was nearby. Mr. Brown emphasized that the rezoning aligns with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, which designates the area as Community Mixed Use and supports residential densities up to 15 units per acre. He noted that while no site plan was tied to the rezoning, this flexibility allows for a more thoughtful, environmentally sensitive design that could adapt over time. Mr. Brown stated that the proposed zoning would allow for a mix of housing types with smaller footprints, helping to meet the county’s need for diverse and affordable housing. He highlighted the site’s proximity to major employers, educational institutions, and recreational amenities, making it well-suited for residential development. He also addressed environmental considerations, noting that the team had reviewed watershed maps and was working with a wetlands consultant to plan around conservation areas and maintain buffers, particularly near I-140. Mr. Moore opened the floor to the public in opposition. Andrianne Garber, P.O. Box 15770 Ms. Garber urged the board to deny the straight rezoning and instead require a conditional rezoning with a detailed concept plan. She described the property as one of the last large, undeveloped natural areas in the county, filled with old-growth trees and wetlands, and emphasized the need to preserve its environmental value. She raised concerns about removing the Special Highway Overlay District protections, the lack of transparency without a site plan, and the potential for overdevelopment, including high-density housing and impervious surfaces that could worsen flooding and harm natural habitats. Ms. Garber questioned the developer’s identity and accountability then argued that the proposed RMF-L zoning would allow too much density and too little public oversight. She advocated for lower-density zoning, such as R-20, to better reflect the rural character of the area and protect quality of life for nearby residents. Nadine Brimage, 3810 Juvenile Center Road Ms. Brimage expressed that she was a third-generation resident of the area. She was concerned by the scale of the development, estimating it could bring over a thousand homes to Blue Clay Road and noted the lack of a clear plan or details about housing types and access points. She also raised concerns about the impact on a nearby family cemetery that borders the property, asking whether privacy and respect for the site would be maintained. Recalling her childhood memories of the area, which she knew as “Black Swamp,” she described its natural beauty and biodiversity, including Venus flytraps, and expressed fear that the development would destroy these features. She emphasized the importance of protecting the area's natural environment and urged the board to consider these concerns before deciding. Logan Secord, 2900 New Town Drive Mr. Secord spoke in opposition to the rezoning due to the location and lack of a mix of uses. He acknowledged the need for diverse housing options, especially for younger generations, but expressed concern that the development would follow outdated suburban patterns that separate housing from amenities, leading to traffic congestion and overreliance on limited roadways. He recommended a mixed-use approach that includes residential and commercial elements to better serve the area. He noted that residents in northern New Hanover County must travel long distances for basic amenities and will contribute to traffic issues on major roads like MLK Parkway and Gordon Road. He recommended a mixed-use community, with a portion of the land set aside for commercial use such as restaurants and shops, to better serve the growing residential population and reduce strain on county infrastructure. Mr. Moore then opened the floor for the rebuttal statements. Mr. Brown responded to public concerns by emphasizing the challenges and costs associated with pursuing a conditional rezoning for a large, 100-acre site, noting that such a process would require extensive planning, consultants, and repeated revisions, which could hinder efforts to provide affordable housing. He asked the community to trust his team’s track record, stating that their developments had never focused on clear-cutting or maximizing density, and that natural features like wooded buffers and existing drainage systems would be preserved. He noted that the current industrial zoning would allow for more disruptive and less attractive development, while the proposed residential zoning aligns with the county’s comprehensive plan and offers a more thoughtful, aesthetically pleasing alternative. Mr. Brown also highlighted the importance of organic growth, where residential and commercial uses support each other over time, and pointed to nearby projects as examples of balanced development. He concluded by reaffirming his commitment to responsible planning and appreciation for the community’s input. During the opposition’s rebuttal period, Ms. Garber raised concerns about the applicant’s use of a privately hired wetlands consultant. She questioned the consultant’s identity, qualifications, and potential bias due to being paid by the developer. She expressed skepticism that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would fully account for environmental protection, suggesting the process may prioritize engineering standards over ecological preservation. The speaker also criticized how traffic impacts are typically assessed, arguing that while one development may not cause a problem, the cumulative effect of multiple nearby projects was significant and often overlooked. She questioned the timing of the rezoning, suggesting the county should wait until nearby large-scale developments are completed before approving more. Ultimately, the speaker stated that the lack of a clear development plan and insufficient transparency had not earned their trust in the applicant. Ms. Brimage had a concern about water and drainage issues. She mentioned a severe water backup when Hurricane Florence hit and how the North Chase development had issues draining properly. Ms. Brimage noted how I-40 blocked the water from leaving and building another development on the other side may cause more flooding. Mr. Secord agreed with earlier concerns about the lack of a conditional rezoning and reiterated support for the overall concept of the development. He emphasized that while the project itself may be well-intentioned, the absence of a detailed plan made it difficult to evaluate how the development will fit into the broader community. He advocated setting aside a portion of the 108-acre site for commercial use to support the growing residential population in the area. He stressed the importance of strategic planning to avoid the kind of traffic congestion seen in larger cities and encouraged more thoughtful planning for remaining parcels to ensure balanced, community-oriented growth. Mr. Moore closed the public hearing and moved to the board discussion. The Board compared the proposed residential rezoning to the existing industrial zoning, noting that the current I-1 and I-2 classifications allow for intense uses such as chemical manufacturing, warehousing, and landfills—uses that could be implemented by right and would likely be undesirable to nearby residents. Several members agreed that residential development would be more compatible with the surrounding area and a better long-term fit. However, concerns were raised about the lack of a conditional rezoning, which would have provided a detailed site plan and allowed for community input and enforceable conditions. Some members emphasized the importance of strategic planning and expressed frustration that straight rezonings limit the board’s ability to influence design elements like buffers, pedestrian infrastructure, and mixed-use integration. While there was general agreement that the industrial zoning was outdated, opinions differed on whether the straight rezoning should be approved. Some members supported the request, citing trust in the applicant’s track record and confidence in the county’s review and permitting process to ensure compliance with development standards. Others were hesitant, pointing out that once rezoned, the property could be sold to another developer with no obligation to follow the applicant’s stated intentions. The lack of enforceable conditions and the inability to secure community benefits led some members to oppose the request. The board also discussed the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD), with Mr. Dickerson clarifying that it regulates building setbacks, signage, and impervious surface coverage to preserve scenic views along major corridors. One member addressed public concerns about the wetlands consultant, explaining that such professionals are licensed and held accountable by regulatory agencies, reducing the risk of biased reporting. The conversation also touched on the relationship between residential and commercial development, with some members noting that commercial services typically follow residential growth. It was suggested that while the area may not currently support commercial uses, future development could create the demand needed to support them. The discussion concluded with appreciation for the public’s thoughtful input and a recognition that the decision required balancing current zoning rights, long-term planning goals, and community expectations. Following Board discussion, Mr. Avery moved to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. He found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the RMF-L zoning district would provide uses that are in line with the Community Mixed Use place type that could serve existing and future businesses and residents. He also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and of the public’s interest because the district would act as a new area for a mix of housing types in this area. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Moore. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z25-17) passed, 3-1, with Mr. Hipp voting in dissent. Staff Update Ms. Roth presented to the board the discussion of virtual participation in future meetings, prompted by an anticipated update to County committee rules of procedure by the Board of Commissioners. She explained that while virtual participation was not currently allowed under existing rules, the Commissioners were expected to adopt new procedures that could permit it across all county boards and committees. However, due to the timing of the Commissioners’ decision and the Planning Board’s meeting schedule, it was recommended that the board adopt an interim rule explicitly prohibiting virtual participation by board members, applicants, or the public until the board could formally review and adopt its own updated procedures. Board members clarified that this interim measure would apply to both regular meetings and agenda reviews and was necessary to avoid confusion or procedural gaps. Ms. Roth also addressed concerns about the appropriateness of virtual participation for boards like the Planning Board, which involve public hearings and statutory requirements. The board acknowledged the importance of maintaining in-person engagement for transparency and deliberation and agreed that a temporary rule was needed to provide clarity during the transition period. Mr. Moore made a MOTION to recognize that the Planning Board does not allow virtual participation in scheduled meetings on an interim basis. Mr. Hipp SECONDED the motion. The motion was approved unanimously, 5-0. Mr. Moore MOTIONED to adjourn. Mr. Avery SECONDED the motion. Meeting adjourned at 7:39p.m.