Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-2025 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board  January 9, 2025 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on January 9, 2025, at 6:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.     Members’ Present      Colin Tarrant, Chair    Cameron Moore, Vice Chair    Clark Hipp   Kevin Hine   Kaitlyn Rhonehouse   Pete Avery   Members Absent Hansen Matthews   Staff Present   Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use       Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor   Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner    Katherine May, Development Review Planner  Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor  Shauna Bradley, Administrative Specialist  Chair Tarrant called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience. After welcome remarks Chair Tarrant led the Pledge of Allegiance, provided an overview of the meeting procedures, and read the Code of Ethics. Chair Tarrant announced that the items discussed this evening would advance to the Board of Commissioners for a quasi-judicial hearing on Monday, February 3, 2025, at 4:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse. He explained that because of the quasi- judicial nature of the applications, the Planning Board would hold a Preliminary Forum only and would not take votes or make recommendations. Chair Tarrant then asked members to disclose any conflicts of interest under N.C.G.S. 160D- 109. No conflicts were disclosed. Approval of Minutes The October 3, 2024, regular meeting minutes were presented for consideration. Mr. Avery made a MOTION to approve the minutes, SECONDED by Vice Chair Moore. The motion carried 6-0 Regular Business Chair Tarrant presented to the Board two options for managing the time, Option A allotted 15 minutes for the applicant’s presentation and 20 minutes for public questions and comments, while Option B extended the applicant’s time to 30 minutes and public questions and comments to 40 minutes, recognizing that two applications were under review. After discussion, Vice Chair Moore made a MOTION to proceed under Option B, SECONDED by Mr. Hipp, The motion carried,5-1. Preliminary Forum Special Use Permit Requests S24-04 and S24-05 • Special use Permit (S24-04) Request by Bayshore Townhomes LLC, applicant, on behalf of Bee Safe Porters Neck LLC, property owner, for a Special Use Permit for a 62-unit multi-family development with 1,800 square feet of commercial space in a B- 2, Regional Business district on a 3.21-acre parcel located at 8138 Market Street. • Special Use Permit (S24-05) Additional Dwelling Allowance- Request by Bayshore Townhomes LLC, applicant, on behalf of Herbert Parham, property owner, for a special use permit for an Additional Dwelling Allowance for 242 row-style dwelling units in a R-15, Residential district on a 30.22-acre parcel located at the 8100 block of Market Street. Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor, presented the staff report for both applications, explaining that the projects were interdependent and required approval of both permits. He emphasized that this was a preliminary forum and neither staff nor the Board would make a recommendation. He reviewed the four findings required for Special Use Permit approval by the Commissioners. Mr. Farrell described the site’s zoning history and existing conditions, including a vacant commercial building on Market Street. He detailed the B-2 request, noting mixed-use standards, proposed two multi-family buildings with commercial frontage, density of 19.3 units per acre, and potential reconfiguration to three buildings without increasing unit count. He then described the R-15 Additional Dwelling Allowance request: 242 townhomes at 8.37 units per acre (below the 10.2 units per acre permitted maximum), a clubhouse and amenities, a stormwater pond with an overland relief path, 35-foot perimeter buffers, preserved vegetation, and an emergency-only gated connection to Brays Drive with a bicycle/pedestrian path. The applicant also committed to a 40-foot building height cap. Mr. Farrell reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis, which projected increased AM trips, but reduced PM trips compared to by-right development. Improvements required included signalization at Cypress Pond Way and extension of a right-turn lane to the ABC Store. He concluded with the Comprehensive Plan designations of General Residential and Urban Mixed Use, noting that the Commissioners must determine if the project is in harmony with the plan. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant up to present. Mr. Gary Shipman, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. He noted that the project had previously been considered during a 2023 rezoning request, which the Planning Board recommended for approval, but which the applicant later withdrew following feedback from the Board of Commissioners. He explained that, since then, the proposal has been significantly revised with assistance from staff and consultants to address concerns raised. Mr. Shipman stated that the applicant reduced density, shifted development away from nearby residential areas, added amenities and buffers beyond requirements, and designed stormwater facilities to serve both the site and adjoining properties. He emphasized that such improvements would not be required under by-right development. He also noted that New Hanover County continued to face a countywide housing shortage across all demographic groups, with demand exceeding supply due to sustained population growth of more than 35% since 2000. He emphasized that the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2021, which contemplated growth in the Porters Neck node. The proposed eight units per acre remained below the ten units per acre allowed under a Special Use Permit. He explained that the applicant chose to proceed through the SUP process to ensure compliance with quasi-judicial standards, requiring material and competent evidence. He also noted that the project would enhance the public record with detailed technical information not available during the rezoning process. Addressing school capacity concerns, Mr. Shipman stated that student generation rates had declined slightly since earlier projections and that capacity issues at Porters Neck Elementary and Laney High School reflected long-standing districting decisions by the Board of Education. He added that these conditions existed when the Comprehensive Plan was updated. He also highlighted planned stormwater enhancements and confirmed that Brays Drive would remain emergency access only in response to neighborhood concerns. Ms. Allison Engebretson, Planner and Landscape Architect with Paramount Engineering, presented changes to the site plan since the 2023 rezoning application. She explained that overall density had been reduced by 44 units, from 348 to 304, consisting of 62 multifamily units in the B-2 area and 242 townhomes in the R-15 area. She noted that density had been shifted away from adjacent residential areas and toward Market Street. She described the addition of 1,800 square feet of commercial space integrated into multifamily buildings, improvements to site drainage including a new stormwater pond, and a 25% reduction in R-15 density. She emphasized expanded buffers, a fully connected sidewalk and trail system, pocket parks, and neighborhood amenities designed to be within a short walk from all units. She highlighted preservation of live oaks, integration of natural features into site design, and increased open space far exceeding minimum requirements. Mr. John Davenport, Traffic Engineer, presented the updated traffic impact analysis. He reported that the reduction from 348 to 304 units, plus 1,800 square feet of retail, resulted in negligible changes to projected traffic. He confirmed that site access would be limited to Market Street, with Brays Drive designated as emergency access only. A December 2024 letter from the Wilmington MPO approved the revised traffic impact analysis. Mr. Davenport outlined the requirements in the WMPO’s December 2024 TIA approval letter which included signalizing a U-turn/left-turn movement at Cypress Pond Way and extending the right-turn lane from Porters Neck Road to the ABC Store. He noted that these improvements would ease congestion and enhance safety. He also observed that completion of the Military Cutoff Road Extension in 2023 reduced traffic volumes along Market Street, making the analysis conservative. In response to a question from a Board member, he confirmed the turn lane would provide adequate stacking. Mr. Shipman concluded by introducing team members present, including Paul Smith, General Counsel of Carroll Companies; Craig Carlock, COO of Carroll Companies; and Dennis Burton, Director of Land Development. He reiterated that the project’s density was below the maximum SUP, and that the proposal included stormwater improvements, 1.5 miles of sidewalks, expanded buffers, and increased open space. He stated that the project was unique and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Tarrant opened the hearing to opposition. Kevin Foley - 71931 Bonaventure Drive Mr. Foley noted that the proposal was improved compared to the prior year but still raised concerns. He questioned the validity of the traffic study, citing outdated 2022 data, roadway changes that increased U-turns and delays, and reliance on unrelated comparison data. He argued that population growth and added retail trips were not fully accounted for and requested a new traffic study. He also highlighted school capacity issues, stating that Porters Neck Elementary was already over capacity even with portable classrooms, and a utilization study projected 144% capacity by 2027. He contended that such overcrowding was not in harmony with the neighborhood and could negatively affect property values, as families prioritize quality schools when purchasing homes. He concluded by thanking the Board for their time. Courtney Corriher- 115 Marsh Oaks Drive, HOA President Ms. Corriher spoke on behalf of the Marsh Oaks HOA Board and stated the Board was unanimously opposed to the development; she asserted that recent road projects and rapid growth had not prioritized pedestrian access in an area lacking public transit, crosswalks, continuous sidewalks, and bike paths; she argued Market Street already operated above planning capacity and, based on the applicant’s outdated TIA, the project would add thousands of daily trips without a current study reflecting both commercial and multifamily uses; she contended site access would force risky U-turns across multiple lanes and further burden the Porters Neck and Hays/Market intersections; she raised stormwater concerns, noting retention pond overflows were proposed to discharge into a creek abutting Marsh Oaks properties that already flooded, citing personal observations of five-foot rises during heavy rain and existing HOA water management costs exceeding $35,000 annually; she stated the developer had not shown adequate data to ensure no additional runoff impacts, provided no affordable units, left tenure (rent vs. sale) unresolved while the plan and clubhouse labeling suggested rentals, and that renter-heavy projects complicate school enrollment; she concluded the proposal failed to prioritize appropriate density, environmental sustainability, safe traffic flow, or school capacity and reported Marsh Oaks had retained legal counsel due to these concerns. Ian McKenzie- 8230 Porters Crossing Way Mr. McKenzie expressed opposition and echoed prior speakers’ concerns, stating he relied on the application materials and found the trip estimates for the townhomes and apartments unrealistically low given typical two-car households; he cited school overcrowding at Porters Neck Elementary and Laney High and argued developers should not exacerbate capacity problems; he urged that the site be developed with single-family homes as originally intended, noting the area’s prevailing single-family character and a cited document showing higher projected need for single-family housing; he suggested developing approximately 60–75 single-family homes on 30 acres to increase backyard green space and align with the Board of Commissioners’ 2025 goal to expand green space, and emphasized he was not opposed to development, only to the proposed product type. Michelle Morgan - 8234 Porters Crossing Way Ms. Morgan opposed the project and emphasized traffic safety, stating the Market Street/Porters Crossing Way intersection was very close to the proposed site access for 304 units and created unsafe conditions; she supported single-family housing at the location, observed that numerous apartments were being built nearby (including in Hampstead), and urged consideration of more affordable starter homes as a better fit for the area. Caroline Van Ingen - 8317 Vintage Club Circle Ms. Van Ingen opposed the project and described moving from Fairfield County, Connecticut due to traffic and safety issues; she questioned whether the cited housing-shortage statistics accounted for existing large developments under construction on and near Market Street, observed severe congestion between 3–6 p.m. that already made right-lane access difficult, and argued the added households (often with two cars and children) would worsen traffic; she raised safety concerns about vehicles exiting near the ABC store and the feasibility of merging and making U-turns—particularly for school buses—stating the project was too large for the site and unnecessary for the community. William Northrup - 388 Shackelford Drive Mr. Northrup spoke in opposition, characterizing the site layout as a “cobbled” configuration and focusing on the rear residential area where roughly 240 townhomes would abut single- family neighborhoods; he asserted the revised density remained excessive (citing an increase to roughly 8.73 units per acre versus an allowed 2.5) and inconsistent with surrounding development; he warned of property-value risks, prolonged construction impacts (dust, noise, heavy equipment), and cut-through pressures on Brays Drive, a private HOA street originally shown for emergency access only; he expressed concern that, after buildout, the new HOA could push to open the emergency connection for regular traffic, which he believed would harm his small neighborhood of about 50 homes, and urged the Board to consider neighborhood consistency and the rear residential impacts. Sondra Vitols - 8208 Bald Eagle Lane; representing Porters Neck HOA, Porters Neck Quality of Life Association Ms. Vitols opposed the application, recalling that the prior version was withdrawn when it appeared headed for denial; she stated the townhouse density remained inconsistent with R-15 neighborhoods and that traffic studies relied on flawed, outdated data that did not account for recently completed apartment projects adding residents and trips; she noted the Market Street/Porters Neck area had an NCDOT “F” rating and argued the reduced density would not mitigate failures; she cited ongoing school capacity concerns, asserted the project did not address local water-quality problems affecting Pages Creek and Little Creek (including recent shell fishing closures), and observed the resubmitted September 18 application still used December 2022 counts; she questioned using an SUP rather than a rezoning—given reduced public standing in quasi-judicial processes—and stated the plan did not include housing meeting affordable or workforce definitions (e.g., ~60% AMI or 80– 120% AMI), urging the Board to recognize the proposal as too dense, inconsistent with the neighborhood, and based on deficient impact analyses. At the conclusion of the public comment period Chair Tarrant gave the applicant time for rebuttal. Mr. Shipman thanked the Chair and the public, and, in brief rebuttal, stated that the Special Use Permit path was chosen to provide more—not less—certainty and to ensure the record contained material, competent evidence for the upcoming quasi-judicial hearing; he cautioned that most public opinions offered at the forum would not be admissible in February. He asserted the Wilmington MPO had approved the traffic analysis and rejected claims that its numbers were “phony.” On stormwater, he noted the project would require a state stormwater permit from NC DEQ, giving confidence that site and adjacent drainage would be managed within legal parameters, acknowledging that extreme events (e.g., a 1,000-year storm) could exceed design. Addressing schools, he cited staff’s conclusion that impacts were “minimal,” estimating net increases of approximately 18 elementary, 9 middle, and 16 high school students compared with by-right development, and he noted current student generation rates were lower than those assumed in 2020–2021. Responding to calls for single-family homes, he argued the 2021 Comprehensive Plan supported a variety of housing types to meet countywide shortages across all socioeconomic groups. He also disputed assertions that adjacent single-family values would decline near multifamily housing, stating that available data did not support that claim. He closed by inviting questions from the public prior to the February hearing and thanked the Board for its time. Chair Tarrant gave those signed up in support and opposition time for rebuttal. Christine Mason spoke during rebuttal and sought clarification about standing at the upcoming quasi-judicial hearing, stating her understanding that residents within 500 feet who received notice would have stood and that their opinions would be heard and considered by the Commissioners. County legal counsel responded that standing was distinct from the requirement for expert testimony; individuals with standing could address matters not requiring expertise, but topics such as stormwater engineering, real estate valuation, and traffic must be supported by expert testimony. Ms. Mason concluded by clarifying that Porters Neck Elementary had not received additional modular units, that the site allowed a maximum of four, and that two were currently in place. Mr. Foley acknowledged the Wilmington MPO’s approval of the traffic analysis while arguing that prior approvals were not infallible, noting a Planning Board member had later expressed regret about supporting the earlier version; he clarified he had not called the traffic data “phony” but “outdated,” offering this as a data analyst by profession, and he disputed the student-generation figures, stating that using a 0.09 rate for 304 units would yield approximately 27 Porters Neck Elementary students rather than 18; he thanked the Board. Ms. Corriher reiterated the Marsh Oaks HOA’s concerns and contended the Special Use Permit process limited public notice and information by sending letters only to residents within 500 feet, leaving others to learn of the matter via HOA communications and word of mouth; she asserted the SUP route increased the burden on residents by necessitating legal representation that would not have been required under a rezoning; she added that several residents had relevant professional expertise, noting her decade in real estate and investment development, and that Marsh Oaks engaged stormwater contractors who routinely managed the neighborhood’s drainage systems; she concluded that several statements from the applicant’s counsel did not reflect residents’ day-to-day data and experience. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion. The Board thanked participants and provided questions and comments to help both the applicant and the opposition prepare for the Commissioners’ quasi-judicial hearing. Board members noted that while the SUP process required detailed submittals from the applicant, the public would also need expert support for claims to be admissible at the hearing. The Board discussed whether the Comprehensive Plan clearly anticipated the proposed R-15 density, observing that the B-2 frontage appeared more consistent, and emphasized keeping comments factual. Board members asked staff to explain the “growth node” designation and suggested the applicant more clearly connect the proposal to that framework. Members requested the definition of “dwelling unit,” clarifying it means an independent living unit regardless of tenure, and noted that commercial uses under the B-2 portion of the SUP were limited to those permitted in the lower-intensity B-1 category. The Board questioned the stormwater engineer about watershed conditions and permit criteria; it was stated the site drains toward tidal creeks, pinch points appear mostly upstream, and County permitting requires post- development peak flows not to exceed pre-development for the 25-year storm. Members also encouraged exploring exterior pedestrian connections and coordinating with NCDOT, noting sidewalk planned on the opposite side of Market Street near the Walmart entrance. Regarding Brays Drive, the Board clarified it was publicly dedicated but never accepted and is maintained by the HOA. Members asked the applicant to thoroughly address whether emergency-only or full access best meets safety and long-term network goals. It was noted that prior traffic analysis considered both scenarios, that full access would shift more left turns to Porters Neck Road, and that an MPO letter previously preferred opening Brays Drive for broader network performance—while acknowledging the burden placed on a non- publicly maintained road. The Board identified four core issues for the hearing: traffic, school capacity, flooding/stormwater, and potential effects on home values. Members recognized that the 2022 TIA was aging even though the WMPO had approved it, and advised opponents to engage qualified traffic, engineering, and appraisal experts if they wished to challenge the application’s evidence. Members also observed that limited land supply and growth pressures likely required higher-density housing on remaining parcels; some stated that existing single-family home values could rise as such homes become scarcer. The Board remarked that the applicant appeared to have increased buffers, addressed drainage, and was not seeking maximum allowable density, while reiterating that the decision rests with the Commissioners. Members advised the applicant to address all required findings—specifically including expert testimony on effects to adjacent property values—and to present a clear position on Brays Drive access that balances safety with long-term planning. Members reminded opponents that the SUP framework allows certain uses or densities under specified conditions, and that admissible, expert-supported evidence—not lay opinion—would be necessary. The Board acknowledged the recurring gap between expert reports and residents lived experience and emphasized its intent to weigh both. Mr. Farrell stated the applications would proceed to a quasi-judicial hearing before the Board of Commissioners on Monday, February 3, at 4:00 p.m. in the same room. All evidence must be presented in person and be fact-based rather than opinion. Staff will post the Commissioners’ packet and materials on the County’s Development Activity page by close of business this coming Monday. Staff Updates Chair Tarrant asked staff if there were any additional updates. Hearing none a MOTION to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Avery, SECONDED by Ms. Rhonehouse. The motion was approved 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM.