Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-2025 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board  May 1, 2025 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on May 1, 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   Pete Avery  Kevin Hine  Clark Hipp  Kaitlyn Rhonehouse  Members Absent Hansen Matthews  Staff Present  Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use      Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor   Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney   Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner   Katia Boykin, Planning and Land Use Supervisor Katherine May, Development Review Planner Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor   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 items from the evening’s agenda would move forward to the Board of Commissioners’ meeting on Monday, June 2, 2025, and noted that he would serve as the Planning Board representative at that meeting. Chair Tarrant then asked members to disclose any conflicts of interest under N.C.G.S. 160D-109. Vice Chair Moore disclosed a conflict with Item Two, the Heron Cove rezoning, due to serving on a board with the applicant, and requested to be excused. Mr. Hipp made a MOTION to excuse Vice Chair Moore from Item Two, SECONDED by Mr. Avery. The motion carried unanimously, and Vice Chair Moore did not participate in Item Two. Approval of Minutes The December 2024 minutes were presented for consideration. Mr. Avery MOTIONED to approve the minutes, SECONDED by Mr. Hipp. The motion carried unanimously. Regular Business Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z25-05), a conditional rezoning to R-5 for senior independent living at Edgewater Club Road and Waterstone Drive. The applicant was Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions, on behalf of Har-Ste Investments, LLC. The request was to rezone approximately 19.32 acres located at 226 Edgewater Club Road and the 900 block of Waterstone Drive from CZD R-7 and R-20 to CZD R-5 for an age-restricted (55+) independent living community consisting of 82 attached and detached single-family units. Amy Doss explained that the site was originally zoned R-20 in 1971, and that the southern seven acres had been rezoned to CZD R-7 for forty-four townhomes, which remained an approved plan. The proposed conditional rezoning would consolidate the site under R-5 to enable the age-restricted use without increasing density compared to existing approvals, resulting in approximately 4.2 dwelling units per acre across the combined phases. Ms. Doss described the concept plan, which included an amenity center and pool, two stormwater ponds, emergency access, internal sidewalks, a twenty-foot public access easement with a five-foot sidewalk along Edgewater Club Road, and an interconnection to Winding Creek Circle. A traffic impact analysis was not required, and minimal school impact was anticipated due to the age restriction. Building height would be limited to forty feet per the Unified Development Ordinance, although some attached units would include habitable space above garages. She stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as General Residential, which supported lower- intensity residential with civic services, and noted that senior housing would broaden housing choice and provide a transition to adjacent neighborhoods. Staff recommended approval with conditions addressing sidewalks, stormwater management, and formal age-restricted status. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant up to present. Cindee Wolf, representing the applicant, explained that the intent was to rezone the northern R-20 portion to match the conditional district so the entire campus could be age-restricted under CZD R-5, with no increase in approved density for the southern townhomes. She committed to extending the existing right-turn lane and providing a full right-turn lane into the site, constructing sidewalks on both sides internally, and dedicating a twenty- foot public access easement with sidewalk along Edgewater Club Road. She noted the amenity placement at the entry and described management practices for senior communities to limit noise. Chair Tarrant opened the hearing to opposition. Virginia Williams of 301 Edgewater Club Road spoke in opposition, citing concerns about traffic congestion during school pick-up and drop-off times and the proximity of the pool and amenity directly across from her home. She requested additional buffering and noise mitigation. With no other speakers in opposition and the applicant having no further comments, Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion. During the Board discussion members acknowledged existing school-related congestion along Edgewater Club Road and emphasized the value of sidewalk connectivity to encourage walking to the nearby school. Discussion focused on buffering and noise abatement for the amenity. The applicant agreed to enhanced treatment, including a solid privacy fence six to eight feet in height along back-of-lot lines near the amenity, and a decorative brick wall approximately six feet high with enhanced landscaping along the frontage near the amenity, tapering closer to the entrance monument to maintain sight distance. Members noted the lower traffic and school impacts of age- restricted single-family housing compared to general-occupancy housing and emphasized the project’s consistency with the adjacent residential character. It was clarified that the amenity would be reviewed under a commercial site plan for buffering and landscaping at the Technical Review Committee. Mr. Hine proceeded to make the following MOTION. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find 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. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in public interest because the site is located along a transitioning commercial corridor near existing commercial uses and conditions will reduce impacts on adjacent residential areas, with the following conditions. Proposed Conditions: 1. An additional sidewalk will be provided between the project and Porter's Neck Elementary School. 2. The storm water management system will be designed for a 100-year storm event. 3. Both the detached and attached single-family portions project will be age-restricted based on state and federal Fair Housing requirements for projects for individuals aged 55 and above. 4. A 20-foot-wide public access easement with ADA accessible sidewalk will be installed along the project fronting Edgewater Club Road. The sidewalk must be installed or bonded as part of the construction of the subdivision, and the public access easement must be plated and dedicated with the recordation of the first plat associated with the development. The motion was SECINDED by Mr. Avery and carried unanimously. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z25-06), a conditional rezoning to R-5 for the Heron Cove subdivision of 81 single-family lots. The applicant was Craig Johnson of Heron Cove Development, LLC, with Amy Schafer, on behalf of Canh and Ngoc Nguyen, the owners. The property consisted of 10.8 acres located at 6425 and 6437 Gordon Road and 1927 Gordon Acres Drive. The request was to rezone from R-15 to CZD R-5 for 81 single-family detached lots. Zach Dickerson described the concept plan of 81 lots at approximately 7.5 units per acre, internal sidewalks on both sides of the street, stormwater areas and open space, a recreation area with a pedestrian access easement, and a gated emergency access to Daniel Boone Trail. Access would be provided from Gordon Road. He noted that NCDOT’s Gordon Road widening project was anticipated to begin later in the year, with the project generating approximately 61 trips in the morning peak and 82 in the evening peak. The school impact was estimated at approximately ten additional students compared to the current R-15 zoning. Surroundings included single-family subdivisions and higher- density multifamily developments such as Ellington Farms, which had been annexed into the City of Wilmington. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan designated the site as General Residential with a maximum of eight units per acre and that the proposal was generally consistent in density and form. Staff recommended approval with conditions including emergency access, parking management, and six-foot rear-lot fencing. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant up to present. Amy Schafer, with Craig Johnson present emphasized the attainable for-sale product of approximately 1,500 to 1,600 square-foot homes with target prices around $325,000, the inclusion of sidewalks on both sides, and conformance with the density guideline of eight units per acre. She offered a utility easement through the on-site recreation area to facilitate future neighborhood utility connections. She also clarified that under the Gordon Road widening project, median operations would include right-in/right-out with protected U-turns and that future driveway operations would follow NCDOT review. Chair Tarrant invited the members of the public who signed up to speak. In Support: Olivia Jones – 803 Royal Bonnet Drive Ms. Jones, shared that while her own living situation has changed over time, she sees this type of housing as a good fit for young families trying to enter the housing market at an attainable price point. Acknowledging traffic concerns, she expressed optimism about the ongoing road improvements and added infrastructure, including bike and multi-use paths. She emphasized the importance of creating housing opportunities for newcomers and stated her support for smart, continued growth in the area. In Opposition: Ms. DeVries – 1930 Gordon Road Ms. DeVries, a local resident and president of the neighborhood roadway association, opposed the rezoning request for Heron Cove. She argued that the R-5 zoning is too dense for the area, lacks proper access points, and would strain infrastructure. She raised safety concerns, cited past issues with poor planning, and encouraged either a better layout that includes nearby available land or a conservation alternative like a wildlife sanctuary. Kim Turner – 1907 Gordon Acres Ms. Turner, a neighbor to the proposed development, also opposed the rezoning, citing its incompatibility with the neighborhood and potential damage to a mature tree canopy. She expressed concerns about increased traffic, loss of privacy, and environmental risks, particularly the retention pond’s long-term impact. She questioned whether the project benefits the public or simply serves developer profits. Tim Strickland – 1908 Daniel Boone Trail Mr. Strickland expressed concern about the proposed development’s high density. He compared it to nearby projects and emphasized how placing over 80 homes on a small tract would overcrowd the area and impact on his property. He stated that while he supported growth, this level of development was excessive and inappropriate. Helen Hollingsworth – Gordon Acres Resident Ms. Hollingsworth focused on flooding, traffic, and infrastructure. She described how local flooding has damaged her property and warned that the development would worsen these issues. She also noted how past development had overcrowded nearby roads and schools, urging the board to stop further overbuilding in an already struggling area. Caroline Park – Local Resident Ms. Park rebutted the developer’s claims, raising issues with parking, affordability, and traffic. She questioned how the homes would remain affordable if construction costs rise and warned that the development’s design would increase flooding risks and congestion, especially during school hours and ongoing roadwork. She argued the plan was not sustainable as proposed. At the conclusion of the public comment period Chair Tarrant gave the applicant time for rebuttal. Ms. Schafer responded by stating the road would meet all DOT and fire code standards. They said required environmental surveys and mitigation would be completed and argued that stormwater and parking concerns would be addressed through proper design and regulation compliance. Chair Tarrant gave those signed up in support and opposition time for rebuttal. In her rebuttal, Ms. Turner reiterated that high density seems driven by profit rather than public need. She suggested the developer considers additional nearby land to create a more balanced, affordable project. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion. The Board members discussed widening traffic operations under the Gordon Road, including access management and protected U-turns, and affirmed the benefit of emergency-only connection at Daniel Boone Trail. They also considered stormwater coordination with County Engineering for legacy drainage systems downstream and emphasized compliance with current County stormwater standards through the Technical Review Committee. Members weighed the need for housing against the density and impact concerns, while recognizing the inclusion of sidewalks, on-site open space, and single-family form consistent with nearby neighborhoods. Mr. Avery proceeded to make the following MOTION. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find 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. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the site is located along a transitioning commercial corridor near existing commercial uses and conditions will reduce impacts on adjacent residential areas, with the following conditions: Proposed Conditions: 1. The project will include emergency only access to Daniel Boone Trail. 2. The project will include a minimum one-car garage with each home and ability to park one car in the driveway of each home. 3. The project will provide a six-foot fence at the rear of each lot of the development. 4. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Rhonehouse and carried 5–0, with Vice Chair Moore recused. Item Three: Rezoning Request (Z25-07 – 7495 Market Street) Request by James Fentress with Stroud Engineering, applicant, on behalf of Dallas Harris, property owner, to rezone approximately 1.15 acres located at 7495 Market Street from a Conditional Community Business (CZD CB) district to a new CZD CB district for the development of two commercial buildings for retail sales and other limited uses. Katherine May, presented that the applicant sought to rezone approximately 1.15 acres from an existing conditional Community Business (CZD CB) district to a new CZD CB district to allow retail sales and other limited uses. The property, located at the intersection of Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard, was previously rezoned from R-15 Residential to CZD CB in June 2022 for the development of a bank and other uses. The site was located within the Special Highway Overlay District and was currently undeveloped. Surrounding uses included residences to the west and commercial development to the east and south. Ms. May displayed aerial photographs, site photographs, and concept plans. She noted that the new site plan proposed significant changes from the previously approved plan, including removal of the second access to Torchwood Boulevard, leaving only one access to Market Street. This access would be right-in/right-out only, with a signalized U-turn available at the intersection. The development proposed a phased approach with two commercial buildings, associated parking, and fencing and buffering adjacent to residential properties. The plan retained a significant live oak tree on the property, incorporated stormwater management along Market Street, and aligned with planned NCDOT improvements, including a multi-use path along Market Street. Traffic estimates showed that the project was below the threshold that would require a Traffic Impact Analysis, and overall peak hour trips were expected to decrease compared to the previously approved bank use. Both Market Street and Torchwood Boulevard were maintained by NCDOT. Staff recommended approval of the request as consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, which designates the area as Community Mixed Use, supporting small-scale mixed-use development at travel nodes. Ms. May emphasized that the request represented a low-traffic generator, provided transition between residential and commercial areas, and included conditions addressing buffering, lighting, hours of operation, dumpster screening, and tree preservation. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant up to present. Mr. Jimmy Fentress with Stroud Engineering, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the original 2022 rezoning had been pursued for a bank use; however, due to delays in resolving a cloud on the property’s title, the bank tenant had withdrawn. With changing banking trends, brick-and-mortar demand had declined, and a new retail tenant had been secured. The applicant sought to broaden the permitted uses to allow home goods retail and office space, ensuring long-term viability without repeated rezonings. Mr. Fentress stated that two community meetings had been held, with only two attendees at the first and none at the second. He reported no known opposition and expressed confidence that concerns raised in 2022 had been addressed. Chair Tarrant invited the members of the public who signed up to speak. Elizabeth Sites - Lost Tree Road Ms. Sites expressed concern about traffic safety. She noted that she made multiple left turns daily from Lost Tree Road onto Market Street, describing the intersection as chaotic and hazardous. She questioned whether the right-in/right-out access so close to the busy intersection would create additional conflicts. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion. The Board members discussed the proposed access changes, permitted uses, and buffering conditions. Questions were raised about the inclusion of veterinary services, specifically whether outdoor cages would be permitted. Staff clarified that the conditions could be revised to prohibit outdoor kennels or pens, and both staff and the applicant agreed to this restriction. The Board also examined the proposed removal of the Torchwood Boulevard access included in the current conditional zoning district. The applicant explained that NCDOT had expressed safety concerns due to the proximity of the intersection and indicated they would not approve the driveway. Members agreed the intersection posed challenges but noted that NCDOT oversight and the right- in/right-out design offered safeguards. Concerns were voiced about “day care” being included in the list of permitted uses, particularly with respect to environmental and safety considerations given the proximity of gas stations. Both the Board and the applicant agreed to remove “day care” from the list. Other members noted that the project represented a reasonable change in use, retained critical tree cover, provided buffering for neighboring properties, and would reduce traffic impacts compared to the previous bank use. Mr. Hipp proceeded to make the following MOTION. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find 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. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the site is located along a transitioning commercial corridor near existing commercial uses and conditions will reduce impacts on adjacent residential areas, with the following conditions: Proposed Conditions: 1. Retail hours shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. 2. All exterior lighting shall be full cutoff fixtures directed downward. 3. An additional landscaping row beyond UDO requirements shall be planted along the northwestern property line. 4. Dumpster enclosures shall be fully screened with vegetation. 5. Permitted uses shall include general retail sales, offices for private businesses and professional activities, business service center, post office, medical and dental office and clinic, veterinary services (with prohibition on outdoor kennels and pens), instructional services and studios, and personal services. 6. Day care use shall be prohibited. 7. The rear façade of the commercial building facing Torchwood Boulevard must be aesthetically similar to the front façade and screened from view. 8. Additional plantings must be provided along Market Street to comply with the Special Highway Overlay District setback. 9. The existing live oak tree on site shall be preserved. The motion was SECONDED by Kaitlyn Rhonehouse and carried unanimously. Item Four – Rezoning Request Z25-08 – 100 Block of Greenview Drive Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of 626 Retail Development, LLC, contract purchaser from Black Knight 24, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 1.24 acres located at the 100 block of Greenview Drive from (CZD) B-1, Neighborhood Business to a new (CZD) B-1 district for the use of general retail, offices for professional businesses, and other limited uses Ryan Beil presented the rezoning request. He explained that the subject property is a vacant parcel that was rezoned in 2018 to (CZD) B-1 to accommodate a car care center and car wash. The adjoining lot to the south was developed as a car wash, but the subject parcel remained undeveloped. Existing conditions include paved parking spaces and circulation aisles associated with the prior approval. The property was bordered on all sides by R-15 Residential zoning, though the Market Street corridor contains a mix of commercial and institutional uses. The site was also located within the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD), which imposed additional landscaping, signage, and design standards. The applicant proposed a two-story, 15,000 square-foot office building with limited retail uses. Mr. Beil explained that the proposed plan would reduce the amount of building coverage compared to the previously approved car care center. He noted that vehicular access would remain via Greenview Drive, with right-out access at the frontage, and circulation would remain consistent with the previously approved plan. Regarding infrastructure, Mr. Beil stated that a forthcoming NCDOT project will widen Market Street and install a multi-use pedestrian path along the corridor. The projected traffic generation from the proposed office/retail development would be below the threshold requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis. Stormwater would be managed through infiltration beneath the parking lot, with preliminary calculations submitted to County Engineering showing compliance with UDO standards. Mr. Beil emphasized that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the property as Community Mixed Use, which supports compact, mixed-use patterns integrating office, retail, and small-scale commercial development. Staff concluded that the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, reasonable and in the public interest, and recommended approval subject to conditions including preservation of buffer trees, restrictions on signage, limits on uses, stormwater agreements, and façade treatments to ensure compatibility. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant up to present. Cindee Wolf, representing the applicant, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. She explained that while the site had been previously approved for a car care center, that project was never pursued, and the car wash was instead constructed on the adjacent parcel. She emphasized that the new proposal represented a less intensive use of the property, with reduced building coverage and more neighborhood-compatible uses. She noted that the existing paved aisles and access were already in place, so the project would primarily involve construction of the two-story office building and reconfiguration of parking. Circulation patterns would not change. Ms. Wolf stated that the applicant fully accepted staff’s proposed conditions, including tree preservation, stormwater agreements, and façade treatments. She emphasized that the proposed use would be less impactful than the previously approved car care center and would align better with surrounding residential areas. She also shared that a Greenview Drive resident had contacted her office and expressed support for the project, noting relief that a car care center would not be developed on the parcel. Chair Tarrant invited the members of the public who signed up to speak. Elizabeth Sites - Lost Tree Road Ms. Sites stated that she was not in opposition but wished to present concerns on behalf of herself and nearby neighbors. She explained that Market Street was already operating over capacity, with daily volumes exceeding the roadway’s planning capacity of 37,000 vehicles. She noted that current traffic counts exceeded 43,000 and cautioned that even small developments contributed to cumulative congestion. She urged the Board to carefully enforce conditions related to buffering, tree preservation, signage restrictions, and lighting controls, noting that nearby rezonings had required perimeter fencing and limitations on parking lot lights to protect adjacent homes. She also expressed concern over stormwater management and localized flooding, recalling that portions of the area have experienced standing water in past storms. Ms. Sites concluded by urging the Board to balance the need for commercial services with the protection of neighborhood character and environmental quality. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion The Board confirmed with staff that the Market Street widening project would include a multi-use path and sidewalk connections and noted that construction was already underway. Members asked about stormwater management, and staff explained that an underground infiltration system had been designed to accommodate the full impervious coverage of the development in accordance with UDO requirements. The Board further discussed the proposed conditions and overall compatibility of the project, emphasizing that the request represented a less intensive use than the previously approved car care center and would generate significantly less traffic. Members also confirmed that SHOD requirements would govern signage, landscaping, and architectural design, and stressed the importance of ensuring that the rear and side façades receive architectural treatment so that no rear elevations face Greenview Drive or adjacent residential areas. Ms. Wolf confirmed that the applicant agreed to the façade treatment conditions and reiterated that the proposed uses would be limited to low-intensity office and retail consistent with the SHOD overlay and the Community Mixed Use designation. Mr. Hipp proceeded to make the following MOTION. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project is in line with the use and density for the Community Mixed Use place type. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the project helps foster a business- friendly environment that promotes growth, agility, and collaboration. Proposed Conditions: 1. All existing trees located within required buffers shall be preserved to provide a fully opaque screen. 2. Flashing, animated, and digital signs shall be prohibited on the property. 3. Signage indicating Oak Ridge Lane is a private road that should be maintained. 4. Permitted principal uses shall be limited to: • Banks/financial institutions • Business service centers • Offices for private/professional activities • Instructional services and studios • Personal services, general • General retail sales 5. A recorded agreement shall provide for shared maintenance between the car wash parcel and the office building parcel. 6. Driveway access shall be shared between the parcels. 7. A stormwater management agreement for the underground stormwater system shall be recorded; any aboveground stormwater facility shall constitute a substantial deviation and require rezoning review. 8. The back façade of the commercial building facing Greenview Drive must be aesthetically like the façade facing Market Street. 9. The Market Street façade shall incorporate at least one building entrance and architectural elements such as entry overhangs, periodic offsets, varied materials, and fenestration. The motion was SECONDED by Kaitlyn Rhonehouse and carried unanimously. Item 5: Rezoning Request Z25-09 – 3100 Block Castle Hayne Road A Rezoning request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Littlebird Properties, LLC, the property owner, to rezone approximately 1.77 acres located at the 3100 block of Castle Hayne Road from R-10, Residential district to a Conditional (CZD) B-2, Regional Business district. The purpose of the rezoning was to allow for the development of commercial flex space with permitted uses including retail sales, offices for private business and professional activities, restaurants, and other limited commercial uses. Amy Doss explained that the property is located adjacent to the Haven Place subdivision and was previously part of a larger tract rezoned in 2020 by New Hanover County to R-10 for residential development by Habitat for Humanity. The subject parcel was later retained by the County and recently purchased by the applicant. Ms. Doss described the site’s location and surroundings, showing aerial images and photographs from multiple perspectives. She stated that the project proposed two commercial buildings totaled approximately 21,000 square feet. Although the buildings’ primary storefronts would face inward toward a shared parking area, conditions were included to ensure the rear facades facing Castle Hayne Road and Haven Place would include appropriate design features and a minimum of one entrance to avoid appearing as rear-loading façades. Ms. Doss highlighted additional site features, including: • A proposed 25-foot access easement along Castle Hayne Road • Required sidewalk connections and pedestrian access to Haven Place • Shared access with the adjacent property to the north under common ownership • Required stormwater easement and maintenance agreements She noted that the NCDOT Castle Hayne Road widening project could result in future access restrictions to right-in/right-out, and for this reason a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was required and completed. The approved TIA included requirements such as a 75-foot right turn lane and site design modifications including one ingress lane and two egress lanes. Ms. Doss concluded that the proposed rezoning was consistent with the Community Mixed Use land use designation in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, and that the request aligned with the evolving commercial development pattern along the Castle Hayne Road corridor. Staff recommended approval subject to several conditions. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant up to present. Cindee Wolf, representing Littlebird Properties, LLC, addressed the Board. She stated that the subject property was purchased from New Hanover County after the nearby fire station was relocated. The applicant’s intent was to integrate the site with the previously approved flex-commercial development directly to the north, also under the ownership of Littlebird Properties. Ms. Wolf noted that the two buildings proposed for the 1.77-acre site would be similar in scale and design to the northern structure and would form a unified campus of commercial flex space. She emphasized that a shared access arrangement and consistent architectural design would provide visual continuity. She affirmed that the applicant accepted all staff-recommended conditions, including those requiring the recording of access and stormwater easements. She further stated that the uses of the proposed buildings would be limited compared to the existing B-2 development to the north. These uses were intended to provide services to surrounding residential neighborhoods and include low-impact commercial tenants such as salons, small retail shops, and office spaces. In response to questions from Board members, Ms. Wolf confirmed that the dumpster would be located between the two buildings, away from adjacent residential areas, and would be appropriately screened. She also addressed the requirement that rear facades include entrances and architectural features to avoid presenting an unattractive view along Castle Hayne Road. Chair Tarrant opened the floor for public comment. No members of the public signed up to speak in support or opposition, and no one came forward during the open invitation. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion. Board members expressed support for the project, commending the applicant for limiting uses and maintaining architectural standards along a prominent corridor. Emphasis on the importance of ensuring the building façades facing Castle Hayne Road looked attractive and included active elements such as entrances and windows. Ms. Wolf confirmed compliance with the architectural conditions. A Board member raised a question regarding the stub-out located on New Dawn Drive within the adjacent Habitat for Humanity subdivision. They asked whether the dead-end segment of the road, originally intended for future connectivity, could instead be vacated and repurposed as a buildable residential lot. In response, Ms. Wolf explained that while the stub-out had been included to allow for potential vehicular circulation between parcels, such connectivity was no longer feasible due to the proposed commercial development. She acknowledged the suggestion and stated that, as a member of the Habitat Board, she would be willing to discuss the possibility of reconfiguring the stub-out with the organization’s leadership. With no further questions, the applicant indicated readiness to proceed with a vote. Vice Chair Moore proceeded to make the following MOTION. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses and intensity align with the development patterns along the Castle Hayne Road corridor and could provide needed services to nearby residential areas. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request to be reasonable and in the public interest, as the proposed concept plan reflects a compatible transition between residential and commercial uses, with the following conditions: Proposed Conditions: 1. Permitted uses shall be limited to animal grooming services; veterinarian services excluding kennel and day care; business service centers; offices for private business and professional activities; personal services (excluding tattoo parlors); instructional services and studios; retail sales (general); and restaurants. 2. A solid privacy fence shall be installed along the southern and western boundaries of the project, as shown on the concept plan. 3. A 25-foot-wide access easement shall be established along Castle Hayne Road, with sufficient space to accommodate both the easement and required landscaping. 4. The façades of the buildings facing Castle Hayne Road and Haven Place shall include a minimum of one entrance and incorporate form-giving elements such as entry canopies, changes in wall planes or materials, and screening of HVAC equipment using fencing and landscaping. 5. If ownership of the property is transferred, the subject parcels must first be recombined under common ownership, and access and stormwater easements and associated maintenance agreements must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Hipp and carried unanimously. Item 6: Rezoning Request Z25-10 – Request by Terry Henry with paws4people®, Inc. for a Planned Development at 5101 Transformation Lane Rezoning request by Terry Henry with paws4people® Incorporated, applicant and property owner, to rezone approximately 11.91 acres located at 5101 Transformation Lane from R-15 Residential and B-2 Regional Business zoning districts to a Planned Development (PD) District. The purpose of the rezoning is to accommodate the expansion of a dog training center and service campus for uses including kennels, indoor and outdoor training areas, vocational trade school facilities, offices, and on-site lodging for students and staff. Zach Dickerson presented the request. He explained that the western portion of the subject site was rezoned to B-2 in 1989 as part of a larger 120-acre commercial rezoning. The property currently contained the existing paws4people® campus, which had been in operation at this location since 2018. The campus was surrounded primarily by residential development, with Blue Bay Townhomes to the north and Sidbury Crossing Apartments to the south. The proposed Planned Development (PD) district would encompass the existing campus and allow for three phases of planned expansion. Phase One involved the development of a vocational trade school, while Phases Two and Three included the construction of two additional kennel buildings. Mr. Dickerson reviewed photographs of the property, including the entrance signage, current office and lodging buildings, and existing training facilities. He noted that the Planned Development proposal included: • Indoor and outdoor recreation and dog training areas • Existing kennels, dormitories, and administrative buildings • Lodging units for staff and clients • A mix of institutional, residential, and recreational components Access to the site was provided via Blue Clay Road, and the anticipated traffic generation was low; therefore, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not required. Mr. Dickerson stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designates the area as General Residential, which supports low-impact civic and institutional uses that are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Staff found the proposed use consistent with that designation. The Planned Development application included a comprehensive list of proposed uses and associated development standards. Proposed setbacks were identified as 25 feet in the front, 15 feet on the sides, and 20 feet in the rear. However, staff recommended increasing the side setback to 20 feet to provide enhanced buffering for adjacent residential properties. The applicant also proposed preserving vegetative buffers around the perimeter of the site that exceeds minimum ordinance requirements. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request with the amended setback condition. Mr. Dickerson concluded by noting that any future development on the site would be subject to review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and would follow the standard County zoning approval process. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant up to present. Danielle Cockerham a representative of paws4people® addressed the Board. Ms. Cockerham gave a presentation explaining the mission and operations of the organization, which trains service dogs for children, veterans, and civilians with PTSD and other trauma-related conditions. She highlighted that paws4people® has trained over 1,300 dogs in its 26-year history and now supports more than 300 active handler teams nationwide, with over half located in North Carolina. A video was shown to the Board, providing a virtual tour of the Addie’s Way® campus, which is the national headquarters and the nation’s first campus focused on canine-centric post-traumatic growth. The video described the full life cycle of service dogs—from on-site breeding and early development to public access training in partnership with UNCW students and final placement with individuals in need. The campus included an agility field, a puppy development center, staff housing, client lodging, administrative offices, and classrooms. Long-term plans include a climate-controlled indoor training facility (the Brady Training Center), trauma-informed programming, and potentially an indoor aquatic therapy building to support training and rehabilitation for clients and service dogs. Jordan (3:25:15), the project manager for the expansion, noted that all architectural design work was completed in collaboration with Becker Morgan Group and was intended to preserve the cohesive, campus-like aesthetics of the site. The applicant requested approval to rezone the site from R-15 and B-2 to a Planned Development District to support phased growth and allow for more inclusive, accessible, and climate-resilient training facilities. Chair Tarrant opened the floor for public comment. No members of the public signed up to speak in support or opposition, and no one came forward during the open invitation. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion. Board members expressed strong support for the paws4people® mission and praised the applicant’s use of video to provide a full understanding of the services provided on-site. Board members described the project as an ideal use of the property and noted its compatibility with the surrounding residential context. The Board encouraged the applicant team to consider long-term master stormwater planning for future expansion phases. Other Board members commended the organization for its impact on the community and expressed appreciation for its continued growth in New Hanover County. Vice Chair Moore proceeded to make the following MOTION. I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed PD rezoning with the attached Terms and Conditions document, with amendments noted. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provides a generally low-impact civic and institutional development to a General Residential area, I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the expansion of the facility would provide a benefit to the citizens of the County, with greater opportunities for community service and involvement. Proposed Conditions: 1. Side setbacks within the PB shall be 20’ from the property line. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Avery and carried unanimously. Item 7: Preliminary Forum – Special Use Permit Request S25-02 Request by Samuel Potter with Equitas Law Partners, LLP, applicant, on behalf of Hoosier Daddy, LLC, property owner, for a Special Use Permit to allow an additional dwelling allowance of up to 10.2 dwelling units per acre in the R-15 Residential District on approximately 43.5 acres located at 5741 Carolina Beach Road. Chair Tarrant introduced Item 7 as a preliminary forum for Special Use Permit Request S25-02. He explained that the purpose of the forum was to allow for public input and discussion prior to a future quasi-judicial hearing before the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. He clarified that no vote or recommendation would be made by the Planning Board at this meeting, and that formal action would be taken during the quasi-judicial hearing, where only parties with standing may offer sworn testimony. Robert Farrell presented to the Board that Samuel Potter with Equitas Law Partners, LLP, on behalf of Hoosier Daddy, LLC, was requesting a Special Use Permit to allow an additional dwelling allowance in the R-15 Residential District, increasing the permitted density to up to 10.2 dwelling units per acre on approximately 43.5 acres located at 5741 Carolina Beach Road. The subject property was bordered by single-family neighborhoods and was served by public water and sewer, which supported the possibility of higher-density residential development under the County’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Mr. Farrell explained that the proposed development included a total of 444 residential units, consisting of a mix of detached homes and multifamily buildings. The concept plan featured internal street connections to three stub-out roads and primary access via Ironwood Drive. The project also included a central open space with a community amenity area and three stormwater management basins distributed across the site. He emphasized that while the underlying R-15 zoning allowed for 2.5 dwelling units per acre by default, the Special Use Permit process enabled additional density when specific criteria and compatibility standards were met. He further explained that the application must satisfy four findings of fact in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes: 1. The proposed use will not materially endanger public health or safety; 2. The use complies with all required conditions and specifications; 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property, or the use is a public necessity; and 4. The use will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and in general conformity with adopted plans. Mr. Farrell concluded by noting that the project would undergo further engineering and zoning review before the quasi-judicial hearing, and that the comments received during the forum would help inform future revisions to the application. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant up to present. Corrie Lee, of Equitas Law Partners, LLP, appeared on behalf of the applicant, Samuel Potter, and the property owner, Hoosier Daddy, LLC. She introduced herself as co-counsel on the project team and noted that the developer, James Yopp, was also in attendance. Ms. Lee began by explaining that the proposal was for a residential development that would help meet the County’s growing housing needs while maintaining sensitivity to the surrounding context. She emphasized that the proposed Special Use Permit would allow an additional dwelling allowance of up to 10.2 units per acre on a 43.5-acre site located at 5741 Carolina Beach Road. The development would include a mix of detached and multifamily housing units, a central amenity area, and open space integrated with the site’s natural features. She noted that public water and sewer were available to the site, making it suitable for higher-density development under the County’s Unified Development Ordinance. The project concept had been designed to meet all technical and dimensional requirements, including building height limitations, internal street connections, and required buffering. Three on-site stormwater management areas were proposed, and all drainage would be managed in compliance with County and State regulations. Ms. Lee acknowledged that preliminary forums served as an opportunity to gather meaningful input before formal action is taken. She welcomed feedback from both the Planning Board and members of the public. She stated that the design team was open to refining elements of the plan—particularly related to street connectivity, buffering, and access—based on comments received during the forum. During her rebuttal following public comment, Ms. Lee addressed several recurring concerns. She clarified that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be conducted if triggered by the County or NCDOT, and that the development would comply with all requirements identified through that review. She reiterated that the project was still in the early design phase and emphasized that her team was committed to working collaboratively with County staff and the community to ensure the proposal aligned with adopted plans, infrastructure capacity, and compatibility standards. She concluded by thanking the Board and all speakers for their time and comments, and confirmed that the applicant would carefully consider the concerns raised before submitting the final materials for the quasi-judicial hearing with the Board of Commissioners. Chair Tarrant opened the public comment portion of the forum. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the request: Shawn Bunge – 6119 Tarin Road Mr. Bunge expressed strong opposition to the project. He stated that the developer had repeatedly ignored feedback from the Planning Board, the Board of Commissioners, and surrounding residents. He raised concerns about deteriorating roads, overcrowded schools, lack of emergency access, and unresolved issues from earlier development phases. Mr. Bunge argued that the density of the proposed project was excessive and incompatible with the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. He submitted a written comment via Google Drive. Berry Goldburge – 6125 Sweetgum Drive Ms. Goldburge raised concerns about increased traffic volumes and the project’s impact on public services, including schools, emergency response, and utilities. She questioned whether the area’s infrastructure could accommodate such a large influx of new residents. Michelle O’Brien – 5949 Appomattox Drive Ms. O’Brien objected to the proposed density and scale of development, citing concerns over stormwater runoff, neighborhood compatibility, and declining property values. She stressed the importance of maintaining the character of surrounding neighborhoods. Chris Birkmeyer – 6124 Ambleside Drive Mr. Birkmeyer expressed concern about traffic congestion and overdevelopment in the Carolina Beach Road corridor. He noted that multiple new projects were being proposed without corresponding improvements to roadways or supporting infrastructure. Brenda McCombie – 1150 The Kings Highway Ms. McCombie voiced concerns about the livability of existing neighborhoods and questioned whether buffers and community amenities would be sufficient to offset the impacts of increased density. She encouraged the Board to scrutinize the proposal carefully. At the conclusion of the public comment period Chair Tarrant gave the applicant time for rebuttal. Ms. Lee returned to respond on behalf of the applicant. She reiterated that the development team was committed to addressing stormwater and traffic issues in compliance with County requirements and was willing to consider adjustments to layout and buffering based on the concerns raised. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion Board members expressed appreciation for public feedback and asked clarifying questions regarding the development’s density, access points, and infrastructure. One board member inquired whether any improvements were proposed to Carolina Beach Road in connection with the development. Staff responded that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) may require mitigation depending on the findings of a Traffic Impact Analysis, if warranted. Concerns were raised about stormwater impacts, with members emphasizing the importance of protecting adjacent neighborhoods from runoff. Board members also discussed the use of stub streets for connectivity and noted that the County encourages inter-parcel access. There was consensus that the proposed density was significantly higher than surrounding development, and several members noted that the transition between the proposed multifamily use and existing single-family neighborhoods would require careful buffering and design. Chair Tarrant reiterated that no action would be taken and encouraged the applicant to consider the feedback provided before the request proceeds to the Board of Commissioners. Staff Updates Chair Tarrant asked staff if there were any additional updates. Hearing none a MOTION to adjourn the meeting was made by Vice Chair Moore, SECONDED by Ms. Rhonehouse. The motion was approved unanimously.