Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-2024 Planing Board MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board November 7, 2024 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on November 7, 2024, 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 Hansen Matthews Kaitlyn Rhonehouse Members Absent Clark Hipp Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor Katia Boykin, Community Planning Supervisor Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner Amy Doss, Associate Planner Katherine May, Associate Planner Lisa Maes, Administrative Coordinator Marshall Fugate, Administrative Specialist Chair Tarrant called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience. After the welcome remarks, Chairman Tarrant led the Pledge of Allegiance and provided an overview of the meeting procedures and read the Code of Ethics. Chair Tarrant announced that items discussed during the evening's meeting will advance to the County Commissioners' meeting, scheduled for December 2, 2024. He also noted that Vice Chair Moore will serve as the Planning Board representative at that meeting. Additionally, Board Member Hansen Matthews will represent the Planning Board at the meeting on Monday, November 18, 2024. Chair Tarrant then reminded the Board of the Code of Ethics as adopted on January 4, 2016, emphasizing that board members must avoid conflicts of interest. Regular Business Rezoning Request (Z24-21) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Catherine Scanlon, Steven and Katherine Tylee, and Raimond and Kelly Struble, property owners, to rezone approximately 0.28 acres located at 1040 and 1050 S. Seabreeze Road from the B-2, Regional Business District to a general use R-5, Residential Moderate-High Density District and to rezone approximately 0.10 acres located at 1054, 1056, and 1068 S. Seabreeze Road from B-2 to a general use R-15, Residential District. Senior Planner Zach Dickerson presented an overview of the rezoning request for properties located at 1040 and 4050 Seabreeze Road. The proposal sought to rezone approximately 0.28 acres at 1040 and 1050 South Seabreeze Road from B-2 (Regional Business) to R-5 (Residential Moderate-High Density) and 0.10 acres at 1054, 1056, and 1068 South Seabreeze Road from B-2 to R-15 (Residential District). Currently, the site features mixed zoning, including residential properties with existing homes and a vacant building formerly used for commercial purposes. The proposed rezoning aimed to align all parcels under residential zoning, resolving inconsistencies and promoting residential development. Located in a VE Coastal High Hazard Zone, the site would require compliance with floodplain regulations, and Aqua provides private water and sewer services were available to support future growth. Mr. Dickerson outlined the estimated traffic impact of the proposal, which was expected to reduce traffic compared to the current zoning. Due to the small number of lots, he stated that the anticipated impact to the public schools would also be minimal. The proposal was in line with the County’s strategic goal of increasing the housing supply, but because the property was within a high-hazard flood zone, any new housing would need to meet strict floodplain requirements. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified this area as Community Mixed Use, a designation that supported both commercial and residential uses while promoting flexibility in development. The rezoning proposal was consistent with the plan’s recommendations and aligned with community interest in shifting from commercial development to more residential opportunities. Additionally, the rezoning would clean up existing split zoning issues on the R-15 parcels, improving clarity and consistency in land use. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning based on the Comprehensive Plan’s policy guidance, technical review, and the compatibility of the proposal with ongoing development trends in the area. Mr. Dickerson states that the project represented a logical step toward residential development in a community where commercial use had become less practical. He concluded his presentation with a reminder that public comments on the proposal had been shared with the Board prior to the meeting and stated that development of the site would be subject to zoning compliance review. He introduced Tim Lowe of County Engineering who was available to answer any questions, and the applicant had prepared a presentation to provide additional details. Chair Tarrant invited the applicant to their presentation. Cindee Wolf, representing the applicants, began by addressing the existing building on the site, noting that it no longer held significant value and encroached into the right-of-way, rendering it nonconforming with current zoning setbacks. The applicants' goal was to repurpose the land for more beneficial use, aligning with the area's evolving development patterns. To comply with zoning regulations, a recombination plat was filed prior to the meeting, officially delineating the two parcels in question. These parcels, currently zoned B-2, exceeded the 5,000 square-foot minimum lot size required for R-5 zoning, the intended designation upon successful rezoning. Ms. Wolf explained that the current zoning configuration, which included remnants of B-2 zoning on adjacent properties, was unusual and problematic. To address this, neighboring property owners joined the application to resolve the split-zoning inconsistencies. The rezoning proposal sought to transition the parcels from B-2 to R-5 zoning, resulting in two buildable residential lots. Additionally, portions of adjacent properties with residual B-2 zoning would be rezoned to R-15, ensuring all residential lots conformed to the R-15 district standards. This adjustment aimed to establish consistent zoning throughout the neighborhood, eliminating discrepancies and supporting cohesive residential development. Ms. Wolf highlighted that the proposed building envelopes for the parcels would align with required setbacks under R-5 zoning and accommodate homes like those already present in the area. Ms. Wolf emphasized that the rezoning was reasonable, consistent with local development trends, and in the public interest. She pointed out that the neighborhood was gradually shifting from business to residential uses, a transition reflective of community priorities. The proposal aimed to provide additional housing options without increasing density while preserving the surrounding area's character. Ms. Wolf concluded her presentation by reaffirming the applicants' confidence in the merits of the proposal and expressed her readiness to address any questions from the board. In response to questions from the Board regarding clarification about the zoning map, noting that the red area represented B-2 zoning and the yellow area represented R-15 zoning. Ms. Wolf confirmed that this interpretation was correct and explained that the map displayed the current zoning designations for the site. Additional comments were made on a similar zoning situation in another part of the area, suggesting that it would also need to be addressed. Ms. Wolf agreed, acknowledging the zoning inconsistencies and the need for resolution. Chair Tarrant noted that two additional members of the applicant team were signed up to speak as part of the presentation. • Katherine Tylee, 1056 South Seabreeze Road S., Ms. Tylee expressed her strong support for the rezoning application. She explained that her neighborhood was historically zoned B-2, but past efforts to rezone parcels to residential have significantly improved the area. Ms. Tylee described the previous owner of the lot as someone disconnected from the community who often threatened undesirable commercial uses, such as fast-food establishments or storage lots, creating tension among residents. She emphasized that B-2 zoning permits various uses by right, many of which are impractical for the small parcel sizes, making storage lots the default use—a situation she opposes. Ms. Tylee praised the current applicant, Cate Scanlon, as a trustworthy neighbor committed to the community’s well-being and thoughtful development. She clarified that her support for this rezoning reflects its appropriateness and alignment with the area’s natural transition toward residential use. While acknowledging past community opposition to rezoning, she explained that those cases involved larger parcels and concerns about density in a flood zone, whereas this application presented no such issues. Concluding her remarks, Ms. Tylee urged the board to recommend approval, stating that the rezoning would immediately benefit neighbors and ultimately enhance the broader community. • Raimond Struble, 1054 South Seabreeze Road S., Mr. Struble noted that while previous speakers had provided thorough commentary, he wanted to add a personal perspective. He expressed that rezoning it for residential use made logical sense and acknowledged that, as a neighbor, he might be the most directly impacted by the development, as his access to his home relies on an easement over Ms. Scanlon’s property, as well as passage through the Tylee property. He further noted that the proposed development would obstruct his view of the water. Despite this personal impact, he expressed strong support for the rezoning application, emphasizing its benefits for the community. Chair Tarrant opened the hearing to opposition. With no one signed up in opposition, Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. Chair Tarrant acknowledged the offer to make a motion from Vice Chair Moore and asked the other members of the board if they had any comments. There was a discussion about the historical context of the B-2 zoning in Seabreeze, noting that it was likely a mistake to zone such a large portion of the area as B-2 in the first place. It was emphasized that this specific proposal is a positive step toward addressing the issue and represents a good fit for the community. Before proceeding, Ms. Wolf was asked to return to the podium to confirm the applicant’s intent. Ms. Wolf clarified that the applicant wished to move forward with the vote. Vice Chair Moore made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning finding it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provides a use in line with the Community Mixed Use Place Type and finding the approval of the rezoning request to be reasonable and in the public interest because the rezoning would benefit the community by providing more housing options. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to recommend approval of the Rezoning Request (Z24-21) passed 6-0. UDO Maintenance Amendment Public Comment Draft Release Mr. Farrell outlined five proposed maintenance amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), highlighting updates designed to align zoning standards with current needs and state regulations. These included adjustments to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) standards to comply with North Carolina statutes, revisions to parking ratios for warehouses, new provisions for staff-level approval of parking lot landscaping modifications, clarifications on street yard landscaping standards, and refinements to the definition and use of mixed-use residential standards in commercial districts. The draft amendments were intended to address challenges identified since the UDO’s adoption in 2020 and incorporate feedback from recent projects. Board members were encouraged to provide input before the draft’s release for public comment. The draft was scheduled for public release on November 8, 2024, with comments to be collected until November 20, 2024. In their discussion, board members focused on the proposed parking ratio adjustments for warehouses, emphasizing the need to balance functionality and environmental considerations. They acknowledged the sliding scale approach in the proposed amendments, which reduced parking requirements for larger warehouses while maintaining higher ratios for smaller facilities. Members noted that this approach aligned with trends observed in surrounding jurisdictions and provided flexibility for developers. Some members suggested further refinement to account for specific use cases, such as mixed-use flex spaces, which often require higher parking allocations due to varying office buildouts. There was also discussion about parking studies as a tool for reducing requirements, although opinions were mixed on their practicality. Regarding ADU standards, the proposed removal of size and material restrictions to comply with state law was well received. Members expressed interest in ensuring clarity and simplicity in the ordinance, particularly for residential and commercial zoning overlaps. The updates to mixed-use residential standards aimed to reduce confusion by explicitly defining mixed-use developments and removing unnecessary references to multi-family requirements. Members discussed the potential for single-family uses in commercial zones, with staff clarifying that current interpretations prohibit residential-only developments in these districts without a mixed-use component. Board members also considered landscaping requirements, agreeing that extending administrative flexibility for parking lot landscaping modifications and ensuring street yard landscaping for commercial vehicle storage lots would enhance overall consistency and aesthetics. They acknowledged the importance of these changes in addressing gaps and ambiguities in the current UDO but wanted to review further. In conclusion, the board emphasized the importance of public input on the proposed amendments and encouraged staff to continue refining the language based on feedback. They acknowledged the draft as a step forward in ensuring that zoning regulations remained functional, adaptable, and reflective of the community’s evolving needs. Adoption of 2025 Planning Board Meeting Calendar The Planning Board reviewed the proposed 2025 meeting calendar, which had been distributed to all members in advance. Ms. Roth highlighted considerations surrounding the July meeting date, noting past challenges with board member availability due to summer plans and proximity to the July 4th holiday. It was emphasized that moving the meeting to the second week of July would likely avoid quorum issues and ensure adequate time for the Planning Board to address items before they proceed to the Board of Commissioners. Board members discussed their experiences with scheduling difficulties during the week of the holiday, agreeing that shifting the meeting date would alleviate attendance concerns. They acknowledged the importance of setting clear expectations for applicants submitting proposals in June, ensuring there would be no misunderstanding about the timing of application reviews and decisions in July. Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed 2025 Planning Board Meeting Calendar to include the adjusted July 2025 meeting date to the second Thursday of the month, SECONDED by Board Vice Chair Moore. The motion to approve the 2025 Planning Board Meeting Calendar passed 6-0. Chair Tarrant asked if any Board Members had additional items to discuss. Ms. Roth provided an update regarding the UDO Maintenance Amendment, noting that the public release was scheduled to be posted on the website the following day. She informed the board that public comments would be collected through Wednesday, the 20th, allowing staff time to make any necessary revisions before presenting the final draft at the December meeting for consideration. Board Member Pete Avery made a motion to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by Board Member Hansen Matthews. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 6:51PM.