Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-2025 Planning Board Minutes 1 August 7, 2025 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on August 7, 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 Andy Hewitt Clark Hipp   Kevin Hine   Kaitlyn Rhonehouse       Members Absent  Hansen Matthews   Staff Present   Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use       Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney    Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor   Katherine May, Development Review Planner  Ryan Beil, Development Review Planner Lisa Maes, Administrative Supervisor  Shauna Bradley, Administrative Specialist  Vice Chair Cameron Moore called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. The board welcomed a new member, Andy Hewitt. Election of Officers County Attorney, Karen Richards, explained that there would need to be an election for a new Chair and Vice Chair. She then asked for any nominations for Chair. Mr. Hipp made a motion to nominate Cameron Moore to be the new Chair of the New Hanover County Planning Board. Mr. Avery seconded the motion. The motion to nominate Cameron Moore to be the new Chair of the New Hanover County Planning Board passed 6-0. Mr. Hipp made a motion to nominate Pete Avery to be the new Vice Chair of the New Hanover County Planning Board. Mr. Moore seconded the motion. 2 The motion to nominate Pete Avery to be the new Vice Chair of the New Hanover County Planning Board passed 6-0. Ms. Richards concluded the election of officers. Code of Ethics Chair Moore then reminded the Board of the Code of Ethics as adopted on January 4, 2016, emphasizing that board members must avoid conflicts of interest. Mr. Moore announced that the items from the meeting would go forward to the County Commissioners’ meeting tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, September 2, 2025. The meeting would begin at approximately 4:00 p.m. and would be held in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse. The Planning Board representative for that meeting would be Cameron Moore. Regular Business  Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z25-11) - Request by Samuel Potter with Equitas Law Partners LLP, applicant, on behalf of Golden Ventures I LLC to rezone approximately 5.18 acres zoned R-15, Residential located at 7715 Market St & 7718, 7740 Alexander Rd to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business and (CZD) R-5, Residential Moderate High Density for a convenience store with fuel stations, fast food restaurant with drive-thru, with row-style dwelling units. Mr. Farrell presented an overview of the request to rezone approximately 5.18 acres at Market Street and Alexander Road from R-15 Residential to Conditional B-2 and R- 5 districts to allow for a convenience store with fuel sales, a fast-food restaurant, and a row-style residential development. The concept plan included commercial uses fronting Market Street and residential units along Alexander Road, with supporting infrastructure such as a CFPUA pump station and stormwater control. The applicant had revised the site plan to accommodate underground utilities that were discovered. The Traffic Impact Analysis was approved by NCDOT and WMPO, requiring improvements such as a deceleration and turn lane on Market Street and internal stop controls. The proposed development was expected to generate more peak-hour traffic than the current zoning, though the student generation had remained comparable. The area’s R-15 zoning had originally been established in 1971 for low-density housing without public utilities, but the availability of public water and sewer had 3 since changed development patterns. According to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the property had been designated as both Community Mixed Use and General Residential. The Community Mixed Use designation emphasized compact, mixed-use development that supported all modes of travel, while the General Residential designation focused on small-scale housing and limited commercial services that enhanced neighborhood character. The proposed rezoning was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, as the types and intensity of uses, along with the residential density, aligned with the area’s place type designations. The applicant provided a transition from the commercial corridor along Market Street to the lower-intensity residential uses nearby. In response to Board questions, Mr. Farrell clarified that the intent of Condition One was to preserve existing trees that do not interfere with required site improvements and noted that many of these trees are located within the required landscaping buffers, and the goal was to use existing vegetation to meet buffer and opacity requirements. There would be different buffer types possible, such as a Type A opaque buffer with fencing, and with features like the stormwater pond, existing trees would be preserved where possible. If trees must be removed, supplemental planting may be required during the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process to ensure compliance with landscaping standards. Attorney Corrie Lee presented visuals for the rezoning request on behalf of Golden Venture. Visuals of the site and surrounding corridor were provided, including current photos and an aerial map, to illustrate existing conditions and nearby development. The proposed site plan had placed the residential portion 12 row-style townhomes at the rear of the property. The plan aligned with the general residential land use designation, while the commercial portion, a Sheetz convenience store with 12 fuel stations and a quick-service restaurant, both with drive-throughs, would be located along Market Street. The design had aimed to buffer adjacent lower-density residential areas and maintain consistency with surrounding land uses. Ms. Lee emphasized that a Traffic Impact Analysis had been approved and updated as recently as June to reflect current traffic conditions. It had been noted that approximately 75% of traffic to the convenience store would be pass-by traffic, meaning it would serve motorists already traveling along Market Street. The corridor was described as a well-established commercial area, with nearby businesses including a self-storage facility, veterinary hospital, auto store, and another gas station. Ms. Lee displayed how the development would fit into the existing landscape. She also highlighted the lack of nearby gas stations for southbound travelers, reinforcing the need for the proposed use. 4 Ms. Lee had affirmed that the proposal was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, aligning with both the Community Mixed Use and General Residential place types. Proposed modifications to recommended conditions were shared in redline format, with the intent of maintaining the spirit of the original conditions while allowing flexibility. The Board held an in-depth discussion regarding the proposed rezoning and site plan. They focused on condition revisions, stormwater management, site design, and neighborhood impacts. It was clarified that while the printed and on-screen versions of the proposed conditions differed slightly in wording, the intent remained consistent. The redlined versions had been crafted to retain original language where possible, and the version shown publicly reflected the final proposal. Specific attention was given to Condition Seven, which had been revised to allow minor adjustments to drive-through locations without triggering a major deviation, while still requiring review for significant changes. The Board emphasized the importance of transparency for the public and confirmed that staff supported the revised conditions. Nick Loretta, the Civil Engineer for the project, explained that the site currently contained a drainage ditch that collected runoff from multiple sources, including a 5- foot corrugated metal pipe under Alexander Road and a 3-foot pipe from a nearby church. All drainage flowed through the site into an 8-foot culvert under Market Street, which directed water south into the adjacent neighborhood. After extensive modeling of various watershed buildout scenarios, it was determined that the existing 5-foot pipe was undersized, even under current conditions. As a result, a 6- foot diameter pipe was proposed to handle both on-site and off-site drainage more effectively. The proposed 50-foot drainage easement would accommodate this upgraded infrastructure and tie it to the existing NCDOT system. Mr. Loretta emphasized that the design accounted for regional drainage needs, not just those of the development, and that the system had been sized for full watershed buildout. The Board acknowledged that this improvement would benefit the broader neighborhood by replacing the open ditch with a more efficient system that quickly conveys water off-site. The applicant confirmed that a public drainage easement would be provided, and that the design met NCDOT hydraulic requirements. The Board discussed the revised language for Condition Six, which had been updated to require outdoor speakers to be oriented away from the R-5 residential portion rather than specifically toward Market Street. It was clarified that the intent was to prevent noise from being directed toward any residential areas, including those to the north and northeast, and confirmed that staff supported the revised language. 5 The Board acknowledged that the surrounding zoning included both residential and commercial uses and agreed that the proposed orientation addressed potential impacts on nearby homes. Additional clarification was offered that the condition could be further amended to ensure speakers also face away from the northern property line if needed. The Board also discussed the proposed residential units, confirming that the applicant anticipated two-story townhomes, consistent with the R-5 zoning district’s 40-foot height limit. While the exact height had not been finalized, the applicant indicated that the development team had consistently planned for two-story structures. The proposed conditions allowed for flexibility in housing types, including row-style and duplex configurations, while maintaining a total of 12 units. Finally, the Board inquired about the proposed pump station, which was confirmed to be a private station serving both the residential and commercial portions of the site. It was not a CFPUA facility but would connect to an existing force main located in the Alexander Road right-of-way. The station was described as small in scale and appropriately sized for the development’s needs. Mr. Avery noted that 2 members of the public had signed up to speak in support of the project. Brian Down Mr. Down, Sheetz Entitlement Manager, shared background on the company as part of the rezoning presentation. He explained that Sheetz was a family-owned and operated business founded in 1952, approaching its 73rd anniversary, with 17 family members still active in the company. The company oversaw its own distribution and fuel operations and was committed to quality, consistency, and community engagement. Mr. Down emphasized Sheetz’s was recognized as a top employer with strong internal culture. He mentioned the proposed site would feature Sheetz’s signature architectural elements, including true brick construction, standing seam metal roofs, and consistent design across the building, canopy, and dumpster enclosure. Mr. Down also emphasized Sheetz’s commitment to community involvement, included partnerships with Special Olympics, Make-A-Wish, local food banks, and the Sheetz for the Kidz charity, which supported over 12,000 children annually. 6 Natalie English, 1 Estell Lee Place Ms. English, President and CEO of the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, expressed strong support for the Sheetz project. She emphasized the company’s reputation for investing in communities, treating employees well, and contributing to local causes. She noted that the developer had taken a creative approach by combining commercial use with much-needed housing. English highlighted the importance of both the business and residential components in addressing economic and community needs. She concluded by urging the Board to support the project for its positive impact on the corridor and the broader county. No one signed up to speak in opposition During the Board’s final discussion, members expressed overall support for the project, noting that it reflected the continued commercial growth along Market Street and demonstrated thoughtful integration of residential and commercial uses. The design was seen as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, particularly in how it buffered single-family residential areas with the proposed 12-unit residential component. Members appreciated the applicant’s attention to drainage improvements, the inclusion of sidewalks to enhance walkability, and the project's alignment with the evolving mixed-use development patterns in the county. The stormwater infrastructure and the applicant’s commitment to quality design were highlighted as key strengths. The Board also reviewed the applicant’s proposed conditions, confirming that the version displayed on screen reflected prior discussions. There was an agreement to modify Condition Six to clarify that outdoor speakers would be oriented away from both the R-5 portion of the site and the adjacent R-15 residential properties to the north. Members acknowledged the presence of existing duplexes and a single-family home near the site and agreed that the revised condition would help address potential noise concerns. Mr. Hine made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. He found the project to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the types and intensity of uses, as well as the residential density, was compatible with its place type designation. He recommended approval of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the site plan provided a transition from the roadway corridor to the nearby housing. 7 The motion included the following revised conditions: 1. Existing trees that do not impact the proposed development, including changes to the site plan that constitute minor deviations, shall be preserved. 2. Emergency vehicle access shall be provided between the residential portion of the project and the convenience store. The location of the emergency vehicle access may be modified during the TRC process administratively. 3. A 10-foot-wide public bicycle and pedestrian easement shall be preserved from Alexander Road through the CZD R-5 portion to the CZD B-2 portion. Maintenance of the access easement shall be the responsibility of the residential, commercial portions, or a combination thereof. Provisions for future maintenance shall be included in a maintenance agreement approved by New Hanover County and recorded with the Register of Deeds prior to signature and recordation of the final plat of the residential portion. 4. A bicycle and pedestrian path shall be provided between the residential units and the dedicated open space for the residential development. The path shall be reserved as a private access easement for residents and owners if the parcels are subdivided. 5. There shall be a maximum of twelve dwelling units allowed in the residential portion of the project with a maximum density of eight dwelling units per acre. The following attached dwelling types are authorized for development in the R-5zoning district may be utilized so long as the overall approved density is not exceeded: A. Row style B. Quadraplexes C. Triplexes D. Duplexes E. Dual-Unit attached 6. All outdoor speakers, other than those used for drive-throughs, shall be oriented away from the R-5 portion of the site and toward Market Street. 7. Future removal or adjustments on the same side of the buildings of one or more of the drive-throughs shown on the concept plan may be approved administratively by staff as a minor deviation. Changes to drive through locations to other sides of the buildings would constitute a major deviation and require approval through the conditional rezoning process. 8 8. A stormwater maintenance agreement between property owners or a maintenance easement for the stormwater pond shall be recorded with the New Hanover County Register of Deeds prior to TRC approval. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Avery. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z25-11) passed 6-0 Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z25-11) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlancancich, property owners, to rezone approximately 4.56 acres zoned R-15, Residential located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road to (CZD) R-5, Residential Moderate-High Density for a maximum 36 unit, attached single-family residential development. Mr. Farrell presented an overview of the request to rezone approximately 4.56 acres at 6634 Carolina Beach Road from R-15 to CZD R-5 to allow for a maximum of a 36- unit attached single-family development, with a concept plan primarily featuring quadraplex dwellings. To allow for design flexibility, staff had included a condition permitting triplex, duplex, and dual-unit attached housing types. The site design included a single driveway access from Carolina Beach Road leading into a circular internal drive with sidewalks on both sides. Most units had been positioned along the outer edge of the drive, with additional guest parking areas and a central tree retention area. A public access easement along the site’s frontage had also been included, with conditions guaranteeing these features. The property was zoned R-15, originally intended for low-density development using private utilities, but with public infrastructure now available, the applicant had requested rezoning to CZD R-5 to support moderate- to high-density housing. The proposed development was expected to generate slightly more traffic than allowed under current zoning, though still below the threshold requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis. The access point was located just north of Lord’s Creek, with limited alternative transportation options in the area. The project also was projected to generate about five more students than development under existing zoning, with students assigned to Anderson Elementary, Murray Middle, and Ashley High Schools. 9 Cindee Wolf presented the rezoning request to address the past community concerns and revised use of the site along a busy corridor. She emphasized that the proposed 36-unit townhome development aligned with the Community Mixed Use place type in the Comprehensive Plan, which encouraged a diversity of housing and in-fill development where urban services would be available. The plan featured individually owned two-story homes with garages, guest parking, and a layout designed to preserve central tree cover and natural buffers. Rather than clearing for fencing, the design incorporated existing vegetation and an 8-foot privacy fence to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. Ms. Wolf highlighted that the site’s natural drainage patterns and topography made it ideal for stormwater management, with a pond located at the lowest point and no impacts to delineated wetlands. She noted that the project included several conditions to mitigate potential impacts, including tree preservation, transitional buffers, and lighting restrictions. The proposal was framed as a reasonable transition from the corridor to surrounding neighborhoods, consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Lastly, Ms. Wolf clarified the trash pickup would be contracted by cart pickup. Mr. Moore noted that two members of the public had signed up to speak in opposition to the project. John Wiesner, 6801 Teviot Road Mr. Wiesner’s concern remained traffic, particularly the ongoing congestion along Carolina Beach Road and the potential safety issues related to the integration of acceleration and deceleration lanes. He emphasized that the existing deceleration lane into the neighborhood was already inadequate and that adding another access point nearby could worsen conditions and could pose risks for both drivers and emergency responders. Kyle Pressma, Glenn Arthur Drive Mr. Pressma expressed concern about the potential impact of stormwater runoff on his property. He emphasized that the property sits 6 to 8 feet lower than the development site and already experiences runoff during storms. He feared that clearing the land and adding impervious surfaces like rooftops and pavement would worsen the situation. He requested that the west side of the site be specifically addressed in the drainage plan to prevent water from flowing into existing 10 backyards. He mentioned traffic was also a major concern. Mr. Pressma noted that Glen Arthur Drive already served as the main access point for several neighborhoods and was flanked by community institutions that generate regular traffic. He described the area as hectic and potentially dangerous, particularly when trying to make a U-turn to head northbound on Carolina Beach Road. The addition of 36 homes, he argued, would increase congestion and safety risks. Mr. Pressma and his wife submitted a written statement requesting a mandated traffic study and full enforcement of the proposed buffer and fencing between the development and existing homes. Mr. Moore opened the floor for the applicant’s rebuttal. Ms. Wolf agreed that the speed limit needed to be reduced from 55 mph to 45 mph. While acknowledging that speed limits fall under NCDOT’s authority, she encouraged the Planning Board to formally recommend a review of the speed limit, like the changes made on River Road. She emphasized that drivers must also take personal responsibility for safe driving behavior. In response to concerns raised about driveway access and stormwater runoff, Ms. Wolf clarified that the project did not propose an acceleration lane and that multiple driveway intersections along highways were common. She explained that vehicles entering the roadway were responsible for yielding to traffic and that the extended turn lane would be located north of the site, posing no impact to nearby properties such as the church. Regarding draining, Ms. Wolf stated that all runoff from the site would be directed southeast toward the stormwater pond, as confirmed by the current field survey and grading plan. She assured the public that runoff would not be directed into neighboring yards and welcomed further questions. Mr. Moore then opened the floor for the opposition’s rebuttal statements. Beth Burgin, Glennarthur Drive Ms. Burgin had concerns regarding the limited line of sight due to a curve in the road near the development site. She suggested to the Board to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners or NCDOT to reevaluate the speed limit. She also mentioned the past flooding issues related to the grading in the northwest corner of the site, referencing the damage caused by Hurricane Florence. Ms. Burgin acknowledged the approvements the applicant made to the current plan and 11 stressed the importance of ensuring that grading in that area properly directed stormwater toward the designated pond. Mr. Moore closed the public hearing. During the Board’s discussion, members addressed the site’s topography and stormwater concerns raised by residents. Staff confirmed that the northwest corner of the site included a natural ridge and low spot, which would require significant grading to ensure proper drainage. It was reiterated that all impervious surfaces would be required to drain to the stormwater pond, and that the Technical Review Committee (TRC) would ensure no increase in runoff beyond the property boundaries. Staff also explained that while gutter systems could provide more control, they may reduce water quality by bypassing natural filtration, and that the final grading plan would be carefully reviewed to avoid blocking natural flow paths or impacting adjacent properties. The Board expressed mixed views on the proposal. Some supported the project, noting that it was a significant improvement over previous versions, with reduced density and better alignment with the Comprehensive Plan. They emphasized that engineered stormwater systems typically improve drainage and that the proposed plan directed runoff to a centralized pond. However, others voiced concern that the plan did not adequately protect neighboring properties, particularly those in Lords Creek, and felt the units along the western boundary were too close. One member stated that while the county needed housing, the applicant should have reduced the unit count slightly to create a more respectful buffer. Pete 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 proposed housing type and density is within the range recommended by the Community Mixed Use place type. Mr. Avery also found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed conditions could mitigate potential impacts on neighboring development. The motion included the following conditions: 1. In addition to the quadraplex units shown on the concept plan the following dwelling unit types are permitted: 12 a. Triplex Dwelling b. Duplex Dwelling c. Dual-Unit Attached Dwelling 2. Each dwelling unit shall have a one-car garage and a minimum of two exterior parking spaces on a private driveway parking pad. A minimum of 16 additional vehicle parking spaces shall be provided in addition to the vehicle parking provided for each unit. 3. Structures shall have a maximum building height of 35 feet. 4. The proposed right-turn lane must be approved and permitted by NCDOT. Changes to the concept plan to meet NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved administratively by county staff. 5. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and grading along a minimum 15-foot offset from the rear boundary of the tract. No disturbance of existing vegetation or grading would be permitted within that buffer strip. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, a minimum eight-foot-tall solid wood screening fence shall be installed along that 15-foot buffer yard. 6. Prior to detailed design and permitting, a Certified Arborist would inventory any existing Significant and Specimen trees within the central courtyard for health and viability. After clearing of underbrush and any damaged or dead trees, protection fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of proposed preservation area, prior to the onset of land clearing and grading elsewhere on the site. Those existing trees, along with other regulated trees, would be protected as a natural grove meeting the county’s tree protection standards. 7. Exterior luminaries, including security lighting, shall be full cut-off fixtures that are directed downward in compliance with Figure 5.5.4.C Full Cut-off Fixtures of the Unified Development Ordinance. Light posts shall be no taller than 16 feet. 8. A minimum of 20-foot-wide public access easement shall be provided along the frontage parallel to Carolina Beach Road to accommodate the future public bicycle and pedestrian use. The motion was SECONDED by Mr. Moore. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z25-11) passed with 5 members for and one member, Kevin Hine, against. 5-1 Item 3: UDO Update (TA25-04): Public Comments Draft - Maintenance Amendment to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Standards for Signs 13 Ms. Roth presented a maintenance amendment as part of the county’s ongoing effort to keep the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) current and legally compliant. She explained that the existing sign regulations had not undergone a major update since 2001 and that the proposed changes were necessary to address outdated language, incorporate recent legal rulings, particularly those concerning content neutrality, and provide clearer guidance on digital and changeable copy signage. The proposed amendment aimed to clarify when and where digital signs would be permitted, how sign area would be measured, and how illumination would be regulated. The amendment also consolidated most sign-related standards into Section 5.6 of the UDO to improve accessibility and consistency. Outdated sign types and purpose statements were proposed for removal to reduce confusion, and references to building codes and enforcement authorities were updated to align with current practices. Ms. Roth indicated that during the public comment period they would primarily be seeking feedback on the clarity of the proposed language and the modernization of digital sign standards. This included clearly defining when external illumination is permitted and adding a new section for changeable copy signs, covering both manual and electronic (digital) formats. The amendment also clarified language regarding digital signs in residential contexts by distinguishing between residential zoning districts and signs located within subdivisions. To support these updates, staff had reorganized the ordinance to make information easier to find and understand without needing staff interpretation. Several terms and definitions were updated to reflect current usage and removed outdated sign types no longer commonly used. New sign types that have emerged in recent years were added, and the amendment proposed eliminating purpose statements from the standards, as these often were the cause for confusion for readers trying to distinguish between enforceable regulations and general language policy. The amendment also included updates to references and enforcement authorities, particularly those tied to building codes, to ensure consistency with evolving standards. In response to recent Supreme Court decisions, staff had reviewed the ordinance to ensure content neutrality, removing language that previously differentiated sign standards based on message type. Additionally, clarification was provided regarding exemptions from zoning permits for signage. While some signs may not require a zoning permit, they are still subject to building code compliance and other applicable standards. Ms. Roth emphasized the importance of the zoning review process, which currently costs $45, as a safeguard to help applicants avoid investing in signage that may later be found noncompliant. 14 She also explained that the public comment materials would be posted online and that a revised version of the amendment, incorporating public feedback, would be presented at the September meeting. She encouraged board members to share the draft with stakeholders and confirmed that all comments received would be reviewed and considered before the amendment was finalized and forwarded to the Board of Commissioners. There being no further business, Mr. Hipp motioned to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Avery seconded. The meeting adjourned at 7:55PM.